The URL can be used to link to this page

1993-11-23CITY OF MOUND MISSION 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., TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 23, 1993 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 9, 1993, REGULAR MEETING AND THE NOVEMBER 16, 1993, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. PG. 3899-3906 CASE//93-053: STEVE SUNNARBORG, 4924 EDGEWATER DRIVE, LOT 15, SKARP & LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD, PID//13-117- 24 41 0013. VARIANCE FOR ADDITION. PG. 3907-3926 CASE//93-056: WESLEY & DAWN OAK, 2174 NOBLE LANE, LOTS 10, 11, 16, 17, & 18, BLOCK 3, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID//13-117-24 31 0017. VARIANCE FOR ADDITION. PG. 3927-3940 REVIEW OF 1994 DOCK FORMS AND DOCK LOCATION MAP: * ORDINANCE CHANGES TO CITY CODE SECTION 437 - DOCK LICENSES * DOCK APPLICATION FORMS & INFORMATION SHEETS * DOCK LOCATION MAP PG. 3941-3974 6. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. RECOMMENDATION FROM PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE: "CELEBRATE SUMMER". PG. 3975 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AN APPLICATION TO THE MINNESOTA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY (MHFA) ON BEHALF OF COMMUNITY BUILDERS - LEASE TO PURCHASE PROGRAM. PG. 3976-3985 9. PAYMENT OF BILLS. PG. 3986-4003 3896 10. .INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS Financial Report for October 1993 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. B. LMCD Mailings. Letter from Mike J. Degen, Director of Operations, Toro Company RE: progress of Toro and complimenting the City government and community for the support provided to Toro over the years. List of Member-At-Large Appointments to various agencies, commissions, and boards of Hennepin County. Park & Open Space Minutes of November 4, 1993. Planning Commission Minutes of November 8, 1993. Letter of commendation written to Officer Todd Truax from Police Chief Len Harrell. Letter from Senator Dave Durenberger regarding our letter on unfunded federal mandates. Notice from Minnesgaso RE: proposed rate increase. REMINDER: Annual Christmas Party, Friday, December 17, 1993, American Legion, Mound. Please RSVP to Linda by Friday, December 10, 1993. REMINDER: City offices will be closed Thursday and Friday, November 25th and 26 in observance of Thanksgiving. REMINDER: Budget Hearing, Thursday, December 9, 1993, 7:30 P.M., City Hall. REMINDER: No Council meeting on December 28, 1993, and no Committee of the Whole Meeting on December 21, 1993. PG. 4004-4005 PG. 4006-4009 PG. 4010 PG. 4011-4014 PG. 4015-4019 PG. 4020-4032 PG. 4033 PG. 4034-4037 PG. 4038-4044 PG. 4045 3897 No Po Information from the Legislative Policy Conference on the Open Meeting Law and Growth Management Issues. This material was presented by Joel Jamnik, LMC Legislative Counsel and Mark Anfinson, Counsel to Minnesota Newspaper Association and Senator John Hottinger, Mankato area respectively at the conference. Also distributed at the conference was information from the League of Women Voters - Minnesota term limits. Economic Development Commission Minutes - November 18, 1993. PG. 4046-4074 PG. 4075-4076 PG. 4077-4078 3898 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - NOVEMBER 9, 1993 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, November 9, 1993, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Ken Smith. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shulde, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. 1.0 MINUTES MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to approve the Minutes of the October 26, 1993, Regular Meeting, with the following correction: Item 1.6, second paragraph, second sentence should read as follows: "The neighboring property owners on the northwest and southwest were present, one was in favor and one was against the variance being granted." The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 APPOINTMENT TO PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION The City Manager reported that Lyndell Skoglund has resigned from the Park & Open Space Commission when her term expires on December 31, 1993, because of a her job commitments. The POSC had recommended Mary Goode when the last three commissioners were appointed. Smith moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g93-146 RESOLUTION APPOINTING MARY GOODE TO THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION TO A 3 YEAR TERM BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 1994 AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1996 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The City Manager stated that Shirley Andersen is not asking to be reappointed to the POSC at the end of 1993. He further stated that there will be an opening on the Planning Commission and an opening on the Economic Development Commission as of December 31, 1993. He stated if the Council wished he would advertise for all three of this openings. The Council agreed. 1.2 SET PUBLIC HEARING_ MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Smith to set December 14, 1993, for a public hearing to consider the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a "Commercial Parking Lot) not affiliated with the principal use)" in the B-2 Zoning District at 4551 Wilshire Blvd. (Old Donnies). The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.3 PUBLIC WORKS OUTDOOR STORAGE AREA - MINNETRISTA The City Manager explained that we have reached the point now where we should have the City Attorney prepare an agreement between the City of Mound and the City of Minnetrista for the public works outdoor storage. This will then be presented to both Councils for their approval. Johnson moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g93-147 RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND THE CITY OF MINNETRISTA FOR A PUBLIC WORKS OUTDOOR STORAGE SITE The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.4 The City Manager then explained that a grant application has been prepared for submission to the State Board of Government Innovation and Cooperation for monies to help defray the costs involved in preparing the Minnetrista site to accommodate both cities public works outdoor storage. Minnetrista has adopted a resolution for this grant application submission and Mound needs to do the same. Smith moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #93-148 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION TO THE BOARD OF GOVERNMENT INNOVATION AND COOPERATION FOR A SERVICE SHARING GRANT FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS OUTDOOR STORAGE SITE TO BE SHARED BY THE CITIES OF M1NNETRISTA AND MOUND The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT There were none. 1.5 BID - CBD SNOW REMOVAL The City Manager reported that only one bid was received from Widmer Bros. and the prices are the same as last year. Staff recommended approval. 3qoo Smith moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//93-149 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND AWARDING THE BID FOR 1993-94 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (CBD) SNOW REMOVAL TO WIDMER BROTHERS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.6 APPROVAL OF A GARDEN I.EASE FOR BEVERLY AND LEO WALLIS The City Clerk explained that this is a renewal of an annual lease for Lots 1, 2, 3 & 22, Block 5, Dreamwood. Staff recommended approval. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen to approve a Garden Lease for Beverly & Leo Wallis, Lots 1, 2, 3 & 23, Block 5, Dreamwood, for one year. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The City Manager explained that in order for the City to become certified to regulate basic cable rates it needs to file a form FCC-328. This form has been filled out by Tom Creighton, Cable Attorney, for the City. In order for the City to proceed in requesting rate regulation from the He presented these FCC, the City Council must adopt rate regulation policies and procedures. for the City Council. Smith moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//93-150 RESOLUTION ADOPTING RATE REGULATION POLICIES AND PROCEDURES REGARDING THE CITY OF MOUND'S DESIRE TO REGULATE BASIC SERVICE AND EQUIPMENT RATES UNDER THE 1992 CABLE TELEVISION ACT The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.8 APPROVE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT SNOWMOBILE TRAILS - SOUTHWEST TRAILS FOR GRANT-IN-AID The City Clerk explained that this will extend the Grant-In-Aid for one (1) additional years from October 14, 1993 to October 13, 1994. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to authorize the Mayor and City Manager to execute a Supplemental Agreement for Grant-In-Aid snowmobile trails - Southwest Trails. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.9 PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $72,656.56, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.10 PREMISE PERMITS The City Clerk explained that the Northwest Tonka Lions need to renew their Premise Permits for Headliner's Bar & Grill and Mound Lanes with the State Gambling Control Board. Ahrens moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g93-151 RESOLUTION APPROVING A PREMISES PERMIT APPLICATION FOR NORTHWEST TONKA LIONS FOR HEADLINERS BAR & GRH.L, 5241 SHORELINE DRIVE AND MOUND LANES, 2346 CYPRESS LANE The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.11 .HRA APPOINTMENT Mayor Johnson suggested that Councilmember Jessen be appointed to the vacant position. Councilmember Jessen agreed to serve. Smith moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//93-152 RESOLUTION APPOINTING PHYLLIS JESSEN TO THE MOUND HRA FOR A 5 YEAR TERM - EXPIRING AUGUST 29, 1998 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.12 CANCEL COUNCIL MEETING 12-28-9,'t MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Ahrens to cancel the Regular City Council Meeting that was to be held December 28, 1993. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.13 HANUS LAWSUIT UPDATE The City Attorney reported that the court has upheld the City's position in this case. They are now waiting for some clarification. Hanus could appeal the decision. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Department Head Monthly Reports for October 1993. B. LMCD Representative's Monthly Report for October 1993. LMCD Mailings. The Mayor stated he will write a letter to the Mayor of Orono encouraging them to get reinvolved with the LMCD. D. Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 1993. REMINDER: Annual Christmas Party, Friday, December 17, 1993, American Legion, Mound. Details on this later. Fo REMINDER: Committee of the Whole Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, November 16, 1993, 7:30 PM. REMINDER: City Offices will be closed on Thursday, November 11, 1993 in observance of Veteran's Day. REMINDER: City Council indicated at the last COW meeting that you are intending to attend the next Economic Development Commission meeting scheduled for Thursday, November 18, 1993, 7 AM, City Hall. Please mark your calendars. REMINDER: City Offices will be closed Thursday and Friday, November 25th and 26th in observance of Thanksgiving. Jo We have been informed by the Minnesota DNR that funds have been allocated for a fishing pier at Centerview Beach on Harrison Bay. You may recall that we have had a proposal into the DNR for a pier at Mound Bay Park. The DNR chose to select Centerview instead and a pier will be installed next spring. The City of Mound will have to furnish some concrete and other minor items but the actual pier will be paid for by DNR and installed by a contractor hired by DNR. REMINDER: Christmas Tree Lighting - Tuesday, November 16th, 6:30 PM, Coast to Coast parking lot. Mayor Johnson will be out of town that evening so Acting Mayor Jensen will throw the switch. I~ 3873 Attached is the announcement and press release of the City of Mound receiving the Certificate of Achievement of Excellence in Financial Reporting for the year ending December 31, 1992. We continue the initial award of 3-4 years ago when John Norman was the City's Finance Director. Gino Businaro has continued with hard work and diligence to maintain this prestigious award. Thank you to John and Gino for providing the City of Mound with this great award. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to adjourn at 8:20 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr._, City Manager Attest: City Clerk ~NUTES - COI~TTEE OF THE WHOLE ~EET[N~ - NOVEMBER ~6~ L99~ The meeting was called to order at 7:30 PM. Members present: Councilmembers Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen, Andrea Ahrens and Ken Smith. Absent and excused: Mayor Johnson. Also present: City Manager Ed Shukle and Bruce Larson of West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board. Bruce Larson, Assistant Director, West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board, and President of Community Builders, was present to discuss with the City Council a resolution of support for a Lease to Purchase program that would be sponsored by Community Builders, an arm of West Hennepin Human Services. Community Builders would like to apply to the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA) on behalf of the city of Mound for funds from the Community Rehabilitation Fund Program of MHFA. The amount of funds being requested are $150,000. These funds would be used to implement a Lease to Purchase Program for low to moderate income families in our community to purchase their own homes. He explained that Community Builders is a 501 (c) (3) housing corporation established to increase the supply of long term affordable housing in suburban Hennepin County for low and moderate income families. He further stated that Community Builders is affiliated with West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board, a 20 year old community based organization established through a joint powers agreement of its member municipalities. He further stated that because of the need for affordable housing is throughout the west Hennepin suburban community, Community Builders is planning to work with other cities as well. Currently, they are discussing a program with both St. Louis Park and Minnetonka. MHFA community rehabilitation fund program provides grants to cities to be used as loans or grants to eligible recipients for various activities related to single or multi-family housing. These include acquisition, demolition, rehabilitation, permanent financing, refinancing and gap financing. The program must be targeted to a specific neighborhood or other geographic area within which the grant must be used. The city is permitted to submit more than one application, but not for the same area. The application must be submitted by December 6th, applicants will be notified no later than January 7, 1994. After some discussion, the city Council consensus was to have a resolution prepared for approval at the next regular council meeting in support of an application to MHFA. Mayor pro-tem Liz Jensen then reviewed an updated list of goals that has been discussed at each of the last few COW meetings. She indicated that this will be an ongoing discussion and items will be noted as being completed, underway or deleted from the list. There may also be additions made to the list as time goes on. Concern was expressed by Councilmember Ken Smith regarding economic development issues under the ,,thriving downtown business center" item. He asked that the city manager provide some information on economic development authorities and other possible grant programs that might be available for economic development. Minutes - Committee of the Whole - Nove~nb~r 16, 1993 - p~g¢ 2 Performance evaluation systems were discussed. More information will be available on this item at a later date. The Economic Development Commission meeting of November 18, 1993 was discussed. The city manager indicated that the city council had stated that they wanted to be invited to the November EDC meeting for the purpose of discussing economic development goals with the commission. Council briefly discussed what they felt was important to discuss with the EDC at that meeting. The city manager indicated that Curt Pearson, city attorney, and other city staff met with representatives of the Woodland Point Area, dealing with the lawsuit that is currently under way against the City by residents of Woodland Point. The meeting was held to discuss issues related to the lawsuit as they affected non-abutting home owners in Woodland Point. The non-abutting homeowners present at the meeting felt that they needed to discuss possible involvement with the lawsuit with more of the non-abutters that would be affected. Therefore, another meeting of the Woodland Point Homeowners is scheduled for Tuesday, November 23rd, at 6:30 PM, prior to the City Council meeting which begins at 7:30 PM. Other business discussed was the light at the end of Highland Boulevard as it pertains to the LMCD's ordinances on lighting. The next meeting of the Committee of the Whole is scheduled for Tuesday, January 18, 1994, at 7:30 PM. Upon motion by Smith, seconded by Jessen, and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned. Res~ect ful ,ly submitted, City Manager ES:is MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1993 CASE #93-0531 ~TEVE SUNNARBORG, 4924 EDGEWATER DRIVE, LOT. ~15, SKARP & LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD. PID #13-117-24 41 0013~ VARIANCE FOR ADDITION. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Building Official's report. The applicant is seeking the following variances to construct a second story and lakeside addition onto the existing dwelling. Existing/ Required Proposed FRONT (South) 20' 10.6' 9.6' SIDE (West) 6' 1.5' 4.7' page 1 of 3 Case ~93-053: Steve Sunnarborg, 4924 Edgewater Drive Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993 Upon exterior observation, it appears the existing foundation, with some repairs, is suitable to accommodate the proposed second floor, and from a building standpoint, the plan represents a substantial improvement. The lakeside addition would clean-up a dilapidated and poorly constructed deck and storage area, and the second story addition would add valuable and much needed living space to the approximately 680 square foot living area on the first floor. From a Zoning Code perspective, however, expansion of the existing noncon- formities is questionable and intensifies the impact on the neighboring properties. Not shown on the survey, but detailed on the building plans, is the setback to the new roof over the existing bay on the west side and the structure to house the fireplace. The Building Code does not permit openings in exterior walls of dwellings less than 3 feet to the property line unless they are one hour fire rated assemblies, therefore, the windows, as proposed, would not be permitted. It appears that the encroachment onto the west side is too great to recommend approval of variances in this case. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the variance request as the expansion and additional improvements worsen the already substantial nonconforming conditions. Any future expansion of this property should be in a conforming location. The Commission discussed the bay window and roof overhang setbacks. Water run-off onto the neighbors property was discussed as a concern. The applicant noted that the house was constructed in approximately 1900 to 1910 and there is a large oak tree just north of the existing deck. The applicant confirmed that a detached garage is planned in the future. The Commission discussed the possibility of adding a garage on the east side of the house and include a second story to allow for more living space, this would also keep the expanded height of the house away from the nonconforming west side setback. page 2 of 3 Case ~93-053: Steve Sunnarborg, 4924 Edgewater Drive Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993 The applicant handed out to the Commission a letter from the neighbors on the west side which states they are in favor of the addition. The applicant's contractor noted that they would be willing to relocate the fireplace and work on the bay window issue. He also commented that it would be too expensive to construct a garage addition as suggested. Michael commented that the request is not a minimum variance. MOTION made by Michael, seconded by Voss to recommend ~J~dECT-~; denial of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried -- 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Johnson, Jensen, Voss, Hanus, and Michael. Mueller was opposed. Mueller commented that the setback is an existing situation and he would have liked to address other issues such as drainage. This request will be heard by the City Council on November 23, 1993. page 3 of 3 37 ? CITy of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND MINNESOTA 55364 '-3~q7 r612) 472-0600 FAX ~6~2~ 472-0620 STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: BACKGROUND Planning Commission Agenda of November 8, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~' Variance Request Steve Sunnarborg 93-053 4924 Edgewater Drive, Lot 15, Skarp & Lindquist's Ravenswood, PID 13-117-24 41 0013 R-lA Single Family Residential The applicant is seeking variances as listed below to construct a second story and lakeside addition onto the existing dwelling. Existing/ Required proposed Variance FRONT (South) 20' 10.6' 9.6' SIDE (West) 6' 1.5' 4.7' Upon exterior observation, it appears the existing foundation, with some repairs, is suitable to accommodate the proposed second floor, and from a building standpoint, the plan represents a substantial improvement. The lakeside addition would clean-up a dilapidated and poorly constructed deck and storage area, and the second story addition would add valuable and much needed living space to the approximately 680 square foot living area on the first floor. printed on recycled paper 4924 Edgewater Drive Staff Report November 8, 1993 Page 2 From a Zoning Code perspective, however, expansion of the existing nonconformities is questionable and intensifies the impact on the neighboring properties. Not shown on the survey, but detailed on the building plans, is the setback to the new roof over the existing bay on the west side and the structure to house the fireplace. The Building Code does not permit openings in exterior walls of dwellings less than 3 feet to the property line unless they are one hour fire rated assemblies, therefore, the windows, as proposed, would not be permitted. It appears that the encroachment onto the west side is too great to recommend approval of variances in this case. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend denial of the variance request as the expansion and additional improvements worsen the already substantial nonconforming conditions. Any future expansion of this property should be in a conforming location. JS:pj Note: The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. on November 23, 1993. This case will be heard by the City Council VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF HOUND 5341 Ha~ood Road, Hound, l~l 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: C1'~'¥ CF !. ;; Application Fee: $50.00 Case No . I~~ ~.~ Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City ~g_ipe~r: Please type or print the following information: o~ subject Property, ~F /Z/j~¥~r Address Owner'..a~e g~ 0~40O ~a~ ~one ~Z~-~ d 4'TZ- ~'Z4 7 Owner's Address Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot /~/ Block Aadition~ O L ~Cc~O~C,U~?~ PZD NO. OeC Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, (.~ no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 1. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): 4/93 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes f~o ' No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) SETBACKS: required Front Yard: Rear Yard: Lake Front: Side Yard: Side Yard: Street Frontage: Lot size: Hardcover: requested (or existing) VARIANCE ft. /O. ~ ft. 9.~ ft. ft. ft. ft. ft -- ft ft. · ' ft. ~.7 - ~-3 ft. ft. 1.5 - ~-'~ - - ft. ~ ft. -- ft. ft. 6~.~ ft. - ft. sq ft /~, · sq ft sq ft sq ft - f~o$ _sq ft _ sq ft Does the p_r~use of the property conform to a~lxregulations 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 ( ) too small ( ) too shallow Please describe:~ ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) drainage (~) existing ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~). If yes, explain $?/$ Variance Application Page 3 Case No. e Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No .~). 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 (), No (~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 8. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature Date Date 06/17/93 18:12 ~1 ,~ · FAX 612 472 0020 CITY OF MOUND ~ A~NCHOR SCIENTIFI ~ 001 CITY OF MOUND HARDGOVER GALG ULATIONS NAME: ADDRESS: EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA SQ FT X 30%' SQFT X 15%. = LENGTH WIDTH HOUSE: ~2. ~ X 22.9' X X 2/,0' TOTAL HOUSE ******************* 'GARAGE .... ?.~ x ~.$ '= ,-,,-,-,-- (if £mpervious surface under deck = 100%) OTHER: 2o7 /g TOTAL' 50'%'*' TOTAL OTHER TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER ******************* 7G " 'ZZ5 zgz. UNDER (OVER) MEETS LOT GOVERAGE REQUIREMENTS BY: DATE: 2f..¥ES___NO /d - 4-9, .g7 Certificate of Survey for Steve Sunnarborg of Lot 15, "SKARP & LINDQUIST,S RAVENSWOOi Hennepin County, Minnesota 0 Cvo$s om Certificate of Survey for Steve sunnarborg of Lot 15, "SKARP & LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD" Hennepin County, Minnesota Existing Legal Description , Lot 15, SKARP & LiNDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOI). This survey shows the location of existing buildings and visible "hardcover". It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. · : Iron marker found o : Iron marker set ,['~? : Existing elevation Datum: Mean Sea Level I 3q;Z O , ~ : I : 4-9-65 AUO), G~,~I:,IGtL ZO,~ING INFOI~%IATION $1IBET Survey on file? yes no Date of survey_ , · ~ o~ Record? yes no_, 9~ Re~lred ~t Width: ~ (~ _ (frontage on an ~prov/d ~blic l~reet) ~istinq ~t Width --_ _ '/ _ , Depth ACCESSORY BUILD~J¢~ FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S SIDE: lq SIDE: N S REAR: N S E N ,, 4' ~SHO~ . EDGEW~T .-(~3) ~ FRONT FRONT SIDEs THE PI~OSED I)4PRO~]~NTS CONFOI~4? YES (PI · PROPOSED RESOLUTION b'93- . RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SIDE YARD SETBACK TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION AT 2175 NOBLE LANE, IN LOTS 10, 11 16, 17, & 18, BLOCK 3, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK PID//13-117-24 31 0017, P&Z CASE//93-056 WHEREAS, the owners, Wesley and Dawn Oak, have applied for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming side yard setback of 5.7 feet to the required 6 foot setback to allow construction of a second story addition, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Two Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires for single family dwellings and lots of record a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback to both streets, and 6 foot side yard setbacks, and; WHEREAS, conforming, and; all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are WHEREAS, the upward expansion follows the same line and represents a negligible impact on the setback while substantial improving the use and function of the property, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby recognize an existing nonconforming side yard setback resulting in a .3 foot variance to allow construction of a second story addition. Proposed Resolution Page 2 Case ~3-056 e e Se e 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 second story addition. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 17; the South 33 feet of Lot 18; the North 12 feet of Lot 16; the North 40 feet of Lot 11 and the South 20 feet of Lot 10, Block 3, "Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park, Mound, Minnetonka". This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1993 CASE g93-056: LEY & DAWN AK 217 N BLE LANE IN L T 10, 11. 16. 17, & 18, BLOCK 3, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADOITION~? L - IDEPARK PID 1 -117-24 1 17 VARIANCEF RADDIT! ~ City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Building Official's report. The applicant is requesting variance to allow construction of a second story addition. The addition follows the same line of the existing dwelling that is set 5.7 feet from the side yard that requires a 6 foot setback resulting in a variance request of .3 feet. All other aspects of this property are conforming. The condition of the existing structure is good, and this coupled with cost prohibits the possibility of it being moved to a conforming location. The upward expansion follows the same line and represents a negligible impact on the setback while substantially improving the use and function of the property. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request as it is impractical to move the existing dwelling and the .3' variance request represents a minor impact on the side yard setback. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Mueller to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on November 23, 1993. DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: BACKGROUND CITY of MOUND STAFF REPORT Planning Commission Agenda of November 8, 1993 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jori Sutherland, Building Official ,~ Variance Request Wesley & Dawn Oak 93-056 2175 Noble Lane, In Lots 10, Addition to Lakeside Park, PID #13-117-24 31 0017 R-2 Two Family Residential 5341 MA'Y',',"O~:D ROAD MOUND MINNE£CTA553~,.~ '587 (612i 4-2 0600 FAX(6~2 4*2-0620 11, 16, 17 & 18, Block 3, Abraham Lincoln The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a second story addition. The addition follows the same line of the existing dwelling that is set 5.7 feet from the side yard that requires a 6 foot setback resulting in a variance request of .3 feet. All other aspects of this property are conforming. The condition of the existing structure is good, and this coupled with cost prohibits the possibility of it being moved to a conforming location. The upward expansion follows the same line and represents a negligible impact on the setback while substantially improving the use and function of the property. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request as it is impractical to move the existing dwelling and the .3' variance request represents a minor impact on the side yard setback. Note: The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. This case will be heard by the City Council on November 23, 1993. 4/93 · J,,, & ,J, VARIANCE APPLICATION o'" r , , ,.0 Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Site visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Application Fee: $50.00 Case No. q~~ Copy to Public Works: Copy to City ~~: Please type or print the following informa'tion: Address of Subject Property ~/7.~ ~ff~ c~d~'' ''~' ) Owner's Name J~_.C.~CJ~ ~L-~tY~ (~~ Day Phone.//3'73 Owner' s Address=~~ / ~ ~,:.r~, ~)~r.v',: ~ Applicant's Name (if other than owner) Address Day Phone LEG~ESC~PTION~ ~ ~ 3~, ~ ~ {~ { ~ ~ · ~ ..... ~-']-~ ~ ~" ,' ' ~ ' * l.~- "7. Block Lot ~- ~ L. ~,~,,~j~.~.. ~l(= , Additio~~.~,{,.~ ~.~.~,~,~.'i~ ~ ~ Pig No. I~-!O-L~ ~ Zoning District ~'~ Use of Property: ..f<c:u~ ~. ~,.'~{-- Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use ~er~it, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~.s, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. 1. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or al.ter,~t%on (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): ,~ ~ ~ .', ..~-.,. ~"~"' ~__~.'t.~ j"~'~,~k.. / ,";"~/'., _ . 4/93 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. 2. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming usg. (~scribe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.)~ o~L~ SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: I~S E W ) Side Yard: S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ~ ft. ~ ,'7 ft. , ~ ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ~ ft. ft. sq ft /g/O3J sq ft sq ft sq ft ~; ~3~ sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~, No ( ). If no, specify each non-conforminguse: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? (~ too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: ~_ ~.~_~k ~ ~ o~tn~ O~%/~'~-~ ~_~, 7 / Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain .i, 11 ,1 · I,,, I ,1 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 ~K~- If yes, explain Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature ' Applicant's Signature Date NAME: ADDRESS: EXISTING LOT AREA EXISTING LOT AREA CITY OF MOUND HAR DCOVER CALCULATIONS /~o~$ so ~r x 30% -- SQ FT X 15% = I' .5;~/0 1 HOUSE: GARAGE: DRIVEWAY: DECK: (if impervious surface under deck = 100%) OTHER: LENGTH WIDTH X = TOTAL HOUSE x ~ ~ = X = TOTAL GARAGE * ~.~' x TOTAL DRIVEWAY ~//Ax X TOTAL DECK ************* TOTAL DECK @ 50%*************** W/A x = ! X TOTAL OTHER ******************* TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER ******************* ~~)VE R) ***************************** MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * BY: ~:V~YES___NO DATE: r... P-.:i)A F-., ki 0° o}' ~. '0 I, · I, I ,l I GENEI, b%L ZONING LNFOR~IATION SIIEET ADDRESS: R~ired ~t Width:_ ~ ~istin~ ~t Width ~ / + _, Depth SETBACKS REQUIRED: ::::: %:: ~S~ _ SO' (~aoured fr~ O.H.W.) · XISTING ~/OR PROPOSED 8~BACK8* ~SHO~ z ACCESSORY BUILDINC~ FRONT ~ N S E W FRONT z N S E W SIDEs N S E W 4' or §' SIDEs N S E W 4' or ~' /~AR: N S E W 4' LAKESNO~E: 50' (measured f~om 9,H.w. 1 FRONT s N S E W FRONT: N S E W SlOEs N S E W SIDEs N S E W RJ~AR: N S E W LAKESHORE s ACCESSORY IS WILL THE PT~.