The URL can be used to link to this page

1998-03-24AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MARCH 24, 1998, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. OPEN M'EETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PRESENTATION OF DISTINGUISHED SERVICE AWARD TO OFFICER ALLEN RINGATE FROM MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING (MADD). PAGE o APPROV..E__.A_G__F,..~NI~ ,46~ time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved. *CONSENT AGENDA *A. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 24, 1998, REGULAR MEETING ................................... *B. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 17, 1998, *C. *D. *E. 632-638 SPECIAL MEETING ...................................... 639 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 17, 1998, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ..................... 640-641 CASE 98-08: VARIANCE EXTENSION, REMOVAL OF THE OLD RESIDENCE, RESOLUTION 96-24, DAVID HOLM, 4321 WILSHIRE BLVD, PART OF LOT 1, FIRST REARRANGEMENT OF PHELPS ISLAND PARK, 1sr DIVISION, PID 14-117-24 42 0070 .................................. CASE 98-10: VARIANCE FOR LAKESIDE SETBACK TO BUILD A NON-CONFORMING 12 X 18 THREE SEASON PORCH, CLYDE & DENIS BONNEMA, 5513 BARTLETT BLVD, W 40' OF LOTS 13 & 14, THE BARTLETT PLACE, PID 24-117-24 23 0018 .................................. 642-670 671-689 629 *F. CASE 98-11: VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE NON-CONFORMING LOT SIZE, TO CONSTRUCT A NEW CONFORMING HOME, STEVE MARTIN, 2910 OAKLAWN LANE, PARTS OF LOTS 37, 38 &39, BLOCK 1, THE HIGHLANDS, PID 23-117-24 31 0008 .................................. 690-706 *G. CASE 98-13: MINOR SUBDIVISION, DAVID & ELEANOR WILLET'rE, XXXX LYNWOOD BLVD. LOTS 6-11, KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND, PIDS 13-117-24 33 0028 & 13-117-24 33 0029 .................... 707-718 *H. CASE 98-14: VARIANCE FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK, PAUL PAINE, 4594 WILSHIRE BLVD., LOTS 7, 8 & 9, BLOCK 10, AVALON PID 19-117-23 31 0027 ........................... 719-735 *I. LICENSE RENEWALS: TRANSIENT MERCHANT, TREE REMOVAL AND SET-UP LICENSES ....................... 736 *J. APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING: TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND FACILITIES; AMENDING MOUND ORDINANCE NO. 88 BY ADDING A NEW SECTION ....................................... 737-750 *K. PAYMENT OF BILLS .................................. 751-768 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. PUBLIC HEARING: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - SETON BLUFF PDA ...................... 769-823 CASE 98-09: VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE NON-CONFORMING LOT SIZE AND SETBACKS, TO CONSTRUCT A NON-CONFORMING ADDITION AND AT~rACHED GARAGE, DENNIS KELM, 1916 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 18-117-23 23 0007 ................... 824-844 (PLANNING COMMISSION WILL CONSIDER THIS MONDAY EVENING, MARCH 23RD. TO BE HANDED OUT TUESDAY EVENING.) INFORMATION/MIS CELLANEOUS: A. Department Head Monthly Reports for February 1998 ................ 845-871 B. Financial Report for the month of February 1998 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director ............................. 872-873 C. Information received from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regarding Rule B Task Force. Next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 24, 1998, 2:30 - 4:00 p.m., Minnetonka Community Center. Mayor Polston is a member of this Task Force ....... 874-884 630 Do Notice from MCWD to all residents of Lake Langdon regarding alum treatment ........................................ 885-887 Interviews for a vacancy on the Harming Commission will be conducted at the next Planning Commission meeting which is scheduled for Monday, March 23, 1998, 7:30 p.m., City Hall. Enclosed are applications from persons interested in the vacancy. The City Council is invited to attend ..................................... 888-891 F. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of March 12, 1998 .......... 892-896 Information from the League of Minnesota Cities regarding the possible extension of levy limits for another three years ....................... 897 Ho Annual review of the activities of the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA) for 1997 ........................................... 898-899 I. LMCD mailings ....................................... 900-910 Information from WeCan answering the questions raised during the CDBG public hearing on February 24 related to the cities who consolidate their CDBG allocations ................................... 911-922 K. Planning Commission Minutes o March 9, 1998 ................... 923-933 Lo Letter from a resident who appreciates Caribou Coffee moving into Mound ............................................. 934 Joint Meeting with School Board regarding joint powers agreement on Westonka Community Center is scheduled for SATURDAY, MARCH 28, 1998, 8:30 A.M., CITY HALL. 631 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 24, 1998 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 24, 1998 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, February 24, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen and Leah Weycker. Councilmember Mark Hanus was absent and excused. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, City Clerk Fran Clark, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Police Chief Len Harrell, Liquor Store Manager Joel Krumm, Finance Director, Gino Businaro, and the following interested citizens: Leona Peterson, Dotty O'Brien, Bev Abbott, Kiki Sonnen, Chris Valerius, Dean Laforest, Brad and Cheryl Stannard. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved. Councilmember Jensen asked that Item *C on the Consent Agenda be removed. *CONSENT AGENDA MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to approve the Consent Agenda as amended above. *1.1 x~A~ROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 10, 1998, REGULAR MEETING. MOTION Ahrens, Jensen, unanimously. '1.2 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 17, 1998, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. MOTION Ahrens, Jensen, unanimously. '1.3 CASE 98-03: VARIANCE, FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK OF EXISTING GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING ADDITION, THOMAS AND PATRICIA PETERSON, 4882 EDGEWATER DRIVE, LOT 13, SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1 & 32 SKARP & LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD PID//13-117-24 41 0042 RES//98-21 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 24, 1998 RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE A NONCONFORMING GARAGE SETBACK VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING ADDITION AT 4882 EDGEWATER DRIVE, LOT 13, SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1 & 32 SKARP & LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD PID 13- 117-24 41 0042, P & Z CASE #98-03 Ahrens, Jensen, unanimously. '1.4 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 98- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF 1998 GRANT APPLICATION FOR RECYCLING AND EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT. RES #98-22 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF 1998 GRANT APPLICATION FOR RECYCLING AND EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT Ahrens, Jensen, unanimously. '1.5 CONCEPT APPROVAL FOR THE PURCHASE OF EI.ECTION EQUIPMENT BY HENNEPIN COUNTY AS PART OF A COUNTYWIDE REPLACEMENT AND UPGRADE. MOTION Ahrens, Jensen, unanimously. '1.6 RECOMMENDATION FROM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION RE: VACANCY. RES. #98-23 RESOLUTION TO APPOINT LONNIE WEBER TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (TERM TO EXPIRE 12-31-2000) Ahrens, Jensen, unanimously. '1.7 PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION Ahrens, Jensen, unanimously. '1.8 CANCEL MARCH 10, 1998, REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION 2 MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 24, 1998 Ahrens, Jensen, unanimously. 1.9 CASE 98-01: VARIANCE, LAKESIDE SETBACK, TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME, BRAD STANNARD, 4930 WILSHIRE BLVD, LOT 8, BLOCK 18 & 39, WYCHWOOD PID//24-117-24 14 0051. Councilmember Jensen stated that from the information in the packet she does not see that this is the minimum variance to alleviate a hardship and she wanted to know what the hardship is. Councilmember Weycker stated she has the same concerns. The Building Official reviewed the staff recommendations, dated February 9, 1998. Staff did recommend approval. The Planning Commission recommended approval. The Building Official pointed out that the Planning Commission offered the following finding of facts 1. 2. o If in fact the garage was detached that it would be conforming. If the principle structure were shifted to the east to make room for the garage on the west, it would have some negative impact to the east to the lake. That there is additional boulevard between the lot line and the curb line which offers an impact or more than the 8 feet that are shown. That it follows the line up provisions. There are numerous other parcels in the city with the same situations. By having the cattails present it lessens the impact on the lake. Brad Stannard stated that two of the three homes closest to their lot on the same side of the road are as close or closer to the road than their proposal. He stated his driveway will have a turn around so that it will not be necessary to back out onto Wilshire Blvd. He further stated that the survey is a bit misleading. He stated they are actually 22 feet away from the pavement on Wilshire. He further stated that there is only a 50 x 20 foot envelope to build on the lot. Councilmember Jensen stated that this explains that the hardship is a uniquely shaped lot. The Council asked that the following Whereas, be added to the proposed resolution: "WHEREAS, the building footprint is actually limited to only 20 feet in width because of the unique shape of the lot and this creates a hardship for building a suitable dwelling on the lakeshore lot, and." RES. #98-24 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE AND FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME AT 4930 WILSHIRE BLVD, LOT 8, BLOCK 18, SETON, BLOCK 39, WYCHWOOD, PID 24-117-24 14 0051, P & Z CASE #98-01, AS AMENDED Ahrens, Jensen, unanimously. MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 24, 1998 1.10 PUBLIC HEARING: 1998 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM. The City Manager explained the that this year the city has been allocated $64,454 for the program but that only 20% of the total allocation can be allocated to public service programs. The following is being proposed. PROJECT BUDGET Westonka Senior Center Operations $ 8,025 Westonka Community Action Network (WECAN) $ 2,707 Sojourner $1,676 Community Action for Suburban Hennepin (CASH) $ 773 Rehabilitation of private property $51,273 TOTAL $64,454 The Mayor opened the public hearing. The following persons spoke on behalf of the proposed projects: Kiki Sonnen, WECAN, submitted additional demographic information to the Council. Their service area covers 12 communities in western Hennepin County. Of the 645 households served, 355 households were from the City of Mound. Councilmember Ahrens asked if other communities allocate their CDBG monies to WECAN. Ms. Sonnen explained that a new procedure was started last year. Any city that receives less than $50,000 in CDBG funds are in a consolidated pool. There is a steering committee set up by the County, made up of representatives from some of those communities. Therefore public service groups apply directly to the steering committee of the County for those funds. Ms. Sonnen indicated that WECAN has received funds from the consolidated pool. The Council asked for a list of who comprises the Steering Committee for Hennepin County and how they allocate their money. The Manager will check and report back. 2. Dotty O'Brien and Bev Abbott, Westonka Senior Center Operations. The Mayor closed the public hearing. RES//98-25 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS FOR 1998 HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE OF SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENTS WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY AND ANY THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS Jensen, Ahrens, unanimously. 4 MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 24, 1998 1.11 PRESENTATION OF 1997 ANNUAL REPORTS: JON SUT/-/ERLAND, BUILDING OFFICIAL; I.F~N HARRELL, POLICE CHIEF; JOEL KRUMM; LIQUOR STORE MANAGER; AND GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR The following Department Heads presented their 1997 annual reports to the City Council: Jon Sutherland, Building Official; Len Harrell, Police Chief; Joel Krumm; Liquor Store Manager; and Gino Businaro, Finance Director. 1.12 CONTINUED DISCUSSION: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 440:00 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO TOBACCO SALE, POSSESSION, AND USE OF TOBACCO, TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND TOBACCO RELATED DEVICES IN THE CITY OF MOUND AND TO REDUCE THE ILLEGAL SALE, POSSESSION AND USE OF SUCH ITEMS TO ANY MINORS AND AMENDING SECTION 510:10, SUBD. 2, OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO FEES FOR CIGARETTE LICENSES. The City Manager explained the background. The City Attorney reviewed his letter dated February 19, 1998, and what he has learned since the last meeting. He reported the following: 1. Whoever is the licensing authority must carry out the compliance checks. If the City does not want to be the licensing authority, then the County will have to license and carry out compliance checks. 2. In comparing the proposed ordinance that was recommended by the League of Minnesota Cities, and the shorter form supplied by the Minnesota Grocer's Association, the shorter form mirrors the State Statute whereas the League's is more expansive which is good in some ways and bad in others. 3. One issue raised is the multi-pack display on counters or cartons open and out in stores where minors can enter. Under the proposed ordinance from the League, these will not be allowed. The shorter ordinance only prohibits single packs of cigarettes which is the prohibition in the State Statute rather than the suggested wording in the League's proposal. This is one of the features in the shorter ordinance that is significantly different from the League's proposal. The Council discussed the issues of compliance checks and the multi-pack display issues. The City Attorney reported that the State is doing compliance checks but this is to insure that the Federal legislation is being followed by retailers. The City Attorney stated there is also another part of either ordinance that needs to be addressed and that is the administrative sanctions imposed on minors. The Statute requires that you confer with a number of people, i.e., "interested educators, parents, children, and representatives of the court system to develop alternative penalties for minors who purchase, possess or consume tobacco." This will need to be addressed before an ordinance can be adopted. The Council discussed County licensing versus City licensing. They also discussed using minors MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 24, 1998 in compliance checks. The City Attorney suggested that the Council extend the present cigarette licenses for 90 days so that a side by side comparison of the two ordinances and statute can be done and further study can be done. The Mayor asked if there was anyone present who wished to comment. Chris Valerius, Mainstreet Market, thought it was a good idea to table this for now, pending any new legislation. She also expressed concern about the multi-pack displays on her counters which is a large amount of her yearly income (over $6,000). Jim Holmbeck, Manager of SuperAmerica, did not have a problem with the proposed ordinance. He stated a compliance check is done every week through SuperAmerica. He stated he thinks 18 year olds and parents are supplying tobacco products to under age persons and that needs to be addressed. Len Harrell, Police Chief, stated he has concerns about recruiting kids to go in and break the law. Joel Krumm, Liquor Store Manager, commented he understands that cigars were exempt from the Federal law. He further stated that some cities have amended the ordinance to allow the sale of cigars. The City Attorney stated that the statute says tobacco products and he does not understand how cities can exempt cigars. The City Attorney also pointed out that there is controversy about what a vending machine is and the legislature did not attempt to define this. The tobacco industry is contending that a vending machine with a lock-out device, activated by a clerk in a store, is not a vending machine and they will challenge this in court if necessary. MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Weycker to approve a 90 day extension to the expiration of the current Cigarette Licenses that will expire on February 28, 1998, until May 31, 1998, so that the Council can continue to review this proposed ordinance. Directing the City Manager to write a letter to our State Legislators objecting to the compliance provisions of the statute and asking them to bring this before the State Legislature to treat this in the same manner as compliance checks for alcohol. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. There were none. 1.13 ADD-ON: LETTER FROM HENNEPIN COUNTY REGARDING SIGNAL LIGHT AT COUNTY ROAD 15 AND WILSHIRE BLVD. OR CYPRESS LANE The City Manager reviewed the letter from Hennepin County relating to the study that was done 6 MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 24, 1998 on Wilshire and Cypress, County Road 15. The results of their investigation indicate that none of the warrants for the installation of a traffic signal or multiway (3-way) stop are met for either intersection. They further stated there is insufficient side street volume to warrant any traffic control changes at this time. The Council discussed the County's findings. The City Manager is to inquire on these findings and report back. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. January 1998 Financial Report as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. B. Park & Open Space Commission Minutes - 2-12-98. C. REMINDER: Joint meeting with School Board re: Joint Powers Agreement is scheduled for Thursday, March 12, 1998, 7:30 p.m., Westonka Community Center. Councilmember Ahrens stated she will not be able to attend. D. REMINDER: CITY COUNCIL PHOTOGRAPH, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1998, 6:30 P.M., CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to adjourn at 9:40 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk 7 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - SPECIAL MEETING - MARCH 17, 1998 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, March 17, 1998, at 7:15 p.m., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Acting Mayor Andrea Ahrens, Councilmembers Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Leah Weycker. Mayor Bob Polston was absent and excused. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr. The Acting Mayor opened the meeting. The City Manager explained the reason for the special meeting. He indicated that there were two items for review and consideration: 1) Approval of a resolution regarding the request of variances for the Roundabout as part of the Auditor's Road Improvement Project and 2) Approval of the payment of bills. Resolution Regarding Auditor's Road The City Manager provided the background on this matter. He indicated that in order to complete the Roundabout aspect of the Auditor's Road Improvement Project, variances were needed for the proposed diagonal parking spaces and the Roundabout itself. RES 98-26 RESOLUTION REQUESTING VARIANCE FROM MSA MINIMUM STANDARDS Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. Payment of Bills MOTION Jensen, Weycker, unanimously. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Weycker to adjourn at 7:30 p.m. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk a .all MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - MARCH 17, 1998 The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:35 p.m. Those present were: Acting Mayor Andrea Ahrens, Councilmembers Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Leah Weycker. Mayor Bob Polston was absent and excused. Also in attendance were: Martha Reger, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR); Gordon Kimball, President, Recreation Professionals; Charlie Jones, Minnetonka Boat Rental; Richard and Cheryl Lebra; Gino Businaro, Finance Director; John Cameron, City Engineer; Bruce Chamberlain, Economic Development Coordinator; and Ed Shukle, City Manager. Proposed Public Access - Minnetonka Boat Rental Ed Shukle, City Manag6r introduced Gordon Kimball, Recreation Professionals and Martha Reger, DNR to explain the possible location of a public access at the current Minnetonka Boat Rental site. Kimball referred to the Lake Minnetonka Public Access Report of 1992 which was a report developed by a Task Force reviewing the feasibility of adding public access sites around Lake Minnetonka. He stated that the owner of Minnetonka Boat Rental had contacted the DNR regarding possible interest in his site for a public access. Kimball, working on behalf of DNR, contacted the property owner directly across Edgewater Drive from Minnetonka Boat Rental regarding his interest in selling his property to be used for the public access. This property owner has expressed interest in selling the property. Kimball outlined the process used by DNR in locating public accesses. He indicated that the City gets involved as well as the neighborhood surrounding the proposed site. He indicated that DNR has no condemnation authority and will only proceed with an access if agreement can be reached among all of the parties. Kimball and Reger described the history surrounding the new public access located on Maxwell Bay in Orono. Both Kimball and Reger stated that the process for acquiring the necessary property for the access takes about 6 ½ months. Following the discussion with the Council, Kimball and Reger indicated that they would be proceeding with an appraisal of the properties and will keep the City of Mound advised as to their progress. Cost Estimate - Lost Lake Improvement Project Ed Shukle highlighted his memorandum of March 13, 1998 related to this matter. He explained that the cost of the Lost Lake Improvement Project is now estimated at double the cost than what was originally anticipated. This is primarily due to the sea wall, dredging, pier and docks. He emphasized how important this project was to the redevelopment of downtown Mound and that it would be difficult for the City Council to stop the project at this point. Committee of the Whole Minutes March 17, 1998 Page 2 Questions were then directed to John Cameron, City Engineer and Bruce Chamberlain, Project Manager. The cost estimate was reviewed in more detail and options to reduce the cost were discussed. Chamberlain emphasized that the project is like building a road; either you build the road or you don't. Either you dredge the canal or you don't. Shukle presented some options related to financing the overage. Although many options were listed, the overall consensus was that a combination of sources would have to be used to finance the shortfall. More study is needed on these various sources and more information will be brought back to the next Committee of the Whole meeting. Related to financing of the shortfall was the need to establish a Stormwater Management Utility. Funds from such a utility could be used for financing a portion of the Lost Lake project. The City Council has discussed the need to establish a stormwater management utility for some time for other storm water issues and directed that the City Manager prepare a proposed ordinance for Council consideration at the April 14, 1998 regular meeting. Annual Meeting of City Council and Advisory Commission~ This matter was continued until the next COW meeting. Other Business The City Manager distributed materials from the Hennepin County Assessor's Office related to the Open Book meeting that will be held on April 20, 1998 at Mound City Hall. This meeting will replace the traditional Local Board of Review meeting held in the past. Also reviewed was the Council photograph and a picture was selected for final photo processing. There being no other business, it was noted that the next COW meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, April 21, 1998, 7:30 p.m. It was moved by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens and carried unanimously, to adjourn the meeting at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, City Manager March 24, 1998 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A ONE (1) YEAR EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY RESOLUTION #96-24 FOR 4321 WILSHIRE BLVD, PART OF LOT 1, FIRST REARRANGEMENT OF PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1ST DIVISION PID 19-117-23 13 0003, P & Z CASE #98-08 & 96-03 WHEREAS, the applicant, David Holm, has requested a one year extension of the variance granted by Resolution #96-24 on February 27, 1996, and; WHEREAS, Resolution #96-24 approved a variance requesting a lake side setback variance of 32 feet to allow the construction of a new dwelling with a 5 foot wide deck on the lake side to be setback 18 feet from ordinary high water, and; WHEREAS, the applicants have not yet removed the old dwelling or completed the new dwelling according to the variance, and requested an extension in order to proceed with this portion this Spring, and; WHEREAS, the shed located on the Street side of the property be removed 60 days after the construction on the garage has begun, and; WHEREAS, City Code Section 350:530, Subd. 2.E. states that a variance shall become null and void if the use as permitted by the variance has not been completed within one year after granting the variance, unless a petition for extension is submitted, and; WHEREAS, all variances are limited to one extension, and; WHEREAS, a good faith attempt to complete or utilize the use permitted in the variance has been provided, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request for the extension and unanimously recommended approval. March 24, 1998 Holm - 4321 Wilshire Blvd Page £ NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, to hereby approve of a one (1) year extension of the variance originally granted by Resolution # 96-24 on February 27, 1996 with the following condition: 1. The shed be removed within 60 days after the construction on the garage begins. This variance will expire on February 27, 1999. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative' Mayor Attest: City Clerk Minutes - Mound Planning Commission March 9, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 9, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Bill Voss. Staff Present: Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clappsaddle. Absent and unexcused: Michael Mueller, Mark Hanus. Public Present: Dennis Kelm, Clyde & Denise Bonnema, Dave Willette, David Holm, Robert Wroda, Henry Reintz, Muriel Reintz, Larry & Rita Meehan, Jerry & Pamela Neumann, Chris Stuhr, Scott Hoelscher - US West. Meeting called to order 7:55 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. Chair Michael called for a brief moment of silence in remembrance of Gerald Reifschneider MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 9, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Glister to approve the Minutes of the February 9, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 5 - 0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE #98-08: VARIANCE EXTENSION, THE REMOVAL OF THE OLD RESIDENCE, RESOLUTION # 96-24, DAVID HOLM, 4321 WILSHIRE BLVD, PART OF LOT 1, FIRST REARRANGEMENT OF PHELPS ISLAND PARK IsT DIVISION, PID 14-117-24 42 0070 Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented this case. The applicant, David Holm, is requesting an extension to complete the construction of a house. The approved variance was for a new house with an 18 foot lakeside setback. Resolution #96-24 approving the project was granted by Council on February 27, 1996. One year later, the applicant made a request for a one year extension because the project was not yet complete. The zoning ordinance allows one variance extension after the first year has expired. Further extensions require a new application as the code does not provide for a second extension. Procedurally, this is a new request although the project scope has not changed from the first application. Minutes - Mound Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Staff recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance request subject to the condition of Resolution//96-24. Discussion: There was discussion about the small shed that is located on the property located on street side. The applicant stated that he would like to keep the shed until he constructs his garage, It was concluded to allow the applicant keep his shed 60 days after the start of construction on the garage. MOTIONED by Weiland, seconded by Voss to accept staff recommendation with the condition that there be a 60-day allowance for the shed to remain until the garage is constructed and then be removed. Motion carried 5-0. This Case will go to Council on March 24, 1998. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Illl TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: March 9, 1998 SUBJECT: Variance request OWNER: David Holm - 4321 Wilshire Blvd. CASE NUMBER: 98-08 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5g LOCATION: 4321 Wilshire Blvd. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting an extension to complete the construction of a house. The approved variance was for a new house with an 18 feet lakeside setback. Resolution //96-24 approving the project was granted by Council on February 27, 1996. One year later, the applicant made a request for a one year extension because the project was not yet complete. Council COMMENTS: The zoning ordinance allows one variance extension after the first year has expired. Further extensions require a new application as the code does not provide for a second extension. Procedurally, this is a new request although the project scope has not changed from the first application. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance request subject to the conditions of Resolution//96-24. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 February 11, 1998 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd Mound MN 55364 RE: Request for Extension Date on Residence TO WHOM TI~S CONCERNS: I am requesting that the City of Mound grant an extension date on the demolition of the old residency at 4321Willshire Blvd in Mound for the following reasons: ]'here have been delays in the construction of the new residence and as a matter of necessity we have moved in prior to full completion. In order to complete the new rcsid~cc in a safe and efficient manner it would greatly benefit us to use the old residence as a place to complete the finishing process and to store construction materials including any hazardous or flammable materials. 2. 1 atn a/so intending to recycle and salvage many items in thc old residence, such as thc bathroom fixtures, lights and the 60 year old paneling. 3. The delays in obtaining temporary occupancy have brought us to a mid-winter removal date increasing thc difficulty and cost. I ask the City of Mound to take these things into consideration and extend thc date of thc demolition to June 30, 1998, It is also understood that the old residence will remain unoccupied. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. David Holm 4321 Willshire Blvd Mound MN 55364 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 13, 1997 CASE 96-03: VARIANCE EXTENSION DAVID HOLM, 4321 WILSHIRE BLVD. PART OF LOT 1, FIRST REARR OF PIP IST DIV, 19-117-23 13 0003 Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the Staff Report. The applicant is seeking a one year extension of the lakeside setback variance approved by the City Council on February 27, 1996, Resolution #96-24. The dwelling and deck are proposed to be setback 18 feet from the ordinary high water. The deck will extend 5 feet from the house. The Zoning Ordinance allows one variance extension subject to review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Council. The applicant must provide facts showing a good faith attempt to complete or utilize the use permitted in the variance or appeal. Resolution//96- 24 was filed at Hennepin County, as required. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance extension, subject to the following conditions: Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall post a bond or letter of credit in an mound acceptable to the Building Official to guarantee removal of the existing structures. An updated survey shall be provided that accurately details the proposed conditions and a 32 foot setback variance to the deck. A detailed drainage plan identifying existing and proposed impervious surface coverage with a maximum of 40% impervious surface coverage according to Zoning Ordinance Section 350: 1225, Subd. 6.B. must be developed and submitted to staff for approval. Mr. Holm was not present. It was noted by the Commission that the front stoop, as shown on the survey, exceeds the 32 square foot minimum size in order to be allowed to project into the front setback requirement of 20 feet. Weiland noted that the DNR wants the houses to be in line on the lakeside. Reifschneider verified with staff that the height of the dwelling conforms to the Ordinance. Reifschneider questioned the accuracy of the hardcover calculations. It was noted that the lot area will need to be adjusted to be measured above the elevation of 931, and therefore will be less which will increase the percentage of hardcover proposed. MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Burma to recommend approval of the variance extension with the conditions recommended by staff. Reifschneider commented that he would like to see the hardcover calculations and the survey corrected before they allow the variance to be extended. Weiland agreed, adding that he would like to see the stoop brought into conformance. Ciapsaddle withdrew his motion. MOTION made by Clapsaddle to table the request for a variance extension pending receipt of a revised survey and revised hardcover calculations which accurately reflect what is being proposed. Burma seconded the Motion. Motion carried unanimously. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 Staff Report DATE: Planning Commission Agenda of January 13, 1997 TO: FROM: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~ SUBJECT: Request for Variance Extension APPLICANT: David Scott Holm CASE #: 96-03 LOCATION: 4321 Wilshire Blvd., Part of Lot 1, First Rearr. of PIP 1st Division, PID 19-117-23 13 0003 ZONING: R-lA Single Family Residential Background: The applicant is seeking a one year extension of the lakeside setback variance approved by the City Council on Feberuary 27, 1996, Resolution//96-24. The dwelling and deck are proposed to be setback 18 feet from the ordinary high water. The deck will extend 5 feet from the house. Comments: The Zoning Ordinance allows one variance extension subject to review by the Planning Commission and approval by the Council. The applicant must provide facts showing a good faith attempt to complete or utilize the use permitted in the variance or appeal. Resolution//96-24 was filed at Hennepin County, as required. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance extension, subject to the conditions outlined in Resolution//96-24. IS:pi This case will be heard by the City Council on January 28, 1997. 1 printed on recycled paper RECEIVED DEC 1 7 1996 ,q TRANSFER ENTERED HENNEPIN COUNTY TAXPAYE~ SERVICES APR 4 1996 February 27, 1996 · ~l'--~-~N COUhJ.,T-Y...MINN. B~?. ~_ ~..~_-~./'?~-.-~_~.~'~i '""~)E. PUTY RESOLUTION//96-24 ~OLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR 4321 WI/SHIRE BLVD., PART OF LOT 1, FIRST RE~NGEMVNT OF PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1ST DIVISION PID 19-117-23 13 0003 P&Z CASE WI~REAS, the owner, David S. Holm, has applied for a lake side setback variance of 32 feet to allow the construction of a new dwelling with a 5 foot wide deck on the lake side to be setback 18 feet from the ordinary high water, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water, and; WItEREAS, this same variance was approved unanimously by the Planning Commission and City Council in 1990 by Resolution ~0-62, however, it has since expired, and; WltEREAS, previous approval was given due to the shape and depth of the lot and the fact that the proposal is generally consistent with the neighboring properties, and; WHEREAS, impervious surface coverage is limited to 30%, or 40% with an approved drainage plan, and WltEREAS, since the crawl space will not be a usable area and the first floor will be insulated, only the frrst floor of the dwelling, not the crawl space, must be set at or above the elevation of 933, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval with a vote of 7 to 1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a 32 foot lake side setback variance to allow construction of a single family dwelling with a 5 foot wide deck on the lake side with the deck setback 18 feet from the ordinary high water, as shown on the revised survey dated January 17, 1996, contingent upon the following: ao Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall post a bond or letter of credit in an amount acceptable to the Building Official to guarantee removal of Resolution #96-24 '. · Page An updated survey shalt be provided that accurately details the proposed conditions and a 32 foot setback to the deck. Co A detailed drainage plan identifying existing and proposed impervious surface coverage must be developed and submitted to staff for approval. 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 ali 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 single family dwelling. 4. This variance is granted for the following legally described property' This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Ahrens and seconded by Councilmember Hanus. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Hanus and Polston. Jensen and Jessen were absent and excused. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: None Attest: City ~VIAnager Adopted: February 27, 1996 Mayor ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! / ! / I oo MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - FEBRUARY 27, 1996 1.8 CASE g96-03: DAVID S. HOLM, 4321 WILSHIRE BLVD., PART OF LOT 1, FIRST REARR. OF PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1ST DIVISION, PID 19-11%23 13 0003. VARIANCE FOR NEW DWELLING Jon Sutherland, Building Official, stated Mr. Holm has applied for a lakeside setback variance of 32 feet to allow the construction of a new dwelling with a 5 foot wide deck on the lakeside to be setback 18 feet from the ordinary high water. The property is located in the R-lA. The same variance was approved unanimously in 1990, but has expired. Approval was given previously due to the shape and depth of the lot and that the proposal is consistent with the neighboring properties. The lot is shallow and difficult to build on. The Planning Commission recommended approval 6-1. Councilmember Hanus mentioned the letter from the DNR, that it was speculative and contained some errors. Councilmember Ahrens moved and Councilmember Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION g96-24 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR 4321 WILSHIRE BLVD., PART OF LOT 1, FIRST REARRANGEMY~NT OF PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1ST DIVISION, PID 19-117- 23 13 0003, P & Z 96-03 The vote was unanimously in favor. Resolution passed. MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 1 2, 1996 CASE 96-03: DAVID S. HOLM, 4321 WILSHIRE BLVD., PART OF LOT 1, FIRST REARR. OF PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1ST DIVISION, PID 19-117-23 13 0003. VARIANCE FOR NEW DWELLING Building Official, Jori Sutherland, reviewed the staff report. The applicant is seeking to renew a variance that has expired. The original variance granted in 1990 by Resolution #90-62 was approved unanimously by the Planning Commission and the City Council. This approval was given after some compromise and resulted in a 32 foot setback variance to the OHW. Approval was given due to the shape and depth of the Lot and the fact that the proposal is generally consistent with the neighboring properties. When reviewing the application again, and applying our current ordinance to this case, the following issues are raised: Impervious surface coverage is limited to 30%, or 40% with an approved drainage plan. The amount of impervious surface coverage needs to be further clarified. A more detailed drainage plan identifying existing and proposed impervious surface must be developed and submitted to staff for approval (preferably prior to the planning commission meeting). In order to provide accurate information for the variance and building permit, the survey should be drawn to reflect the approval of the 32 foot setback. Sutherland noted that since the crawl space will not be a usable area and the first floor will be insulated, only the first floor of the dwelling, not the crawl space, must be set at or above the elevation of 933. Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance for a 32 foot lake side setback (measured to the deck), to allow construction of a new single family dwelling, as shown on the revised survey dated January 17, 1996, contingent upon the following: Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall post a bond or letter of credit in an amount acceptable to the Building Official to guarantee removal of the existing structure. An updated survey shall be provided that accurately details the proposed conditions and a 32 foot setback to the deck. A detailed drainage plan identifying existing and proposed impervious surface coverage must be developed and submitted to staff for approval. Mueller questioned if the top of the footing can be below the floodplain. Sutherland answered~ yes. Mueller questioned if a variance will be required for filling in the floodplain?Sutherland~ explained that there will be no filling below the elevation of 931.5, and if there v~as, he would// refer the applicant to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for a permit. Sutherland noted ~z that the City's floodplain elevation is 931. This proposal shows no impact below the 931.5. ~/ MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland, to recommend approval of the variance, as recommended by staff. Motion carried 6 to 1. Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Hanus, Weiland, Michael, Voss and Glister. Mueller was opposed. Mueller stated that he is opposed due to lack of clarification about having footings within the floodplain. PHONE NO. STATE OF DEPARTMENT 772-7910 February 12, 1996 Mr. Jon Sutherland City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 OF NATURAL RESOURCES 5510~E NO. RE: David Holm Variance Application, Lake Minnetonka Cook's Bay (27-133P-3), City of Mound, Hennepin County Dear Mr. Sutherland: We have reviewed the above-referenced variance request (received January 31, 1996) for 4321 Wilshire Boulevard and we recommend denial of the request for a 32 foot variance (i.e., meeting an 18 foot setback) from the required 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water (OHW) level. While we agree that a variance would be required for reasonable use of the lot, the proposed 32 foot variance is excessive. Please consider the following: The proposed house should approach no closer to the OHW than the average distance from the OHW of the houses on the neighboring lots, i.e., a 26 foot setback (based on an average of 21 feet and 31 feet). There are alternatives available to building the house within 18 feet of Lake Minnetonka (a 32 foot variance). It appears to be possible to reduce the amount of variance that would be needed for the structure by either moving the house closer to Wilshire Boulevard, by removing the stoop and moving the main portion of the house closer to Wilshire Boulevard, or by constructing a smaller structure that would still provide a reasonable use of the property. The house that currently exists on Mr. Holm's lot is a nonconforming structure that does not meet the required setback from Lake Minnetonka. Approval of the proposed variance would ~ the nonconformity on the lot. The ~ must demonstrate hardship to justify receiving a variance. The approval of a variance due to hardship should be based on the following prerequisites: A. The proposed use is reasonable. Be It would be unreasonable to require conformance with the ordinance. Practical difficulties may arise due to "functional and aesthetic concerns". Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulty. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Mr. Jon Sutherland City of Mound February 12, 1996 Page 2 Ce The difficulty of conforming to the ordinance is due to circumstances unique to the property, such as peculiar topography. If the problem is common to a number of homes in the area, it is not considered unique. It appears that the size of Mr. Holm's lot is typical of this area. Thus, the problem is not unique to his property. De The problem must not be created by the landowner. It appears that the variance is proposed because the structure that Mr. Holm wants to build is too large for the lot. Eo The variance, if granted, must not alter the essential character of the locality. In accordance with the city ordinance, the Department should be advised of the action taken on this request within 10 days of final action. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this variance. you have any questions please contact me at 772-7910. Should Sincerely, Joseph G. Richter ' Hydrologist JGR/kl C: City of Mound Shoreland File Ed Fick, Shoreland Hydrologist CITY OF MOUND STAFF REPORT 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of February 12, 1996 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official -c~"~ Variance Request David Scott Holm 96-03 4321 Wilshire Blvd., Part of Lot 1, First Rearr. of PIP I st Division, PID 19-117- 23 13 0003 R-lA Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking to renew a variance that has expired. The original variance granted in 1990 by Resolution #90-62 was approved unanimously by the Planning Commission and the City Council. This approval was given after some compromise and resulted in a 32 foot setback variance to the OHW. Approval was given due to the shape and depth of the Lot and the fact that the proposal is generally consistent with the neighboring properties. COMMENT: When reviewing the application again, and applying our current ordinance to this case, the following issues are raised: Impervious surface coverage is limited to 30%, or 40% with an approved drainage plan. The amount of impervious surface coverage needs to be further clarified. A more detailed drainage plan identifying existing and proposed impervious surface must be developed and submitted to staff for approval (preferably prior to the planning commission meeting). The lowest floor including the crawl space must be set at or above the elevation of 933. There is conflicting information on the survey and cross section of the building plan that must be clarified and revised to be consistent and in conformance with the minimum floor elevation· pr~nled on recycled paper Staff Report Nolrn, 4321 Wilshire Blvd. P. 2 In order to provide accurate information for the variance and building permit, the survey should be drawn to reflect the approval of the 32 foot setback. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of a 32 foot lake side setback variance (measured to the deck), to allow construction of a new single family dwelling, as shown on the revised survey dated January 17, 1996, contingent upon the following: Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall post a bond or letter of credit in an amount acceptable to the Building Official to guarantee removal of the existing structure. An updated survey shall be provided that accurately details the proposed conditions and a 32 foot setback to the deck. A detailed drainage plan identifying existing and proposed impervious surface coverage must be developed and submitted to staff for approval. The lowest floor, including the crawl space, must be at or above 933. JS:pj The abutting neighbors have been notified of this request. february 2?, 1996. This case is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: ~-!,~. ~q¢ Case No. City Council Date: '~ '- ~J C_~ (~ Distribution: 1-30 City Planner 1.30 DNR ~,-~0 City Engineer l -~y~) Public Works .v/1 LEGAL Subdivisiton !~_ ~f~'. 0~ PI0 DESC. PID# }q-I{'~ .~7-) 1'~ OOO ~ Plat# PROPERTY Name D~x v'J ~c.