~RO~S CONFORM? YES., NO L' .69, LA," ~ Z '-4--0 J 0 O00J r- 0~-~ CITY of MOUND 534: MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND 'MiiqL~ESOTA 5536-' '(87 0'~2, ,~-2 0690 FAX 612~ 4-2 0620 Memorandum DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: October 14, 1993 Park and Open Space Commission Meeting Park and Open Space Commission Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector.-~kz~ PROPOSED ORDINANCE CHANGES, DOCK FORMS AND DOCK LOCATION MAP FOR 1994 Ordinances chanqes to city Code Section 437 - Dock Licenses: a. 437:00, Subd. 5.. Delete the word ,,appurtenances" as it is not a commonly understood term, and replace it with "accessory items". b. 437:10, Subd. 1. c.. Change ,,Shoreline Classifications" to ,,Shoreline Types" as referred to in the Use Plan. c. 437:10, Subd. 11.. Change the dock removal deadline from "December 31" to ,,November 1", to provide safer sliding at Highland Park. d. 437:15. Change the necessary water depth from 36" to 48" to conform with LMCD regulations. Dock F_ orms: No specific changes have been made to the forms, only those changes prompted by the above ordinance changes and date changes. Dock Location Map:. a. Change description of "Shoreline Classifications" to read "Shoreline Types", and change "Class" to "Type". b. Change ,,Waterside Lane" to ,,Waterside Common". pJ printed on recycled paper Mound City Code Section 437:00 Section 437 - Dock Licenses Section 437:00. Licenses, Docks. Subd. 1. Docks Defined. For purposes of this Section 437, the term "dock" means any wharf, pier, boat ramp, boat slip, mooring buoy, or other structure constructed or maintained in, upon, or into the water of a lake from publicly owned shoreland. 8ubd. Z. License Required. No person shall erect, keep, or maintain a dock on or abutting upon any public street, road, park, or commons without first securing a license therefor from the City in accordance with the provisions of this Section 437. Subd. 3. License Plate Location. One license plate shall be securely fixed to a licensed dock. The license shall be on the shoreland end of the dock. License plates shall be issued by the Dock Inspector after approval of the license application, shall be maintained by the licensee in its original color, and shall remain the property of the City of Mound. Subd. 4. Transfers. Dock licenses are not transferable between licensees. Ail licenses shall be issued by the City to a new licensee in accordance with the provisions of this Section. Subd. 5. Removal of Docks. Upon expiration of a dock license, the licensee must completely remove the licensed dock and appurtcnanccs ~!~iiiiiii~ from public land. Any dock or portion thereof:::::~:~::::::~:~~:::::::~:::::the licensee will be removed by the City or a designated contractor and all costs of removal will be the responsibility of the last licensee for that dock site. (ORD. $60-1992 - 12-7-92) Section 437:05. Applications for and Issuance of Dock Licenses. Subd. 1. Separate License Required for Each Dock. Each dock constructed and abutting a public park, commons, or street shall require a license from the City and a license plate to be issued by the Dock Inspector, who shall be appointed by the City Manager. No person shall be issued more than one license in any one calendar year. Mound City Code Section 437:05, Subd. 2 Subd. 2. License Application Required. License applications shall be obtained at the City offices. Such applications shall state completely, the following information and such other information as is deemed necessary by the City Manager or the Dock Inspector: Full name of the applicant; Address - applicant must present proof of residency showing he or she is a permanent or summer resident of the City of Mound; Preferred location of dock on the dock location map of the City; Boat license number and copy of watercraft license for each boat to be moored at said dock; (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Such other information as may be required on the application form. The applicant for a license shall sign as a part of the application an agreement which shall guarantee that the applicant will remove the dock and all appurtenances at the expiration of the license. The applicant shall agree that if they do not remove the dock, the city is authorized to have the dock removed and the applicant agrees to pay to the city any and all costs incurred by the City in removing the dock. The applicant also shall agree that if the City removes the dock, the City is authorized to dispose of any materials or parts which are left on public lands or in public waters and the applicant shall forfeit any right or claim to the materials left on the dock site. Subd. 3. Two Residents may Share a Dock Subject to the Conditions Contained Herein. Where dock permits are shared and issued to two residents entitled to permits of the first and second priority, then the following conditions shall apply: a. That duplicate information (including boat licenses) for each of the licensees be included on the license application; b. That each of the licensees retain priority rights to individual dock permits as vacation occurs in the immediate subdivision shoreline; Mound City Code Section 437:05, Subd. 3, c. That the fee for each licensee shall be one-half the fee plus a shared dock fee as set by the Council in Section 510:00. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Su]~d. 4. A~li¢&tion Filina. Applications for licenses shall be filed with the Dock Inspector at the City offices and he shall recommend to the City Council that the license be approved or denied. No license will be recommended or authorized until the Dock Inspector determines that the proposed dock complies substantially with the term of all City ordinances. The application shall contain a reminder and/or warning to the applicant that a dock license will not be issued for any dock on public land where the applicant has a correction order pending concerning a stairway or structure used to access the dock. The license will not be issued until compliance with the correction order has been completed or satisfactory arrangements have been made with the Dock Inspector to complete the corrective measures. (ORD. #62- 1993, 4/19/93) 8~]~d. 5. Dock Location. No license shall be recommended by the Dock Inspector until he or she shall have first determined that the proposed dock is suitable for the specific dock location as identified on the official dock location map. S~4. $. Denial of Application. If the applicant has not maintained a previously licensed dock, the Dock Inspector may recommend to the City Council that any existing license be revoked, and the applicant's priorities under this Section 437 be forfeited for the current year and for the next boating season. A dock license will not be issued for any dock on public land where the applicant has a correction order pending concerning a stairway or structure used to access the dock. The license will not be issued until compliance with the correction order has been completed or satisfactory arrangements have been made with the Dock Inspector to complete the corrective measures. (ORD. 62-1993, 4/19/93) S~]~4. 7. License Priorities. The following priorities govern the issuance of dock licenses and other dock locations: aa. Residents owning private lakeshore within the City which has dockable lake frontage shall have the last priority each year for a dock on public lands. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Mound City Code Section 437:05, Subd. 7, a. First Priority. An abutting owner has first priority for a City designated location within his or her lot lines extended to the shoreline. Docks shall be located in accordance with the dock location map. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12--29--90) Second Priority. A licensee or, if licensee has not applied for a new dock license, the shared owner as shown on the permit application for the preceding year, has second priority when applying for a dock permit for the same location held by the licensee the immediately preceding year. Second priority licensee has no priority of dock locations where a first priority license is in effect. Third Priority. A duly qualified applicant has third priority on locations vacant after the first and second priority applications have been made within the prescribed time limit described in this ordinance. Licenses will be issued to such applicants in the order of application dates. There shall be no third priority where the first and second priorities are in effect. Residents owning private lakeshore within the City which has dockable lake frontage shall have the last priority each year for a dock on public lands. Administration of Priority. The Dock Inspector shall assign all locations to the applicants upon compliance with this ordinance and subject to reasonable conditions and Council approval. Subd. 8. Application Deadlines. Applications for dock shall be made between January 1 and the last day of February of each year. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Subd. 9. Late Applications. Ail applications received on or after March 1 shall be subject to additional late fees as set by the Council in Section 510:00 and will be placed in a third priority category. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) (ORD. #53-1991 - 12-23-91) Su~d. LO. New Residents. There will be no late fee charged to new residents who apply after the last day of February of the calendar year in which the resident moves to the City. The regular license fee will be charged and no penalty will attach during that year. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Mound City Code Section 437:10, Subd. 1 Section 437:10. Rules an4 Requl&tions. Subd. 1. Dock Location Map Definition. There shall be on file in the City Hall a drawing of the City of Mound that is maintained by the Dock Inspector showing the approved locations of private docks that may be constructed on or abutting public shorelands under the control of the City. Such master plan shall contain the following information: Lineal footage for purposes of establishing dock locations; (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Indication of approved dock location scaled to proximity within the property markers; (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) ................ ~ and any restrictions applicable to said location~'"~ ................ ('~RD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Minimum spacing between dock locations shall be shown by the dock location numbering system; (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Dock location number shall be keyed to listing of licensees and addresses, and the same number shall apply to the same location each year as far as possible; f® Access points, and other relevant information as is necessary to review dock locations and to allow the City Council and the Dock Inspector to protect the public lands and public waters; (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Shoreline areas designated for no winter dock storage. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Repealed (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Mound City Code Section 437:10, Subd. 2 Sub4. 2. Annual Review of Map. Approved dock location maps shall be kept and maintained by the Dock Inspector and shall be reviewed by the Park and Open Space Commission at least once a year. The Park Advisory Commission shall review the dock location map between September 1 and December 31 before each new boating season so their recommended changes may be referred to and considered by the city Council on or before January 15. Maps shall contain all approved dock locations as established by the Council upon the advice and recommendation of the Dock Inspector and Park Advisory Commission. Final approval of the dock location map and the number of private dock licenses to be permitted shall be recommended by the Dock Inspector, reviewed by the Park Commission and approved by the City Council. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Su~4. 3. Dock Inspector to Review Application. The Dock Inspector shall determine and approve the location of each permit according to the specifications of the approved dock location map. Subd. 4. Costs of Erection and Maintenance. Licensed docks shall be erected and maintained by the licensee at his or her sole expense and liability for same. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Subd. 5. Buspension of Ellqible Location. The city Council may suspend a dock location where it appears that a location as established on the dock location map reasonably interferes with the use of public waters or imposes a hardship on property owners abutting on public streets or public commons. Subd. 6. One Dock Per Family; Apartment Buildinq. No more that one dock shall be permitted for each resident family. An apartment building or multiple dwelling owner shall not apply for dock licenses for his renters or lessees. He or she is entitled to apply for an individual private dock license for himself or herself if he or she is a resident of the city. Mound City Code Section 437:10, Subd. 7 Su~d. 7. Construction Materials; Use of Car Tire~. All private docks shall be constructed of materials specified by the Building Inspector and the Dock Inspector and in accordance with all building codes of the City. The standards for the public health, safety, and general welfare and neither the materials or the workmanship for an approved licensed private dock shall result in docks being located on public lands which are unsightly, unsafe or create a public nuisance. No tire or tires shall be hung or attached on dock posts, dock poles, or on dock hardware of any dock on or abutting public shorelands under the control of the City. (ORD. #40-1990, 1-29-90) Subd. 8. Inspections - Notice of Non-Compliance - Licens~ Revocation. The Dock Inspector or such other officer as may be designated by the City Manager or the City Council, may at any reasonable time inspect or cause to be inspected any dock erected or maintained upon or abutting upon any public street, road, park, or commons, and if it shall appear that any such dock has not been constructed or properly maintained or the area surrounding the dock site is not being maintained in accordance with the application or the license granted therefore, or with the plans or location approved by the Council, or shall it appear that such dock is in a condition that no longer complies with the requirements of this ordinance or other ordinances of the City, the City, by its City Manager or any other officer designated by the City Manager, shall forthwith notify the owner thereof in writing specifying the way or ways in which said dock does not comply with the ordinances of the City, after which said owner shall have ten days to remove such dock or make the same comply with the terms of the City's ordinances and the terms of the application and issuance of the license granted to said licensee. In the event such owner shall fail, neglect, or refuse to remove such dock or make the same comply with the terms of the City regulations within the period of ten days, the license therefor shall be revoked by direction of the City Council or the Dock Inspector and by notice in writing to the licensee, and said notice shall be issued by the City Manager or any other officer designated by him or her. Any appeal will be made in writing and submitted to the City Manager by a certified letter or by personal delivery to the City Manager for his or her consideration. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Subd. 9. Notice of Revocation. Ail notices herein required shall be in writing by certified mail, directed to the licensee at the address given in the application. 4/m/93 Mound City Code Section 437:10, Subd. 10 Sub4. lo. Winter Dock Stor&~e. Winter dock storage by permit holders: Dock~ may be left in the water during the winter months providing the following conditions are met: The required dock license for the following year must be applied for and paid by the tenth day of January. Docks may be partially removed, provided that those sections left in public waters are complete. No poles, posts, stanchions or supports standing alone shall remain in public waters. Docks must be brought up to the construction standards outlined in this Section 437 within 4 weeks after the ice goes out in the spring of the year (approximately May 15). If the dock does not meet construction standards, the procedures as specified in Subd. 8 of this Section 437 will apply. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Docks may not be left in the water or on public land if they conflict with the following uses as shown on the dock location map: ae Slide area Snowmobile crossings Skating rinks Trails Road access Other conditions or circumstances which are determined by the Council to have an adverse affect on adjacent properties. be Docks may be stored on commons during the winter months providing the conditions set forth in a.4 above are met along with the following conditions: 1. Repealed. (ORD 45-1990 - 12-29-90) Docks may not be stored on commons shown on the dock location map as having topographical conditions which are too steep, or have fragile flora or where tree damage may occur due to tree density or where there is unstable ground. Mound City Code Section 437:10, Subd. 10, b., 3. Docks may be stored only in areas designated for dock permits and as shown on the dock location map. Ail storage shall be done in an orderly, compact, and unobtrusive manner. Docks and associated hardware must be removed from the commons and/or public lands between June 1st and September 1st of each year. Storage shall be restricted to dock materials, dismantled docks, and dismantled boat lifts. The Park Commission, City Dock Inspector, and City Council shall review the dock location map each year and designate areas not available for winter storage because of the conditions heretofore stated. (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) B~d. 11. Removal Deadline. Ail private docks abutting any public road, street, park, or commons must be removed from the waters of Lake Minnetonka or other navigable waters no later than Dcccmbcr 31 ~~iiiiiiiii~ of the license year unless it is a winter approved~:~~:~tion as shown on the master dock map. Bubd. 12. Dockinq of Non-Owned Watercraft. Docking of boats not owned by the dock licensee is not permitted for a period in excess of 48 hours. The City may check with the State of Minnesota to determine if the boat docked at the licensed dock is owned by the licensee and/or a member of the same household as the licensee. Any boat registered to someone not a member of the licensee's household shall not be docked in excess of 48 hours unless a Temporary Visiting Dockage Permit has been obtained from the City and the fee established by the City Council in Section 510:35 has been paid· No more than one Temporary Visiting Dockage Permit may be issued in any calendar year to an individual dock licensee or visitor· Ail Temporary Visiting Dockage Permits shall contain the State registration number of the boat and shall be limited to 21 days. Any violation of this Section 437 by the dock licensee shall result in the loss or revocation of the dock license unless the City Council shall determine upon evidence submitted by the licensee that there were mitigating circumstances. The city Council may determine that revocation is too severe a penalty and may then condition said license so that any future violation will result in automatic revocation. (ORD. #53-1991, 12-23-91) Mound City Code Section 437:10, Subd. 13 Subd. 13. Licenses Non-Transferable. Dock licenses and permits issued by the City are personal in nature and may be used only by the licensee or members of their households. No dock licensed by the city or located on public streets, roads, parks, or public commons may be rented, leased, or sublet to any person, partnership or corporation. If a licensee or permit holder rents, leases, sublets, or in any manner charges of receives consideration for the use of his or her dock, his or her license shall be revoked. Section 437:15. Maximum Dimensions, Prohibited Desiqn of Docks. Docks for which a license is required by this Section 437:15 shall not be less than 24" wide or more than 48" in width with the exception that one 72" x 72" section is allowed on L, T, or U shaped docks provided that this configuration be limited to a setback of 10 feet from private property and shall not infringe on adjacent dock site. Docks shall not exceed 24 feet in length ept where necessary to reach a mini=um water depth of ~slng Lake Minnetonka elevation levels of 929.40 feet above sea level. Channel docks, where navigation is limited and docks must be installed parallel to the shoreline, cannot be less than 24" wide or more than 72" in width. The length shall be limited to a setback of 10 feet from private property or not to infringe on an adjacent dock site. Docks shall be of plank or rail construction. Dock posts shall be of equal height above the dock boards and shall be at least two rail construction and constructed to comply to standards and specifications approved by the Dock Inspector. All docks shall be built or placed with the longitudinal axis thereof perpendicular to the shoreline unless variations otherwise may be permitted in accordance with the conditions of the area. Docks which are in existence June 1, 1989, shall be brought into compliance with all provisions of the City Code when expansion or modification is requested, or replacement of 50% or more of any such dock that is damaged, destroyed, or deteriorated. (ORD. #38-1989 - 1-2-90) (ORD. 45-1990 - 12-29-90) 3"5'/ Mound City Code Section 437:20 Section 437:20. Penalties. Any person or persons who shall violate any of the prohibitions or requirements of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. In addition to any criminal penalties as above provided, the City Council may remove or cause to be removed any dock erected without a license a required by this Section 437, or where any license has been revoked as provided by this Section 437. Removal of unlicensed docks or docks which fail to comply with the City Code will be at the expense of the owner or licensee. No person convicted of violating City ordinances relating to docks will be issued a dock license for the present or for the next boating season, and said person forfeits any priorities set forth in this Section 437. Subd. 437:25. License Fee. The annual license fee shall be as set by the Council in Section 510:00. Residents of the City of Mound 65 years of age or older shall pay 50% of the required license fee for a dock. (ORD. #53-1991, 12-23-91) (Dock.~ ]2/14/92) 1994 DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION c'r'EY OF MOD-ND~ 534,1 MAYWOOD ROAD,, MOUND~ ~ 55364, DEAR MOUND RESIDENT: Please complete and return BY FEBRUARY 28, 1994, (must be postmarked by February 28, 1994). Applications received on March 1, 1994 and before April 1 are subject to a minimum late fee of $20.00 and are placed in the third (3rd) priority category. Application renewals for non-abutting residents not received BY MARCH 31st will not retain a second (2nd) priority status, and will be placed in a third (3rd) prlor%y category. Residents abutting the commons who have not submitted their renewal application BY FEBRUARY 28, 1994 will be subject to a minimum late fee of $20.00 and will be placed in a third (3rd) priority category if fee is not paid by March 31. To share a dock, there is an additional $30.00 fee. Also note the L.M.C.D. Boat Fee. See information on back for senior citizen rates. All information pertaining to you must be completed or the application will be denied. APPLICANT'S NAME MOUND STREET ADDRESS RENEWAL: 1993 Dock Site ~ NEW APPLICATION: Indicate preferred area: Permanent Resident (owner) I__ ! Owner (paying fee for renter) ' *Summer Resident Renter *SUMMER RESIDENT'S MAILING ADDRESS: H A R NAMEOFPERSONSHARINGDOCK: MOUND STREET ADDRESS: HOME PHONE: WORK PHONE: CHECK ONE: [__I Permanent Resident (Owner) 1__I Summer Resident {__I Renter List ALL watercraft to be kept at this dock. Furnish MN Watercraft License Number, make and size of boat. (This includes the boats of a shared dock holder.) Add the L.M.C.D. Boat Fee to the Permit Fee for all boats, based upon the formula below. NO PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED WITHOUT THIS INFORMATION and a photocopy of all watercraft licenses: BOAT OWNER'S NAME MN LICENSE if MAKE OF BOAT LENGTH LMCD FEE I 2 3 4ljct ski L.M.C.D. BOAT FEES: Boats up to 20' long over 20' and up to 24' long over 24' and up to 32' long = $10.00 = $15.00 = $20.00 over 32' and up to 40' long = $25.00 over 40' and up to 48' long = $30.00 over 48' feet long = $40.00 ownership must be furnished if requested. Any false information given or violations of Dock Ordinance 437 shall be reason for denial or revocation of permit. (Dock. Ap 12/14/92) This is an application only. No dock can be installed until a location is granted. TYPE OF DOCK BASIC FEE '--' Straight Dock ..................... $150.00 ! '--' L or T Dock ...................... $200.00 ! U or H Dock (not available in all areas) ........ $235.00 straight dock 'L' Dock 'T' Dock 'U' or 'H' Dock I I I--I I-- I I I I I ' , , ' I I I I I I I I I I I FEE AND LEGALITY OF DOCK WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE DOCK INSPECTOR OR PARK COMMISSION. SENIOR CITIZENS (65 years or older at time of application) pay 1/2 the base permit fee for the type of dock they desire, i.e. $75.00, $100.00 or $117.50. Senior citizens sharing a dock with a non-senior pay 1/4 the base permit fee for the type of dock they desire, i.e. $37.50, $50.00 or $58.75. The non-senior sharing a dock with a senior pays 3/4 the base permit fee, i.e. $112.50, $150.00 or $176.25, plus $30.00 share fee. SENIOR CITIZEN NAME BIRTH DATE BASIC FEE: 81-3260 $ SHARED DOCK $30.00:81-3260 $ L.M.C.D. BOAT FEES: 81-3200 $ LIGHT FEE: 81-3260 $ LATE PENALTIES: 81-3260 $ TOTAL DUE: XX-XXXX $ (MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: CITY OF MOUND) LIABILITY DISCLAIMER: I (We) acknowledge that the City of Mound is not responsible for any injury occurring on this dock which is private property. According to the City of Mound Code of Ordinances Sections 437 Subd. 5 and 437:05, Subd. 2 f., i__f this license i__s not renewed at expiration (February 28, I995), the licensee must completely remove the licensed dock and appurtenance from the water and public land. If the dock is not removed, the City is authorized to have the dock removed and the applicant agrees to pay to the City any and all costs incurred by the City in removing the dock. Also, if the City removes the dock, the City is authorized to dispose of any materials or parts which are left on public lands or in public waters and the applicant shall forfeit any right or claim to the materials left on the dock site. DATE Signature DATE Signature (shared dock holder) RETURN THISAPPLICA~ONWI~IAPPLICABLEFEEANDCOPY OF MNL1CENSETOTHECITY OF MOUND BYFEBRUARY28TH. (INFO 12/3/92) CITY OF MOUND DOCK PROGRAM INFORMATION he City of Mound is licensed by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) to operate pproximately 400 multiple docks. To be eligible to lease one of these sites, you must be permanent or summer resident of Mound. APplications are available at City Hall on the first working day of the year for new applicants, and are mailed to licensee's from prior year during December each year. See dock application for current fees. These fees are due with the completed application by February 28th. The following priorities govern the issuance of dock licenses per the Mound City Code. aa. a. Last Priority. Residents owning private lakeshore within the City which has dockable lake frontage shall have the last priority each year for a dock on public lands. First Priority. An abutting owner has first priority for a City designated location within his or her lot lines extended to the shoreline. Docks shall be located in accordance with the dock location map. Second Priority. A licensee or, if licensee has not applied for a new dock license, the shared owner as shown on the permit application for the preceding year, has second priority when applying for a dock permit for the same location held by the licensee the immediately preceding year. Second priority licensee has no priority of dock locations where a first priority license is in effect. Third Priority. A duly qualified applicant has third priority on locations vacant after the first and second priority applications have been made within the prescribed time limit described in this ordinance. Licenses will be issued to such applicants in the order of application dates. There shall be no third priority where the first and second priorities are in effect. Residents owning private lakeshore within the City which has dockable lake frontage shall have the last priority each year for a dock on public lands. Administration of Priority. The Dock Inspector shall assign all locations to the applicants upon compliance with this ordinance and subject to reasonable conditions and Council approval. Ail applications received after February 28th shall be subject to a minimum late fee of $20.00, and will be placed in a third priority category. There will be no late fee charged o new residents who apply after February 28th of the calendar year in which the resident to the City. Residents of the City of Mound, 65 years of age or older, shall pay 50% of the required license fee for a dock. RULES AND REGULATIONS (PORTION OF CITY CODE SECTION 437) Subd. 1. Dock Location Map Definition. There shall be on file in the City Hall a drawing of the City of Mound that is maintained by the Dock Inspector showing the approved locations of private docks that may be constructed on or abutting public shoreland under the control of the City. Subd. 2. Annual Review of Map. Approved dock location maps shall be kept and maintained by the Dock Inspector and shall be reviewed by the Park and Open Space Commission at least once a year. The Park Advisory Commission shall review the dock location map between September 1 and December 31 before each new boating season so their recommended changes may be referred to and considered by the City Council on or before January 15. Maps shall contain all approved dock locations as established by the Council upon the advice and recommendation of the Dock Inspector and Park Advisory Commission. Final approval of the dock location map and the number of dock licenses to be permitted shall be recommended by the Dock Inspector, reviewed by the Park Commission and Approved by the City Council. Subd. 3. Dock Inspector to Review Application. The Dock Inspector shall determine and approve the location of each permit according to the specifications of the approved dock location map. Subd. 4. Costs of Erection and Maintenance. Licensed docks shall be erected and maintained by the licensee at his or her sole expense and liability for same. Subd. 5. Suspension of Eliqible Location. The City Council may suspend a dock location where it appears that a location as established on the dock location map reasonably interferes with the use of public waters or imposes a hardship on property owners abutting on public streets or public commons. n$ubd. 6. One Dock Per Family; Apartment Buildinq. No more that one dock shall be ermitted for each resident family. An apartment building or multiple dwelling owner shall ot apply for dock licenses for his renters or lessees. He or she is entitled to apply for an individual private dock license for himself or herself if he or she is a resident of the City. (INFO 12/3/92) Subd. 7. Construction Materials; Use of Car Tires. All private docks shall be constructed of materials specified by the Building Inspector and the Dock Inspector and in accordance with all building codes of the City. The standards for the public health, safety, and general welfare and neither the materials or the workmanship for an approved licensed privat~ dock shall result in docks being located on public lands which are unsightly, unsafe o~ create a public nuisance. No tire or tires shall be hung or attached on dock posts, dock poles, or on dock hardware of any dock on or abutting public shoreland under the control of the City. (ORD. ~40-1990, 1-29-90) Subd. 8. Inspections - Notice of Non-Compliance - License Revocation. The Dock Inspector or such other officer as may be designated by the City Manager or the uity Council, may at any reasonable time inspect or cause to be inspected any dock erected or maintained upon or abutting upon any public street, road, park, or commons, and if it shall appear that any such dock has not been constructed or the area surrounding the dock site is not being maintained in accordance with the application or the license granted therefore, or with the plans or location approved by the Council, or shall it appear that such dock is in a condition that no longer complies with the requirements of this ordinance or other ordinances of the City, the City, by its City Manager or any other officer designated by him, shall forthwith notify the owner thereof in writing specifying the way or ways in which said dock does not comply with the ordinances of the City, after which said owner shall have ten days to remove such dock or make the same comply with the terms of the City's ordinances and the terms of the application and issuance of the license granted to said licensee. In the event such owner shall fail, neglect, or refuse to remove such dock or make the same comply with the terms of the City regulations within the period of ten days, the license therefor shall be revoked by direction of the City Council or the Dock Inspector and by notice in writing to the licensee, and said notice shall be issued by the City Manager or any other officer designated by him or her. Any appeal will be made in writing and submitted to the City Manager by a certified letter or by personal delivery to the City Manager for his or her consideration. Subd. 9. Notice of Revocation. All notices herein required shall be in writing by certified mail, directed to the licensee at the address given in the application. Subd. 10. Dock Storaqe. No person shall store, leave or abandon any dock, dock section, dock poles or dock hardware on any public road, street, park or Commons except for winter storage in approved areas. Subd. 11. Removal Deadline. All private docks abutting any public road, street, park, or commons must be removed from the waters of Lake Minnetonka or other navigable waters no late' that Beeemk*m~ ~~i!i!i!