~ ~-~' Phone(H) ~{]).. - 6,5 '~ ~' 0V) ~qc/- ,l,']c/c> (M) APPLICANT Name (W OTHER Address THAN Phone (H) (W) _(M) OWNER) 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. 2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): / (IL,,v. 12/~195) Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. Do t3e existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located'?. Yes (), No (2ff. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): o SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED (or existing) VARIANCE Front Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: (NSEW) (NSEW) (NSEW) (NSEW) (NSEW) : (NSEW) Street Frontage: Lot Size: Hardcover: Lo ft. ~.o ft. - ff. lq> ft. !o ft. - ft. (.ft. (oft. -ft. ft. 18 ft. ft. ft. 18 ff. fl. ft. ft. ft. ~lr ft. ~ ff. -ft. -1000 sqff ~ sqff sqff I'/5o sqft ~6oo sqft 1-/,3o sqft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (x), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) too small ( ) drainage (~ too shallow (~,) shape ( ) soil ( ) existing situation ( ) other: specify Please describe: (Rev. I2/8195) Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)7 Yes (), No 00. If yes, explain: e Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (~. ff yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No 60'. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 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 ~:~~_./~----. Date Applicant's Signature ~3 (Rev. 12/8/95) Date l'/ ~ / .~ ~ N ~k q~ ~'Z~°A~' ~ ~o ~ ~ / ~ . '-/ r,'~- ' ~ ~ o~/ That pa~ ol Lol On~ (1} of Ih. Fir~l ~mra~g~me~l ~1 Phelps I~land Pmk, ~ir~l ~ki~, ~ lira .djol.ln~ prk~l~ ~Ire~l~. ~ a~J. d~crl~ ~ I~11~, to-wil: Commencing al a ~i.I on Ihe shore line of ~ke Minoelonka where the ~ is inlers~N by a I1~ ~rall~ ~lh a~ Sl~y (~) leel Southwesterly Irom the Sculhwestedy fine of Lot A ol ~ Rearrangement, measur~ at fighl an~es I~reto. laken as a~ for t~ ~int ol ~ginning; theoce Southwesterly along ~ shore line a distance of ninety-I~e (95) feet; U~ence Nonhedy in a straight line to a point in the Southedy line o~ the county road which sa~ last nam~ ~int is ninety-l~e (95) leer Soulhwestedy measur~ along the Southe~y line ~ ~ County R~d from the point of intersecliou ol the s~lhedy line ~ sa~ County R~d a~ a line drawn parallel wilh a~ si~y (~) f~t S~t~estedy from the So~estedy line of said Lot A measur~ a~ Hght angles thereto; thence Noaheasledy along the southe~y line ~ ~ county r~d a distance of ninety-lbe (95) feet to a point where the so.therly line ol County R~d is intersected by a line ~rallel with a~ si~y (~) I~t So~esteHy from Ihe Southwesterly line ol ~id Lol A ol saU Rearrangement measur~ at right angles the~elo; thence Southeasterly ~o~ ~ last descri~ line to the ~int ol ~ginning; Q - WOOD STAKE P~CED o - IRON MON. SET · - IRON MON. INP~E BEARINGS .ON PROPOSED INFORMATION ASSUMED DATUM ~-~ 1St FLOOR ELEV. ~'~ GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. BASEMENT ELEV. TOP BLOCK EL~. ~ ' DRAINAGE 0~.0 · EXIST. ELEV. i~00.~/,PROPOSEDELEV. 000.0 ~/ SF~ /I] ~ Y ~ ~ / ~ I hereby certily Ihat this plan, survey or report war JOB ~ SCHOBORG pre.areal by me or under my direct supervision and that, am 3~Z& PREPARED FOR a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State NC. / -5z DAVID ~ *- Scale m.~.~,,~ Date: ~,'/ /2. /9~O ~ Uon No. ~4~ I"=~' " 92 May 22, 1990 RESOLUTION NO. 90-62 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO ALLOW A REAR YARD, LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR PART OF LOT ONE, FIRST REARRANGEMENT OF PHELPS ISLAND PARK; PID #19-117-23-13-0003, (4321 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD); P&Z CASE #90-917 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a 32 foot lakeshore setback variance to allow construction of a new residence and attached deck within 18 feet of the ordinary high water elevation of Lake Minnetonka for Part of Lot 1, First Rearrangement of Phelps Island Park; PID #19-117-23-13-0003; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in the R-2, Single- Family Residential zoning district which, according to the Mound Code of Ordinances requires a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water elevation of Lake Minnetonka; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request and recommends approval due to the shape and depth of the lot and the fact that the proposal is generally consistent with other residential properties in the immediate vicinity. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby authorize the 32 foot lakeshore setback variance for the following legally described parcel: That part of Lot One (1) of the First Rearrangement of Phelps Island Park, First Division, and the adjoining private streets, if any, described as follows, to-wit: Commencing at a point on the shore line of Lake Minnetonka where the same is intercepted by a line parallel with and Sixty (60) feet Southwesterly from the Southwesterly line of Lot A of said Rearrangement, measured a right angles thereto, taken as and for the point of beginning; thence Southwesterly along said shore line a distance of ninety-five (95) feet; thence Northerly in a straight line to a point in the Southerly line of the county road which said last named point is ninety-five (95) feet Southwesterly measured along the Southerly line of said County Road from the point of intersection of the southerly line of said County road and a line drawn parallel with and sixty (60) feet Southwesterly from the Southwesterly line of said Lot A measured at right angles thereto; thence Northeasterly along the southerly line of said county road a distance of ninety-five (95) feet to a point where the southerly line of County Road is intersected by a line parallel with and sixty (60) feet Southwesterly from the Southwesterly line of said Lot A of said Rearrangement measured at right angles thereto; thence Southeasterly along said last described line to the point of beginning, PID #19- 117-23-13-0003. 93 Hay 22, 1990 The City Council authorizes the structural setback violation and authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. It is determined that the residential unit will be improved to afford the owner reasonable use of the property by authorizing the construction of a of a new residence and deck with an 18 foot setback from the ordinary high water elevation as shown on attached Exhibit A, upon the following condition: At the time of building permit issuance, the applicant shall post a bond or letter of credit in an amount acceptable to the Building Official to guarantee removal of the existing structure. This variance is granted for the property legally described in item 1 above. This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes, Section 462.3595, Subdivision (4). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility for filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. The building permit shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Ahrens and seconded by Councilmember Johnson The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Councilmember Jessen was absent and excused. A~test: City Clerk MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY P~ANNING COHMISSION Nay 7, 1990 Case No. 90-917: David Holm, 4321Wtlshire Blvd., Metes and Bounds, First Rearr. of Phelps Island Park, PID #19-117-Z3- 13 0003. VARIANCEs lakeshore setback. The City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the applicants request For a 1ak,shore setback variance· The applicant ts proposing to build a new home on the slte wlth an 18 Foot setback From the lake. The existing home wtll be occupied whtle the new structure Is being built. The existing home wlll then be demolished to al- low construction of the attached garage. Due to the depth of the parcel, staff recommended approval of a 32 Foot lek.shore setback variance to allow construction of a new residence contingent upon the Following condttion~ At the time of butldlng permit Issuance, the applicant shall post a bond or letter of credit in an amount acceptable to the Butldlng Of Ftclal to guarantee removal of the existing structure. The Commission determined that the proposed lakeshore setback Is somewhat consistent with the neighboring properties as they are setback 31 Feet and 21 Feet. NOTION made by Voss, seconded by Thal to recommend ap- proval of staff recommendation for approval of the variance. Notion carrled unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on May 22, t990. PLANN~N~ REPORT TO: Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: April 30, 1990 SUBJECT: Lakeshore Setback Variance APPLICANT: David Holm CASE NUMBER: 90-917 VHS FILE NUMBER: 90-310-A15-ZO LOCATION: 4321Wilshire Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: Single-Family Residential (R-2) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is proposing to remove an existing home and construct a new residence at 4321 Wilshire Boulevard. The existing home is located where the attached garage portion of the new structure will be constructed. The existing home will be occupied while the new structure is being built. After the existing home is demolished, the attached garage will be added to the new home. The site plan submitted by the applicant identifies a deck setback of 7.5 feet and a structural setback of 18 feet from the ordinary high water elevation of Lake Minnetonka. Lakeshore setbacks for the adjoining properties are 21 feet and 31 feet. After initially reviewing this request, my reaction was that the proposed structure encroached excessively on the ordinary high water elevation. The proposed encroachment is inconsistent with the adjacent properties which currently vary from the minimum zoning standards by 29 and 19 feet respectively. In discussing this situation with Mr. Holm, he indicated that he is considering a plan which reduces the depth of the house by 2 feet and adds only a 3 foot deck on the rear of the home. This situation results in a lakeshore setback of approximately 18.5 feet (about at the rear wall line of the house as shown on the survey dated April 12, 1990). This setback is more consistent with the neighboring properties. 3030 Harbor Lane North Btdg.ll, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447-2175 612/553-1950 Holm Planning Report April 30, 1990 Page 3 COMMENT: The depth of this parcel makes construction of a new home difficult without the issuance of a variance. In variance situations, the ordinance seeks the minimum variation from established setbacks to allow the applicant reasonable use of the property. Since the house observes all required front and side setbacks, the revised footprint of the house is more representative of a minimum variance situation. The applicant indicated that a revised copy of the survey will be available for the meeting on Mu 7, 1990. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a 22 foot lakeshore setback variance to allow construction of a new residence at 4321 Wilshire Boulevard contingent upon the following condition: At the time of building permit issuance, the applicant shall post a bond or letter of credit in an amount acceptable to the Building Official to guarantee removal of the existing structure. ADDRESS: ZONE: REQ. LOT AREA: O;l hice lvd. EXISTING LOT WIDTH: qO' ~1-- EXISTING g~ / */__ REQUIRED SETBACKS PRINCIPAL BUILDING/ HOUSE FRO.T:~ S E(~ 9. O' FRONT: N S E W SIDE: (~.,, E W ~:) t' SIDE: N~S)~W ~ ~ REAR: N~ W ~- LAKESHORE: (50~(measured TOP OF BLUFF: ~lO/ from O.H.W.) ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' REAR: N S E W 4' LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: 50' (measured from O.H.W.) EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: PR,NC,PAL BU,LD.~G/HOUSE FRONT: N S E W~ FRONT: N E W SIDE: E W "1~, ~, · SIDE: E W [ ~ · )w H~BDCOVfiB CO~FO~MI~G? BY: Ordinance. ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: , ~D.A~Ty~.. ¢ sum,narizes a portia,, u, u,~ ~uir the City of Mound Zoning For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Depart 0 0 ./ March 24, 1998 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A NON-CONFORMING THREE SEASON PORCH AT 5513 BARTLETT BLVD, E 40 FT OF LOT 13 & W 40 FT OF LOT 14, AND ADJOINING ABANDONED BOULEVARD, THE BARTLETT PLACE, PID 24-117-24 23 0018, P & Z CASE #98-10 WHEREAS, the applicants, Clyde and Denise Bonnema, have applied for a lakeside setback variance to construct a three season porch addition to their home, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, 40 feet of lot frontage, and; WHEREAS, the property exceeds the lot area and width requirements of the R-lA Zoning District, and; WHEREAS, the proposed porch does not meet the required setbacks for the lakeside of 50 feet, the proposed setback is 36 feet and the variance requested is 14 feet, and; WHEREAS, the proposed porch lines up with adjacent homes on the lake which is a consideration for the reasonable use of the property, and; WHEREAS, Resolution 96-27 is a variance to recognize a rear yard lakeshore setback in order to construct a conforming attached garage, and; March 24, 1998 Bonnerna - 5513 Bartlett B/vd Page 2 WHEREAS, it has be recognized that Resolution #96-27 is in error and is no longer applicable as follows: 1. The actual setback to the house from the OHW was 45 feet not 49 feet resulting in a variance of 5 feet _+. 2. Since the date of the original resolution #96-27, it has been determined the commons area was not dedicated to the public, has been attached to the applicants legal property description, and is no longer subject to the required rear yard setback. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a lakeside setback variance to construct a 12 by 18 foot three season porch. 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 structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 12 by 18 foot three season porch. This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: E 40 FT OF LOT 13 AND W 40 FT OF LOT 14 AND ADJOINING ABANDONED BOULEVARD, THE BARTLETT PLACE o 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. March 24, 1998 Bonnerna - 5513 Bartlett Blvd Page 2 The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk Minutes- Mound P/anning Co/nm/ss/on March 9, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 9, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Bill Voss. Staff Present: Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clappsaddle. Absent and unexcused: Michael Mueller, Mark Hanus. Public Present: Dennis Kelm, Clyde & Denise Bonnema, Dave Willette, David Holm, Robert Wroda, Henry Reintz, Muriel Reintz, Larry & Rita Meehan, Jerry & Pamela Neumann, Chris Stuhr, Scott Hoelscher - US West. Meeting called to order 7:55 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. Chair Michael called for a brief moment of silence in remembrance of Gerald Reifschneider MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 9, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Glister to approve the Minutes of the February 9, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 5 - 0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE #98-10: VARIANCE, LAKESIDE SETBACK, TO BUILD A NON-CONFORMING 12x18 THREE SEASON PORCH, CLYDE & DENISE BONNEMA, 5513 BARTLETT BLVD, W 40' OF LOTS 13 & 14, THE BARTLETT PLACE, PID 24-117-24 23 0018 Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented this case. The applicant, Clyde and Denise Bonnema, are requesting a lakeside variance to build a 12 by 18 foot three season porch. The home is currently setback 45 feet from the 929.4 contour. The proposed porch would be setback 36 feet from the contour requiring a 14 foot variance. Existinq/Proposed Required Variance Lakeside 36' 50' 14' The lot is in a R-lA zoning district and exceeds the lot area and width requirements at Minutes - Mound Planning Commission March 9, 1998 15,600 sf and 85.13 feet respectively. Total impervious surface as proposed is under the 30 percent hardcover requirement by 120 sr. Except for the lakeside setback, the existing home, attached garage and shed all meet zoning requirements. The home does not currently have a deck. The proposed porch would be centered in the middle of the house over the existing living room window. The applicant has submitted building elevations of the lakeside view which are included in your packets. There is an encroaching concrete sidewalk on the west property line. The sidewalk extends 2 feet onto the adjacent property. The Planning Commission has usually applied the policy of affording lakeshore properties a deck. This case seems to fit the parameters of past practice. The porch with its walls and roof does have more bulk than a deck of the same size. The adjacent property to the west has a porch similar in size. That porch however, seems to function much more like a room addition than a porch. Because of the setback of the home, there is not another location for a porch that would meet lakeside setback requirements. The proposed porch does line up with the adjacent lakeside homes which is a consideration of the code. The encroaching concrete walk is an encroachment although it is not a structure. The Planning Commission has worked to alleviate encroachments during the variance process as a proactive approach to alleviating future problems. The amount of concrete encroaching onto the adjacent property is minimal and the Planning Commission may want to pursue its removal as a condition of approval. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested. Discussion: Weiland questioned if there was commons in front of the home toward the lakeside. The applicants commented that they had the legal description changed a year or two ago. Weiland also questioned about the concrete encroaching on the neighbors property. Burma questioned the lakeside setbacks on the survey. MOTIONED by Voss, seconded by Weiland to recommend Staff recommendation. Burma stated that this is not a deck it is a three season porch and the line of sight from the home to the east. Glister agreed with Burma. Staff perceives it as a porch. Burma doesn't perceive this to be a hardship case. Minutes - Mound Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Further discussion was made about the neighboring properties in getting variances for their decks. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland to recommend Staff recommendation. Motion carried 3-2. Glister and Burma opposed. This case will go to Council on March 24, 1998 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. Jill TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: March 9, 1998 SUBJECT: Variance request OWNER: Clyde and Denise Bonnema- 5513 Bartlett Blvd. CASE NUMBER: 98-10 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5i LOCATION: 5513 Bartlett Blvd. ZONING: Residential District R-IA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a lakeside variance to built a 12 feet by 18 feet three season porch. The home is currently setback 45 feet from the 929.4 contour. The proposed porch would be setback 36 feet from the contour requiring a 14 feet variance. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Lakeside 36' 50' 14' The lot is in a R-lA zoning district and exceeds the lot area and width requirements at 15,600 sf and 85.13 feet respectively. Total impervious surface as proposed is under the 30 percent hardcover requirement by 120 sr. Except for the lakeside setback, the existing home, attached garage and shed all meet zoning requirements. The home does not currently have a deck currently. The proposed deck would be centered in the middle of the house over the existing living room window. The applicant has submitted building elevations of the lakeside view which are included in your packets. There is an encroaching concrete sidewalk on the west property line. The sidewalk extends 2 feet onto the adjacent property. COMMENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or practical difficulty. Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 Bonnema Variance Request March 9, 1998 following circumstances exist (Section 350:530): Ao Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of the ordinance have no control. Bo The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Do That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to property in the same zone. The Planning Commission has usually applied the policy of affording lakeshore properties a deck. This case seems to fit the parameters of past practice. The porch with its walls and roof does have more bulk than a deck of the same size. There an adjacent property to the west that has a porch similar in size. That porch however, seems to function much more like a room addition than a porch. Because of the setback of the home, there is not another location for a porch that would meet lakeside setback requirements. The proposed porch does line up with the adjacent lakeside homes which is a consideration of the code. The encroaching concrete walk is an encroachment although it is not a structure. The Planning Commission has worked to alleviate encroachments during the variance process as a proactive approach to alleviating future problems. The amount of concrete encroaching onto the adjacent property is minimal and the Planning Commission may want to pursue its removal as a condition of approval. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND ..... ~'~ 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 5536EEB Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 C[~ OF MOUND Application Fee: $100.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: Paq I cj'q~ City Planner City Engineer Public Works Other Case No. q~-- /0 DNR SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Subdivision ~ PID# _~_~)-- //? ZONING DISTRICT Phone (H) ~7,~- '~/'27 (W) ~(/- /~'1 (M) 7 Name Address Phone (H) (W) (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ~es, ( ) no. If yes', list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide Copies of resolutions. 2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): (Rev. 11114/97) Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. o Do the existing structures comply with all area,~ height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes I ), No )~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ~)S E W, ~0 ft. ~0 ft. -""ft. Side Yard: ( N S E~(~ (p ft. , ~ ft. -- ft. Side Yard: (N S(~,W ) JO ft. IC--1 ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N SEW ) ' ft. ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N(~)E W ) ~-e> ft. ~ ft. / ~ ft. : ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.' Street Frontage: /-~(~) ft. ~. I,,.~ ft. ~ ft. Lot Size: ~("~ sq ft ~--'j(~ sq ft ----- sq ft Hardcover: 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-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage ~ existing situation (~,) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: 7~/1 g_ (Rev. 11/14/97) I,, gO · Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. 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: 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 (Rev. I 1/14/9 7) CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: II LOT AREA LOT AREA LOT AREA SQ. FT. SQ. FT. SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... X 15% = (for detached buildings only) . . ~(oRO I *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. ~~j~ DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT x : 2/6 TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = S~ x /~. : TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. x yb : _ , x ~0 : TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. /70/ opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... I PREPAREDBY C/~A~-~~_ DATE ,~/'~/~'~ CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR CLYDE AND DENISE BONNEMA IN LOTS 13 AND 14, THE BARTLETT PLA. CE, UPPER LAKE MINNETONKA HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ~meWn~ Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. [t-4n PLANNING REPORT TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: June 5, 1996 SUBJECT: Variance APPLICANT: Clyde and Denise Bonnema CASE NUMBER: 96-27 HKG FILE NUMBER: 96-5n LOCATION: 5513 Bartlett Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R- IA) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to construct a conforming, attached garage measuring 20' by 30'. Construction of the garage requires a variance since the existing home has nonconforming rear yard and lakeshore setbacks. The existing home is located 4 feet from the rear property line resulting in an 11 foot variance. The subject lot borders a publicly owned commons area that has a width of approximately 45 feet. Therefore, the existing home is approximately 49 feet from the ordinary high water contour resulting in a one foot variance. The survey also shows that a sidewalk on the west side of the existing home encroaches on the neighboring property. Although the walkway is less of a permanent structure than a building, it does encroach and therefore, the Planning Commission may want to consider its relocation as a condition of approval. RECOMMENDATION: Since the proposed garage improvement is in a conforming location, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the rear yard and lakeshore setback variances. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 RESOLUTION %96-64 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING GARAGE ADDITION AT 5513 BARTLETT BLVD., PART OF LOTS 13 & 14 THE BARTLETT PLACE, PID 24-117-24 23 0018 P&Z C~SE %96-27 WHEREAS, the owners, Clyde & Denise Bonnema, have applied for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming rear yard and lakeshore setback variance to allow construction of a conforming 20' x 30' garage addition, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-IA Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for lots of record, a 15 foot rear yard setback, and a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water elevation, and; WHEREAS, the home is located 4 feet from the rear property line resulting in an 1! foot variance. The subject lot boarders a publicly owned commons area that has a width of approximately 45 feet. The home is approximata!y 49 feet from the ordinary high water (Oh~) contour resulting in a one foot variance, and; WHEREAS, a side walk on the west side encroaches on the neighboring property, however, due to topography, in order to relocate the encroaching side walk, the steps would also need to be moved which provides access to the dwelling, and; WHEREAS, there is also a 12' x 8' shed on the property which is located 3 feet from the side property line. The required side setback is 4 feet. The applicant has agreed to relocate the shed, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval upon the condition that the nonconforming shed be relocated. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a variance recognizing the existing nonconforming rear yard setback of 4 feet and the nonconforming lakeshore setback of 49 feet to allow construction of a conforming garage addition subject to the relocation of the existing nonconforming shed. 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. 2A. The shed shall be relocated according to plan within one year of this resolution passing date of 6-25-96. R~olution g96-64 Bonntrna P. 2 June 25, I996 o It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construction of a 20' x 30' garage addition. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: The West 40.00 feet of Lot 4, and the East 40.00 feet of Lot 13. "The Bartlett Place" Upper Lake 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. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Hanus and seconded by Councilmember Jenesn. The following Counci!members voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen, Jessen and Polston. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: None Mayor Attest: Acting City Clerk Resolution adopted: June 25, 1996 & ,IJ~, MINI. VrES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 25, 1996 1.4 CASE //96-27: VARIANCE FOR GARAGE ADDITION, CLYDE AND DENISE BONNEMA, 5513 BARTLETT BLVD., PID 24-117-24 23 0018. Building Official Ion Sutherland stated the applicants have requested a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming rear yard and lakeshore setback variance to allow construction of a conforming 20' x 30' garage addition. Staff and Planning Commission recommend approval. Hanus wanted a clause included that stated the shed would be relocated within one year as stated in the applicants letter. Hanus moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution as amended: RESOLUTION//96-64 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING GARAGE ADDITION AT 5513 BARTLETT BLVD., PART OF LOTS 13 AND 14, THE BARTLETT PLACE, PID //24- 117-24 23 0018. PZ#96-27. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET IIOUSE ......... FRONT :RONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF GARAGE, SIIED ..... E W N S E W N S E W ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: REQUIRED FRONT OR OTHER DETACHED ~ 10,000/60 B1 7,5OO/O ~ B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,O00/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 EXISTING~ROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: /2,070 LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF [ ('/~ -- ~'"~ "' --'"""" HARDCOVER 0%~OR 40% CONFORMING.'? YES / NO / ? BY: 10' OR 30' DATED:- This Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning ( Planning Department at 472-0600. ' 17 . (f,~ ) : .'n), March 24, 1998 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT SIZE VARIANCE IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A CONFORMING NEW HOME AT 2910 OAKLAWN LANE, PARTS OF LOTS 37,38 AND 39, THE HIGHLANDS, PID 23-117-24 31 0008, P & Z CASE #98-11 WHEREAS, the applicants, Steve & Betty Martin, have applied for a lot size variance to allow for future construction of a new dwelling at 2910 Oaklawn Lane, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, 60 feet of lot frontage, and; WHEREAS, according to the survey, the lot area is 9896 square feet and a variance of 104 square feet results, and; WHEREAS, the subject property was released for sale in 1 987 by resolution 87-124 as a lot with adequate buildable area although calculations were not based on an actual survey, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby grant a lot size variance to construct a new dwelling. 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 structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming structures subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420. March 24, 1998 Martin- 2910 Oaklawn Lane Page 2 It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to the nonconforming lot area of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Construct a new conforming dwelling. This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: COM AT SW COR OF LOT 38 TH NLY ALONG WLY LINE THOF 72 FT TH E TO A PT IN E LINE OF LOT 39 DIS 70 FT N FROM SE COR THOF TH S TO SE o This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Attest: City Clerk Mayor Minutes - Mound Planning Commission March 9, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 9, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Bill Voss. Staff Present: Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clappsaddle. Absent and unexcused: Michael Mueller, Mark Hanus. Public Present: Dennis Kelm, Clyde & Denise Bonnema, Dave Willette, David Holm, Robert Wroda, Henry Reintz, Muriel Reintz, Larry & Rita Meehan, Jerry & Pamela Neumann, Chris Stuhr, Scott Hoelscher - US West. Meeting called to order 7:55 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. Chair Michael called for a brief moment of silence in remembrance of Gerald Reifschneider MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 9, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Glister to approve the Minutes of the February 9, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 5 - 0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE #98-11: VARIANCE, TO RECOGNIZE NON-CONFORMING LOT SIZE, TO CONSTRUCT A NEW CONFORMING HOME, STEVE MARTIN, 2910 OAKLAWN LANE, PARTS OF LOTS 37,38, & 39, BLOCK 1, THE HIGHLANDS, PID # 23-117- 24 31 0008 Building Official Jon Sutherland presented this case. The applicant, Steve Martin, is seeking a 104 square foot variance to the minimum 10,000 of lot area that is required in the R-1 zone. The intention of the applicant is to sell the parcel so a new home can be constructed in the near future. It appears there is a suitable footprint to construct a new dwelling that will be conforming to the zoning ordinance. The property was released for sale in 1987 by resolution #87-134 as a lot with adequate buildable area although calculations were not based on an actual survey. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval Minutes - Mound Planning Commission March 9, 1998 of the variance as requested. Discussion: A letter was received by an adjacent homeowner expressing they were not in favor of this variance. Weiland commented that on answers to the applicant's application. Also that possibly lot 10's driveway is on the corner of this property. ross questioned the topography of the land. Sutherland stated part of it runs to the street side and part runs to the wetlands. Glister questioned if a variance was needed to sell the property. Sutherland stated that it is in the contingency of the sale of the property. Larry Meehan, 2900 Oaklawn Lane, said that when he looked into purchasing the property a few years ago he was told it was un buildable. He expressed many concerns about property. Jerry Neumann, 5979 Bartlett Blvd, is the neighbor behind the concerned property. He stated that if this becomes a buildable lot, his property will have increased erosion and more of his land will be lost to the swampland in the rear of his property. He is not in favor of this variance. Burma questioned where the sliver of land that was added to the south of the property came from. Mr. Neumann explained that there was some tax forfeit property and it was divided to make the parcel larger. Chris Stuhr, 2920 Oaklawn Lane, owns part of lot 37, questioned the line of sight with his property with the proposed new dwelling. He questioned whether or not if there was a sewer stub. Staff commented that there is a sewer stub but no water. He expressed concern if the contractor would tear up his property in the right-of-way. Orv Burma questioned about what kind of auction this property was in. Mr. Meehan responded that it was at a Hennepin County Court House Auction. There was lengthy discussions and commented concerns about the property by adjacent homeowners. Sutherland stated that the City Attorney is aware of the case and agrees with staff recommendation. Minutes- Mound P/anning Commission March 9. 1998 MOTION by Voss, seconded by Burma to recommend Staff Recommendation. Motion carried 5-0. This case will go to Council on March 24, 1998 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: STAFF REPORT Planning Commission Agenda of March 9, 1998 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official Variance Request Steven Martin 98-11 2910 Oaklawn Lane, Part of Lots 37,38, and 39, Block 1 Highlands, PID 23-117-24-31 0008 R-1 Single Family Residential , The BACKGROUND: The applicant, Steve Martin, is seeking a 104 square foot variance to the minimum 10,000 of lot area that is required in the R-1 zone. The intention of the applicant is to sell the parcel so a new home can be constructed in the near future. It appears there is a suitable footprint to construct a new dwelling that will be conforming to the zoning ordinance. The property was released for sale in 1987 by resolution #87-134 as a lot with adequate buildable area although calculations were not based on an actual survey. STAFF RECOMMENDATION' Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance as requested. JS/kl prJnted on recycled paper VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 FEB 2 0 199B~~ Application Fee: $100.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: .... City Council Date: Distribution: _~ City Planner ~ DNR City Engineer Other Public Works PROPERTY Lot ~~ O~ LO~ ~, '~, ~.~ LEGAL Block / DESC. Subdivision , ZONING DISTRICT R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 PROPERTY Name ~~ ow. . Phone (H) ~~/)~ (W) ~7~--~P~ (M) APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone (H) (W) (M) OWNER) 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 description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application, P. 3 Case N o..~~..~.~ 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: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No'b~lf yes, explain: o Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~x~', No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. 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 (Rev. 11/14/97) Variance Application, P. 2 o Do the i~g strUctures comply with II area,hel ht, bulk and setba ..... ',~n/a 'g , ck regulations for the zoning C~Strlct in which it is located? Yes J~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setl~a~k, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: : NSEW NSEW NSEW NSEW NSEW NSEW ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft. LotSize: I~),Og:2~ sqft ~,(-~_c'~-)~sqft /~:~- sqft Hardcover: ' 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-conforming use: Please Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) soil ( ) existing situation ( ) other: specify describe: (Rev. 11/14/9 7) CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: OWNER'S NAME: LOT AREA ~ SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. LOT AREA ~ SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE X 25"z--- = I X = DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. DRIVEWAY, PARKING ID x ,-~2_ : AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. X = DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDERpREPARED By/OVER ~j~_~(~(indica ~ d'ffere,~ ............... ~..~_. ~')'J~-~ ~ ' 'DATE j UL,/D I L51 f ! I I I % Z 75 YEARS July 17, 1987 CiTY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155 Mr. Gordy Ramm Tax Forfeit Property Division Public Service Level Harm.pin County Government Center Minneapolis, MN. 55h87 Dear Gordy, Enclosed are the following: 1. Resolution #87-130 - Relating to PID #24-117-24 44 0057/0058 Sale to. adjoining property owners only. 0 Resolution #87-133 - Relating to PID #24-117-24 41 0123 Reconveyance of Portions of above. Sale to adjoining property owners only. Resolution #87-134 - Relating to PID #23-117-24 31 0007/0008 Releasing for public auction. Resolution #87-135 - Relating to PID #19-117-23 31 0039 Reconveyance of Portions of above. Sale to adjoining property owners only.. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincerely~ Fran Clark, CMC City Clerk fc eno. 1 83 July 14, 1987 RESOLUTION. NO. 87-134 RESOLUTION RELEASING CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT CANDS TO HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR PUBLIC AUCTION AND CERTIFYING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS WHEREAS, the City of Mound has been inform'~d by the Department of Property Taxation of Hennepin County that certain lands within the City have been forfeited for non-payment of real estate taxes; and WHEREAS, the parcels do comply with the City's zoning ordinance or building codes and are not adverse to the health, safety and general welfare of residents of this City; and WHEREAS, all special assessments wet. e--cancelled at the time of forfeiture and may be reassessed after the property is returned to private ownership pursuan, t to Minnesota Statutes 282.02 (also note: M.S. 429.07, Subd. 4; M.S. 435.23 and M.S. 444.076); and WHEREAS, all special assessments that have been levied since forfeiture shall be included as a separate item and added to the appraised value of an.y such parcel of.land at the time it is sold (M.S. 282.01, Subd. 3); . ~ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City Of Mound, Minnesota: 1. That the following parcels of tax forfeited land are released to the County of Hennepin for public auction and the City hereby certifies the following special assessments: PARCEL. .FID # & DESCRIP, AMOUNT BEFORE FORFEITURE LEVY ~ AMOUNT #23-117~24 31 0007 3180 (Com at NW cot of Lot 37 3388 th Ely to a pt in E line 5803 thor dis 14 7/10 ft S 8297 from NE ocr thor th S 365.00 827.41 88.94 4,439.62 AMOUNT AFTER FORFEITURE LEVY ~ AMOUNT :. NONE along E line of Lots37 and 36 dist 72 8/10 ft th Wly to a pt in W line of Lot 36 dist 25 ft N from SW cor thof th Nly to beg, Block 1, The Highlands. 000 (Com at SW cot of Lot 38 3388 $ 827.41 th Nly along Wly line 5803 $ ' 88'95~i thof 72 ft th E .to a pt 8297 $ 3,977.38 in E line .of Lot 39 dis . ran Clark February 24, 1987 Page Two 6) P.I.D. 23-117-24 31 0007 - 75' x 195' - 13,600 S.F. ~ Over lO,O00 S.F. is above the wetlands. Release for public sale. elease for public sale; 8) P.I.D. 23-117-24 43 0050 - 40' x 280' - ll,200 S.F. + .. Most of this lot is in the wetlands. The City already owns the adjacent property (Lot 15) which is the same size with most of it also in the wetlands. From a visual inspection, it did not appear that sufficient area exists above the 100 year flood elevation to allow a home to be built on these two lots. Elevations and the location of the high water line are needed before a more accurate determination can be made. 9) P.I.D. 25-117-24 21 0073 - 99' on Tuxedo - 4,900 S.F'"± 'This lot is undersized; therefore, we would recommend selling only to adjacent property owner. 10) P.I.D. 25-117-24 21 0135 - 86' on Tuxedo - 76' on Waterbury - 5,600 S.F. The City needs a permanent easement for street and utility purposes over the corner of this lot. Attached is a copy of the required easement. This lot is undersized in area, but it is within the guidelines used by the City Council in granting a variance. This parcel would bevery difficult if not impossible to build on due to its shape and topography; therefore, we would recommend it be released for sale only to the adjacent property owners. 11) P.I.D. 30-117-23 22 0021 - 80' x 80' - 6,400 S.F,' This parcel also has a very difficult topography:problem, but with a house designed for the location, we believe it would be buildable. Recommend releasing for public sale (LIST B) .::'. .. 1) P.I.D. 1~-117-24 11 0058 - Triangular - 3,600 S.F.; Undersized lot which should be sold only to adjacent property owner.' 2) P.I.D. 13-117-24 12 0026 - 40' x 80' - '~,200 S.F. Undersized lot which should be sold only to adjacent property owner. ,July 14, 1' 70 ft N from SE ocr thor th S ~o SE cot thof th E to NE cot of Lot 37 th S along E line thof 14 7/10 ft th Wly to beg, Block 1, The Highlands. . 3. The Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to release the aforementioned-lands for sale at public auction subject to the County imposing the lien of special assessments on said lands. 4. The City of Mound is releasing the,above properties .. subject to street and utility easements being retained by the City of Mound. The foregoing resolution was moved by.Mayor Smith and seconded by Councilmember Johnson. ' The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Abel, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and 'Smith. '" The following Councilmembers voted in the.negative: none. : ss/Steve Smith Mayor Att'est: City Clerk March 8, 1998 Mound Advisory Planning Commission Ref: Planning Commission Agenda, 3-9-98, Item "G" Subject: CASE # 98-11., "Variance, to recognize non-conforming lot size, To construct a new conforming home, 2910 Oaklawn Lane .... " We are not in favor of this variance. We have not received sufficient notification within a timely manner, having only received your Agenda Friday March 6, 1998, to totally evaluate the evidence supporting this case. We are concerned, and ask you to take into consideration the real effects on Wetlands and Woods issue. We are concerned, and ask you to take into consideration the real effects to surface water mn-off onto adjoining properties. We object to allowing a variance to a "non-conforming lot size "to this parcel that appears to have been recently re-platted from the original plat when we purchased the adjoining lot, 2900 Oaklawn Lane. At that time, and again at the public action selling lot 2910 Oaklawn Lane, we understood you could not build on this lot. Was not the current owner aware of this item. How did this plot become approved when known to be a non-conforming lot size? Please govern by the current guidelines established for you. Thank you. 14~rry)Meehan, 2900 Oaklawn Lane e"~Rita Iv~eehan, 2900 Oaklawn Lane RECEIVED MOUND PLANNING & INSP. CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET ADDRESS: LOT OF RECORD? YES'NO HOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE N S E W ] N S E W N S E W N S E W REAR N S E W LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' GARAGE, SHED ..... DETACHED BUILDINGS ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: ~ B1 ?,SOO/O R1A 6o000~ B2 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 EXISTING/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: LO]' W/D'IH: VARIANCE SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF HARDCOVER CONFORMING, YES I~NO~ N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' N S E W 50' This Zoning Information Sheet 9nly summarizes n portion of the requirements ouUincd in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, comact ~he City of Mound Plnnning L~parm~nt at 472-0600. R'.~S T I C'!,';')OD ~ RD ..... .,- 77.5 140 ~.~45 ' 8. ,Z~L ,' 33,' {.87) '~ ( March 24, 1998 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION AT XXXX LYNWOOD BLVD, LOTS 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 AND 11, KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND, PIDS 13-117-24 33 0028 & 13-117-24 33 0029, P & Z CASE #98-13 WHEREAS, the applicants, Dave and Eleanor Willette, have submitted a Minor Subdivision request for a boundary adjustment that is in full compliance with the City Zoning Code, Section 330:20, Subd. 1 .B, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within B-1 Central Business District, and; WHEREAS, the property located on the corner of Belmont Lane and Lynwood Blvd. currently has two separate tax parcels: Parcel A - Lots 6,7,&8 and Parcel B - Lots 9,10,&11, and; WHEREAS, the proposed line adjustment maintain two (2) parcels that meet all zoning code requirements for lot area and street frontage, and; WHEREAS, it is the intention of the applicant to sell parcel A and retain parcel B for future development, and; follows: WHEREAS, Exhibit A describes the new legal descriptions and are as Parcel A: Lots 6, 7, & 8, "Koehler's Addition to Mound, Lake Minnetonka, except the South 10 feet thereof; AND The West 40 feet of Lot 9, "Koehler's Addition to Mound", Lake Minnetonka, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for Hennepin County, except the South 10 feet thereof. Parcel B: Lots 10, 11, and all that portion of Lot 9 lying East of the West 40 feet of said Lot 9, "Koehler's Addition to Mound", Lake Minnetonka, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the Office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County, except the South 10 feet of said Lots 9, 10, and 11., and; '2o7 March 24, 1998 Willette - xxxx Lynwood Blvd. Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval of the lot split as recommended by staff, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: o The City does hereby grant a minor subdivision of the property establishing Parcels A and B from Lots 6-11, Koehler's Addition to Mound" from the following legally described properties pursuant to Section 330:20, Subd. 1 .B: Parcel A: Lots 6, 7, and 8, 'Koehler's Addition to Mound", Lake Minnetonka, except the South 10 feet of said Lots 6, 7, and 8. PID 13-117-24 33 0028 Parcel B: Lots 9, 10, and 11, "Koehler's Addition to Mound", Lake Minnetonka, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the Office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County, except the South 10 feet of said Lots 9, 10, and 11. PID 13-117-24 33 0029 This Minor Subdivision is granted for the following new legally described property: Parcel A: Lots 6, 7, & 8, 'Koehler's Addition to Mound, Lake Minnetonka, except the South 10 feet thereof; AND The West 40 feet of Lot 9, 'Koehler's Addition to Mound", Lake Minnetonka, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for Hennepin County, except the South 10 feet thereof. PID 13-117-24 33 0028 Parcel B: Lots 10, 11, and all that portion of Lot 9 lying East of the West 40 feet of said Lot 9, 'Koehler's Addition to Mound", Lake Minnetonka, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the Office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County, except the South 10 feet of said Lots 9, 10, and 11. PID 13-117-24 33 0029. 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. March 24, 1998 Willette - xxxx L yn wood Blvd, Page 3 The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: and seconded by The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk A, d~ .... L Minutes - Mound Planning Commission March 9, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 9, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Bill Voss. Staff Present: Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clappsaddle. Absent and unexcused: Michael Mueller, Mark Hanus. Public Present: Dennis Kelm, Clyde & Denise Bonnema, Dave Willette, David Holm, Robert Wroda, Henry Reintz, Muriel Reintz, Larry & Rita Meehan, Jerry & Pamela Neumann, Chris Stuhr, Scott Hoelscher - US West. Meeting called to order 7:55 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. Chair Michael called for a brief moment of silence in remembrance of Gerald Reifschneider MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 9, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Glister to approve the Minutes of the February 9, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 5 - O. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE #98-13: MINOR SUBDIVISION, DAVID & ELEANOR WILLETTE, XXXX LYNWOOD BLVD., LOTS 6-11, KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND, PIDS # 13- 117-24 33 0028 & 13-117-24 33 0029 Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon presented the case. The applicants, David and Eleanor Willette, have submitted a minor subdivision request for a boundary adjustment. The property includes lots 6 - 11 of 'Koehler's addition to Mound" and is located at the corner of Belmont Lane and Lynwood Blvd. Currently, lots 6 - 8 and 9 - 11 are separate tax parcels. The proposal is to move the dividing line 40 feet to the east, enlarging the size of parcel A and decreasing parcel B. The proposal meets all zoning code requirements for lot area and frontage. The applicants intentions are to sell parcel A and retain parcel B for future development. The applicant has indicated future plans for parcel B are for a laundry business. At this Minutes - Mound Planning Commission March 9, 1998 time, a site plan has not been prepared. The applicant has a tentative purchase agreement for parcel A with the adjacent shopping center. Future plans for the property are unknown. Staff has been in contact with the applicant in preparation of this request. Staff has meet with the applicant to discuss implications the downtown redevelopment project and the relocation of County Road 15 on this parcel. Most of the initial impacts are access related, especially to parcel A. Hennepin County is currently reviewing where access will be given along the relocated County Road 15. At this time, it seems that Belmont Lane will connect. What is uncertain is if Parcel A would be allowed a driveway access directly to CR 15. Preliminary signs indicate that direct access would probably not be the first choice. Depending on future development plans access to the parcel could be provided in a couple of ways. The parcel could not be denied some means of access. Because the applicant does not have development plans, it is difficult to address future impacts of the proposal. Parcel A could be much more difficult to address due to the uncertainty of future ownership and development plans. Certainly access is a larger issue with parcel A than B. Other issues that will need to be addressed when development plans are clear include utility service and hardcover issues. Both parcels have water and sewer service stubs. Depending on the type of use service lines may or may not be sized to accommodate business activities. Hardcover would be limited to 30 percent at this time. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the minor subdivision as requested. Staff will continue to work with the property owners and Hennepin County in securing access arrangements. These parcels although on the periphery of the downtown project are very visible from CR 15. It will be important that the City continue to be proactive in addressing the future development of these two parcels. Discussion: Weiland stated that if the realignment of the road is completed, Access to Parcel A would have to be granted. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Burma to recommend Staff recommendation. Motion carried 5-0. This case will go to Council on March 24, 1998 711 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: March 9, 1998 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision OWNER: Dave and Eleanor Willette - 2524 Lost Lake Road CASE NUMBER: 98-13 I-IKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5j LOCATION: 5500 Lynwood Blvd. ZONING: Central Business B-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Business BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a minor subdivision request for a boundary adjustment. The property includes lots 6 - 11 of "Koehler's addition to Mound" and is located at the comer of Belmont Lane and Lynwood Blvd. Currently, lots 6 - 8 and 9 - 11 are separate tax parcels. The proposal is to move the dividing line 40 feet to the east, enlarging the size of parcel A and decreasing parcel B. The proposal meets all zoning code requirements for lot area and frontage. The applicants intentions are to sell parcel A and retain parcel B for future development. The applicant has indicated future plans for parcel B are for a laundry business. At this time, a site plan has not been prepared. The applicant has a tentative purchase agreement for parcel A with the adjacent shopping center. Future plans for the property are unknown. COMMENTS: Staff has been in contact with the applicant in preparation of this request. Staff has meet with the applicant to discuss implications the downtown redevelopment project and the relocation of County Road 15 on this parcel. Most of the initial impacts are access related, especially to parcel A. Hennepin County is currently reviewing where access will be given along the relocated County Road 15. At this time, it seems that Belmont Lane will connect. What is uncertain is if Parcel A would be allowed a driveway access directly to CR 15. Preliminary signs indicate that direct access would probably not be the first choice. Depending on future development plans access to the parcel could be provided in a couple of ways. The parcel could not be denied some means of access. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 2/2. p. 2 Willette Minor Subdivision March 9, 1998 Because the applicant does not have development plans, it is difficult to address future impacts of the proposal. Parcel A could be much more difficult to address due to the uncertainty of future ownership and development plans. Certainly access is a larger issue with parcel A than B. Other issues that will need to be addressed when development plans are clear include utility service and hardcover issues. Both parcels have water and sewer service stubs. Depending on the type of use service lines may or may not be sized to accommodate business activities. Hardcover would be limited to 30 percent at this time. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the minor subdivision as requested. Staff will continue to work with the property owners and Hennepin County in securing access arrangements. These parcels although on the periphery of the downtown project are very visible from CR 15. It will be important that the City continue to be proactive in addressing the future development of these two parcels. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 l~ev. 11-14-97 Application for MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Planning Commission Date:~ City Council Date:__~ Distribution: City Planner Public Works City Engineer Other ,, Il FEB 2:5 1998. 55364 Case No. qbe[ Application Fee: $75.00 Escrow Deposit: $1,000 Deficient Unit Charges? Delinquent Taxes? VARIANCE REQUIRED? Please type or print the following information: ..................... PROPERTY Subject Address INFORMATION ~ - * EXISTING Lot ~, LEGAL - t / , ~ - - - ZONING DISTRICT Circle: R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 APPLICANT The applicant is: ~owner other: Phone (H) ~7~-q33 Z (W) ~ fl ~ ~ {M). OWNER Name (if other than applicant) Address Phone (H) (W) (M) SURVEYOR/ Name ~ 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. Th/~PpAcat~o, nlrn~us, t ~e s/gned by a_L// owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why th/s /s not the case. 0 ners Signature Date '''Q~/ Owner's Signature Date IIPROPER7 ADDRESS: .OWNER S NAME: CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. I I LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, El'C. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X TOTALOTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... PREPARED BY DATE SENT BY: 2-13-98 ; 8:2.5 ; MEAGHER & 6EER~ 94720620;# 2/ ~ Existing: Parcel A: Parcel B: LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots Six (6), Seven (7) and Eight (8), "Koehler's Addition to Mound", Lake Minnetonka, except the South 10 feet of said Lots 6, 7 and 8; AND PIN 13-11724330028 Lots Nine (9), Ten (10) and Eleven (11 ), "Koehler's Addition to Mound', Lake Minnetonka, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the Office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County, except the South 10 feet of said Lots 9, 10 and 11. PIN 13-11724330029 Proposed: Parcel A: Parcel B: Lots Six (6), Seven (7) and Eight (8), "Koehler's Addition to Mound", Lake Minnetonka, except the South 10 feet thereof; AND The West 40 feet of Lot Nine (9), 'Koehler's Addition to Mound", Lake Minnetonka, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Register of Deeds in and for Hennepin County, except the South 10 feet thereof. Lots Ten (10), Eleven (11) and all that portion of Lot Nine (9) lying East of the West 40 feet of said Lot 9, "Koehler's Addition to Mound", Lake Minnetonka, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the Office of the Register of Deeds in and for said County, except the South ¶ 0 feet of said Lots 9, 10 and 11. RECEIVED FEB 2 0 1998 PROPOSED LOT LINE REARRANGEMENT FOR DAVID WlLLETTE IN LOTS 6-1 1, "KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND" HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 8 6 1 go.o0 A 34200+- S.F. N 8g'34' 00" E 190.00 S 89'34' 00" W I ''" o~I I ?, ! 40 g 40 280.00 I I I I I 18 ~" · - ~ 0 ~1 280.00 90.(~0 B 16200+- S.F. '1 0 go.o0 · 1 1 TEL. SOX- 40 LYNWOOD BOULEV At:RD EXISTING DESCRIPTIONS: PARCEL A: Lots 6, 7, and 8, "Koeldor' a Addition to Mound", Lake Idinnetonka. except the South 10 feet of aald Lots 6, 7 and 8; PARCEL B: Lots 9, 10, end 1% "Koehler'a Addition to Mound", Lake Minnotonko, occording to the plot there- of on file or of record In the office of the Register of Deeds in end for sold County, except the South 10 feet of said Lots 9, 10 =~d 11. PROPOSED DESCRIPTIONS: NEW PARCEL A: Lots 6, 7 end 8, "Koelder'e Addition to Mound", Lake bllnnetonku, excect the South 10 feet thereof: AND The West 40 feet of Lot 9, "Koehler'e Addition to Mound". Lake Minne~.onku, occording to the plot thereof on file or of record In the office of the Register of Deeds In und for Hennepin County, except the South 10 feet thereof. NEW PARCEL B: Lots 10, 11 end ~11 thet port of Lot 9 lying Euat of the West 40 feet of auld Lot 9, "Koehler' a Addition to Mound", Lake Minnetonko, uccording to the pl~t thereof on file or of record In the office of the Register of Deed~ In ~ for sold County, except the South 10 feet of auld Lots g, 10 end 11. This mxvey Intends to show the boundorlee of the obove described property, (md the location of existing visible improvements thereon. It does not purport to show uny other Improvements or encroach4T~nts. o : Iron marker 8oaring,, ihown are baeed upon an aeeumed datum. I I I I I I I I I RFr'..EIVED FEB 2 3 1998 .':~.~,~,,iNG & INSR ADDRES~ ~ LOT OF RECORD? YES / NO YARD I D'RECTION 1 ZONING DISTRICT. LOT SIZE/WIDTH: 0.000/ 0 6.ooo/4o B= 20.ooo/8o R2 ~4,000/80 R3 S~E ORD. E~ 30,000/~00 R~Q~IRED EXISTING/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDI'H: LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE HOUSE ......... FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W SIDE N S E W REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF N S E W N S E W 15' 50' 10' OR 30' GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACHED BUILDINGS FRONT N S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W 50' TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' HARDCOVER CONFORMING? YES / NO 30% OR 40% ~ 'TDATED: This Zoning Information Shee~ only summarizes a portion of fl~e requiremcnta outlined in abe City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, con.c! abe City of Mound Planning Departmem at 472-0600. :'~.? ( CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: CASE NO. LOCATION: ZONING: STAFF REPORT Planning Commission Agenda of March 23, 1998 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official Variance Request Paul Paine 98-14 4549 Wilshire Blvd. Lots 7,8, & 29, Block 10, Avalon, PID 23-117-24-31 0027 R-1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant, Paul Paine, is seeking a 25.7 foot variance approval to recognize the nonconforming front yard setback of 4.3 feet to the required 30 feet to the existing dwelling in order to allow for construction of a new conforming detached garage, a new set of roof trusses, and a new foundation for the dwelling. This property is located in the R-1 Single Family Residential Zone which requires for lots of record a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, a minimum lot width of 60 feet, setbacks of 30 feet to the front for both streets, Wilshire and Brunswick, and side yard setbacks of 10 and 8 feet. From site observation, you will note the foundation work on the dwelling has already been completed. The fact that the dwelling was nonconforming to the front yard setback did not come to our attention until the survey was obtained in order to construct the garage. It was at that time I discovered the building permit to replace the foundation was issued in error. This is a unique site and the error was precipitated by the visual appearance of a greater setback to Wilshire Boulevard and our plat maps do not reflect the actual location of the road since the reconstruction in 1978. A memorandum from the City Engineer regarding the road reconstruction is attached. printed on recycled paper March 23, 1998 Paine - 4594 Wilshire Blvd Page 2 Comments: Variances can be granted either on the basis of hardship or practical difficulty. Hardship and practical difficulty can usually be found in cases of relocation of a road, unique lot shape or other unusual physical features. In this case the house has a visual appearance of a greater setback than actually exists due to the relocation of the road in 1978, and it was not determined at that time that the dwelling should be removed, therefor due to the unique circumstances and history surrounding this case staff can support a recommendation of approval based on practical difficulty. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance as requested. JS/kl VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: City Planner City Engineer Public Works Other Case No.~_(~_~- __ DNR SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. Address Z~,~ ~}i[~i~.~-~. Lot '~ "8-~ -- Block /~ Subdivision ~~~ ZONING DISTRICT ~ R-lA Name ~, ~2.¢~ ~ ~i Address .hone H q'Tq- y PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Address 15.~ '~'~'~'~ ~ ~, V'C~ Phone (H) b'~7 ~'7 .- (.? ~- (W) R-2 R-3 B-1 Plat # 3 '~,-.,~) B-2 B-3 (M) (M) 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 resblEtions. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): (Rev. 11/14/97) Variance Application, P. 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 use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED v I 7 REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ~ E W) .~.~ ft. q, 3 ft. Or~,q ft. Yard: (~'~ ~,,~ iC) ft. f~j ~ ft. ~' ft. Side Side Yard: ( N S(~W ) ¢ ft. C~ ft. --~ ft. ,l;~e~r Yard: ( r~.E W ) ~ ft. I~)~- ft. ft. Lakeside: (N-t~ E W ) k~ ~1~ ft. ft. ft. : (N SEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ~ ft. (~7.~ ft. ft. Lot Size: ~")__sq ft ~/J..~'! ~ sq ft _~ __ ----- sq ft Hardcover: ~/,~O ~_sq ft I.'q ~8 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-conforming use: o Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil ( ) too small ( ) drainage (~q existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: (Rev. 11/14/97) Variance Application, P. 3 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: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No ~q~. 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 <~- //- ~> (Rev. 11/14/97) Jla CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) OWNER'S NAME: '/- LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% ,o~ ~ ll~AS\,0~q so. ~. x ~o% LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for all lots) .............. = (for Lots of Record*) ....... = (for detached buildings only) I *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT ~co x ~,<IJ~-' : '72-0 ~ x ~V : .