~i of the license year unless it is a winter approved dock location as shown on the ~'~'~'~'"d~k map. Subd. 12. Dockinq of Non-Owned Watercraft. Docking of boats not owned by the dock licensee is not permitted for a period in excess of 48 hours. Section 437:15. Maximum Dimensions, Prohibited Design of Docks. Docks for which a license is required by this Section 437:15 shall not be less than 24" wide or more than 48" in width with the exception that one 72" x 72" section is allowed on L, T, or U shaped docks provided that this configuration be limited to a setback of 10 feet from private property and shall not infringe on an adjacent dock site. Docks shall not exceed 24 feet in length except where necessary to reach a m~i~amwater depth of ~" ~i~i, using Lake Minnetonka elevation levels of 929.49 feet above sea level. Channel docks,:':'~:ere navigation is limited and docks must be installed parallel to the shoreline, cannot be less than 24" wide or more that 72" in width. The length shall be limited to a setback of 10 feet from private property or not to infringe on an adjacent dock site. Docks shall be of plank or rail construction. Dock posts shall be of equal height above the dock boards and shall be at least two rail construction and constructed to comply to standards and specifications approved by the Dock Inspector. All docks shall be built or placed with the longitudinal axis thereof perpendicular to the shoreline unless variations otherwise may be permitted in accordance with the topographical conditions of the area. Docks which are in existence June 1, 1989, shall be brought into compliance with all provisions of the City Code when expansion or modification is requested, or replacement of 50% or more of any such dock that is damaged, destroyed, or deteriorated. (ORD. ~38-1989 - 1-2-90) Section 437=20. Penalties. Any person or persons who shall violate any of the prohibitions or requirements of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. In addition to any criminal penalties as above provided, the City Council may remove or cause to be removed any dock erected without a license as required by this Section 437, or where any license has been revoked as provided by this Section 437. Removal of unlicensed docks or docks which fail to comply with the City Code will be at the expense of the owner or licensee. No person convicted of violating City ordinances relating to docks will be issued a dock license for the present or for the next boating season, and said person forfeits any priorities set fort~ in this Section 437. NOTE: The use of fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides is not recommended on city property. (LTRTOAP 12/3/92) December 28, 1993 Dear Dock License Applicant: Enclosed is your 1994 Dock License Application Form. If you wish to retain your existing dock location and avoid a minimum $20.00 late fee, your application must be returned by February 28, 1994. The dock fees for 1994 have remained the same as 1993. There is a $30.00 fee to share a dock with another Mound resident. Also, note the "boat fee" imposed by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD). This fee is based on the length of EACH watercraft to be kept at your dock. Fees are listed on the Dock License Application. It is very important that all the information asked for on the application be completed, including information on a shared dock partner. Copies of all watercraft licenses and ALL fees required must be enclosed with your application or it will be returned to you. If your application is received incomplete, this will delay granting of your permit. Please feel free to call or write the Parks Department at City Hall with any questions or comments. Sincerely, Tom McCaffrey Dock Inspector DJ Enclosures (LTRTOAP 12/3/92) YOUR RESPONSIBILITIES AS A DOCK LICENSE HOLDER Put in your own dock that meets City specifications for safety, size and materials. Maintain the cleanliness of the area by your site, including grass cutting and weed trimming. Aquatic plants that are protected by law require permits prior to removal. Remove Eurasian Water Milfoil from the shoreline around your dock. Boats, dock sections, pipes, posts, and other materials cannot be stored on public land during the boating season, and must be removed by June 1. Winter storage is allowed in most areas, if neat and orderly, not obstructing area or creating a hazard. Response to request to correct infractions must be made during the time stated or dock permit will be in jeopardy. e Submit with your application photocopies of all valid Minnesota Watercraft Licenses for each boat to be kept at your dock site, this must be done each year or a license will not be issued. The use of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides is not recommended to be used on public property. Mound City Code Section 437:10, Subd. 13. Licenses and permits are Non-Transferable. Dock licenses issued by the City are personal in nature and may be used only by the licensee or members of their households. No dock licensed by the City or located on public streets, roads, parks, or public commons may be rented, leased, or sublet to any person, partnership or corporation. If a licensee or permit holder rents, leases, sublets, or in any manner charges or receives consideration for the use of his or her dock, his or her license shall be revoked. A copy of your Minnesota Watercraft License for each boat must accompany your application. SAMPLE OF WATERCRAFT LICENSE: NOTICE 9/30/94 NOTICE Ail dock site holders, abutting and nonabutting, are required to pay their dock fees by February 28, or their site will be made available to new dock applicants per City Code Section 437:05, Subdivisions $ and 9 relating to priorities. If the dock fees are not paid by February 28, the normal late fees will apply. REMINDER... Construction of any kind on any public lands, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public lands, is UNLAWFUL unless a special Construction on Public Land Permit is issued by the City Council. No person shall maintain any boathouse or other structure on public lands without first receiving a special Maintenance Permit from the City, in accordance with Section 320 of the City Code. Applications for remodeling, maintaining or repairing existing boathouses, retaining walls, stonework, decks, landscaping, trimming of trees or brush, or other types of improvements on public lands may be obtained from the Building Department. QUESTIONS ? ? ? CALL 472-0600 Mound City Code Section 320:00 Section 320 - Private Structures and Private Construction Activities on Public Lands Section 320:00. Special Permits for Certain Structures on Public Land. Subd. 1. Construction on Public Land Permit. Construction of any kind on any public way, park or commons, or the alteration of the natural contour of any public way, park, or commons, is unlawful unless a special construction on public land permit is issued by the City Council. Any proposed construction, special use or land alteration shall require the applicant to provide necessary drawings to scale, specifications of materials to be used, proposed costs, and purpose for change. Ail special permits shall require a survey by a registered land surveyor before a special permit will be issued. Survey shall comply with the Mound Building Code survey requirements. Copies of such surveys, drawings, specifications of materials, proposed costs and statements of purpose shall be furnished to the City and kept on file in the City offices. No special permit shall be issued unless approved by a four-fifths vote of all the Council members. Subd. 2. Types of Construction Requirinq a Special Construction on Public Land Permit. Ail stairways, retaining walls, fences, temporary structures, stone work, concrete forming, or any type of construction shall require a special permit. No special construction permit shall be issued for construction of boathouses or other buildings on public land under Section 320 or any other ordinance of the City. Subd. 3. Public Land Maintenance Permits. No person shall maintain any boathouse or other structure on public lands without first receiving therefor a special maintenance permit from the City in accordance with this subdivision. Applications for maintaining existing boathouses or other structures may be obtained from the Building Inspector at the City offices. Ail applications for special maintenance permits shall be reviewed by the City Council. The Council shall determine if the maintenance permit shall be granted or denied, and may order any structure to be removed. Special permits are required for any maintenance such as maintaining retaining walls, stonework, concrete or other types of improvements on public lands. The Council shall have the right to impose any reasonable conditions it may deem advisable to protect the public's use of the public shoreline. Ail structures, retaining walls, stonework, concrete, or other improvements on public lands are required to have a public land maintenance permit from and after April 1, 1976. Subd. 4. Land Alteration. A special land alteration permit shall be required from the City before any alterations are made on public lands which would result in any changes to the following: shoreline, drainage, grade, pitch, slope, trees, or which require the removal or placement of any fill, or which eliminates, adds or develops any access road or land. This section specifically includes any alterations to uses which are nonconforming on the date this ordinance becomes effective. No special permit shall be issued unless approved by a four-fifths vote of all Council members. Structures located on public lands which are ordered removed by the City Council or by the City Building Official under any code or law may proceed under the supervision and direction of the City Building Official without the necessity for obtaining removal permits from the City Council. (ORD. ~54-1991, 12-23-91) Subd. 5. Street Excavation Permit Required. Any permit issued under the provisions of this Section 320 is in addition to and not in lieu of any street excavation permit which may be required under the provisions of Section 605. Subd. 6. Public Lands Procedure Manual. The City Manager and designated staff are authorized and directed to promulgate a Public Lands Procedural Manual and to establish necessary forms and procedures to administer the program and permit procedures set forth in this Section 320. The manual and procedures set forth in said manual shall be reviewed and approved by the City Council by Resolution. The City Council may amend or change the Public Lands Procedural Manual by Resolution. (ORD. $62-1993 - 4/19/93) 4/19/93 1994 MOORING BUOY LICENSE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND, 5341 NAYWOOD ROAD~ MOUND, MN 55364 DEAR MOUND RESIDENT: Please complete and return by February 28. Applications received after this date are subject to a minimum late fee of $20.00 and placed in the 3rd priority category. Renewals not received by April 1, NO PERMIT will be issued for this year. All information pertaining to you must be filled in or permit will be delayed. APPLICANT'S NAME MOUND STREET ADDRESS 1993 BUOY LICENSE ~ ' Permanent Resident (owner) I Owner (paying fee for renter) *SUMMERRESIDENT'SMAILINGADDRESS: HOME PHONE WORK PHONE *Summer Resident Renter REQUIRED INFORMATION: List owner, watercraft license number, type of watercraft, length of watercraft, and L.M.C.D. Boat Fee. No permit will be issued without a photocopy of your DNR watercraft license. OWNER'S NAME WATERCRAFT LICENSE # MAKE OF BOAT LENGTH LMCD FEE L.M.C.D. BOAT FEES: Boats up to 20' long over 20' and up to 24' long over 24' and up to 32' long = $12.00 = $18.00 = $24.00 over 32' and up to 40' long = $30.00 over 40' and up to 47' long = $36.00 over 48' feet long = $48.00 1994 License Fee for a sailboat mooring buoy site will be $150.00 plus the correct L.M.C.D. boat fee for the season. DESCRIBE LOCATION OF BUOY SITE: Any false information given or violations of Dock Ordinance, City Code Section 437, shall be reason for denial or revocation of permit. I understand if I allow boats not registered to permit holder to be moored at my site, I violate City Code Section 437. This is an application only. No buoy can be installed until a location is granted by the Dock Inspector. SIGNATURE FEE PAID $ DATE PENALTY $ MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION NOVE/VIBER 4,"1993 PUBLIC HEARING~ 19~4 DOCK LOCATION MAP Dock Inspector, Tom McCaffrey, reviewed a letter received from Mark Reckinger of 4841 Island View Drive who was unable to attend the meeting. He had requested that a dock site be removed from in front of his house to allow for less concentration of boats. He also wants to be able to construct a "T" shaped dock, but with the spacing of the docks he is unable to do this. The Dock Inspector suggested that Mr. Reckinger construct an "L" shaped dock and he was open to this suggestion. McCaffrey stated that due to. the high demand for dock spaces in this area, he does not recommend removal of a dock site. The number of docks in this area was discussed, and it was noted that there are only two docks on the commons abutting Mr. Reckinger's property. This portion of Commons is a non-dedicated area. Ahrens commented that it is her preference that we have multiple docks. Chair Skoglund opened the public hearing on the subject of the Dock Location Map. Concern was expressed about allowing Mr. Reckinger to install an "L" dock and how it would affect the other dock sites. It was noted that if Mr. Reckinger installed an "L" dock, not every dock site could not an "L" dock if they had more than two boats. MOTION made by Skoglund, seconded by Schmidt, to recommend that Mr. Reckinger install an "L" shaped dock and that the dock site locations remain the same. Motion carried unanimously. Byrnes stated that she voted in favor as long as Mr. Reckinger is in favor of this solution and that the other dock site holders are notified to keep their dock site areas clean. Chair Skoglund closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Skoglund to recommend approval of the 1994 Dock Location Map with the changes an recommended by staff, es follows~ 1. Change description of "Shoreline Classifications to read "Shoreline Types," and change "Class" to Type." a. Change "Waterside Lane" to "Waterside Common." Motion carried unanimously. The Dock Location map will be presented to the City Council for approval of November 23, 1993. C I I'Y of MOUND Memorandum DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: October 11, 1993 The Laker Peggy James, Secretary News Release Please publish the following news article in the October 18, 1993 issue of "The Laker." MOUND PARK COMMISSION REVIEWS 1994 DOCK LOCATION MAP On Thursday, November 4, 1993, the Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission will review the proposed 1993 Dock Location Map. The Dock Location Map shows approved locations of private docks that may be constructed on or abutting public shorelands under the control of the city. city Code requires that the Dock Location Map be reviewed annually by the Park Commission so recommended changes can be referred to, and considered by the City Council by January 15. The meeting will commence at 7:00 p.m. and will be held in the Council Chambers at Mound City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound Minnesota. All interested residents who attend the meeting will be given the opportunity to be heard. CC: Ed Shukle, City Manager Jim Fackler, Parks Director Jom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector ark and Open Space Commission printed on recycled p,3per CITY of MOUND 534~ MA,','~'OQZ ROAD MOUND M'.NNESOT~' 55364 1687 ,6~2 4-2 C'~::0 FAX 6~2 472 1620 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: November 1, 1993 Park and Open Space Commission Mark Reckinger Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector Dock Location Review - Letter From Mark Reckinger On October 26, 1993 I received a letter from Mr. Mark Reckinger of 4841 Island View Drive requesting the adjustment of some dock sites in front of his house. I discussed this letter with Mr. Reckinger and agreed to present his concerns to the commission as he will be out of town. Specifically, he is requesting the removal of dock site #43360, just to the west of his dock. He feels elimination of this site will provide more room for access to his dock and relieve congestion in the area. I explained that my recommendation would be to deny this request as the demand for dock spaces (especially in this area) is greater than the supply. My recommendation to him was to install an "L" dock to the far side of his space. If his request was denied, he would accept this solution. We also discussed some minor land alterations and we will be meeting with him to discuss if and how this can be accomplished. TM:pj printed on recycled paper Jim Fackler, Parks Director City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Mn. 55364-1687 CC: RECEIVED I OIJND PLANNING & INSP. DOCK INSPECTOR PARK COMMISSION FILE Jim, I am writing in regards to the upcoming Commons-dock location review. I own the abutting property at 4841 Island View drive, and have a commons dock (license # 43335). My concern is this, there are presently four docks in front of my property including mine. Through time each license holder has opted to share their dock with another boat owner. This has led to an extremely high concentration of boats in front of my property. None of these boat owners invest any of their time in commons maintenance, and at least two of the boats are never used (at the dock just west of mine). Also I would like to built a "T" shaped dock next season and with the current arraignment would not have room to do so. I will be unable to attend the Nov. 4 meeting and am wondering if these sites can be adjusted to accommodate these concerns, l~ T. hanksY,.\ ('~ "~,,, ~ MarK-Recl~ifi-ger 4841 Island View Drive Mound, Mn 55364 472-3596 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 1993 REVIEW OF 1994 DOCK FORMS AND DOCK LOCATION MAP Dock Inspector, Tom McCaffrcy, reviewed the proposed ordinance changes, 1994 dock forms and proposed dock location map changes, as follows: 1. Ordinances changes to Ci_ty Code Section 437 - Dock Licenses: a. 437:00. Subd. 5. Delete thc word "appurtenances" as it is not a commonly understood term, and replace it with "accessory items". b. 437:10. Subd. 1. c. Change "ShorclincClassifications" to "Shoreline Types" as referred to in thc Use Plan. c. 437:10. Subd. !1, Change the dock removal dcadlinc from "December 31" to "November 1", to provide safer sliding at Highland Park. d. 437:15. Change thc necessary water depth from 36" to 48" to conform with LMCD regulations. Dock Forms: No specific changes have been made to the forms, only those changes prompted by thc above ordinance changes and date changes. 3. Dock Location Map: Change description of "Shoreline Classifications' to read "Shoreline Types', and change 'Class' to 'Type'. b. Change "Waterside Lane" to 'Waterside Common'. There was discussion relating to the change in the dock removal deadline from 'December 31' to 'November 1'. The Dock Inspector confirmed that these dates apply only to Highland Park. Ahrens questioned what determines an 'approved site." Ahrens is not in favor of allowing people to leave docks in all winter, she feels it creates a hazard and looks junky, especially when the docks get broken up and dock parts sink to the bottom of the lake and they are not picked-up. Ahrens requested this issue be placed on the work agenda for next year. What areas can the docks remain? What areas should the docks be required to be removed? Fackler stated that he can chceck the LMCD regulations regarding docks in the winter. Carolyn commented that she would like to see a height restriction on stacked dock sections. She feels these tall piles can be dangerous if kids play on them and they can also obstruct the lakeview. Fackler commented that he would rather handle this type of concern administratively and on a complaint basis. MOTION made by Skoglund, seconded by Byrnes to recommend approval of the proposed changes to City Code Section 437, the dock forms for 1994, and the dock location map for 1994. Motion carried unanimously. The Secretary noted that a public hearing will be held by the Park Commission on November 6, 1993 for the Dock Location map, and the City Council will review this recommendation at their meeting on November 23, 1993. 1994 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ q- ~ 04 -- 0 ¢: Porks Shoreline that is traversible only on top: need stairway to shoreline, accessible by public fight-of-way. Shoreline traversible along the water's edge: access points available to traversible shore- line. Shoreline with no traversible space: stairs needed to shoreline, not accessible by pub- lic right-of-way (abutting property owners only). Shoreline that is traversible on the top, and traversible along the water's edge: acces- sible by public right-of-way. Shoreline such as wetlands, wildlife area, beaches and boat landings. No Docks. ++~t~ USE PLAN FOR PUBLIC LANDS City of Mound SHORELINE NUMBERING SYSTEM For the purpose of the Mound Park'Plan, public shoreline has been numbered by dividing the City into 9 general areas. The first number of the five digit number system indicates the general area 'of that location. The remaining four (4) digits represents the actual distance of that location, from the starting point of the general area (i.e. t21050 means area 2; 1,080 feet from the beginning of area 2 - Harrison Beach in Harrison's Bay). PARK AREA CLASSWICATIONS For the purpose of the Mound Park Use Plan, public lands have been divided into the following classification: CLASS 0 - No proposed usage. CLASS 1 - Play,round: Designed primarily for young children under 12 years of age, serve an area 3/8 mile. May include swings, slides, Jungle gyms, sand boxes and small ball field with backstop. NeiGhborhood Park: Facility for all age groups which provides space for passive and active recreation. It could include such things as picnic sites, play areas, hiking paths and beaches. It is designed to serve the residential neighborhood rather than the community at large and would include the small beach areas with a limited amount of shoreline. CLASS ~ - Playing Field: Adults and youth ove~ 12 years. Ten to twenty acres optimum and serves an area one to one and one-half miles. It would include such things as tennis courts, football fields, ice rinks, baseball and softball fields, etc. This type of facility would incorporate the facilities currently available. CLASS 4 - Residen~ Fishing Area: Areas of shoreline along the lakeshore to provide space for bank fishing. This will provide fishing opportunity for our youngsters through our senior citizens. Nature Area: Areas maintained in a natural or nearly natural state but open to the public for such outdoor recreation purposes as nature study, conservation education, trails, etc. & · Community Par~: A large community park to provide a wide range of activities and serve the City at large. Activities could include such things as swimming beaches, golf course, archery range, camp sites, nature trails, as well as the common playground equipment. CLASS 7 - Resident Boat Launching Sit,: These will include small permanent boat launching sites-scattered throughout the City. Limited parking or no parking can be expected. Other sites are incorporated into the beach areas and will only be opened when the beaches are not opened. All sites will be open for winter fishing access. CLASS $ - Resident Permit DQckinq: Areas of shoreline used to provide docking facilities and in some areas, limited launching facilities for the adjacent and nearby residents. Swimmi~ Beach: Areas of shgreline designated for swimming associated recreation. These areas may or may not have swimming docks and/or life guards on duty. SHORELINE TYPE For the purpose of the Mound Park Use Plan, public shoreline has been classified into five general types: Shoreline that is traversable only on top, with a bank sloping directly into the water. Shoreline that slopes from the abutting property down to a traversable space along the water's edge. Shoreline that slopes from the abutting proper~y down directly into the water with no traversable space. Shoreline that is traversable on the top, and traversable along the water's edge. Shoreline such as marsh and swamp, and is not considered traversable. (4/ 9/93) 2 ~ OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION JULY 8, 1993 1994 DOCK FEBS - PUBLIC HEARING. Casey stated that the Park and Open Space Commission had discussed this issue at their last meeting and a notice has been published in the paper announcing the public hearing. Casey opened the public hearing. Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the Park and Open Space Commission's recommendations, as follows: 1. The 1994 Dock License fees remain the same as 1993. 2. The 1994 Dock License fees for seniors remain the same as 1993, Ahrens questioned staff how much the fund balance is proposed to grow next year with these proposed fees. The answer from staff was approximately $15,000. Ahrens summarized that their is now approximately $75,000 in the fund balance which would then grow by another $15,000. Ahrens questioned why we need the fund to grow more. Fackler commented that the rationale is looking at future projects, such as maintenance dredges and riprapping, repairs to the shoreline due to this year's high water, or other special projects. Riprapping costs, types of installation, and replacement schedules were briefly reviewed. Brian Johnson, a dock holder at Avalon Park, commented that he thinks the dock fees are very reasonable for the services they get. Sch~idt questioned the Dock Inspector on the state of the commons shoreline and if there are any erosion problems due to the high water. McCaffrey commented that he has seen damage to the shoreline such as debris on shore, damaged riprap, and erosion. Ahrens commented that she has received complaints regarding the condition of the road accessing Centerview Beach, the complainants were not dock site holders, and she would like to ensure that the dock funds are not paying for the riprap to repair the shoreline to maintain the road. She believes the entire City should pay for the maintenance of the road, not just the dock site holders. Ahrens would like the City to start looking at who is going to benefit from certain improvements, is it the dock.site holders or the general public. She would like to see a detailed report which shows expenditures for items such as mowing and tree removal to determine if these are "dock' expenditures. Byrnes agreed with Ahrens that they find out what the general fund should be paying for and what the dock fees should be paying for. Schmidt recalled from the June meeting, for Ahrens benefit as she was not present, that Schmidt had seriously questioned whether the dock fees should be raised. She feels that in order to enhance areas used by current and future commons dock holders, such as the Black Lake area which is in need of a $300,000 dredge, the City needs to build the dock fund to be able to accommodate dock holders concerns and needs. Ahrens believes the expenditures need to be weighed against the benefit; is spending $300,000 on a dredge which will benefit only 6 docks a worthy expenditure? Ahrens suggested the City investigate other long term solutions such as multiple docks in areas that do not require dredging. MOTION made by Abrams to place this issue on a future agenda for · discussion item when more of the Commissioners ars present. Byrnes seconded tho motion. Motion carried unanimously. Casey summarized that the Parks Commission has recommended that the dock license fees remain the same for 1994. Ahrens suggested that the fees remain the same until the Park and Open Space Commission has the opportunity to investigate the issue further. Casey suggested that staff bring to the next meeting how funds are being allocated. Ahrens suggested that the Park and Open Space Commission discuss and develop a list of items they would like staff to provide for them. Casey closed the public hearing. CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Memorandum DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 15, 1993 The Laker Peggy James, Secretary News Release Please publish the following news release in the June 21, and June 28, 1993 issues of "The Laker." DOCK FEES TO BE DISCUSSED The Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission will be reviewing the dock license fees for 1994 at its meeting on Thursday, July 8, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. The public is invited to comment on this issue. It is the intent of the Commission to recommend to the City Council that the fees remain the same. The meeting will be held in the Council Chambers at Mound City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound. If you have any questions, please call City Hall at 472-0600. pJ printed on recycled paper MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION JUNE 10, 1993 DISCUSS DOCK FEES FOR 1994 Parks Director, Jim Fackler, commented that the dock fund is still in the black, and therefore recommended that the fees for 1994 remain the same. A public hearing is scheduled to be held at the July Parks meeting. Future riprapping and dredging projects were reviewed. Fackler clarified that approximately $10,000 is planned to be expended for riprapping in 1994. There is currently approximately $75,000 in the fund. This will be the fourth year the fees have not been raised. Schmidt does not feel it is unreasonable to request an increase in fees. Considering long range planning, there are maintenance dredges to consider, larger and expensive dredging projects which have been requested in the past and denied due to lack of funds, and the cost of riprapping and dredging seems to continually rise. Casey commented that he would like the senior fees to be reviewed, he is not in favor of granting seniors a reduced rate. MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Anderson to recommend to the City Council that the dock license fees for 1994 remain the same as 1993. Motion carried unanimously. Optional programs to eliminate or reduce the senior discount were discussed. One option was to require seniors to pay a full fee with their application, and then allow them to apply for a rebate. It was noted that some seniors may be willing to pay a full fee. Anderson commented that the number of seniors and the amount of money involved does not warrant a change in the fee structure. MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Schmidt to recommend that the senior rates remain the same in 1994. Motion carried 4 to 1. Those in favor were: Byrnes, Anderson, Schmidt and Asleson. Casey opposed. Schmidt commented that the way the fee schedule works it is more expensive for a non-senior to share a dock with a senior than it is for a non-senior to share a dock with another non-senior, and this is not right. Fackler and McCaffrey commented that the people sharing the dock work out the payment between themselves, and that most people are just happy to get a dock. They have not received any other complaints relating to this issue. The Commission determined this issue could be raised at the public hearing. Mound City Code C[~J~EN~ ~I~E SC~.n~LE - 6-7-93 Section 510:00 CHAPTER V FEES, CHARGES AND RATES SECTION 510 - FEES~ BUSINESS LICENSES AND PERMITS Section 510=00. December 31st Expirations. Subd. Code Conditions Sectio~ Type of License ~nd Terms I 437:25 Amoun~ Late Dock License Application On or After March 1st $20.00 ** **Add an additional $10 to late dock license applications received on or after April 1, and add an additional $10 per month for each consecutive month thereafter. 2 437:25 Straight Docks L, T Docks U, or Special Size Docks Sail Boat Mooring Annual $150.00 Annual $200.00 Annual $235.00 Annual $150.00 (Temporary Boat Docking Fee - See Section 510:35) Application for shared dockage will have $30.00 added to the regular fee charged, to cover the additional administrative work. Senior citizens (65 or order) pay 1/2 the base permit fee for th~ type of dock they desire, i.e. $75.00, $100.00, or $117.50. Senior citizens (65 or older) sharing a dock with a non-senior pay 1/4 the base permit fee for the type of dock they desire, i.e. $37.50, $50.00, or $58.75. The non-senior sharing a dock with a senior pays 3/4 of the base permit fee for the type of dock they desire, i.e. $112.50, $150.00, or $176.25. 3. Any additional charges made by the L.M.C.D. (Lake Minnetonka Conservation District) will be added to the regular dock fees. (ORD. #53-1991, 12-23-91) 3 405:00 Arcades Annual $100.00 12-23-91 Dock Fee History City of Mound June 10, 1993 ! YEAR Straight Dock I L or T Dock I U or H Dock 1987 $ 85 $135 $160 1988 100 150 180 1989 120 170 205 1990 135 185 220 1991 150 200 235 1992 150 200 235 1993 150 200 235 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1993 Commissioner Mueller removed himself from the Planning Commission for this case. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Building Official's report. The applicants are seeking approval of a minor subdivision. Both proposed parcels are conforming to the Zoning Ordinance for lot area, hardcover provisions, and setbacks. Parcel A exceeds the minimum lot area requirement with 26,900 +/- square feet. Parcel B, with 26,721 +/- square feet, requires a variance to street frontage of 28 feet to the required 60 feet in the R-1 zone. The cul-de-sac as shown on the survey is not intended to be installed. After discussion and review by staff, it is felt that one additional home does not necessitate the cul-de-sac, however, if parcel 23 to the south would be developed in the future, the cul-de-sac should be installed with the adjoining properties being assessed at that time. PAGE 1 OF '4 CASE #93-055: 6385 BARTLETT BLVD., MINOR SUBDIVISION Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993 Koegler noted that there are some unresolved issues, and as a result the Planning Commission has the option of tabling the request or approving it with conditions. Information was anticipated to be provided by this meeting, but has not been received. The City had to televise the sanitary sewer lines as they were unable to be located, and the City Engineer has expressed that it is a mess. Information is needed on the stormwater that passes through this property from across County Road 110 (Bartlett Blvd.). A design with supporting data, along with the storm sewer size needs to be provided. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed subdivision and street frontage variance with the following conditions: All drainage, utility, and other issues be resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer as noted in his report. 2. Proof of proper recording and dedication of the cul-de-sac be provided. Parcel B shall be subject to assessment at any time in the future that the City deems it necessary to install the cul-de-sac. e Park dedication fees shall be set by Resolution of the City Council as noted in City Code Section 330:120, Subd. 3., and in no case shall be less than $500 per lot. An escrow account in the amount of $1,000 shall be provided as required by City Code Section 520:00, 10. to offset any direct City expenses. Said escrow shall be received prior to final action by the City Council. All costs associated with this subdivision are payable by the applicant in any case, whether the application receives final approval or not. Those conditions outlined in the letter from Hennepin County, Department of Public Works, dated October 28, 1993.- Clapsaddle questioned, if the cul-de-sac were improved, would the driveway for Parcel B work? The Commission determined that the cul-de-sac should not be needed for just one more house and it is n.0t an issue at this time. PAGE 2 OF 4 & m m,,, & ,& CASE #93-055: 6385 BARTLETT BLVD., Planning Commission Minutes MINOR SUBDIVISION November 8, 1993 The owners of the house to the east of the proposed Parcel B, Mr. and Mrs. Henry Sandoval, expressed a concern about drainage and grading. Jeff Martineau related that Mr. and Mr. Stone have a signed purchase agreement for the proposed Parcel B and would like to construct the house as soon as possible. Michael commented that the Planning Commission is not engineers, but the information should be available for review in order to make a recommendation. Mueller stated he has requested information from the city regarding these issues more than once, and basically City staff said to formally apply for a subdivision and then they will figure it out. Martineau questioned how he is suppose to figure out where the City sewer and water are? The City of Mound should tell them where it is. The culvert on 110 puts an enormous amount of drainage on the property, there are no utility or drainage easements on this property. They have submitted a plan and have tried to make sense as best they can without spending a large amount of money to solve issues that have been historically created by other parcels of land in the community. They will do whatever is required to make this property look nice. Clapsaddle commented that the law says you do not drain your property on someonelse's property, however, he would at least expect a concept plan of how the drainage is going to work on this property. The Commission discussed if the subdivision can be forwarded to the Council · without first receiving all the required information. The comment was made that the Planning Commission does not claim to be engineers or attorneys and maybe the subdivision should be moved forward with the assurance that certain information will need to be submitted and certain items resolved before the subdivision can be recorded at the County: PAGE 3 OF 4 CASE #93-055: 6385 BARTLETT BLVD., MINOR SUBDIVISION Planning Commission Minules November 8, 1993 Mueller commented that the subdivision needs to be moved forward in order to get answers. When he contacted the County they stated its a city cemetery. When he contact the City Manager he stated it was a County culvert. Somebody needs to take responsibility for the drainage situation created on this lot. The City and County are not going to take responsibility for the drainage on this property without somebody bringing this proposal forward. They are willing to help alleviate some of these problems, however, moving forward may be the only way to get answers to his questions. Hanus summarized that in order to subdivide property you need two buildable parcels, and there are still some issues that need to be resolved and the City needs to take some responsibility and get some answers for the applicants, and he would be in favor of tabling the request to allow the City time to address these issues. Voss commented that he is opposed to tabling and stated that staff recommended approval based upon issues being resolved by the City Engineer and staff. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Meyer to recommend approval of the subdivision as recommended by staff. Motion carded 4 to 3. Those in favor were: Meyer, Mueller, Johnson, Weiland, Jensen, and Voss. Those opposed wer~~lapsaddle, Hanus, and Michael. The reason those persons opposed was due to the lack of solutions for the drainage and sewer and water problems, they did not have a problem with the basic concept of the lot split. This request is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on November 23, 1993. PAGE 4 OF ~ P. 2/2 McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Telephone 612/478-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Planners Surveyors TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Jon Sutherland John Cameron November 2, 1993 City of Mound, Minnesota Minor Subdivision - Case #93-055 Olson Property 6835 Bartlett Boulevard MFRA #10577 As requested, we have reviewed the survey accompanying the above request for · minor subdivision and have the following comments and recommendations: There are no City utilities shown on the survey, except for a catchbasin at the end of improved Bay Ridge Road. A proposed storm sewer is shown running from this catch basin to a detention pond located on Parcel A. There is an existing culvert under County Road 10, which ks not shown on the survey, that collects water from the north side of the road and di~charges onto this parcel. This culvert could be a major problem depending on its location and size. We cannot make this determinatiOn without additional information on location and volume of water discharging to said property. City as-built drawings do not show either the sanitary sewer or watermain for this area of Bay Ridge Road. Apparently these extensions were privately ins~elled and record drawings were never furnished. The sanitary sewer in County Road 110 is too high to serve by gravity the basement of the proposed house shown on Parcel A. We cannot review proposed connections unless the existing utilities are shown on the survey. The street access question will be addressed by the Planning Department's review. When all the questions on utilities and drainage are then we will be able to determine what easements required. sorted out, should be An Equal Oppodun~!y Employer HENNEPIN 5L DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 320 Washington Avenue South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 PHONE: (6.12) 930-2500 FAX [6.12) 930-25'13 , TDD: (6'12] 930-2696 October 28, 1993 REOEIVED NOV t 1993 MO[IN~ PLANNING & IN~P. Peggy James Planning and Inspections City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ms. James: RE: Proposed Lot Division - Jeff Martineau CSAH 110, south side approximately 150 feet east of Highview Lane Section 23,Township 117, Range 24 Hennepin County Plat No. 2103 Review and Recommendations Thank you for submitting the noted lot division to us for review. We reviewed the lot division and have the following comments: The developer should dedicate an additional 7 feet of right of way for a total of 40 feet of right of way from and along the centerline of CSAH 110. The location of the proposed driveway from Lot A to CSAH 110, approximately 15 feet west of Lot A's northeast corner, is acceptable. The developer must acquire an approved Hennepin County entrance permit before beginning access construction. As shown on the proposed plan dated October 21, 1993, this driveway must have a turnaround. No other direct access to CSAH 110 will be permitted. All proposed construction within County right of way requires an approved utility permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to driveway removal, drainage and utility construction, trail development and landscaping. Contact our Permits Section at 930-2550 for utility permit forms. The developer must restore all areas, within County right of way, disturbed during construction . Please direct any response to Doug Mattson. Sincerely, Thomas D.~. Transportation Planning Engineer TDJ/DBM HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer m~ m {,,, m~ ,& Application for MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND city of Moun~ 5341 Maywood Road, Hound, KN 5536, Phone~ 472-0600~ Fax= 472-0620 Site Visit Scheduled: ?Dning Sheet Completed: Topy to City Planner: Application Fee:_. $50. O0 Escrow Deposit: Deficient Unit Charges? Copy to Public Works~ ~ Delinquent Taxes? Copy to .City %Engineer~ 4 ! Please t~pe o~ prin~ the foliowin~ ~nfo~at~on~ Address of Subject Property. []fi ~ner~s N~e_. ~~ ~J ~ Day Phone Applicant's N~e (if other than owner) tame of Surveyor Name of Engineer LEGAL DESCRIPTIO~.:~ Lot Z3 -//7- Z¥ Day Phone Day Phone Day Phone Addition Zoning District Block PZD No. Use of Property ~/~W~F~ Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ~ no. If Xes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. :'his appl. ication must be signed by all owners of the subject property, ~.~P. lanat~on given why this is not {he case. or an - / - -.~ :i/ ;! Si nat:e)~f'~ Owner ' ~~/~" Date ~:' ~, . ' .. ~ignature of Owner Date 4/93 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywoo~ Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Come, lesion Date: City Council Date: /~'~'~ Application Fee: $50.00 Case No.. ~"05~ Site Visit Scheduled: Zoning Sheet Completed: Copy to City Planner: Copy to Public Works: Copy to City ~7~r: ® e ® ® e J e · · · · · · eeeeeeee/~eeeeeee®eeleeee eeeeeeeeeeeeee eee ee eeee eeeeeee Please type or print the following information: .,-~:.-,.,.- Address of Subject Property : '), 3.p j~f. C (t,/..'[/~. /_ _. /;ll(~l- owner's Na~e ~,¢t~/.~ CA~(VJ' /uay (none ,/72-~3c'?. owner's ~dSress ?Fl ~:/~." '~.l,: <.-0 ,~ I >~,?~/':'..', ,~.~,:...' :~ ~.~ Applicant's Name (if other than owner) 'ess Day ~non. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot Addition Zoning District Block PTD No. Use of Property: /..///'J/~/~ 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 ' ' _ ;-:. --"," dl ~.c'T- of stories, type of use, etc.): I~i., /L. Ot~ '~.: I f:: I'~',.", I'~. /., _ 4/93 Variance Application Page 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.) SETBACKS: Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lake Front: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: required I requested (or existing) VARIANCE ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ~ ~ ft. __9 ~ ft. sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ~, No ( ). If no, specify each non-conforminguse: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ). soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing ( ) too shallow (~shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: C~ -~ -~/~_. ~.~,f.//,~f/~_~_zTdF_~ Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain Variance Application Page 3 Case No. e Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (.), No ~. If yes, explain Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~<), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 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. Applicant' s signature Date I10 PROPOSED LOT DIVISION FOR JEFF MARTINEAU 114 OOV'T LOT 6, SECTION 23-117-~4 HENNEPIN COUNTY. MINNESOTA // L(GAL D~SCIIPTIOX O~ PR[~ISZS · . . T~s"'~'pIrt of t.~e~~i'~t fS0.0"-"-'Tfeet 'of t~st ~&rt o~ Government 'Lok S lying South of State #ighvsy lo. II0 end running to . · #listed gay, Late ~lnnetonke, ~ctlou 23, Tovnshlo.117' . North, lingo 24 YeSto end iisi lying northerl~ of the roi- -loving described line: Co~enclng It the Iorthvel~ corner . Qf blIIoo Shores, Iccording to the pile thereof On fill or ~f record Il the office of the Illlitlr Jfhldl, neplfl CQult~, ~l~flesoti; thence southlrl7 Off Il iSSald '. -' -belting of ~utb along the test.line of Illd'blllag Skotli'.'.' ·nd the iisi JJ~ O~ the VeSt 1S0,00 feet of slid ..Lot S, a dls[anceof 33~.43 feet to the clpterlt~ ~ Bay ' 'Rldoe Road; thence South 67 de~es Sa Blnutes 52 seconds .41ono the extended clnt~rllne a distance of Ji.f! thence South 74 degrees O0 nlnutas S3.seconds JIIC'I dis- .Lance of IB0.OZ feet to't~e ~lst line of Soylrnnen[ LOt'S, eld ~lnt of Intersection hJqj 37S.32 fell tout~ o~ the south right-of-ray line ·w NlJhviy Ri. It0, subject tO ~11 Jisenents of rlcord. ~J~rQVlnlnts or Incroac~en[s. Searings shove a~ blsed upol in iSSUlld Datum: :lean see level .- 76 -34 -13-76 RESCLUTION NO. 76 - 34 RES(LUTI(I~ GRANTING THE DIVISION OF PLAT 61223 PARCEL 1780 INTO TWO PARCELS AND THE. DEDICATION OF LAND FOR THE. EVENTUAL COMlq~ETION OF A CUL DE SAC (Survey of land, division and cul de sac att) WHEREAS, property identified 'ss Plat 61223 parcel 1780, Section 23 Government Lot 5 measures 681 feet by 150 feet, and WHEREAS, it has been requested that said property be divided into tw~ parcels to settle an estete, and WHEREAS, ~ provision will be made dedicating land for the com- pletion of a cul-de-sac. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESCtVED BY THE CITY OOUNC]L OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That division of Plat 61223 Parcell 1780 into two parcels and the dedication of land for the eventual completion of a cul-de-sac be granted. Adopted by the Council this 13th day of January, 1976. MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING CO~ISSION MEETING - December 11, 1975 ?.'30 P.M. Mound Oity Hall~ ~3/+1 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota Present were: Chairman Lou 0berdeck., Commissioners Helen Newell, Frank Weiland, Cklair Rases, 6erald Smith, Council Representative Cordon Swenson, City Manager Leonard £opp,. Inspector Henry Truelsen ara Secretary Marge Stutsman. M~NUTE8 The minutes of the PI~-~ Co.mission meeting of October 30, 197~ were presented. Correct spelling of Wo~_ward on page 3. Hesse moved and Weiland seconded a motion that the minutes as corrected be approved. The vote wes unanimously in favor. ~OARD OF 1. o o APPEALS ~omas B. Stephenson, 1717 Finch Lane Lots 5, 6, ? and 8, ~lock 13, Dreamwood Non-conforming use variance Mr. and Mrs. Stephenson were present. They wish to add onto house as more bedroom space is needed. Corner of house (original cabin) is eroaching about 3 foot 7 inches on Commons. Newell moved and Weiland seconded a motion that permit for addition be allowed providing that the eight foot porch across front of house be eliminated and any other variances waived. Discussed. Ail down road are non-conforming uses. The vote on motion w~s unanimously in favor. Owner against removing porch (livingroom with basement underneath). 2. Clarets 01sen, 6385 Bay Ridge Road Part of Lot 5 {M & B) Section Twenty Three Division of Land Mr. Koenig~ Attorney for fee owners, C~therine Olsen and Donald Olsen, could not be present. Requested that City M&nager present information to Planning Commission. Mrs. Olsen lives in house on South part of land and Donald Olsen has North part. Sewer line runs on lake side. They are willing to dedicate land for cul-de-sac to the City. Newell moved that application for division of land as requested be granted providing land needed for cul-de-sac is dedicated to City at this time. Smith seconded the motion. Discussed. Further division of these two parts probable in the future. The vote was unanimously in favor of the division as requested. I(z) ~ (8) GENERAL ZONING INFORI%t~TION SltEtrr Survey on file? ye,~ no. Date of ,urvey~ ~ of Record? yes__ Required ~t Width: ~ / EXisting ~t WidthA = 130'e/- '+ - FRONT I N S ~ W FRONT ~ N S E W ~ SIDE, N . . . 4' or 6' SIDE~ N S E W ~4' or ~' ~5HO~z . 50' /Maoured fr~ O.X,W,) ~SHO~ SO' ;~asured fr~ O.H.W.t EXISTING ~/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS; ~ A~ESSORY BUILDING FRO~ ~ N S B W FRONT I N S ~ V FRONT~ N S E W FRONT: N S E W SXD~ N S g W SIDE: N S g W SlD~z N S g SIDE~ N S g W ~f X S B W ~z N S g V ~SHO~; (i4) .. : 150 (37) 9 (~o) ~o CITY of MOUND MGUNO M','._~50TA55264 ~'2 4-2C6C0 FAX ~'i 4720620 November 15, 1993 Mr. Jeff Martineau Burnet Realty 315 E. Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 RE: MINOR SUBDIVISION, CASE It03-055 6385 BARTLETT BLVD. Dear Mr. Martineau: When we originally met in my office on October 4, 1993 to discuss the subject application, I informed you that your proposal could be tendered as a minor subdivision. This was based on a simple lot split and that the division would not require the construction of any new public utilities. I mentioned to you at that time that additional information would have to be provided with your application regarding utilities and drainage. I also mentioned that drainage was a major concern due to the fact that a culvert from across County Road 110 drained through this property. On November 1, 1993 I discussed with you again that additional information was needed and your application was incomplete as utilities were not shown and a design with supporting data must be provided to show how much storm sewer water there was, and how you were going to deal with it. I also contacted Mr. Gronberg, your surveyor, and discussed the need for legal descriptions and cul-de- sac dedication documentation. Staff was doing our best to work with you to keep you on the Planning Commission agenda and we hoped the information would be provided in time for presentation at the Planning Commission meeting. ~ printed on recycled ,cz2er Mr. Jeff Martineau November 15, 1993 Page 2 Complicating this request was an inadequate history of the City sanitary sewer locations servicing this property. The city had to have the sanitary sewer lines televised to establish the route of the sewer line. Although all the information was not received in time for the Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission nevertheless heard the request and recommended approval with conditions. Since we now have a better understanding of the utility locations and drainage issues, we had to take a second look at Section 330:20 of the Mound City Code, a copy of Which is enclosed, which states in part, that any subdivision of land that requiring the construction of any new public facilities or public improvements shall be considered a major subdivision. A copy of this code section is enclosed for your reference. Based upon this information, we have determined that your case should be treated as a major subdivision request in which the following conditions will apply: Submission of a preliminary and final plat as required by City Code Section 330. 2. The required fees for a major subdivision, as follows: $ 150.00 100.00 (50.OO) $1,200.00 Preliminary Plat Final Plat Escrow Deposit Less Fees Received To-Date TOTAL FEES DUE e The fees, labels from Hennepin County, and preliminary and final plats need to be submitted to the City of Mound by November 24, 1993 in order for your case to be heard by the Planning Commission on December 13, 1993 and by the City Council on January 11, 1994. I am sorry for any delay this may have caused you. We would be happy to meet with you to discuss your sketch plan at your convenience. Mr. Jeff Martineau November 15, 1993 Page 3 Please contact me if you have any questions. Respectful~.~-' Jon Sutherland Building Official JS:pj CC: Donald Olson, 771 San Diego Road, Berkeley, CA 94707 Michael Mueller, 5910 Ridgewood Road, Mound, MN 55364 v~ Shukle, City Manager John Cameron, City Engineer Mark Koegler, City Planner Curt Pearson, City Attorney MiNUTF_~ OF A MEETING OF ~ MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 1993 Celebrate ~mer The Celebrate Summer program, also known as music in the park, is organized by Westonka Community Education and Services. The Celebrate Summer task force was developed last year and included two City of Mound Park and Open Space Commission liaisons, Byrnes and Schmidt. Schmidt informed the Commission that they formally needed to be recommended by the City Council to serve on the Commission. MOTION made by Skoglund, seconded by Ahrens to recommend to tho City Council that Marilyn Byrnes and Carolyn Sohmidt bo desiqnated as the City of Mound liaisons to the Celebrate Summer task force. Motion carried unanimously. 397 RESOLUTION NO. 93- RESOLUTION SUPPORTING ANAPPLICATION BY COMMUNITY BUILDERS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF MOUND TO THE MINNESOTA HOUSING ~ FINANCE AGENCY (MHFA) WHEREAS, Community Builders is a 501 (c) (3) housing corporation established to increase the supply of long term affordable housing in suburban Hennepin County for low and moderate income families; and WHEREAS, Community Builders is affiliated with West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board, a 20 year old community based organization established through a joint powers agreement of its member municipalities; and WHEREAS, the board of Community Builders is composed of people representing a cross section of this community who are concerned about the families and individuals in our community currently facing a housing crisis on an individual basis; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency's (MHFA's) Community Rehabilitation Fund Program provides grants to cities to be used as loans or grants to eligible recipients for various activities related to single and multi-family housing; and WHEREAS, this community rehabilitation fund program includes acquisition, demolition, rehabilitation, permanent financing, refinancing and gap financing; and WHEREAS, the program must be targeted to a specific neighborhood or other geographic area within which the grant must be used; and WHEREAS, Mound has been identified as a city that would be an excellent candidate for such a program; and WHEREAS, the amount of funds being requested are $150,000 and; WHEREAS, these funds would be used to implement a Lease to Purchase program for low to moderate income families in Mound to purchase their own homes. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Mound City Council hereby supports the application for the Community Rehabilitation Fund under MHFA by Community Builders, which is affiliated with West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board for the purposes of acquiring funds to implement a Lease to Purchase program for low and moderate income families in the city of Mound; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the entire City of Mound be designated as the area for the funds to be targeted, assuming the application is funded through this MHFA Program. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk cl~:mffi:u:n .~ .................................... , ................................... ~:::::i::~i:,iii:,::?:~i?:i::iiiiiii?~ii? ~Affiliatcd with west He nncpJn Human Services November 12, 1993 Edward J Shukle, Jr. City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 NOV 1 5 1993 Dear Ed: Community Builders would like to request a resolution by the City of Mound authorizing Community Builders to apply on behalf of the City for funds from the Community Rehabilitation Fund Program of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency. The amount of funds being requested are $150,000. These funds would be used to implement a Lease to Purchase Program through which low to moderate income families in our community could purchase their own homes. A short description of the program and a proposed budget are attached. Community Builders is a 501 (c) (3) housing corporation established to increase the supply of long term affordable housing in suburban Hennepin County for low and moderate income families. Community Builders is affiliated with West Hennepin Human Services Planning Board, a 20 year old community based organization established through a joint powers agreement of its member municipalities. The Board of Community Builders is composed of people representing a cross section of this community who are concerned about the families and individuals in our community currently facing a housing crisis on an individual basis. A list of Board members is attached for your information. Because the need for affordable housing is throughout the west Hennepin suburban community we are planning to work with other cities. Currently we are discussing this program with both St. Louis Park and Minnetonka. The Community Rehabilitation Fund Program provides grants to cities to be used as loans or grants to eligible recipients for various activities related to single or multi-family housing. These include acquisition, demolition, rehabilitation, permanent financing, refinancing, and gap financing. The program must be targeted to a specific neighborhood or other geographic area within which the grant must be used. A city is permitted to submit more than one application but not for the same area. The application must be submitted by December 6th. Applicants will be notified no later than January 7, 1994. There is $2,000,000 available in grants from $30,000 to $350,000. Nonprofits may submit proposals if a city within which the project will take place enacts a resolution authorizing the nonprofit to apply on the city's behalf. 4100 Vernon Avenue South · Slx Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 · (612)920-5533/Fax: (612)929-7480 The Community Builders Board of Directors would like to thank you for giving consideration to this proposal. We would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this proposal with the City Council and yourself. Thank you. Sincerely, President i Hennepin Human Services LEASE TO PURCHASE PROGRAM SUMMARY OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND: - Ownership is a key to long term affordable housing. A long term mortgage protects a family from fluctuations in housing costs, and the homestead credit insulates a homeowner still further from major and unexpected increases in monthly costs. It is also a goal for many communities who believe that homeowners will be long term residents who think of their homes as investments to be protected. Community Builders has developed the Lease to Purchase Program to offer a way for lower income families to move into ownership of existing housing. It is designed to meet needs of those families who need support to become successful homeowners, as well as of those communities who would like to stabilize existing housing stock and expand the market for smaller, older "starter" homes. Community Builders will establish a Revolving Fund to minimize the annual search for acquisition/rehabilitation funding. This fund would receive any proceeds available from the sale of the homes at the end of the lease period. These funds would be recycled for future acquisitions. A key element of the program is a Homeowership Peer Support component. This will use training, community involvement, and group support to help the lessee/buyer to gain the skills, knowledge, and self-confidence necessary to become a successful homeowner. PROGRAM GOAL: Increase the supply of long term affordable housing in suburban Hennepin County for low and moderate income families by providing an opportunity for homeownership in Mound to three families with incomes of 50 percent of the area median income. TARGETED POPULATION The targeted populations are families with a maximum annual gross family income of 50% of the Twin Cities metropolitan median income. This $24,800 for a family of four. Preference will be given to applicants as follows: 1)Single parent head of household: 2)Both parents working: 3)Never owned a home; 4)Inadequate current shelter because of problems with the heating plant, water supply, electricity, bathroom(s), kitchen, structure; 5)Inadequate number of bedrooms as determined by number, age, and sex of persons in household; 6)Unsafe environment; 7)Live or work in the communities served by Community Builders; 8)School age children attend schools in communities served by Community Builders; 9)The family currently holds a Section 8 certificate. Priority will be based on the number of criteria a family meets. 4100 Vernon Avenue Soul~ · St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 · (612)920-5533/Fax: (612)929-7480 3'/80 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: Acquisition and Rehabilitation The Lease to Purchase Program is comprised of two basic components. One is the acquisition and rehabilitation of homes to be leased and subsequently purchased by the participating families. The general strategy would be to establish a Revolving Fund to minimize the annual search for acquisition/rehabilitation funds to continue the program. Funds would be grants/deferred loans tied to a period of required affordability. Community Builders would set up a fund to receive any proceeds available from the sale of the homes at the end of the lease period. They would then be used to purchase another home to be leased and then purchased. The housing targeted for this program would be single family and townhomes with two or more bedrooms. The housing would be rehabilitated to bring them in line with local code requirements. Effort would also be made to ensure that all major systems would be good for at least ten year. Purchases would be done in conformance with local zoning requirements. To keep the cost of the housing affordable for both the program and the new homeowner every effort will be made to keep both the cost of acquisition and rehabilitation to a minimum. The goal is to keep acquisition costs to under $80,000 and rehabilitation costs to less than $20,000 per house. The program will not compete with private parties interested in purchasing their own homes but will target abandoned and foreclosed properties or those which the owner is having difficulty selling. H0mebuyers Training The second component of the program is the service component. This is that part of the program which will identify those who participate in the program and will provide support to the lessee and future homebuyer as they proceed through the lease period and complete the purchase of the home. Participants for the Lease to Purchase Program would be recruited from a first time homebuyers training program. This training will cover property selection, financing and ownership responsibilities. Participation will be limited to first time homebuyers with incomes less than the area median income of $49,600. Eligible families who are interested in pursuing homeownership but not ready and meet the program criteria will be considered for a lease agreement. Others will be referred to other existing programs available in the area. These would include the MHFA First Time Homebuyers Program, special programs by area banks, etc. H0meownership Support Program This service will provide ongoing financial counseling and training, home maintenance training, and access to community resources. This will include the development of a corrective action plan which will describe what will need to be accomplished during the lease period to achieve homeownership. In addition, general problem solving skill training will be provided. Listening skills, boundary clarification, and values clarification exercises will be included as part of this training. Professionally facilitated support groups for participants will be provided that will: 1.)identify issues which affect the ability of people to continue to participate in the program and carry out their corrective action plans, 2.)allow for additional training, 3.)provide an environment to build self-esteem and support networks. As the development of the group progresses they will become more responsible for identifying and arranging their own training to meet the needs they have identified. Professional facilitation will be phased out as participants develop their own leadership. Professional group facilitation will be provided by paid staff. Much of the training will be provided under contract. Efforts will also be made to use volunteers to do some of the training. _Lease/Purchase Features The tenant will be required, during the 2 year lease payment period, to set aside a sum of money which will be used for downpayment, out-of-pocket closing costs, 1st year taxes and 1st year insurance payment. This will be identified in the corrective action plan. To enable the lessee to accumulate these funds in a two year, period Community Builders will provide assistance for the monthly lease payment. This monthly lease payment made by the lessee will be equal to the monthly PITI on a long term mortgage with a 5% downpayment. In addition Community Builders will provide a 2% downpayment gift. A separate downpayment account will be established for each tenant in a federally insured depository institution in which the tenant's monthly contribution toward the required down payment is deposited. Community Builders will comply with all state and federal statutes governing these accounts. A periodic statement will be provided to the tenant indicating the cumulative balance in the down payment account. USE OF FUNDS REQUESTED. The total amount of funds requested from the Community Rehabilitation Fund Program are $150,000. These funds combined with other resources will be used to establish a revolving fund to support the acquisition/rehabilitation of the houses to be acquired for the lease to purchase program. Community Builders would set up a fund to receive any proceeds available from the sale of homes at the end of the lease period would be placed in a Revolving Fund and use them to continue the program. Il i,I- DESIGNATED AREA The area in Mound designated for this program is Island Park, an area bounded by Cooks Bay, Lake Emerald, Seton Lake, Black Lake, Spring Park Bay, Phelps Bay and Sul Grove Road HOMEOWNERSHIP BUDGET FOR MOUND Acquisition and Rehabilitation Development Costs Acquisition (3 houses@ $80,000) Rehabilitation (3 houses@ $20,000) Soft Costs TOTAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUES HOME Funds/Hennepin County Farmers Home Loan Administration MHFA/Community Rehabilitation Fund Family Housing Fund TOTAL REVENUE INTERIM/PRE DEVELOPMENT/GMMHC 1994 $240,000 60,000 30,000 330,000 66,000 84,000 150,000 30,000 330,000 8,500 with West Hennepin Human Services BOARD MEMBERS FRANK ALTMAN, CHAIR MINNETONKA BRUCE E. LARSON, PRESEDENT ST.LOUIS PARK FLORENCE BOGLE MINNETONKA GUY DETLEFSEN MINNETONKA JULIE EI'Iq~EIM ST. LOUIS PARK BILL HITZ PLYMOUTH DICK LUNDY MINNETONKA ADRIAN JOHNSON MINNETONKA DR. JAMES MCDONOUGH ST. LOUIS PARK MARY PERKINS HOPKINS, MN. 55343 JULIE ECKSTROM MOUND PATFY STRONG' WAYZATA 4100 Vemon Avenue South · St. Louis Park, Minnesota 55416 · (612)920-5533/Fax: (612)929-7480 BILLS ............ November 23, 1993 BATCH 3104 $157,807.47 BATCH 3105 19,618.98 BATCH 3112 185,290.36 TOTAL BILLS $362,716.81 SHOULD BE SUBMITTED.IN THE FIRST WEEK OF OCTOBER, JEFF MARTINEAU & I MET WITH JOHN IN HIS OFFICE. ON OCTOBER 21st, WE SUBMITTED OUR SUBDIVISION & VARIANCE PROPOSAL. KNOWING WE LACKED THE PROPER INFORMATION ON THE UTILITIES AVAILABLE TO THE LOT, WE HOPED THAT THE CITY STAFF WOULD HAVE THIS INFORMATION FOR HTE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON NOV. 8th. PREFERRED WOULD HAVE BEEN TO GET THIS INFORMATION TO THE SURVEYOR SO HE COULD PUT IT ON THE SURVEY/SUBDIVISION IN TIME FOR THATMEETING. AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE CITY PLANNER INFORMED US THIS INFORMATION WS HOPEFULLY BEING TELEVISED, BUT HE HAD YET TO RECEIVEIT. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CONDITINS. BOTH PARCELS GREATLY EXCEED THEMINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS AND ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS WITH THE EXCEPTIONOF STREET FRONTAGE FOR PARCEL B ON BAY RIDGE. STAFF FURTHER RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE WITH CONDITIONS. AFTER LENGTHY DISCUSSION, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE VOTE CARRIED 4-3, WITH THE 3 DISSENTING BASED ON LACKOF COMPLETE INFORMATION AND NOT AGAINST THE SUBDIVISION. WE WERE INFORMED THAT OUR PROPOSAL WOULD BE SUBMITTED FOR THIS COUNCILMEETING AND HOPEFULLY MORE INFORMATION WOULD BE AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME. ON NOVEMBER 15th AT 9:00 a.m., I CALLED THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO FIND OUT WHAT THE TELEVISING HAD DETERMINED. JOHN SAID THAT HE WAS ON THE OTHER LINE WITH THE CITY ENGINEER AND THAT HE WOULD GET BACK TOME RIGHT AWAY. I THEN ASKED IF THE TELEVISING HAD BEEN DONE AND HE INFORMED ME ITHAD, BUT THAT THEY WOULD PREFER GIVING THE INFORMATION TO THE SURVEYOR. I ASKED IF I COULD CALL THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR, WHICH I DID AND GREG GAVE ME ALL THE INFORMATION VERY ADEQUATELY. AT 4:15 p.m. MR. SUTHERLAND LEFT A MESSAGE ON MY VOICE MAILTHAT I WOULD BE RECEIVING A LETTER FROM STAFF SUSPENDING THE APPLICATION UNTIL A MAJOR SUBDIVISION REQUEST WAS SUBMITTED. WE (THE APPLICANTS) WOULD HAVE TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH STORM SEWER WATER RUNOFF THERE WAS AND HOW WE WERE GOING TO DEAL WITH IT, SHOW THE UTILITIES ACCESS AND ALSO PROVIDE CUL-DE-SAC DEDICATION INFORMATION. THIS ALL NEEDED TO BE SUBMITTED BY NOV. 24th. WE GOT THE LETTER ON TUES EVENING (THE 16th), SO WE HAD 5 BUSINESS DAYS TO GET IT ALL TOGETHER SO WE COULD AGAIN GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON DEC. 13th AND TO THE COUNCIL ON JAN. 11th. THE BUYERS HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY CLOSED ON THEIR CURRENT HOME AND WISH TO BUILD AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, BEFORE THE FROST GOES TOO DEEP. OUR PROPOSAL: TITLE WORK SHOWS THAT THERE ARE NO DRAINAGE EASEMENTS FOR EITHER THE CITY OR THE COUNTY. THE OWNER/SELLER HAS PROPERTY RIGHTS AND WOULD BE WILLING TO GRANT ESEMENT IN LIEU OF THE CITY DOING THE ENGINEERING REQUIRED TO DETERMINE AND HANDLE THE STORM SEWER WATERRUNOFF AND EXTENDING THE SEWER LINE APPROPRIATELY. THEY BUYER MAY OR MAY NOT CONTINUE WITH THEIR PURCHASE, HOWEVER WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED WITH A BUILDING PERMIT FOR PARCEL B AND THE SELLER WOULD LIKE TO GET THE LOT SOLD. PLEASE TAKE THIS COMPROMISE TO HEART AS IT MAKES GOOD SENSE AND DOESN'T REQUIRE A LOT OF LEGAL HASSLE. THANK YOU. MR. MAYOR ,9, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU TONIGHT ABOUT A SI,~UATION THAT NEEDS RESO,.,LVlNG -~- TFgR-~_~921ct, A .,.,.~.., _.. .... --+.: ;'~'"'" \'AR!.~I',ICr~ PACKAC, E ~^~ · ,.--,.-~, ,n,- r~,-,,~U;,R,'"'ME~k.'~QUCST~,--,, __ '~F.'E;,; T'.ME h"-"F©R:%'iATi' '.-~L.~v. AJL&BLEL.T~ NEARLY 2 YEARS AGO, IN THE PROCESS OF LISTING THE PROPERTY, I STOPPED AT THE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING AND GOT COPIES OF THE LOCATIONS OF WHAT I WAS TOLD WERE THE SEWER & WATER AS BUILTS FOR THIS 1+ ACRE SITE. AT THAT TIME-- OR SHORTLY THEREAFTER-- I ASKED THE PUBLIC WORK DIRECTOR IF HE COULD SHED ANY LIGHT ON THE SEWER & WATER LOCATIONS IN BAYRIDGE ROAD. HIS RESPONSE WAS THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE ANY FOR THE WEST END OF BAYRIDGE AS THEY WERE DON~PRIVATELY AND NO RECORDS WERE PROVlDIED TO THE CITY HE DEVELOPERS. AS A REAL ESTATE AGENT THAT PRIDES HIMSELF IN PROVIDING ~ ACCURATE UP-T-DATE INFORMATION TO PROSPECTIVE BUYERS, I AGAIN ASKED IF THERE WAS ANY WAY TO TELL WHERE & WHAT SERVICES WERE AVAILABLE IN BAYRIDGE. THE RESPONSE FROM MR. SKINNER WAS NOT FORTHCOMING & I OFF- HANDEDLY MADE THE COMMENT "DO WE HAVE TO DIGUP THE STREET TO FIND OUT?" HE SAID ESSENTIALLY "YES", BUT THAT IF WE WANTED THAT INFORMAT©IN. WE WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL TO FIND MORE SPECIFICS. ' THE'SELLER/OWNER OF THE LOT WAS HOPING TO SUBDIVIDE THE LOT INTO 3-4 PARCELS IF POSSIBLE & I WAS WORKING FOR HIM TO DETERMINE TEH FEASIBILITY OF SUCH A SPLIT. THE BUILDING OFFICIAL & CITY ENGINEER TOURED THE SITE AND INFORMED ME THAT THE LACK OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE SEWER & WATER AS BUILTS--THIS BEING A PROPOSED 3-4 LOT SUBDIVISION--AND, ALONG WITH THE EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF WATER CASCADING THROUGH THE CENTER OF THE LOT WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE PROPOSAL BE FOR A MAJOR SUBDIVISION. AGAIN, I WAS TOLD THAT WHEN SUBMITTED,THE CITY COULD HELP DETERMINE THE PUBLIC SERVICES AVAILABLE TO THE LOT FROM BAYRIDGE. THE INFORMATION ABOUT EXTENSIVE WATER DRAINING THROUGH THE LOT WAS NEW INFORMATION TO ME. MR. SUTHERLAND AGREED TO MEET ME AT THE LOT AS I TOLD HIM I WAS UNABLE TO FIND THE CULVERT HE SAID WAS DRAINING SO MUCH WATER. WHEN HE & I TOURED THE LOT,IT WAS APPARENT THAT THE CULVERT HAD BEEN COVERED OVER BY ASPHALT WHEN THE COUNTY RESURFACED CTY RD 110 AND, THEREFORE, EXPLAINED MY INABILITY TO LOCATE THE CULVERT IN QUESTION. WE FOLLOWED THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEH CULVERT UNDER THE ROAD AND DETERMINED THAT IT CAME FROM A CATCH BASIN IN THE CITY CEMETERY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CTY RD 110 (BARTLETT BLVD). AT THAT TIME I REQUESTED DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO DRAIN THE CEMETERY. I WAS INFORMED BY MR. SUTHERLAND THAT THE CATCH BASIN & CULVERT WERE THE COUNTY'S AND THAT FATER A CONVERSATION HE HAD HAD WITH THE CITY MANAGER,IT WAS THE COUNTY'S PROBLEM. I HAVE CONTACTED MANY DIFFRENT OFFICIALS AT THE COUNTY AND COULD GET NO RESPONSE. ONE PERSON AT THE COUNTY SAID THAT THE CULVERT WAS PLACED TO DRAIN CITY PROPERTY AND THEREHFORE IT WAS A CITY PROBLEM. NOT HAVING DONE ANY TITLE WORK ON THE PROPERTY AT THAT TIME, I WAS UNABLE TO DETEMRINE IF THERE WERE ANY EASEMENT IN PLACE. NOW, NEARLY 2 YEARS AND 2 BUYERS LATER, A LOCAL MOUND RESIDENT PURCHASED THE LOT SUBJECT TO A 2 LOT SUBDIVISION BEING GRANTED AND WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT A DRAINAGE PLAN WOULD BE REQUIRED. WE REQUESTED A MEETING WITH MR. SUTHERLAND TO DETERMINE WHAT TYPE OF SUBDIVISION & ~¥ Z Z :2:: )- Z , ,Ii ,L · ° & °I° OO 0 0oo0oo0oo T~ ~00000000 III IIIII Z ~0 ZZ 0 o Z 0 ~0 0 CITY OF MOUND 1993 BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT OCT. 1993 83.33% OCT. 1993 YTD PERCENT BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED GENERAL FUND Council 57,500 5,250 48,230 9,270 83.88% Promotions 2,000 0 1,302 698 65.10% Cable TV 1,380 0 711 669 51.52% City Manager/Clerk 170,380 12,871 142,005 28,375 83.35% Elections 2,140 42 2,308 (168) 1 07.85% Assessing 46,550 4 46,953 (403) 1 00.87% Finance 145,900 11,070 118,600 27,300 81.29% Computer 24,000 1,079 20,153 3,847 83.97% Legal 79,000 4,497 69,395 9,605 87.84% Police 779,200 56,421 622,093 157,107 79.84% Civil Defense 4,000 265 2,880 1,120 72.00% Planning/Inspections 138,440 9,263 104,457 33,983 75.45% Streets 406,750 29,704 299,352 107,398 73.60% Shop & Stores 17,100 1,227 5,307 11,793 31.04% City Property 97,160 23,319 91,796 5,364 94.48% Parks 174,340 8,982 138,983 35,357 79.72% Summer Recreation 33,100 20,128 26,110 6,990 78.88% Contingencies 10,000 0 1,340 8,660 13.40% Transfers 136,840 10,243 .102,433 34,407 74.86% GENERAL FUND TOTAL .2,325,780 .194,365 1,844~408 ,481,372 79.30% Area Fire Service Fund 244,200 19,020 217,012 27,188 88.87% Recycling Fund 99,350 13,553 122,955 (23,605) 123.76% Liquor Fund 194,620 14,062 1 63,851 30,769 84.19% Water Fund 358,190 17,923 281,343 76,847 78.55% Sewer Fund 761,350 64,446 734,355 26,995 96.45% Cemetery Fund 4,790 385 3,661 1,129 76.43% Docks Fund 55,440 1,632 42,511 12,929 76.68% ex p - 93 11/10/93 G.B. CITY OF MOUND 1993 BUDGET REVENUE REPORT OCT. 1993 83.33% GENERALFUND Taxes Business Licenses Non -Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Charges to Other Departments OCT. 1993 YTD BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE 1,217,590 0 556,841 3,260 120 10,391 69,500 5,834 55,986 a60,500 (2,290) 489,484 48,750 733 8,957 65,000 4,459 43,430 58,500 140 20,749 12~390. 1,031 12,481 PERCENT VARIANCE RECEIVED (660,749) 45.73% 7,131 318.74% (13,514) 80.56% (371,016) 56.88% (39,793) 18.37% (21,570) 66.82% (37,751) 35.47% 91 100.73% TOTAL REVENUE 2,335,490 10,027. 1.198,319 ~ 51.31% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCKS FUND 244,200 32,059 271,665 27,465 111.25% 113,550 31,984 103,374 (10,176) 91.04% 1,200,000 109,591 1,087,005 (112,995) 90.58% 350,000 31,399 283,592 (66,408) 81.03% 650,000 56,005 551,483 (98,517) 84.84% 4,200 800 4,475 275 106.55% 73,280 150 71,029 (2,251) 96.93% 11/10/93 rev- 93 G.B. NOV ? LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Board of Directors Workshop Agenda 9:00 am, Saturday, November 20, 1993 Norwest Bank Bldg. Conference Rm. 135 900 E. Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata (Handicapped Access, Wayzata Blvd West Entry) 9:00 am 9:05 am Call to order, Chair Bill Johnstone Roll call Statement of meeting purpose and agenda review Funding Alternatives: Watercraft registration fee: 1) Revenue potential: * watercraft registered in metro region * watercraft " " state (see attached projection outline) 2) Discussion of how revenue would be allocated among organizations responsible for lake management in the region or state Involvement of cities, agencies, lake/sport organizations and legislators in supporting a watercraft registration fee for lake improvement and management programs. 9:30 am Fee Study Subcommittee evaluations to date; 9:45 am Standing Committee Priorities, Chair Johnstone: 9:46 am A. Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force, Chair Tom Penn 10:00 am B. Lake Use and Recreation, Chair Bert Foster 10:20 am Break 10:30 am C. Lake Access, Chair Jim Grathwol 10:45 am D. Water Structures, Chair Doug Babcock 11:05 am Environment objectives, Chair Bob Rascop: Review of Management Plan Environment objectives Consultant's work plan, initial Phase Two and through 1994 program year Recommendations in support of or changes to current direction, consultant's service Board of 11:30 am 12:00 pm & · J,, Directors Workshop, Agenda, 11/20/93, P. 2 Communication and public education strategies: A. Examine existing and proposed con~nunications: 1) City councils/public officials 2) Cooperating agencies: * MCWD * MN DNR * Hennepin County Board and administration * Hennepin County Sheriff and Water Patrol * Hennepin Parks Board * Henn Conservation District * Carver County; MN PCA * MN PCA 3) Lake and sports organizations: * LMLOA * MN Sportsfishing Congress * MN Lakes Assn. * MN United Snowmobilers Assn & local snowmobile/recreation vehicle clubs B. Board involvement, recommendations; C. Staff involvement/support, recommendations; Adjourn 0 NOV LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LAKE USE AND RECREATION COMMITTEE AGENDA Monday, November 22, 1993, 5:30 PM LMCD Office, Norwest Bank Building 900 E. Wayzata Blvd, Wayzata (Elevator access for Handicapped; use west entrance on Wayzata Blvd.) Discussion and prioritization of 1994 Committee Objectives Special Events - Deposit Refunds @ $100 each: 1) Consolidated Race Schedule, Lower Lake, May-Oct 1994 Save the Lake Recognition Banquet; selection of date, either Thursday, 2/10/93 or 2/17/94 Water Patrol Report A. Monthly Activity Report (handout) 5. Additional business 11/15/93 NOV 1 8 1993. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Lake Access Committee AGENDA 7:00 PM, Monday, November 22, 1993 LMCD conference Room 160, Norwest Bank Bldg. 900 E. Wayzata Blvd., Wayzata (Handicapped access, west entrance, Wayzata Blvd.} Report of the 1992 Lake Access Task Force study, semi- final draft presentations on: A. Executive Summary b. Task Force Priority Assignments c. Detailed Report Appendix 1) Public Access Inventory 2) parking Standards Criteria and Supplemental Recommendations 3) parking Standards 4) Lake Access Parking Agreement 5) Access Site Evaluation Criteria 6) Map of Existing Public Access Sites, Commercial Marinas 7) Lake Zone Map 8) DNR Landowner's Bill of Rights 9) Task Force Designated Members Roster Discuss the process for presenting the draft reports to the Board and subsequently to the Task Force. 3. Adjournment The Toro Company 8111 Lyn0ale Avenue South, Bloomington. M~nnesota 55420-1196 612888-8801 · Telex 290928 · FAX NBR 887-8258 November 12, 1993 Mayor Ferner "Skip" Johnson 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RfO' NOV 1 ? 1993 Dear Mayor Johnson, I wanted to take this opportunity to update you on the progress the Toro Company has made over the last couple of years. As the attached Toro Times (a customer publication) and 1993 Annual Report would indicate the company has made a significant financial turnaround and we are anticipating continued prosperity in the coming years. There is no doubt that our manufacturing plants have played and will continue to play a significant role in the growth and prosperity of the company. We do sincerely appreciate the support we have received from you and your administration as well as the entire community of Mound. As you review the attached material and you have questions, please feel free to contact me at (612) 887-8322. Director of Operations Consumer Division The Toro Company cc: Clark Lillehei DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: NOV 1 2 1993 November 4, 1993 Commissioners Judy Chumley, Deputy Clerk of the Board MEMBER AT LARGE APPOINTMENTS - 1994 ANNUAL LIST the As required under .the open appointments policy, attached is Annual List of all Member-At-Large Appointments that are due to expire in 1994. Attach: cc: Mike Cunniff Chuck Spra fka Bill Brumfield/Patty Susick Carol Ogren Blake Grahm, Mpls. Planning Comm. Bob Rohlf Sue Zuidema/Monica Sausen Bruce Malkerson, Arty Lower MN W/S Dist Bd. Louis Smith, Atty M'haha W/S Dist. Bd. Ray Haik, Riley-Purgatory-Bluff W/S Atty ,, ,, Nine Mile Creek W/S Dist. Bd. Arty Dorene Roeglin, Commitment Defense Project Sharon Johnson, CASH Barbara Thell, Co. Extension Phil Eckhert/Dulcie Hagedorn Mel Sinn - Soil & Water Various Municipalities (Watershed Districts) (Judy Nally, City Golden Valley) (City of Eden Prairie Mgr.) James Bourey Bob Hanson Kay Mitchell Laurie Kleven continued - _1 LI !I MEMBER AT LARGE APPOINTMENTS - 1994 ANNUAL LIST - continued Pa ge 2 Mental He~%~th Association of MN 328 East Henn. Ave. Mpls., MN 55414 Citizens League 708 South 3rd Street, Suite 500 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Ms. Barb Dols H.C. League of Women Voters 2713 West 54th Street Minneapolis, MN 55488 Ir-1 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION NOVEMBER 4, 1993 Present were: Commissioners Lyndelle Skoglund, Tom Casey, Shirley Andersen, Marilyn Byrnes, Carolyn Schmidt, Peter Meyer, and David Steinbring, Council Representative Andrea Ahrens, Parks Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary Peggy James. New Commission members, Peter Meyer and David steinbring were welcomed to the Commission. Janis Geffre, also a new Commissioner, was unable to attend, and was noted as absent and excused. The following people were also present: Bob Johns and Gordy Tulberg. MINUTES MOTION made by seconded by to approve the Park and Open space commission Minutes of October 14, 1993 as written. Motion carried unanimously. ~GENDA CHANGES The following discussion items were added to the agenda: Showmobile, NCA's, Celebrate Summer - Music in the Parks, and Community Service Summer Program Budget. PUBLIC HE~RING: 1994 DOCK LOCATION MAP Dock Inspector, Tom McCaffrey, reviewed a letter received from Mark Reckinger of 4841 Island View Drive who was unable to attend the meeting. He had requested that a dock site be removed from in front of his house to allow for less concentration of boats. He also wants to be able to construct a "T" shaped dock, but with the spacing of the docks he is unable to do this. The Dock Inspector suggested that Mr. Reckinger construct an "L" shaped dock and he was open to this suggestion. McCaffrey stated that due to the high demand for dock spaces in this area, he does not recommend removal of a dock site. The number of docks in this area was discussed, and it was noted that there are only two docks on the commons abutting Mr. Reckinger's property. This portion of Commons is a non-dedicated area. Park and Open Space Commission M£nutee November 4, 1993 Ahrens commented that it is her preference that we have multiple docks. Chair Skoglund opened the public hearing on the subject of the Dock Location Map. Concern was expressed about allowing Mr. Reckinger to install an "U' dock and how it would affect the other dock sites. It was noted that if Mr. Reckinger installed an "U' dock, not every dock site could not an "L" dock if they had more than two boats. MOTION made by Skoglund, seconded by Schaidt, to recOmmend that Mr. Reokinger install an "L" shaped dock and that the dock site locations remain the same. Motion carried unanimously. Byrnes stated that she voted in favor as long as Mr. Reckinger is in favor of this solution and that the other dock site holders are notified to keep their dock site areas clean. Chair Skoglund closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Skoglund to recommend approval of the 1994 Dock Location Map with the changes as recommended by staff, as follows~ Change description of "Shoreline Classifications to read "Shoreline T~pes," and change "Class" to Type." 2. Change "Waterside Lane" to "Waterside Common." Motion carried unanimously. The Dock Location map will be presented to the City Council for approval of November 23, 1993. REVIEW PLAYGROUND IMPROVEMENTS FOR MOUND BAY PARK Parks Director, Jim Fackler, reviewed the literature in the packets relating to "Showmobiles" and reviewed the prices which range from $43,000 to $75,000. Marilyn Byrnes reviewed information she obtained regarding Showmobiles. She called Brooklyn Center who owns a Showmobile which they paid $65,000 and they rent it out for $700 to $800 per time. They use it every Tuesday in their parks. She talked to Robbinsdale and they have just ordered a new one, the Oncor, which cost about $65,000. Robbinsdale will not be renting out their 2 Park and Open Space Con~nise~on M£nutes November 4, 1993 trailer due to risk of damage. Robbinsdale sold their old trailer to an out of state community. ! ' Uses for a Showmobile were discussed, such as, 'Music in the Parks - Celebrate Summer," the tree lighting ceremony, homecoming, City Days, etc. Thoughts of sharing the purchase of a Showmobile with other local cities or with the school was discussed. Places to store the trailer was also questioned. Byrnes stated that she could approach Community Education to see if this would be one of their purchase goals and see if they are interested. She also wants to go visit the other cities and see their trailers. It was questioned if the intent for 1994 is to purchase a new playground structure for Mound Bay Park. It was noted that the design proposed by the Parks Director, which included swings was too large, however if the swings were eliminated it would be okay. Fackler briefly reviewed the American Disability Act (ADA) requirements. The Commission discussed if they should wait on the purchase of a playground structure until the ADA requirements are more developed so that the new equipment would not be outdated shortly after it is installed. Other park improvements suggested, are as follows: 1. Tennis Courts at Philbrook Park 2. Sand volleyball courts at Philbrook Park and Swenson Park. 3. Ice Skating Rink on Lake Minnetonka in front of Mound Bay Park. MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Anderson to recommend to the Council that a tennis court be constructed at Philbrook Park. Casey commented that he would like to see evidence that the neighbors in the Philbrook Park area want a tennis court. The pros and cons of a tennis court were discussed. MOTION failed with 3 in favor, 4 opposed and one abstention. Those in favor were: Andersen, Byrnes, and Meyer. Those opposed were: Steinbring, Ahrens, Casey, and schmidt. Skoglund abstained. The Commission discussed setting funds aside for programs such as the adopt-a-green space and nature conservation areas. Fackler informed the Commission that the money for the playground structure Park and Open Space Commiss£on N£nutee November 4, 1993 is proposed to be a Capital Improvement and funds cannot just be divided between different programs, you have to have a plan. It was noted that funds should not be requested for the Nature Conservation Areas program when sites have not yet been chosen. After much discussion, the following motion was made. MOTION made by Sohmidt, seconded by Casey to recommend to the City Council that funds be budgeted for 1994 for the following: Two sand volleyball courts, one at Swenson Park, and one at Philbrook Park. The intent is to possibly have a volleyball league that can play at the different parks. Budget $1,500 for the Celebrate S-mmer Program to fund miscellaneous entertainment programs in the parks. Budget $3,S00 for the Nature Conservation Program to pay for signage of designated areas, tree removal, trash removal, trail development, bird nest boxes, removal of noxious weeds, etc. Budget $1,000 for the Adopt-a-Green Space Program to help pay for flowers for those who cannot afford them. MOTION carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: 8chmidt, Casey, Steinbring, Andersen, Skoglund, Byrnes, and Meyer. Ahrens abstained. Nature Conservation Areas Many of the Commissioners expressed their disappointment with the City Council for delaying their decision on the designation of Nature Conservation Areas. Casey admitted that he stressed to the Council that Spring was a good time to view the parcels, however, he too was disappointed with the delay. Ahrens commented that she feels the Park Commission needs to determine specific plans for each area. Casey stated that it would be nice to be able to designate the areas on Earth day in mid-April. 4 Park and Open Space commission Minutes November 4, 1993 MOTION made by Casey to have this issue placed on the December Park and Open Bpace commission agenda. Steinbring seconded the motion. Motion carried 4-3-1. Those in favor were= Casey, Bteinbring, &hrens, and Meyer. Those opposed were= Skoglund, Byrnes, and ~ndersen, Schmidt abstained. Celebrate summe~ The Celebrate Summer program, also known as music in the park, is organized by Westonka Community Education and Services. The Celebrate Summer task force was developed last year and included two City of Mound Park and Open Space Commission liaisons, Byrnes and Schmidt. $chmidt informed the Commission that they formally needed to be recommended by the City Council to serve on the Commission. MOTION made by Skoglund, seconded by &hrens to recommend to the City Council that Marilyn Byrnes and Carolyn schmidt be designated as the City of Mound liaisons to the Celebrate Summer task force. Motion carried unanimously. Community Services Summer Proqram Budget It was noted that Jim Glasoe has yet to give his budget report for the 1993 Parks and Beach Program. The Parks Director will contact Mr. Glasoe and ensure these figures are available for review at the next Park and Open Space Commission Meeting. Reschedule Park and 0 en S ace Commission Meetin MOTION made by Casey, seconded by Byrnes to change the December Park and Open Space Commission meeting to Thursday, December 2, 1993 due to a conflict with the City Council's budget hearing scheduled for December 9, 1993. Motion carried 7 to 1. ~hrens abstained. City Council Representative's Report Ahrens highlighted City Council actions in October relating to park issues. MOTION made by Skoglund, seconded by Byrnes to adjourn the Park and Open Space Commission Meeting at 9:53 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. qOIq MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1993 Those present were: Chair Bill Meyer, Commissioners Geoff Michael, Michael Mueller, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, Mark Hanus, and Brian Johnson, City CounCil Representative Liz Jensen, City Planner Mark Koegler, and Secretary Peggy James. Commissioner Frank Weiland was absent and excused. The following people were also in attendance: Mr. and Mrs. Henry Sandoval, Burt Carlson, Wes Oak, Steve Sunnarborg, Mark D. Stone, Diane Maloney, Jeff Martineau, Mike Koch, Alan Held, and two other people who's names were illegible on the sign-in sheet. MINUTES The Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 1993 were presented for approval. One correction was noted on page 5, within the City Council Representative's Report, second to the last line, "Christmas Park" should read "Christmas Party". MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Mueller to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of October 25, 1993 as amended. Motion carried unanimously. CASE #93-053: b'TEVE SUNNARBORG, 4924 EDGEWATER DRIVE, LOT 15~ SKARP & LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD, PID #13-117-24 41 0013. VARIANCE FOR ADDITION, City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Building Official's report. The applicant is seeking the following variances to construct a second story and lakeside addition onto the existing dwelling. Existing/ Required Proposed Varianc~ FRONT (South) 20' 10.6' 9.6' SIDE (West) 6' 1.5' 4.7' Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993 Upon exterior observation, it appears the existing foundation, with some repairs, is suitable to accommodate the proposed second floor, and from a building standpoint, the plan represents a substantial improvement. The lakeside addition would clean-up a dilapidated and poorly constructed deck and storage area, and the second story addition would add valuable and much needed living space to the approximately 680 square foot living area on the first floor. From a Zoning Code perspective, however, expansion of the existing noncon- formities is questionable and intensifies the impact on the neighboring properties. Not shown on the survey, but detailed on the building plans, is the setback to the new roof over the existing bay on the west side and the structure to house the fireplace. The Building Code does not permit openings in exterior walls of dwellings less than 3 feet to the property line unless they are one hour fire rated assemblies, therefore, the windows, as proposed, would not be permitted. It appears that the encroachment onto the west side is too great to recommend approval of variances in this case. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend denial of the variance request as the expansion and additional improvements worsen the already substantial nonconforming conditions. Any future expansion of this property should be in a conforming location. The Commission discussed the bay window and roof overhang setbacks. Water run-off onto the neighbors property was discussed as a concern. The applicant noted that the house was constructed in approximately 1900 to 1910 and there is a large oak tree just north of the existing deck. The applicant confirmed that a detached garage is planned in the future. The Commission discussed the possibility of adding a garage on the east side of the house and include a second story to allow for more living space, this would also keep the expanded height of the house away from the nonconforming west side setback. 2 qo l Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993 The applicant handed out to the Commission a letter from the neighbors on the west side which states they are in favor of the addition. The applicant's contractor noted that they would be willing to relocate the fireplace and work on the bay window issue. He also commented that it would be too expensive to construct a garage addition as suggested. Michael commented that the request is not a minimum variance. MOTION made by Michael, seconded by Voss to recommend denial of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried 7 to 1. Those in favor were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Johnson, Jensen, Voss, Hanus, and Michael. Mueller was opposed. Mueller commented that the setback is an existing situation and he would have liked to address other issues such as drainage. This request will be heard by the City Council on November 23, 1993. CASE g93-055: JEFF MARTINEAU & MICHAEL MUELLER FOR DONALD OLSON, 6385 BARTLETT BLVD,, PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT 5, SECTION 23, 23-117-24 32 0037, MINOR SUBDIVISION, Commissioner Mueller removed himself from the Planning Commission for this case. City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Building Official's report. The applicants are seeking approval of a minor subdivision. Both proposed parcels are conforming to the Zoning Ordinance for lot area, hardcover provisions, and setbacks. Parcel A exceeds the minimum lot area requirement with 26,900 +/- square feet. Parcel B, with 26,721 +/- square feet, requires a variance to street frontage of 28 feet to the required 60 feet in the R-1 zone. The cul-de-sac as shown on the survey is not intended to be installed. After discussion and review by staff, it is felt that one additional home does not necessitate the cul-de-sac, however, if parcel 23 to the south would be developed in the future, the cul-de-sac should be installed with the adjoining properties being assessed at that time. Planning Commission Minutes November g, 1993 Koegler noted that there are some unresolved issues, and as a result the Planning Commission has the option of tabling the request or approving it with conditions. Information was anticipated to be provided by this meeting, but has not been received. The City had to televise the sanitary sewer lines as they were unable to be located, and the City Engineer has expressed that it is a mess. Information is needed on the stormwater that passes through this property from across County Road 110 (Bartlett Blvd.). A design with supporting data, along with the storm sewer size needs to be provided. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the proposed subdivision and street frontage variance with the following conditions: 1. All drainage, utility, and other issues be resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer as noted in his report. 2. Proof of proper recording and dedication of the cul-de-sac be provided. 3. Parcel B shall be subject to assessment at any time in the future that the City deems it necessary to install the cul-de-sac. 4. Park dedication fees shall be set by Resolution of the City Council as noted in City Code Section 330:120, Subd. 3., and in no case shall be less than $500 per lot. 5. An escrow account in the amount of $1,000 shall be provided as required by City Code Section 520:00, 10. to offset any direct City expenses. Said escrow shall be received prior to final action by the City Council. All costs associated with this subdivision are payable by the applicant in any case, whether the application receives final approval or not. 6. Those conditions outlined in the letter from Hennepin County, Department of Public Works, dated October 28, 1993. Clapsaddle questioned, if the cul-de-sac were improved, would the driveway for Parcel B work? The Commission determined that the cul-de-sac should not be needed for just one more house and it is not an issue at this time. 4 Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993 The owners of the house to the east of the proposed Parcel B, Mr. and Mrs. Henry Sandoval, expressed a concern about drainage and grading. Jeff Martineau related that Mr. and Mr. Stone have a signed purchase agreement for the proposed Parcel B and would like to construct the house as soon as possible. Michael commented that the Planning Commission is not engineers, but the information should be available for review in order to make a recommendation. Mueller stated he has requested information from the city regarding these issues more than once, and basically City staff said to formally apply for a subdivision and then they will figure it out. Martineau questioned how he is suppose to figure out where the City sewer and water are? The City of Mound should tell them where it is. The culvert on 110 puts an enormous amount of drainage on the property, there are no utility or drainage easements on this property. They have submitted a plan and have tried to make sense as best they can without spending a large amount of money to solve issues that have been historically created by other parcels of land in the community. They will do whatever is required to make this property look nice. Clapsaddle commented that the law says you do not drain your property on someonelse's property, however, he would at least expect a concept plan of how the drainage is going to work on this property. The Commission discussed if the subdivision can be forwarded to the Council without first receiving all the required information. The comment was made that the Planning Commission does not claim to be engineers or attorneys and maybe the subdivision should be moved forward with the assurance that certain information will need to be submitted and certain items resolved before the subdivision can be recorded at the County. 5 Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993 Mueller commented that the subdivision needs to be moved forward in order to get answers. When he contacted the County they stated its a city cemetery. When he contact the City Manager he stated it was a County culvert. Somebody needs to take responsibility for the drainage situation created on this lot. The City and County are not going to take responsibility for the drainage on this property without somebody bringing this proposal forward. They are willing to help alleviate some of these problems, however, moving forward may be the only way to get answers to his questions. Hanus summarized that in order to subdivide property you need two buildable parcels, and there are still some issues that need to be resolved and the City needs to take some responsibility and get some answers for the applicants, and he would be in favor of tabling the request to allow the City time to address these issues. Voss commented that he is opposed to tabling and stated that staff recommended approval based upon issues being resolved by the City Engineer and staff. MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Meyer to recommend approval of the subdivision as recommended by staff. Motion carried 4 to 3. Those in favor were: Meyer, Mueller, Johnson, Weiland, Jensen, and Voss. Those opposed were Clapsaddle, Hanus, and Michael. The reason those persons opposed was due to the lack of solutions for the drainage and sewer and water problems, they did not have a problem with the basic concept of the lot split. This request is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on November 23, 1993. CASE #93-0561 WESLEY & DAWN OAK, 2175 NOBLE LANE, IN LOTS 10, 11, 16, 17. & 18, BLOCK 3. ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDrI'iON TQ LAKESIDE PARK, PID//13-117-24 31 0017. VARIANCE FOR ADDITiON~ City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Building Official's report. The applicant is requesting variance to allow construction of a second story addition. The addition follows the same line of the existing dwelling that is set 5.7 feet from the side yard that requires a 6 foot setback resulting in a variance request of .3 6 Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993 feet. All other aspects of this property are conforming. The condition of the existing structure is good, and this coupled with cost prohibits the possibility of it being moved to a conforming location. The upward expansion follows the same line and represents a negligible impact on the setback while substantially improving the use and function of the property. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request as it is impractical to move the existing dwelling and the .3' variance request represents a minor impact on the side yard setback. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Mueller to recommend approval of the variance as recommended by staff. Motion carried unanimously. This request will be heard by the City Council on November 23, 1993. CASE/~93-057: RALPH C. TURNOUIST, 4451 WILSHIRE BLVD., LOTS 3 TO 18 INCL, VACATED ROAD, BLOCK 8, AVALON, PID//19-117-23 31 0021, CONDITIONAl. USE PERMIT FOR COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT - PUBLIC HEARING, City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the Building Officials report. The applicant is seeking an after-the-fact Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to operate a "Commercial Parking Lot (not affiliated with the principal use)". It is stated in the application that this is proposed to be an interim short-term solution to a long- standing parking problem at Lakewinds. The parking lot location is at the rear of the old Donnies restaurant. The parking stall lease agreement between "Lakewind Sport and Yacht Assn." and "Turnquist Properties" states, in part, the lease shall run month to month with a 30 day notice to terminate. Not less than 15 parking stalls per month shall be leased. Motor vehicles, boats and boat trailers, are referenced as "vehicles" that will be parked on the lot. It appears the entire parking lot is intended to be used for available parking. On October 1, 1993 fifteen spaces were leased. Vehicle maintenance and tailgating are prohibited and the lease further states if the police 7 November g, 1993 Planning Commission Minutes receive reports of disturbances or any behavior constituting a public nuisance the lessor may terminate immediately without prior notice. The lessor and owner has submitted an appendix to the CUP application that details Lakewind's need for parking. Lakewinds representative, Garsten Management, is willing to respond to any fence or buffer the City may require as a condition. At the time this report was written, an adequate site plan had not been provided, but should be provided in time for the Planning Commission meeting. The main issue of concern in this case is the request to allow what is potentially an open boat storage area adjacent to a residential zone. There appears to be a legitimate need for additional car parking for Lakewinds. This approach is convenient and assists in their immediate need while they seek a long term solution to their parking problems. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit to operate a "Commercial Parking Lot (not affiliated with the principal use)" under the following conditions: 1. Parking be limited to automobiles, passenger vehicles and trucks not more than a one ton capacity. Specifically, no boat, boat trailer, or motor cycle parking is allowed. 2. All vehicles must be currently licensed and in operable condition. 3. All other non-related activities shall be prohibited. Specifically, the premises shall not be used for the repair or maintenance of such vehicles. No activity commonly referred to tailgating shall be permitted, nor shall there be any unnecessary noise after the hour of 9:00 p.m. 4. If the police receive reports of disturbances, noisy or unruly behavior or any behavior constituting a public nuisance, the City may terminate this Conditional Use Permit upon written notice. 8 Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993 0 City staff may at any time during the term of the Conditional Use Permit determine that a landscape plan must be submitted and installed to create a buffer between this and the adjacent residential zones. It was questioned why staff specifically eliminated the parking of motorcycles and it was noted that is what the lease states. It was debated whether boats and trailers should be allowed to be parked on the property. It was noted that Mound is a lake community and Lakewinds has dockage. The fact that this lot is to be used for overflow parking for vehicles was discussed, this is not to be a storage lot for boats, but used for needed overflow parking of vehicles. Mike Koch with Garsten Management stated that it is okay if boats and trailers are not allowed. Item number 4. in staff's report was discussed and it was noted that this could be reworded. The need for a buffer between the adjacent residential property was discussed. A letter received from Richard and Lynn Young was reviewed and discussed. The appearance of the site was discussed. It was noted that too much screening/ fencing may look worse, and it makes it difficult for the police to monitor the area, it could also become an attractive place for the youth to hang out. The Commission referred to Zoning Ordinance Section 350:720 relating to screening and buffering and questioned if screening is required between this property and the adjacent residential property. Chair Meyer opened the public hearing. Mike Koch from Garsten Management expressed the need for the extra parking spaces, he stated that they have 191 condominium units with only 266 parking spaces. He has received complaints from the fire department as they are concerned about the parking arrangements at Lakewinds. They have spent a lot of time and effort investigating parking alternatives, including, parking space elevators, parking ramps, and purchasing adjacent property. This proposal is a temporary solution and they would appreciate the support of the Planning 9 Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993 Commission and Council. Mr. Allen Held, son-in-law of Ralph Turnquist, stated that they are in support of the application. Chair Meyer closed the public hearing. It was suggested that the vehicles being parked in the lot be only actively used vehicles. Voss suggested a 72 hour limit for parked cars. It was noted that this would be difficult to enforce. Mueller noted that he is in favor of allowing seasonal boat and trailer parking due to the fact that this is a boating community and Lakewinds has docks. It was questioned if snowmobiles and trailers should also be allowed? How far do you go? MOTION made by Mueiler, seconded by Clapsaddle to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit to operate a "Commercial Parking Lot (not affiliated with the principal use)" under the following conditions: Parking be limited to vehicles not more than a one ton capacity and that boat, boat trailers, and motorcycle parking shall be allowed seasonally from April 1 through October 31. 0 All vehicles must be currently licensed and in operable condition. ® All other non-related activities shall be prohibited. Specifically, the premises shall not be used for the repair or maintenance of such vehicles. No activity commonly referred to tailgating shall be permitted, nor shall there be any unnecessary noise after the hour of 9:00 p.m. 10 Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993 If it is determined that a public nuisance exists, the City may terminate this Conditional Use Permit upon written notice. City staff may at any time during the term of the Conditional Use Permit determine that a landscape plan must be submitted and installed to create a buffer between this and the adjacent residential zones. There was further discussion relating to boat and boat trailer parking screening. Jensen moved to amend the motion to add an item//6 to the motion to require buffering per City Code Section 350:720. Due to lack of a second, the motion to amend the motion failed. MOTION failed 1 to 7. Mueller was in favor. Those opposed were: Meyer, Clapsaddle, Johnson, Jensen, Voss, Hanus, and Michael. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Jensen, to recommend approval as recommended by staff with the conditions amended to read as follows: Parking be limited to automobiles, passenger vehicles and trucks not more than a one ton capacity. Specifically, no boat, boat trailer, or motorcycle parking is allowed. All vehicles must be currently licensed and in operable condition. and 11 Planning Commission Minutes November g, 1993 e Ali other non-related activities shall be prohibited. Specifically, the premises shall not be used for the repair or maintenance of such vehicles. No activity commonly referred to tailgating shall be permitted, nor shall there be any unnecessary noise after the hour of 9:00 p.m. e If it is determined that a public nuisance exists, the City may terminate this Conditional Use Permit upon written notice. J City Council may at any time during the term of the Conditional Use Permit determine that a landscape plan must be submitted and installed to create a buffer between this and the adjacent residential zones. ® Annual review of the Conditional Use Permit be required by the City Council at a Public Hearing. MOTION carried 6 to 2. Those in Clapsaddle, Jensen, Voss, Hanus, and Johnson were opposed. favor were: Meyer, Michael. Mueller and Mueller is in favor of allowing boats. Johnson commented that he would have liked to have seen condition//5 amended to require a landscape plan be submitted and that buffering be required. This request will be heard by the City Council on December 14, 1993. CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT Jensen reviewed the City Council meeting of October 26, 1993 and the Committee of the Whole meeting of October 19, 1993. 12 Planning Commission Minutes November 8, 1993 MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Michael, to adjourn the meeting at 10:46 p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Bill Meyer Attest: 13 LEN HARRELL Chiel of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 Novernl~,er 1~, 1993 Investigator Todd Truax Mound Police Department Mound, MN 55364 Re: Letter o¢ Commendation Dear I would like to take this opportunity to commend you for the excellent work you have done over the last several weeks on two especially tough cases involving criminal sexual conduct issues. One case involved the rape of a young woman by two men in a home in Nound and the other involves the inappropriate touching of several young girls by a local man. Your diligence produced Felony complaints against the three perpetrators. I want you to know that your work is appreciated and that you are a valuable asset to the Mound Police Depart'merit and the community. Thank you For your efforts! Chief of Police DAVE DURENBERGER MINNESOTA WASHINGTON. D.C. November 3, 1993 The Honorable Skip Johnson City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Mayor: Thank you for your letter rega;ding proposed amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act and the associated problem of unfunded mandates. I appreciate your having taken the time to share your views with me on this important matter. The House Energy and Public Works committees both approved legislation this year designed to help states finance construction of drinking water treatment plants that are needed to comply with federal mandates. H.R. 1701 which would amend the Safe Drinking Water Act, would authorize $3.6 billion over four years to establish a new revolving loan program under the Environmental Protection Agency. The second bill, H.R. 1865 would authorize $2.6 billion over three years for drinking water treatment assistance. However, this legislation differs in that it would use the revolving loan fund structure already in place under the Clean Water Act to distribute money to the states. I understand the financial and regulatory concerns of smaller communities with respect to the Safe Drinking Water Act. I have a long history of opposing federal mandates, and I have promoted legislation to fund mandates, such as the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments. State and local governments are suffering financial hardships across the nation, and I find it unconscionable that the federal government continues to impose unfunded mandates without regard for community needs and budgetary constraints. For your review, I have enclosed a copy of the statement which I gave on the Senate floor on October 27, 1993 in honor of National Unfunded Mandates Day. As a member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, I will have the opportunity to closely examine any Safe Drinking Water legislation that should come before the Senate. You may rest assured that I will work to ensure that the final bill accommodates the need for funded mandates, as well as the need for a safe drinking water supply. November 3, 1993 Page 2 Again, thank you for your letter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further assistance to you. It is a privilege to serve you in the United States Senate. United States Senator DD/cbt Enclosure PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 103 rdCONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 139 Washington, Wednesday, October 27,1993 No. 147 Senate National Unfunded Mandates Day Senator Dave Durenberger Mr. President, today I proudly join with the United States Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, the 'ntemational City/County Management Association and many of my colleagues in declaring this day "National Unfunded Mandates Day." I believe that it is vitally important to call attention to this mounting problem, and to commit to end the rising trend of the federal government to force mandates on state and local governments without providing funding topay for these new burdens. State and local govenunents are currently suffering financial hardship, as it is. A new study released from the Joint Economic Commission shows that this year's tax bill will heap $33.8 billion in additional state budget shortfalls over five years. I constantly hear from state and local officials across the state of Minnesota who find their budgets teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. They are forced to devote scarce resources to pay for federal mandates that are imposed without regard for state needs or budgets. It is easy for Congress to create new progran~ when it can pass the buck and the bill to the states. Kenneth Tischart, Mayor of the City of Red Lake Falls Minnesota, has explained the impact on his city. He says, "By ignoring other pressing local nekds or priorities, federal mandates takedecision making powers out of the hands of local officials. Too often, federal rules and regulations are inflexible, impose unrealistic time frames, and specify pn:xTedures or facilities where less cosily alternatives might be just as effective. It is time for a change." Once upon a time, federal mandates were imposed on state and local governments and were accompanied with funding through block grants and revenue sharing programs. Funding for these programs ended in the 1980s, while federal mandates continued to proliferate. In fact, according to the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Affairs, (ACIR), there were 100 new mandates forced on the states during the 1980s. Because ofthislack of responsibility and accountability on the part of Congress, I have co- sponsored S. 993,The Community Regulatory Relief Act of 1993, which would require that any federal law that creates a federal mandate shall only apply to a state or local government if the federal government assumes all of the direct compliance costs. I have a long history of opposing federal mandates. I have sponsored and promoted legislation to fund mandates, in spite of opposition from colleagues who do not to take this issue seriously. As a member of the Board of Advisors at ACIR, I have been a strong opponent of unfunded mandates and have worked to bring this issue to the attention of my colleagues. Earlier, during my service on the Government Affairs Committee, I promoted the interests of state and local govemmentsin thdrquest to keep the federal government off their backs. Efforts to ease the federal deficit are no justification for passing offthe costs of programs to state and local governments who have similar or worse budget problems than we do. ff a federal program is important enough for the Congress to impose on states, the Congress must find a way to pay for it. The most onerous of all of the unfunded federal mandates is Medicaid. The law requires state governments to fund $51 billion, or 43 percent, of the Medicaid program. Medicaid spending is rising at an average annual rate of 12%, and is expected to consume 25% of state budgets by 1994. Minnesotahas one of the largest shares of nonfederal funds being spent on Medicaid. State Medicaid spending represents 13.9% of Minnesota's budget in FY'93. Shortly I will introduce legislation which would remove this mandate from states by relieving them of the f'mancial burden of Medicaid acute care. The bill simultaneously grants more control to states for public health needs and long term care. This bill, the "Responsible Federalism Act of 1993," attacks a big portion of the federal mandate problem. It is my hope that National Unfunded Mandate Da will force us to focus on the need to stop imposir,:: unfunded federal mandates on state and loc: governments. Mandates constrain the ability of ol state and local authorities to provide basic services: their communities. Furthermore, state and loc;, governmentscanbestprioritizelocalrevenuesaccordif. to their unique needs. It is time for Congress to let the~ make these decisions without imposing unfund~ mandates. Mmnegasco A Division of Arkla, Inc. November 5, 1993 NOV 1 01,993 Edward Shulke Jr. Mound City Manager 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 Dear Mr. Shulke: At Minnegasco, we know its important for you to be aware of changes that affect the residents and businesses in your community. For that reason, I wanted to let you know that on November 5, 1993, Minnegasco filed a request for new rates with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC). A press release outlining the details of the rate filing is enclosed FYI. This is the same release that was given to the news media today. After you have had a chance to take a look at it, if you find you have questions, or would like additional information about this or any other energy related matter, please don't hesitate to call me. I'll look forward to helping out any way that I can. Sincerely, Arne Hendrickson Program Manager, Local Government Relations (612) 342-5375 or 1-800-234-5800 (ex 5375) 201 South Seventh Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Mmnegas£o' A Division of Arkla, Inc. For More Information, Contact: Patty Pederson, Manager Public & Community Relations 612/342-4609, Pager, 612/538-1234 Don Follett, Manager Public Affairs Communications 612/3424783, Pager, 612/538-1234 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE November 5, 1993 MINNEGASCO REQUESTS 3.6% RATE INCREASE MINNEAPOLIS -- Mirmegasco today filed a rate increase request with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (MPUC) that would raise overall revenueS by $22.7 million or 3.6 percent; adding about $3 to most residential heating customers' monthly bills. A final decision is expected in September, 1994. Minnegasco asked the MPUC to permit it to place interim (temporary) rates into effect on January 4, 1994, until the final decision in September, that would raise overall revenues by $16.9 million or 2.7 percent, adding about $2 to most residential heating customers' monthly bills. The company is making the filing to recover increased costs of providing natural gas service. The reliability and safety of the distribution system is continuously being improved through the replacement of older facilities, as well as through expansion and upgrading of other physical plant and equipment in new areas. Higher property taxes and federal income taxes have also increased the company's costs. Employee medical benefit costs continue to rise at a rate faster than the overall level of inflation. .-More-- Request/2 Minnegasco is spending significant dollars in the environmental area to comply with state and federal mandates to clean up old manufactured gas plant sites. In addition, Minnegasco has proposed to increase its spending on energy conservation programs for customers by nearly $3 million annually to assist them in reducing their energy consumption and thereby lowering energy bills. Another important factor in this filing is the integration of the newly acquired Midwest Gas operations in the north metro and Greater Minnesota area with Minnegasco's existing operations. This filing proposes to integrate the rates and services offered by Minnegasco to all customers in the combined systems. "Customers on both systems will benefit from the combined operations once the MPUC makes a final decision on this filing," said Phillip Hammond, vice president of gas supply and regulatory administration. Minnegasco customers will benefit from the company's larger operations in Minnesota through opportunities for new efficiencies. "The faster growth in new customers in the north suburban areas will also help to keep our prices at a lower level, as the costs of delivering natural gas will be spread over a much larger base of customers in the coming years," added Hammond. Most former Midwest system customers also benefit from the combined operations due to overall lower costs of gas purchased by Minnegasco for its Minnesota customers. "For the majority of former Midwest customers, Minnegasco's lower costs of purchasing natural gas will offset the other cost increases, which are the subject of this filing," explained Hammond. --More-- Request/3 Interim rates will be collected, subject to a refund with interest, until the MPUC's final ruling on Minnegasco's rate request. Hammond also reminds consumers, "Bills in the coming winter months will be higher than their fall bills due to seasonal increases in purchased gas costs and increased heating usage." Minnegasco, a division of Arkla, Inc., is Minnesota's largest natural gas utility, serving approximately 590,000 residential, commercial and industrial customers in 200 communities. -30- MINNEGASCO 1993 RATE FILING - ATYACHMENT I - Minnegasco customers prior to the acquisition of Midwest Gan: The chart below shows the effect of both the proposed interim and final rate changes on monthly bills for customers with average usage. The monthly customer charge is included. Rate class Average Average Proposed Proposed (Usage shown monthly usage monthly bill: interim final in Therms) in Therms current rates rates rates Residential 103 $ 55.86 $ 57.20 $ 59.11 Commercial/ Industrial - up to 1,500lyf 61 $38.12 $39.03 $38.81 - 1,500-5,000/yr 233 $140.90 $144.28 $128.50 -5,000 or more/yr 1,469 $729.50 $747.01 $750.90 Small Volume Dual Fuel -up to 120,000/yr 3,491 $1,150.62 $1,178.23 $1,214.31 -120,000 or more/yr 18,363 $5,733.58 $5,871.19 $6,108.38 Large Volume Firm 25,000 $12,539.50 $12,840.45 $11,961.43 Large Volume Dual Fuel 100,000 $29,304.00 $30,007.30 $29,810.00 .Monthly Customer Charge: The chart below shows how the monthly customer charge is proposed to change. Monthly customer charges cover a portion of the fixed costs of prox4ding service to customers. Rate class (Usage shown in Therms) Residential $5 Commercial and industrial -up to 1500/yr -1500 to 5,000/yr -5,000 or more/yr Small Volume Dual Fuel -Sales Service up to 120,O00/yr 120,000 or more/yr -Transportation up to 120,O00/yr 120,000 or more/yr Large Volume Dual Fuel -Sales Service -Transportation Large Volume Firm Current customer charge $9 $30 $30 $75 $75 $175 $175 $200 $300 $100 Proposed customer charge $9 $15 $35 $50 $75 $150 $175 $200 $300 $100 MINNEGASCO 1993 RATE FILING - ATYACHMENT II - Former Midwest Gas customers served by Northern Natural Pipeline: The chart below shows the effect of both the proposed interim and final rate changes on monthly bills for customers with average usage. The monthly customer charge is included. Rate class Average Average Proposed Proposed (Usage shown monthly usage monthly bill: interim final in Therms) in Therms current rates rates rates Residential 87 $50.58 $53.11 $50.47 Commercial/ Industrial - up to 1,500/yr 51 $31.67 $33.25 $34.06 - 1,500-5,000/yr 215 $119.83 $125.82 $119.94 -5,000 or more/yr 1,010 $547.36 $574.73 $527.27 Small Volume Dual Fuel (interruptible) -up to 120,000/yr 3,807 $1,366.39 $1,434.71 $1,319.77 -120,000 or more/yr 16,316 $5,757.70 $6,045.59 $5,435.59 Large Volume Dual 100,000 $28,862.00 $30,305.10 $29,810.00 Fuel (interrupfible) Monthly Customer Charge: The chart below shows how the monthly customer charge is proposed to change. Monthly customer charges cover a portion of the fixed costs of providing service to customers. Rate class (Usage shown in Therms) Residential Commercial and industrial (general services) -up to 1500/yr -LS00 to 5,000/yr -5,000 or more/yr Small Volume Dual Fuel (interruptible) -Sales Service up to 120,O00/yr 120,000 or more/yr Large Volume Dual Fuel (interruptible) -Sales Service -Trar~portation Current customer charge $4 $4 $4 $4 $30 $30 $125 $200 Proposed customer charge $9 $15 $35 $5O $75 $200 $300 c/a,i 3 MINNEGASCO 1993 RATE FILING - ATTACHMENT III - Former Midwest Gas customers served by Vikin~ Pioeline: The chart below shows the effect of both the proposed interim and final rate changes on monthly bills for customers with average usage. The monthly customer charge is included. Rate class Average Average Proposed Proposed (Usage shown monthly usage monthly bill: interim final in Therms) in Therms current rates rates rates Residential 84 $40.45 $43.32 $43.45 Commercial/ Industrial (general services) 55 $28.04 $30.03 $30.12 - up to 1,500/yr 211 $95.67 $102.46 $103.96 - 1,500-5,000/yr 839 $367.98 $394.11 $400.13 -5,000 or more/yr Small Volume Dual Fuel (interruptible) -up to 120,000/yr 1,375 $446.72 $478.44 $490.04 -120,000 or more/yr 10,167 $3,111.03 $3,331.91 $3,402.37 Large Volume Dual 100,000 $29,436.00 $31,525.96 $29,940.00 Fuel (interruptible) Monthly Customer Charge: The chart below shows how the monthly customer charge is proposed to change. Monthly customer charges cover a portion of the fLxed costs of providing service to customers. Rate class (Usage shown in Therms) Residential Commercial and industrial (general services) -up to 1500/yr -LS00 to 5,000/yr -5,000 or more/yr Small Volume Dual Fuel (interruptible) -Sales Service up to 120,O00/yr 120,000 or more/yr Large Volume Dual Fuel (interruptible) -Sales Service -Transportation Current customer charge $4 $4 $4 $4 $30 $30 $125 $200 Proposed customer charge $6 $9 $12 $35 $40 $75 $200 $300 THE CITY OF MO UND INVITES YOU and YOUR SPOUSE or S.O. to its ANNUAL CHRISTMAS PARTY FRIDAY, DECEMBER 17TH at the MOUND AMERICAN LEGION Social Hour: 6 - 7 ~n Sar~ Dinner: 7- 8 Program: 8 Entertaimnent:8:30 - 12:30 (D.J.) Santa is requesting we bring a non-perishable item or an unwrapped toy or $$$ for the Westonka Community Foodshelf Your R.S.V.P. is Very Important and Dinner Reservations are a MUST! Please do so by Friday, Dec. 10th to Linda at 472-0600 or, you are welcome to arrive after dinner. League of Minnesota Cities 3490 !,~rln~x)n Avenue North ~ Paul, MN 55126.8044 (612) 490-5600 OPEN MEETING LAW PRESENTATION MATERIALS 1993 Minnesota Newspaper Association Open Meeting Law Bill ~' Proposed eliminating the exemption in current law for meetings conducted by the commissioner of corrections and proposed changing the title of the Open Meeting Law to state more strongly that there is a presumption that meetings of governmental bodies will be open. ~ Proposed broadening the current exemption that authorizes the closing of labor negotiation meetings to allow closure in nonunion situations. ~ Proposed modifying the current provision requiring council or board materials to be made available to the public during public meetings to allow costs and fees to be recovered by a plaintiff. ~ Proposed modifying the current notice requirements in the Open Meeting Law to clarify that all other notice requirements for special emergency meetings are superseded, and changes the fine or fee imposition standard from "willful and deliberate" to "intentional.'' ~ Proposed modifying the current authorization to discuss private or similarly classified information at an open meeting to allow discussions even if malicious, and proposed the elimination of the requirement to try to use codes or references in order not to reveal the identity of the data subject. ~ Proposed increasing the penalty for violating the law from its current $100 fine per violation. The original MNA proposal was to go to $700 per violation. The draft includes a compromise to go to $200, and MNA representatives subsequently agreed to retain the $100 amount, although that agreement is not reflected in the 3/23/93 draft, and may not be acceptable to the legislative authors. This section also: I. stated that the personal fine cannot be paid by the public body, 2. allowed costs and fees to be awarded in any Open Meeting Law case, 3. established criteria to be evaluated by a judge prior to assessing penalties or fees, and 4. specified that the public body may pay costs, etc. incurred by its members in defending Open Meeting Law violations. 1993 Open Meeting Law Cases Issue: Can a governing body hold more than one closed meeting to discuss employee terminations? Currently the open meeting law requires meeting closure for preliminary considerations of allegations or charges against an individual subject to its authority, but if the members conclude that discipline of any nature may be warranted, further meetings or hearings must be open. A meeting must also be open at the request of the individual who is the subject of the meeting. Currently, meetings may also be closed if the closure is expressly authorized by statute or "permitted by the attorney-client privilege". Plaintiff (media) position: Only one preliminary meeting may be held and attorney-client meetings can only be closed to discuss "pending" litigation which requires a suit to be filed, not merely threatened or likely. Government position: More than one meeting may be held for preliminary discussions and, at least in personnel matters where suits are now almost a certainty, the attorney-client privilege authorizes closure without a lawsuit actually being filed. Court ruling: For the government. Case: Mpls. Star Tribune v. Mpls. School District (Mn. Ct. of App.) Issue: Can plaintiff's attorney fees be awarded in an open meeting law case and can a government defend or pay for defending an elected official? Currently the open meeting law authorizes plaintiffs' attorney fees to be awarded only where a meeting to discuss labor negotiations is somehow illegally called or conducted. The Attorney General has opined that a council in a statutory city does have limited authority in appropriate circumstances to pay from public funds for defense of an open meeting law case, and the district courts have seemed generally to support this interpretation. Plaintiff (union in one case/private citizen in another): Want their attorney fees and generally resist government defense or reimbursement for the officials in order to further punish or deter government official(s). Government position: Want to limit plaintiff reimbursement, and generally (at least when defending suit) want government to defend, or pay for defense costs, as well as any plaintiffs' fees which are awarded. Court ruling: Uncertain, even after one court of appeals decision which included a footnote that read: Minn. Stat. § 471.705, subd. 2 creates personal liability for the $100 fines that may be imposed for violation of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. As was pointed out at oral argument, the true cost to defendants in these cases is often attorney fees. While we do not decide the issue, we note that a municipality "shall defend and indemnify" its officers and employees who have acted in the performance of the duties of their position and have not been "guilty of malfeasance in office, willful neglect of duty, or bad faith." Minn. Stat. § 466.07, subd. 1 (1990). In the past, the duty to defend and indemnify was limited to tort claims and may not have applied to the defense of claims brought under the Minnesota Open Meeting Law. (citation omitted). The legislature has since removed the statute's explicit reference to tort claims. Case: Claude v. Collins (Ct. of App.) Issue: Call mediation or settlement meetings involving governmenf~s be closed? Plaintiff (media) position: Never, ever, no, no. Government position: Yes, if ordered by a judge or conducted by an informal group of officials that do not constitute a quorum or a governing body or subcommittee of a governing body. Court ruling (Case 1): A court has inherent judicial power to order public bodies in litigation into closed settlement conferences. Case: State by Archabal v. Hennepin County (Ct. of App.) Court ruling (Case 2): A gathering of public officials is not a committee, subcommittee, board, department or commission subject to the open meeting law unless the group is capable of exercising decision-making powers of the governing body. The capacity to act on behalf of the governing body is presumed where members of the group comprise a quorum of the body. It could also arise where there has been a delegation of power from the governing body. Case: Sovereign v. Dunn. (Ct. of App.) Issue: Is the open meeting law circumvented by a series of lneetings by individual members of a public body or meetings of less than a quorum? Plaintiff (media) position: Ail the time, and with impunity. Government position: Applying the open meeting law to gatherings of less than a quorum of a public body is unreasonable in a representative democracy where public policy must be formed not only at official meetings, but in exchanges with constituents and other officials outside of formal settings. Court rulings: Though warning that meetings of less than a quorum held serially to avoid public hearings or to fashion agreement on an issue may also violate the statute depending on the facts of the individual case, no court has found a gathering of less than a quorum to violate the open meeting law. GENERAL LEGISLATION AND PERSONNEL PROPOSED POLICY Open Mcctings and Data Practices. GLP-2 (A) The League supports legislation clarifying the open meeting law and the data practices act to make local government compliance easier and less costly. The League also supports legislation extending the open meeting law and data practices requirements to the state legislature. The Legislature needs to continually reexamine the open meeting law and the data practices act. The intent of the open meeting law is to ensure, within practical limits, the access of people to the actions and motivations of government. The data practices act is intended to ensure, within practical limits, the privacy of people who willingly or unwillingly become involved with their government. Both laws are difficult to follow individually, and when private or other classified information must be discussed by a public body subject to the open meeting law, as inevitably it must in many situations, the government is forced to attempt to meet two conflicting statutes. The Legislature has attempted to identify problem areas and to provide clear rules for local governments to follow. Unfortunately, not all circumstances can be anticipated nor remaining ambiguities addressed. The League supports amendments addressing the following issues. Several city officials have incurred huge personal costs defending ()pen meeting law violation allegations, because state law treats lhe open meeling law somewhere between a civil and criminal matter. At the very Icasl, Ihe legislation should authorize local governments to reimburse their officers to the same extent as if criminal charges were brought because of their official actions. Selection of city employees is complicated by the data practices act's classification of the identity of non-finalists as private. This problem could be resolved by allowing closed meetings of public bodies to screen applicants until finalists are chosen. This would protect the privacy rights of individuals and yet allow the public to be involved at the most important stage of the process, that being the selection of an employee from the group of finalists. Certain meetings, such as settlement meetings involving judicial or administrative actions, are more likely to be more productive and concluded faster if they are not subject to the open meeting' law. The Legislature should broaden current provisions to allow quasi-judicial officers or certain state employees to authorize closed meetings of public bodies. The current law requires reasonable efforts to keep private any private data which must be discussed publicly. This causes both practical and political problems in that if the public body can accomplish the impractical task it destroys the public's respect for government and if the government can't successfully shield the information it is exposed to significant legal liability. The Legislature should repeal this requirement. Recent proposals to increase the penalty section of the open meeting law as a means of ensuring greater compliance are misplaced. City officials are making good faith efforts to comply with both laws. Without additional clarification, however, the Legislature must realize that city officials owe it to their constituents to limit the city's exposure to liability. The Legislature should focus on clarifying ambiguities and modifying both laws as indicated above. Further, the Legislature should consider abandoning judicial actions with individual penalties as the primary means of enforcing the open meeting law. Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms, commissions similar to the state news council, or other options should be explored. 1174 ~s of the 545 )RE. ance ns of aper .~int: shall wing ating ,.flay, -ibed form alive ; and pub- sting The pub- style es in )r the :Pun- · that ~abil- uired 97 or slate ~rms, mcial mcial .y the .loner :t the state state- DIS- '~lzed; ~olitic ~apter I 175 MUNICIPAL RIGHTS, POWERS, DUTIES 471.705 On Or before February first each year, it shall bc the duty of thc principal account- lng officer of cach municipality to report to the auditor of each county in which such municipality is situate, thc total amount of outstanding obligations, and thc purpose for which issued as of Dcccmbcr 31 of the prcccding year. Such rcport shall bc kept by the auditor ofeach county in a suitable record. On March first each year, it shall be the duty ofthe auditor preach county to make report to Ihe state auditor ofsuch obligations as reported to the county auditor by the principal accounting officer of the municipality, together with the amount and character of all outstanding obligations issued by the county. History: (1938-14, 1938-15} 1927 c 163 s 1,2; 1945 c 187 s 1; 1967 c 45 s I: IO73 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1973 c 492 s 7:1986 c 444 471.705 MEETINGS OF GOVERNING BODIES; OPEN TO PUBLIC; EXCEP- TIONS. Subdivision I. Requirement. Except as otherwise expressly provided by stalute, all meetings, including executive sessions, of any state agency, board, commission or department when required or permitted by law to transact public business in a meeling, and the governing body of any school district however organized, unorganized terri- tory, county, city, town, or other public body, and of any committee, subcommittee, board, department or commission thereof, shall be open to the public, except meetings of the commissioner of corrections. The votes of the members of such stale agency, board, commission or department or of such governing body, committee, subcommit- tee, board, department or commission on any action taken in a meeting hereto required to be open to the public shall be recorded in a journal kept for that purpose, which jour- nal shall be open to the public during all normal business hours where such records are kept: The vote of each member shall be recorded on each appropriation of money, except for payments of judgments, claims and amounts fixed by statute. This section shall not apply to any state agency, board, or commission when exercising quasi- judicial functions involving disciplinary proceedings. Subd. la. Labor negotiations; exception. Subdivision I does not apply to a meeting held pursuant to the procedure in this subdivision. The governing body of a public employer may by a majority vote in a public meeting decide lo hold a closed meeting to consider strategy for labor negotiations, including negotiation strategies or develop- ments or discussion and review of labor negotiation proposals, conducted pursuant to sections 179A.01 to 179A.25. The time ofcommencement and place oflhe closed meet- ing shall be announced at the public meeting. A written roll of members and ali other persons present at the closed meeting shall be made available to the public after the closed meeting. The proceedings of a closed meeting lo discuss negoliation strategies shall be tape recorded at the expense of the governing body and shall be preserved by it for two )'ears after the contract is signed and shall be made available to the public after all labor contracts are signed by the governing body for the current budget period. Iran action is brought claiming that public business other than discussions of labor negotiation strategies or developmenls or discussion and review of labor negotialion proposals was transacled at a closed meeting held pursuant to this subdivision during the lime when the tape is not available lo the public, lhe court shall review thc recording of lhe meeting in camera. If the court determines that no violation of Ihis section is found, Ihe action shall be dismissed and the recording shall be preserved in lhc records oflhe court until otherwise made available lo the public pursuant lo this section· Ifthe court determines that a violation oflhis section is found, the recording may be intro- duced at trial in its entirety subject to any protective orders as requested by either party and deemed appropriate by the court. lhe prevailing party in an action brought before or after the tape is made available lo the public which establishes that a violation of this section has occurred shall recover costs and reasonable attorne)"s fees as determined by the court. Subd. lb. Agenda materials, in any meeting which under subdivision I must be open to the public, at least one cop)' of any printed materials relating lo thc agenda 8 471.70S MUNICIPAL RIGtlTS, POWEllSi I}IJTIF.~1~ items of the meeting which are prepared or distributed by or at the direction of the gov- erning body or its employees and which are: (1) distributed at the meeting to all members of the governing body; (2) distributed before the meeting to all members; or (3) available in the meeting room to all members; shall be available in the meeting room for inspection by the public. The materials shall be available to the public while the governing body considers their subject matter. This subdivision does not apply to materials classified by law as other than public as defined in chapter 13, or to materials relating to the agenda items of a closed meeting held in accordance with the procedures in subdivision la or other law permitting the closing of meetings. Ifa member intentionally violates the requirements of this subdivi- sion, that member shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $ I00. An action to enforce this penalty may be brought by any person in any court of compe- tent jurisdiction where the administrative office of the member is located. SUNI. 1 c. Notice of meetings. (a) Regular meetings. A schedule of the reguiar meet- ings of a public body shall be kept on file at its primary offices. Ifa public body decides to hold a regular meeting at a time or place different from the time or place stated in its schedule of regular meetings, it shall give the same notice of the meeting that is pro- vided in this subdivision for a special meeting. (b) Special meetings. For a special meeting, except an emergency meeting or a spe- cial meeting for which a notice requirement is otherwise expressly established by stat- ute, the public body shall post written notice of the date, time, place, and purpose of the meeting on the principal bulletin board of the public body, or if the public body has no principal bulletin board, on the door of its usual meeting room. The notice shall also be mailed or otherwise delivered to each person who has filed a written request for notice of special meetings with the public body. This notice shall be posted and mailed or delivered at least three days before the date of the meeting. As an alternative to mail- ing or otherwise delivering notice to persons who have filed a written request for notice of special meetings, the public body may publish the notice once, at least three days before the meeting, in the official newspaper of the public body or, if there is none, in a qualified newspaper of general circulation within the area of the public body's author- ity. A person filing a request for notice of special meetings may limit the request to noti- fication of meetings concerning particular subjects, in which case the public body is required to send notice to that person only concerning special meetings involving those subjects. A public body may establish an expiration date for requests for notices of spe- cial meetings pursuant to this paragraph and require refiling of the request once each year. Not more than 60 days before the expiration date ora requesl for notice, the pub- lic body shall send notice of the refiling requirement to each person who filed during the preceding year. (c) Emergency meetings. For an emergency meeting, the public body shall make good faith efforts to provide notice of the meeting to each news medium that has filed a written request for notice if the request includes the news medium's telephone num- ber. Notice of the emergency meeting shall be given by telephone or by any other method used to notify the members of the public body. Notice shall be provided to each news medium which has filed a written request for notice as soon as reasonably practi- cable after notice has been given to the members. Notice shall include the subject of the meeting. Posted or published notice of an emergency meeting shall not be required. An "emergency" meeting is a special meeting called because of circumstances lhat, in the judgment of the public body, require immediate consideration by the public body. If matters not directly related to the emergency are discussed or acted upon at an emer- gency meeting, the minutes of the meeting shall include a specific description of the matters. (d) Recessed or continued meetings. Ifa meeling is a recessed or continued session of a previous meeting, and the time and place of thc meeting was established during the previous meeting and recorded in the minutes of that meeting, then no further pub- lished or mailed notice is necessary. For purposes of this clause, thc term "meeting" 1177 MUNICIPAL RIGHTS, POWERS, DUTIES 471.705 includes a public hearing conducted pursuant to chapter 429 or any other law or charter provision requiring a public hearing by a public body. (e) ~losed meetings. The notice requirements of this subdivision apply to closed meetings. (0 State agencies. For a meeting of an agency, board, commission, or department of the state, (i) the notice requirements of this subdivision apply only ifa statute govern- ing meetings of the agency, board, or commission does not contain specific reference to the method of providing notice, and (ii) all provisions of this subdivision relating to publication shall be satisfied by publication in the State Register. (g) Actual notice. If a person receives actual notice of a meeting of a public body at least 24 hours before the meeting, ali notice requirements of this subdivision are sat- isfied with respect to that person, regardless of the method of receipt of notice. (h) Liability. No fine or other penalty may be imposed on a member of a public body for a violation of this subdivision unless it is established that the violation was willful and deliberate by the member. Subd. Id. Treatment of data classified as not public. (a) Except as provided in this section, meetings may not be closed to discuss data that are not public data. Data that are not public data may be discussed at a meeting subject to this section without liabil- ity or penalty, if the disclosure relates to a matter within the scope of the public body's authority, is reasonably necessary to conduct the business or agenda item before the public body, and is without malice. During an open meeting, a public body shall make reasonable efforts to protect from disclosure data that are not public data, including where priacticai acting by means of reference to a letter, number, or other designation that does not reveal the identity ofthe data subject. Data discussed at an open meeting retain the data's original classification; however, a record of the meeting, regardless of form, shall be public. (b) Any portion of a meeting must be closed if expressly required by other law or if the following types of data are discussed: (l) data that would identify alleged victims or reporters of criminal sexual con- duct, domestic abuse, or maltreatment of minors or vulnerable adults; (2) active investigative data as defined in section 13.82, subdivision 5, or internal affairs data relating to allegations of law enforcement personnel misconduct collected or created by a state agency, statewide system, or political subdivision; or (3) educational data, health data, medical data, welfare data, or mental health data that are nbt public data under section 13.32, 13.38, 13.42, or 13.46, subdivision 2 or 7. (c) A public body shall close a meeting for preliminary consideration ofallegations or charges against an individual subject to its authority. If the members conclude that discipline of any nature may be warranted, further meetings or hearings must be open. A meeting must also be open at the request of the individual who is the subject of the meeting.. (dj A public body may close a meeting to evaluate the performance of an individ- ual who is subject to its authority. The public body shall identify the individual to be evaluated prior to closing a meeting. At its next open meeting, the public body shall summarize its conclusions regarding the evaluation. A meeting must be open at the request of the individual who is the subject of the meeting. (e) Meetings may be closed if the closure is expressly authorized by statute or per- mitted by the attorney-client privilege. Subd. lc. Reasons for closing a meeting. Before closing a meeting, a public body shall state on the record the specific grounds permitting the meeting to be closed and describe the subject to be discussed. Subd. 2. Violation; penalty. Any person who violates subdivision ! shall be subject to personal liability in the form ora civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $100 for a single occurrence. An action to enforce this penalty may be brought by any person 10 471.705 MUNICIPAL RIGHTS, POWERS, DUTIES in any court of competent jurisdiction where the administrative office of the governing body is located. Upon a third violation by the same person connected with the same governing body, such person shall forfeit any further right to serve on such governing body or in any other capacity with such public body for a period of time equal to the term of office such person was then serving. The court determining the merits of any action in connection with any alleged third violation shall receive competent, relevant evidence in connection therewith and, upon finding as to the occurrence of a separate third violation, unrelated to the previous violations issue its order declaring the posi- tion vacant and notify the appointing authority or clerk of the governing body. As soon as practicable thereafter the appointing authority or the governing body shall fill the position as in the case of any other vacancy. Subd. 3. Popular name. This section may be cited as the "Minnesota open meeting law". History: 1957 c 773 s I; 1967 c 462 s 1:1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1973 c 654 s 15; 1973 c 680 s 1,3; 1975 c 27I s 6; 1981 c 174 s 1; 1983 c 137 s 1; 1983 c 274 s 18; 1984 c 462 s 27; 1987 c 313 s 1; 1990 c 550 s 2,3; 1991 c 292 art 8 s 12; 1991 c 319 s 22 471.707 LICENSE FEES; NOTICE. A home rule charier or statutory city or a town may increase the fee for a license to own or operate a vending machine or to dispense goods or services therefrom only after notice and hearing on the matter. Mailed notice of the proposed change shall be sent to the persons already licensed at least 30 days before the hearing. This section supersedes any inconsistent provision of other law or charter. History: 1984 c 393 s I 471.71 DEFINITIONS. Subdivision 1. Terms. For the purposes of sections 471.71 to 471.83 the terms defined in this section shall have the meanings ascribed to them unless the context oth- erwise requires. Subd. 2. Municipality. ~Municipality" includes cities, towns, and school districts. Subd. 3. City, town, school district. "City," "town," or "school district," include only those of the class made subject to sections 471.7 ! to 47 !.83 by sections 471.72 and 471.73. Subd. 4. Unfunded indebtedness. "Unfunded indebtedness" includes all general obligations and indebtedness except bonds and except indebtedness which is payable from special assessments against benefited property. Subd. 5. Year. "Year" means calendar year, except that it means "fiscal year" in the case ofany school district or city as to which both of the following conditions exist: (I) In the case ora city, the charter or law under which it is organized provides for a fiscal year differing from the calendar year; in the case of a school district, the books of account are kept on the basis of a fiscal year differing from the calendar year; (2) The governing body of such city or school district shall have adopted a resolu- tion determining that its operation under sections 471.71 to 471.83 shall be on the basis of such fiscal year and giving the date of the beginning of that year. History: 1943 c 526 s i subd (a}; 1951 c 63 s I; 1973 c 123 art 5 s 7 471.72 APPLICATION; PURPOSE. Sections 471.7 ! to 471.83 apply to all cities, statutory cities, towns, and school dis- tricts in which more than 50 percent of the net tax capacity of taxable real and personal property, excluding money and credits, consisls of unmined iron ore. lheir purpose is to secure sound fiscal policies in, and remedy the financial condition of, municipalities, a large proportion of the properly of which consists of a diminishing natural resource in which the state has a substantial interest. History: 1943 c 526 s I subd (c); 1951 c 63 s 2:1973 c 123 art 5 s 7; 1988 c 719art 5 s 84; 1989 c 329 art 13 s 20 League of Minnesota Cities 3490 Lexington Avenue North St. Paul, MN 551264R}44 (612) 490-5600 GROWTH MANAGE~NT ISSUES CHALLENGE BOTH ~VIETROPOLITAN AND GREATER MINNESOTA CITIES ,i, ~ aL,,, & ,,L League of Minnesota Cities (612)490-5600 The last few years have seen a heightened awareness and attention to growth management issues in Metropolitan and Greater Minnesota. The focus for much of the discussion in the metropolitan area has been the Metropolitan Council while the focus for Greater Minnesota has been the Municipal Board. The Legislature, which created both of these governmental bodies, has been asked to review the fundamental goals, policies, and structures of these bodies and to reinvent them where necessary to meet current social, environmental, and political challenges. One of the problems faced by legislators and others in addressing these issues is the lack of a historical perspective. Many Greater Minnesota growth issues have already been faced by Metropolitan cities. Another problem is that very few of those involved in these discussions have a statewide or national frame of reference. Most Metropolitan area legislators, and many Metropolitan city officials, don't know or care much about annexation issues. Similarly, many Greater Minnesota area legislators don't know or care much about metropolitan governance, fiscal disparities, or metropolitan urban service areas. This lack of information is unfortunate because many "metro" type issues directly correspond to similar "outstate" issues. For instance, one of the Metropolitan Council's primary mechanisms for controlling growth has been to limit extension of metro sewer lines (through a boundary or service designation as the metropolitan urban service area of re.u.s.a.). Greater Minnesota cities generally do not extend sewer or water service extraterdtorially for the same reason. In one case (the metro), this system even with its problems, has been hailed as a model of effective planning and growth management. In the other, city officials are routinely castigated, and sometimes sued, for attempting to effect a similar policy. The 1994 Legislature will continue discussion on both Metropolitan and Greater Minnesota issues. City officials can become more effective advocates for their own communities' issues by familiarizing ourselves with the issues faced by cities in other regions of the State. 2 Chapter 473 - Metropolitan Council 473.122 PURPOSE In order to coordinate the planning and development of the metropolitan area comprising the counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey, Scott and Washington, it is in the public interest to create an administrative agency for that purpose. 473.129 ADMINISTRATION OF METROPOLITAN COUNCIL. Subd. 5. Local governmental participation. The metropolitan council may (1) participate as a party in any proceedings originating before the Minnesota municipal board under chapter 414, if the proceedings involve the change in a boundary of a governmental unit in the metropolitan area, (2) conduct studies of the feasibility of annexing, enlarging, or consolidating units in the metropolitan area, (3) furnish space and other necessary assistance to a metropolitan expediter assigned to the metropolitan area or any part thereof under the Federal Demonstration City Act of 1966, on condition that such expediter files monthly reports with the metropolitan council concerning the expediter's activities. Subd. 6. Participation in metropolitan area commissions and boards. (a) The metropolitan council shall appoint from its membership a member to serve with the metropolitan airports commission, a member to serve with the mosquito control commission, a member to serve on the Minneapolis-St. Paul sanitary district or any successor thereof, and may appoint a member to serve on any metropolitan area commission or board authorized by law. Each member of the metropolitan council so appointed on each of such commissions shall serve without a vote. 473.145 DEVELOPMENT GUIDE. The metropolitan council shall prepare and adopt, after appropriate study and such public hearings as may be necessary, a comprehensive development guide for the metropolitan area. It shall consist of a compilation of policy statements, goals, standards, programs, and maps prescribing guides for the orderly and economical development, public and private, of the metropolitan area, The comprehensive development guide shall recognize and encompass physical, social, or economic needs of the metropolitan area and those future developments which will have an impact on the entire area including but not limited to such matters as land use, parks and open space land needs, the necessity for and location of airports, highways, transit facilities, public hospitals, libraries, schools, and other public buildings. Vol. 1, No.7 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities August 1993 Mix of developed, developing cities Urban Strategies panel seeks issues, solutions To help develop consensus among dries about problems and possible solutiom they all face, the AMM Board authorized the Urban Strategies Task Force chaired by Jim Prosser, Ric.~mld manager. The Urban Strategies Task Force, reeking to build on the policy statements developed by the Metropolitan Issues Task Force during the legislative session, will examine issues that arose from the data presented by Rep. Myron Orfield (DFL-Mpls) during his sponsor- ing of the "Community Stabili?ation Act" legislative package. "rhe Urban Strategies Task Force will take a proactive position to identify problems and seek solutiom to the problems that would lead to a stronger metropolitan arm," Prosser raid. "We hope to meld the differences between the core and developing suburbs into a cohesive statement of policy r__oco_mmendations that are the result of cooperation among all cities in the metro area." Some of the issue areas the ~ force will comider are ones (Continued on Page 3) Core, suburban issues on table for Task Force (Contineud from Page 1) raised by Rep. Myron Orfield, DFL-Mpls, and others during the 1992 and 1993 legislative sessiom - redevel- opment of the core cities, urban poverty and crime, low- income homing, and transit links between jobs and homes. AMM President Dave Childs, Minnetonka manager, noted that some information was presented during the legislative session in such a manner that pitted develop- ing dries against fully developed dties. ''Working cities against one another will not work" he said. "We need to all be at the table working to find solutions." In appointing members to the Urban Strategies Task Force, the AMM Board sought to strike a balance among all cities represented by the association. Meet- ings will be conducted siwi~r to the ~politan Governance Task Force meetingr, association of metropolitan municrpalitiee July 1993 3490 Lexington Avenue, North St. Paul, Minn. 55126 No. 40 The President's Corner: No pat answers for metro issues Dave Childs APIM President Few will question the need for the high level of discussion which took place during recent months concerning our metropolitan area and its accompanying problems in the areas of inner city decay, poverty, housing and transpoda- tion. We've all seen the graphic color charts interpreting census data and trends and we've heard Rep. Myron Orfield, DFL-Mpls, and others discuss their views on ways to tackle the problems of housing, poverty, jobs and transportation to avoid having the Twin Cities become another Chicago, Detroit or Washington, D.C. The problems were discussed at great length. But very little consensus emerged on solutions to those problems. Perhaps this is because what was perceived as problem definition instead was a compel- ling illustration of symptoms. Could it be that we jumped right past the problem definition phase and into the solution phase? This is a common enough occurrance and you may have heard it referred to as "painting bulrs-eyes around bullet holes." We need to be sure we dig deeper in analyzing and defining the problems of our metropolitan area - and maybe even move a step back - to make sure we have taken enough time to clearly define the problem before we oaint the bull's-eyes. I(,lost people do puzzles as relaxation, not work. Why, then, is the puzzle of metropolitan issues so hard, exhausting and frustrating? Puzzles and engineering challenges are problems that are convergent - there is a solution because the clues lead to a conclusion. However, the prob- lems which have been caused as a result of a tear in the social and economic fabric of the metro area are problems with diver- gent solutions. They are prob- lems of overcoming or reconcil- ing opposites. This may mean the issues may have no resolu- tion in the ordinary sense of the word. These problems demand not only that we bring all players to the table, but that the players work hard toward solving the problems. Clever, simple solu- tions aren't going to solve these problems because of the diver- gent needs and concerns that must be discussed and handled. Discussions about the trouble at the core will dominate the metro agenda for months, probably years, to come. During my tenure as president, I will push for active membership in the AMM because the metro agenda will require all of our member cities to be at the table to work on carefully defining the problems and jointly developing appropriate responses. How do defining problems and seeldng appropriate - although not textbook - solutions ~'elate to AMM this year? 1. We've seen the identification of symptoms, but no consensus developed about the problems. We must be careful not to paint bull's-eyes around bullet holes. 2. Once we define the prob- lems, their solutions likely will have divergent solutions. This means hard work and no pat answers or universal formulas. 3. The outcomes of these discussions will affect all metro cities, so AMM needs invol,' · ment of all of its members. If everybody participates and commits to working hard, we increase the chance of creating win-win solutions. I ask each of you to join the AMM board and staff in advancing our vision of the metro area. CITIZENS LEAGUE 708 South Third Street Suite 500 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415 612/338-0791 FAX 612/337-5919 July 13, 1993 HOUSING POLICY AND METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT Background: Legislators offered and debated several proposals during the 1993 Legislative session that addressed the growing social and econormc polarization in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. One of the most controversial was approved by both the House and Senate before meeting with a gubernatorial veto. That bill attempted to correct a mismatch between the fast growth in new jobs in the outer rings of the metro areamparticularly the southwest suburbs--and the need for jobs among citizens in the urban core. The full proposal included many interrelated stra~tegies to correct this mismatch. One of the major provisions attempted to remove barriers that inhibit the diversity of housing choices, including low-cost housing, in some suburban communities. This proposal, and similar alternative proposals, have shaped the terms of current discussion about metropolitan development and governance. Charge: The Citizens League study committee should systematically examine the key assumptions behind the current proposals for new housing policies. Are the assumptions true? For example, what is the evidence that proximity of low-cost housing tO jobs increases employment prospects for disadvantaged people? The committee should answer the following questions: o Are there additional costs to society when poverty is concentrated? . (Are 100 low- income individuals in one community more "costly" than ten low-income individuals in ten communities?) Does dispersing poverty help to ameliorate poverty? (Do low-income people find their chances of economic advancement improve when they live in socioeconomically mixed communities?) Should the metropolitan area adopt an explicit policy of reducing the concentration of poverty, and economic and social polarization, within the region? Do current housing policies contribute to the concentration of poverfy? What other factors, such as race discrimination, contribute to polarization? To what extent do new housing policies represent the solution to the problem of economic opportunity for low-income citizens, and the problem of economic polarization? What should be the elements of a regional housing policy? Who should implement and enforce the policy? The assumptions to be examined and tested include the following: The core communities of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area are following the path of social and economic decline that has occurred in the larger cities of the U.S. Concentration of poverty produces negative social consequences. The middle class 'Charge to Commitee: Housing Policy and Metropolitan Developmenl Page 2 and private economy are fleeing from the concentration of poverty and its attendant ills t.o rapidly developing suburbs. * Municipal policies and other factors have created exclusive housing markets in many affluent suburbs where jobs are growing the fastest. There is a pent-up demand for low- and moderate-income housing in these communities. If local zoning were relaxed, market forces would help supply appropriate housing. * Geographic access to job-rich areas helps create employment. Even for socially and economically isolated people, proximity to jobs has a major positive effect on .employment. Increasing the supply of low-cost housing in fast-growth suburbs increases proximity and thus improves the employment chances of disadvantaged people. Suburban communities currently receive a disproportionate share of infrastructure investment such as highway and sewer aid. It is appropriate for the region to enforce its housing policies by extending or withholding infrastructure investment and property-tax relief to municipalities. CHAPTER 414 POLICY STATEMENT.. "The legislature finds that: (D sound urban development and preserVation of agricultural land and open spaces through land use planning is essential to the continued economic growth of this state~ (2) municipal government most efficiently provides governmenta,. services in areas intensively developed for residential, commercial, industrial, and governmental purposes; and township governmen.t most efficiently provides ~overnmental serVices in areas used o~,, developed for aericultur~i, open space, and rural residentia: ~ (3) the ~ublic interest requires that municipalities be formed when there exists or will likely exist the necessary resources to provide for their economical and efficient operation; (4) annexation to existing municipalities of unincorporated areas unable to supply municipal services should be facilitated; and (53 the consolidation of munici: palities should be encouraged, It is the purpose of this chapter tv empower the Minnesota municipal board to promote and regulate development of municipalities to provide for the extension of municipal government to areas which are developed or are in the process of being developed for intensive~ use for residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and governmental purposes or are needed for such purposes; and to protect the stability of unincorporated areas which are used or developed for agricultural, open space and rural residential purposes and are not presently needed for more intensive uses; and to protect the integrity of land use planning in municipalities and unincorporated areas so that the public interest in efficient local ~overnment will be properly recognized and served." Emphasis added. Summary of Annexation Law Changes Passed by tho 1992 Legislature 1. Orderly Annexation by Petition. This language requires that if the Minnesota Muncipal Board receives a petition for annexation of an area owned by a municipality or from all the property owners of an area and the area is within two miles of the boundary of the municipality, that such petition shall confer jurisdiction on the Minnesota Municipal Board to consider thc designation of the area for orderly annexation. Upon such petition, the affected parties have thc ability to request a hearing and the agrieved party may appeal the Board order if they believe the area is not appropriate for annexation. The provision also requires that under this subdivision or section 414.033, that the petitioner must be notified by the municipality that the cost of the utility service may change if the land is annexed to the municipality. The notice must estimate the cost impact of any change in utility service, including rate changes and assessments resulting from the annexation. 2. Annexation by Ordinance. This language makes a change to the annexation by ordinance section. Specifically, it adds a new provision by which the municipality may by ordinance declare the land annexed. The new language provides that if the land abuts the municipality, is 60 acres or less, and the municipality receives a petition for annexation from all the property owners of the land, then the municipality may annex the area without the right of objection from the township. Other technical changes were made to reflect this change. 3. Existing Orderly Annexation Area. This language provides that even if an area does not abut a municipality, but if the land is owned by the municipality, or ali the land owners petition for annexation, and the land is within an existing orderly annexation area, that a municipality may declare the land annexed. 4. Election Requirement. This provision repeals the requirement for an election in contested case annexalion proceedings. 9 MINNESOTA ASSOCIATION OF TOWNSHIPS Edgewood Professional Building 805 Central Avenue East, P.O. Box 267 St. Michael, Minnesota 55376 Phone: (612) 497-2330 or 1-800-228-0296 Fax: (612) 497-3361 Executive Director: David A. Fficke Administrative Assistant: Jetn M. Woorster Attorney: John Dooley One of MAT's 1994 legislative goals is to seek enactment of legislation to restore language in Minnesota's Municipal Annexation Laws to their status prior to the 1992 legislative session. Legislative integrity was abandoned and amendments made to the annexation law which have destroyed years of work and cooperation between townships and cities in the development of orderly annexation agreements. The process as it now exists has also destroyed what little due process was afforded to townships and let cities conduct themselves with no regard for the fiscal concerns of another unit of government. The legislature needs to address this major concern promptly so that intended intergovernmental relations which involve dialogue and cooperation instead of conflict are reinstated. Agreements between units of government should be reinforced not shattered~ Development of strong, cooperative working relationships between all Cities and neighboring townships is vital to Minnesota. The following is a brief statement of concerns: The concept of orderly planning and orderly annexation now just becomes piecemeal and in many cases this will become a political hot potato· Preventing participation by townships and disregard of the needs of the surrounding community and individual property owner rights is wrong. A taking of the tax base without regard for the interruption of services or settlement of other service obligations, i.e., fire and police protection contracts - formula adjustments and reimbursements is wrong. 4. There is now no regard for tax levy adjustments. 5. Present language is inconsistent with the overall annexation process established by the legislature. There is now no criteria as to the timing of future use or development of property. "F,,ra~sroots Government of Minnesota" Where planning commissions exist, they should be required to review any annexation request. Fiscal consideration must also be formally provided for so that financial stability can be achieved, i.e., adjustments for special assessments; adjustments for capital investments which were constructed using the prior tax base; adjustments for other capital equipment on long term leases. Holes in the annexation territory place individual property owners in a precarious situation without any opportunity to be heard prior to public decision affecting their property. 10. Existing orderly annexation agreements have been voided by 1992 changes (see memo on LaCrescent Township). 11. 1992 amendments have eliminated an important incentive to promote economic development and has destroyed any sense of community. It has left the unfortunate scenario of a bully in a school yard. 12. It appears that the legislature has unknowingly created some magical or mystical right that cities have the right to all commercial property and to all public services. 13. The Township Association has not opposed annexation but what we now have in law is just not fair! 11 Summary of Township Legislation S.F. 138 (Vickerman, Adkins, Moe, Doug Johnson, Dean Johnson)/ H.F. 228 (Brown, Virgil Johnson, Sviggum, Olson, Nelson) Section 1. This section provides for an annexation election unless the annexation was initiated by a petition of a majority of the property owners or if the municipal board orders the entire township to be annexed under 414.031, subd. l(d). The language sets forth specific requirements for the election and requires the municipality to pay all election expenses. If the election is against annexation, no proceeding for annexation of the same area can take place within two years of the board order unless by a petition of the majority of property owners and supported by all abutting towns and municipalities. The election requirements were eliminated in the 1992 CGMC legislation. Section 2. This language eliminates the annexation by ordinance change made in the 1992 CGMC legislation allowing land to be annexed by ordinance if it is 60 acres or less and all the property owners petition. Section 3. This language repeals 414.033, subd. 2a, which was passed in the 1992 CGMC legislation. It provides that even if the land does not abut a municipality, but is owned by the municipality or all the land owners petition and the land is within an existing orderly annexation area, the municipality may declare the land annexed. Section 4. The effective date of the legislation is the day following final enactment. S.F. 143 (Pariseau, D. Benson, Vickerman, Adkins)/ H.F. 512 (Ozment, Koppendrayer) Section 1. This language eliminates the annexation by ordinance change made in the 1992 CGMC legislation allowing land to be annexed by ordinance if less than 60 acres and all the property owners petition. .Section 2. This language repeals 414.033, subd. 2a, which was passed in the 1992 CGMC legislation. It provides that even if the land does not abut a municipality, but is owned by the municipality, or all the land owners petition, and the land is within an existing orderly annexation area, the municipality may declare the land annexed. Section 3. The effective date of this legislation is the day following final enactment. March 11, 1993 POSITION OF COALITION OF GREATER MINNESOTA CITIES Replace the Minnesota Municipal Board process with a fair, efficient judicial process. Prohibit townships from incorporatin.g }nto cities, thereby avoiding costly duplication of services. Prevent urban sprawl and environmental pollution by allowing cities to control land use surrounding their boundaries. · Make annexation easier. 13 ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST ANNEXATION FOR: Duplication of governmental services in the public interest· is not 2. Annexation creates tax and service equity. Unchecked, township development results in environmental degradation. Annexation is necessary for economic development and job growth. AGAINST 1. Annexation takes away the r'ural way of life. 2. Annexation takes away township tax base. 3. Annexation destroys good farm land. CGMC Proposed Annexation Le~slation. 14 jslation Eliminating the Minnesota Municipal Board. S.F. 363 (Kelly, Hottinger, Flynn, Runbeck)/H.F. ~.'0 (Osthoff, Goodno, Kahn, Pugh, Carruthers) This legislation is similar to that introduced originally by the CGMC. It transfers the authority for incorporations, detachments, and annexations to the Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning. It provides that if objection is made to the Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning to a proposed incorporation, detachment, or annexation, then the office shall order the action requested. If an objection is made, the matte: will be determined by an administrative law judge. Chanee in the Composition of Minnesota Municipal Board. S.F. 36,,t (Hottinger. Runbeck, Ftynn, Kelly)/H.F 849 (Osthoff, Goodno, Kahn, Pugh, Carruthers) This legislation changes the Municipal Board composition to provide for three permanent members, two appointed by the Governor and the third member being the director of the Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning or the dkeetor's designee. Of the two Governor appointees, one must be a resident of a city and one must be a resident of a town. In annexation proceedings, the two county commissioner board members will serve in a non-voting, ex-officio capacity.. Comprehensive Changes to Annexation and Land Use Statutes. S.F. 365 (Hottinger, Flynn, Runbeck, Mondale)/H.F. 731 (Pugh, Goodno, Carruthers, Dom) '"his legislation makes numerous changes to Chapter 414 and Chapter 462. The following is a brief summary these provisions: Sec. 1 States that population changes as a result of annexation or detachment are as set forth in the resolution or ordinance and effective on the date of the order, whether or not the order is from a hearing or approval of a resolution or ordinance. Sec. 2 The Municipal Board is granted authority to request information from state agencies. Sec. 3 Changes the standard in Section 414.031, subd. 4 from may to s. hal] and eliminates certain requirements in tiffs section, including (1) that the Minnesota Municipal Board must consider whether the remainder of a township can continue to carry on functions of a government without undue hardship in determining whether or not to order an annexation (2) that the board shall deny annexation if it finds that the increase in revenues for the annexed municipality bears no reasonable relationship to the monetary benefits confirmed, and (3) that the board may deny annexation, if it appears that the annexation of ail or part of the property to an adjacent murdcipality would better serve the interest of the residents of the property or if the remainder of the township would suffer undue hardship. Sec. 4 & 6 Repeals the current standard in Section 414.0325, subd. 1, with respect to pollution and makes changes in orderly annexation sections dealing with pollution. It sets forth criteria and timelines for action by the MPCA, county health department, or other state agency. ALlows annexation by ordinance under certain circumstances if pollution is found. Sec. 5 Makes a change to the requirement placed in law by the 1992 CGMC legislation with respect to notification of the cost of utility services. It states that the municipality, shall comply only if c. 7 Sec. 8 Sec. 9 Sec. 10 15 it determines it can make a reasonable estimate. Makes numerous changes to the annexation by ordinance section providing for a variety, of additional criteria including: G C the land is located within the most recent U.S. Bureau of Census designated urbanized area boundary. the land is designated or eligible to be designated a.s an urban town. the land has been approved by a preliminary plat or r~mal plat for subdivision to provide lots that average 21,780 square feet or less in area, and the land is within two miles of the municipality. c the land has been zoned for and is being used for industrial use and within two miles of the municipality. c the land is being used for a commercial use with structural improvements that exceed 20,000 square feet and located within two miles of the municipality. c the land has water well test results that shows a nitrate content exceeding 10 parts per million, and municipal water extension is available and economically feasible. the land is within a subdivision and water well test results identify 25 % or more of the water wells contain 5 parts per million or more of nitrates, and municipal water extension is available and economically feasible. C the land is within a subdivision and water well test results identify 10% or more of the water wells contain 10 parts per million or more of ni~tes, and municipal water extension is available and economically feasible. the land is serviced by an on-site waste water treatment system which is failing as set forth in MPCA rule 7080, the regulatory unit of government requires the system to be replaced, and the land is located within a municipal waste water treatment designated service area. o the land is within a subdivision where loan approval has been denied by a mortgage loan guarantor due to a ground water problem. An additional change to section 414.033, subd. 2a, stating that if the land is within one mile of the municipal boundary and all the land owners petition for annexation, then the municipality may declare the land annexed. A broad provision allowing a municipal council to annex by ordinance upto 640 acres of land if the municipality finds the land is urban or suburban in character. The ordinance must be approved by the Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning after review of the criteria set forth in section 414.031, subd. 4a-m. Any appeal of their decision shall be pursuant to Chapter 14, the administrative law procedure. A provision which changes the 40 acre requirement to 200 acres in 414.033, subd. 3. Sec. 11 Sec. 13 Sec. 14 Sec. 15 Sec. 16 · 17 Sec. 18 Sec. 19 Sec. 20 16 A change increasing from 200 to 500 acres the provisions contained in section 414.033, subd. 5. Additional language is included under the annexation by ordinance section that allows a municipality, prior to adoption of an ordinance or municipal board order, to expand the proposed annexation area to include contiguous parcels if a petition is received by all the property owners. No right to objection by the township is allowed. A change in the differential taxation section stating that the township shall rebate to the municipality the prorated equivalent of its tax receipts from the property annexed to the cir,, from the time period begLnning on the effective date of the annexation to the tax year in which the municipality, becomes the tax collec2ng iurisdiction. In detachment proce, edings, this language allows the property owner to initiate detachment by signing a petition and submitting it to the boa. rd with a resolution of the city council of at least one of the affecmd murdcipaliues. A change in the requirement that the municipal board issue their order within 180 days from the Fa-st date of hearing instead of two years. A change 'in the uniform procedures of the board stating that the hearing must take place within 30 to 60 days, instead of 30 to 120 days, and that the board must submit their order no later than 180 days from the receipt of the document. A requirement that the affected county auditor receive a copy of the board order for annexation and that the county, auditor record such order against the property. A change to section 462.357 which allows the municipality to enforce regulations in unincorporated areas to the same extent as if the property were situated within its corporate limits, even after the county adopts a comprehensive zoning regulation. A change to section 462.358 which allows the municipality to extend the application of its subdivision regulation to unincorporated territories even if the town has adopted subdivision regulations. The Office of Strategic and Long Range Planning shall further define 'urban or suburban in character" and report to the legislature by February 1, 1994. HE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS MINNESOTA 550 ~ SIREET ~ ~ ~ 55103 PHON~ (612) 224-5445 TERM LIMITS - HELP OR HOAX? Term Limits are heralded as a way for us to grab hold of our legislators and let them know we are not satisfied. But it does this by taking out of our hands much of the public officials' reason tO be accountable tO the voters in the first place - having to face us for re-election, Term Limits sound OK... until you really think about them. But if you don't think about term limits now, you willingly give over the right and responsibility to think about political candidates in the future. CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING BEFORE BUYING INTO A 'QUICK FIX.' We already have significant turnover in the Legislature. Twenty four percent of the Senate (16 new members) and roughly 25% of the House (34 new members) were elected in 1992. Moreover, relatively few legislators serve long terms. Only 22 of the 67 members of the Senate will have served more than 12 years at the end of the 1993 session. Just 36 of the 134 House members have served more than 12 years. * Term limits deprives the Legislature of a portion of its experienced leadership. Leadership that is important in allocating the state's $16 billion budget. What private company would turn over the budget to inexperienced managers on a regular basis? The Legislature needs a balance of new ideas and seasoned expertise. * Short-term office holders tend to adopt short-term solutions to problems like strong environmental protection, health care reform and tax reform. * Term limits would create a large cadre of inexperienced legislators who would be dependent on staff and lobbyists. It would upset the balance of powers by removing legislators experienced enough to uphold the legislative role vis a vis the executive and judicial branches of government. * True campaign and election practices reform will do more to cure the ills of issueless campaigns, the power of the incumbency and overly influential interest groups. * Term limits might actually discourage a challenger. Why run against an incumbent when you could wait for an open seat? * Term limits will not solve problems caused by entrenchment on committees; internal reform will. * It is anti-democratic for a seated Legislature in 1994 to take away the ability of voters in the year 2004 to re-elect a legislator they think has done a good job. ENACTING TERM LIMITS SAYS PEOPLE DON'T CARE OR KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THEIR GOVERNMENT TO CONTROL IT. So ask yoursclf: * Will limiting legislators' terms solve the problems of voter apathy and citizen inaction in government? Will Term Limits make the electoral system more accessible? * Will Term Limits provide for better education of citizens or cleaner, issue-oriented campaigns? NO! TERM LIMITS TAKES CONTROL OUT OF VOTERS' HANDS. JOIN THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF MINNESOTA'S OPPOSITION TO TERM LIMITS FOR MEMBERS QF THE MINNESQTA STATE LE~3ISLATIORE, JIM RAMSTAD THIRD DISTRICT, MINNESOTA JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ALL BUSINESS COMMITTEE JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE November 17, 1993 Congre of t§e niteb tate ouze of epresentatit ez i lasbinltton, 20515-2303 WASHINGTON OFFICE 322 C*NNON HOUSE OFFICE EIUILD~NG WASHINGTON DC 20515-2303 (202) 225-2871 D~STRICT OFFICE 8120 PENN AVENUE SOUTH. ~152 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55431 (612) 881-4600 R£ C'D NOV 2 2 1993 Skip Johnson City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Skip: Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about unfunded federal mandates. Like you, I think this is one of the most important problems facing our state and local governments. I am outraged that for the past several years -- primarily because of lack of federal funds -- Congress has passed legislation requiring states to set up various, sometimes ridiculous programs but has not provided the money to implement them. Congress has been too slow in realizing the weight of this burden it places on states and local communities. By requiring compliance with countless unfunded federal mandates, Congress forces these governments to either raise taxes or divert money they would ordinarily use for police, fire or other necessary services. That is why I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1295, which would require the Congressional Budget Office to estimate what a bill will cost state and local governments and private industry prior to consideration. Again, thanks for your input on this important issue. know whenever I can be of assistance. Please let me JIM ~AM~TAD Mem~r of Congress JR:lg PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER NIh'UTES - ECONOMIC DEVELOPI~ENT OOMMISSION - NOVF~BER 18~ ~993 The meeting was called to order at 7 AM. Members present: Paul Meisel, Jerry Longpre, Stan Drahos, Mark Brewer (arrived at 8:20 AM), Ken Smith and Sharon Cook. Jerry Pietrowski was absent and excused. Also present: Councilmembers Phyllis Jessen, Liz Jensen; City Manager, Ed Shukle; Bruce Chamberlain, Hosington Koegler Group and Gino Businaro, Finance Director. Upon motion by Longpre, seconded by Meisel and carried unanimously, the minutes of the August 19, 1993 meeting were approved. The bond referendum result was discussed as it relates to the community services building project. City Manager Ed Shukle reported that the bond referendum passed by 20 votes. He also indicated that the election was going to be subject to a recount which is to be held on November 18th. Questions were raised with regard to the legality of whether the dollars that had been allocated within the bond or referendum would actually have to be spent on upgrading the facility, and perhaps, the school district, upon finding out that it may require more dollars to fix the building, that they may want to consider its removal and put a community center on the present football field location as a result the grocery store, bank and municipal liquor store could be revived. Ken Smith indicated that he was going to try to set up a meeting with school district and Minnetrista officials and the City of Mound to talk further about this matter. A discussion with the City Council was held regarding economic development goals as they relate to the Mound Visions Program. A number of issues were discussed. The concern expressed by the Commission was the fact that although all this planning work has been completed, that there is no major tangible result tied to the Mound Visions Program. It was suggested that city staff and the consultant do further research with regard to county interest in relocating County Road 15 and the possibility of establishing an Economic Development Authority and other possible grant programs that might be available to assist the City in completing the Mound Visions Program. Also suggested was establishing, in some fashion, recognition that Mound is the "Birthplace of Tonka Toys". City staff will have a report on these issues at the next regular meeting. A vacancy was briefly discussed. City Manager, Ed Shukle, indicated that Fred Guttormson has resigned from the Commission effective immediately. His term expires December 31, 1994 and the vacancy has already been advertised per City Council policy. Members were encouraged to contact potential members and encourage them to apply for the vacancy. City Manager Ed Shukle updated the Commission on the status of the Public Works outdoor storage site in Minnetrista. He explained that both city of Minnetrista and the City of Mound have reacted favorably to putting in a joint materials storage site behind the lvflnutcs - Bconomic Dcvclopm~t Commission - Novcml~r 18, 1993 -Pagc 2 Minnetrista city hall. He indicated that the issue is now in the hands of the city attorney who is to prepare an agreement to formalize discussions that have taken place to this point. Over the winter months, both cities will have to negotiate the final agreement. It is hoped that by spring of 1994, an agreement will be reached and the piles of material that are currently located on Lost Lake can be moved to Minnetrista. There being no other business, it was noted that the next meeting of the Commission is scheduled for Thursday, December 16, 1993 at 7 AM. Upon motion by Smith, seconded by Brewer and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 AM. c~tful/.~y submitted, city Manager ES:is