~¥ ~ ~(p/ /2-0 ,.,"~ X ilfl = _ ~0~ TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = ~ x/O : TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. ~-O x ~0 = ~( x ~_~o: X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. TOTAL DECK .......................... X = X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE (~ OVER (i~a)te difference) ............................... PREPARED BY DATE .~- /2-~;~ rvlcCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, MN 55447 Telephone 612/476-6010 612/476-8532 FAX Engineers Planners Surveyors MEMORANDUM TO: Jon Sutherland FROM: John Cameron DATE: March 16, 1998 CASE NO.: SUBJECT: 98-14 City of Mound MFRA//8902 As requested, I have reviewed the subject property and have the following comments. When Hennepin County realigned CSAH 125 in about 1978, they moved it north and acquired new right-of-way. As part of the ensuing construction, a new street or service road was constructed to provide access to the four homes that previously had driveways directly to CSAH 125 (Wilshire Boulevard). This street/service road was constructed in the right-of-way of Wilshire Boulevard, previously occupied by CSAH 125 and is now maintained by the City of Mound as a regular city street. It was constructed at 16-feet wide without curb and gutter. The property in question is the last and most easterly parcel served by this road. Enclosed is a copy of an aerial photo, which shows the area. I previously provided you with a copy of a portion of Hennepin County's plan from 1978that shows the street/service road and also the present county road. c:~'nain:\8902\suth3-16 An Equal Opportunity Employer Cer'ti ?te S ur've k .~ FENCE ~ ~TAINING WALL ~ ~ ~ ~ 2.94 N 89'3 '42" E ., '..~ , . 80.00 PLAT ~ MEA5 B UNSWICK LANE PROPERTY DESCRIP~ON: I hereby cedlfy that this survey, Lofs 7. 8. and 29, Block 10. Avalon, plan, or repo~ wes prepored by me Hennepin Count~ Minnesota, according or under my direct supervision and to the record plo~ thereo~ that I om o duly Registered Lend Su~eyor under the lows of the State of Minnesote. Ed wor~./?~o/~ ~n~' Su~eyor Oote:~Reg. No. 14343 denotes iron monument found Requested By: ~~ Revised: deno~e~ soi~ bori~9 Dote: Drown ~7: Scole: 2becked By: denotes p .... lotion test hole 2/6/98 D.N.A. ~ ~ ~,---~m,, z,. 98040 M.H. 9 16{ 22' :)NSTRuCT WALE-- I 0 ,2 J lO"PINE 52.07' B'* T'RI. OA'K 7 29 I0 8 J4555 0 27 ; .2___'./_ .......... BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620 Business Name/Tennant The applicant is: _~_owner LEGAL Lot 3 DESCRIPTION Subdivision PID8 OWNER Name. ~ Address ~S~ Phone (H) ~ ~ (W) (M) CONT~CTOR Company Name Contact Person Address Phone (H) (W) (M) ARCHITECT Name &/OR Address ENGINEER Phone (H) (W) (M) CHANGE OF FROM: USE TO: VALUATION OF WORK: / ~/~ ~-C~O VALUE APPROVED: SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AJR CONDITIONING. PERMITS BECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED W~THIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ARANDONED FOR A -~RIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. TIM E LIMITS ON BUILDING COMPLETION. ALL WORK TO BE PERFORMED PURSUANT TO A BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, REPAIRS, REMODELING, AND ALTERATIONS TO THE EXTERIOR5 OF ANY I~UILDING OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN ONE [1) YEAR PROM THE DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE. THE PERSON OBTAINING THE PERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETION. A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE IS A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE. THE CITY COUNCIL MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION UPON WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE PERMITTER. ESTABLISHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PERMITTER PREVENTED COMPLETION OF THE WORK FOR WHICH THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED. THE EXTENSION SHALL BE REQUESTED NOT LESS THAN THIRTY (30) BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE END OP THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT, ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OP ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. PRINT APPLICANT'S NAME APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE DATE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ (OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS & COMMENTS: CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP / DIV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD I COPIED APPROVED I ZONING BLDG SIZE {SQFT) # STORIES FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED? I CITY ENGINEER BUILDING PERMIT ~ 2 2 ? 2 ci-~o,~ ~,..~-;~ ~ CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 · Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 7~owner' The applicant is: con~'actor tenant Phone (H) (VV) " (M) Contractor Name ~ _~-'~'L.~'~. UC# Address Phone (H) (W) (a) Description Addition A DESCRIPTION OF WORK' --' ESTIMATED VALUE ............... ZONING DISTRICT: (~RIA R2 R3 B1 B2 B3 RES. # & DATE DATE FILED PLAN CHECK FEE ...................................... $ SURCHARGE .............................................. $ DRAINTILE ................................................... $ S.~C. (99%) ................................................ $ S.A.C. (1%) .................................................. $ CITY SEWER CONNECTION ..................... $ CITY WATER CONNECTION ...................... $ WATER METER ........................................... $ STATIONARY ROD ...................................... $ 01-3254 78-2304 78-3774 78-3158 73-3155 73-3744 73-3842 · bite - Finance Copy Canary - Inspector's Copy Pink - File Copy DATE ,//-- -'/.~ -- ? 7 Gold - Applicant's Receipt 12~2~~ NOTICE: Separate permits are required for electrical, plumbing, hea~ng, ventilation or air condrdoning. This permit becomes null and void if work or consi~c'don authorized is not commenced within 180 days, or if conslmc- tion or work is suspended or abandoned for a period of 180 days at any time after work is commenced. Ail exterior work must be completed within one (1) year from the date of permit I~ance, ac~ording to City Code Section 300:10, Subd. 5. I hereby cerlffy that I have read and examined this applicabon and know the same to be true and correct. All provisions of laws and city ordinances governing this type of work will be complied with whether specked herein o~ not. The grating of a permit does not presume to give au~ority to violate or cancel the provisions of any ot~er state or local law, regulating ~con~m~'~on or the I~rmance~~ ' PERMIT APPROVED BY ~.r 'CANTS SIGNATURE OTHER ......................................................... $ CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET ' (~..~- ~o,ooo/?Z~ n~ ~,soo/o SURVEYONFILE?.{.YES~IIIN~] RXA 6T000~0 ~2 20,000/80 ___ R2 6,000/40 B3 10.000/60 ,, ,,.ooo,.o . LOT OF RECORD7 NO R3 SB~ O~. ~ 30,000/~00 YA~ Die. ION ~D ~I~ING/PRO~SED HOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF N~S E W N( E w N )w N S E N S E W ~, N S E W EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTH: LOT DId, PTH: VARIANCE GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACHED BUILDINGS FRONT FRONT SIDE NS E W N S E w N S E W 4' OR 6' SIDE N S E W 4'OR6' REAR N S E W 4' LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' i ni~ t~ning info--lion Sheet oMy summar~s a ~rfion of ~e tequiremen~ outli~d in ~e City of Mou~ Zoffing O~i~e. For ~r~er infomfion, contact ~e City of M~ Pla~ing ~nl at 472~. 9-117-2 ~11 .~ aa 49 55 CITY OF MOUND March 13, 1998 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 TO: FROM: SUBEJCT: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK LICENSE RENEWALS The following licenses are up for renewal. The license period is April 1, 1998 through March 31, 1999. Approval is contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being submitted. Transient Merchant By the Way Snack Shop Tree Removal License Aaspen Tree Service Four Season's Tree Service Precision Landscape Randy's Tress Service Shorewood Tree Service The Tree-Stump Co. Woodsmen Tree Service Set-Up License A1 & Alma's Supper Club pr~nted on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND ORDINANCE NO. 98- AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING: TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND FACILITIES; AMENDING MOUND ORDINANCE NO. 88 BY ADDING A NEW SECTION THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND ORDAINS: Section 1. City of Mound Code of Ordinances is mended by adding a new section to read as follows: Section 350:1300 - Telecommunications Towers and Facilities. Section 350:1300. Findings. The city council finds: Subd. 1. The federal Communications Act of 1934 as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("the Act") grants the Federal Communications Commission exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions from telecommunications facilities and the regulation of radio signal interference among users of the radio frequency spectrum. Subd. 2. Consistent with the Act, the regulation of towers and telecommunications facihties in the city will not have the effect of prohibiting any person from providing wireless telecommunications services. The general purpose of this section is to regulate the placement, construction, and modification of telecommunication towers and facilities in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, while not unreasonably interfering with the development of the competitive wireless telecommunications marketplace in the city. In addition, this section recognizes the contractual control for the purpose of preserving public health, safety, and welfare that can be exercised over telecommunications facilities when those facilities are located on property owned or controlled by governmental entities. Specifically, the purposes of this section are: 1. to regulate the location of telecommunication towers and facilities; 2. to protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts of telecommunication towers and facilities; to minimize adverse visual impacts of telecommunication towers and facilities through design, siting, landscaping, and movative camouflaging techniques; DJG137703 MU200-69 ORDINANCE NO. 96-1998 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO ZONING: TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWERS AND FACILITIES; AMENDING SECTION 350:00 BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 350:1300, ENYITLED, "TELECOMMIJNICATIONS TOWERS AND FACILIT/ES" THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND ORDAINS: Section 1. City of Mound Code of Ordinances is amended by adding a new section to read as follows: Section 350:1300 - Telecommunications Towers and Facilities. Section 350:1300. Findings. The city council finds: Subd. 1. The federal Communications Act of 1934 as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("the Act") grants the Federal Communications Commission exclusive jurisdiction over the regulation of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions from telecommunications facilities and the regulation of radio signal interference among users of the radio frequency spectrum. Subd. 2. Consistent with the Act, the regulation of towers and telecommunications facilities in the city will not have the effect of prohibiting any person from providing wireless telecommunications services. The general purpose of this section is to regulate the placement, construction, and modification of telecommunication towers and facilities in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, while not unreasonably interfering with the development of the competitive wireless telecommunications marketplace in the city. In addition, this section recognizes the contractual control for the purpose of preserving public health, safety, and welfare that can be exercised over telecommunications facilities when those facilities are located on property owned or controlled by governmental entities. Specifically, the purposes of this section are: 1. to regulate the location of telecommunication towers and facilities; to protect residential areas and land uses from potential adverse impacts of telecommunication towers and facilities; to minimize adverse visual impacts of telecommunication towers and facilities through design, siting, landscaping, and innovative camouflaging techniques; to promote and encourage shared use and collocation of telecommunication towers and antenna support structures; e to avoid damage to adjacent properties caused by telecommunication towers and facilities by ensuring that those structures are soundly and carefully designed, constructed, modified, maintained and promptly removed when no longer used or when determined to be structurally unsound; to ensure that telecommunication towers and facilities are compatible with surrounding land uses; and to facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunications services to the residents and businesses of the city in an orderly fashion. Seetlon 350:1305. Definitions. For purposes of this section the following terms have the meanings given them, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Subd. 1. "Antenna support structure" means a building, athletic fieldlighting, water tower, or other structure, other than a tower, which can be used for location of telecommunications facilities. Subd. 2. "Applicant" means a person who applies for a permit to develop, construct, build modify or erect a tower under this section. Subd. 3. "Application" means the process by which the owner of a plot of land within the city submits a request to develop, construct, build, modify or erect a tower upon that land. Subd. 4. "Engineer" means an engineer licensed by the state of Minnesota. Subd. 5. "Person" means any natural person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company, or other legal entity, private or public, whether for profit or not for profit. Subd. 6. "Stealth" means designed to blend into the surrounding environment; examples of stealth facilities include, without limitation, architecturally screened roof- mounted antennas, antennas integrated into architectural elements, and telecommunications towers designed to appear other than as a tower, such as light poles, power poles, and trees. Subd. 7. "Telecommunications facilities" means cables, wires, lines, wave guides, antennas or any other equipment or facilities associated with the transmission or reception of telecommunications located or installed on or near a tower or antenna support structure. The term does not include: a satellite earth station antenna two meters in diameter or less located in an industrial or commercial district; e a satellite earth station antenna one meter or less in diameter, wherever located; or 3. a tower. Subd. 8. "Telecommunications tower" or "tower" means a self-supporting lattice, guyed, or monopole structure constructed from grade that supports telecommunications facilities; the term does not include amateur radio operations equipment licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. 2 Section 350:1310. Development of Towers: Approvals Required. Subd. 1. General Construction Prohibition. A tower may not be constructed in any zoning d/strict unless such tower is a conditional or permitted use in the zoning district in which construction will take place. Subd. 2. Conditional Use Permits Required. A tower may not be constructed in any zoning district unless a conditional use permit has been issued by the city council if the tower is a conditional use in the zoning district in which construction will take place. Subd. 3. Building Permit Required. A tower may not be constructed in any zoning district unless a building permit has been issued by the building official. Subd. 4. City Property. The city may authorize the use of city property for towers in accordance with the procedures of this code. The city has no obligation to allow the use of city property for this purpose. Subd. 5. Zoning Districts. A tower is not a permitted use in any zoning district. A tower is a conditional use in Light Industrial (I-l) and Planned Industrial Area (PIA) districts. Section 350:1315. Aoolication Process. Subd. 1. A person desiring to construct a tower must submit an application for a building permit and, if applicable, for a conditional use permit, to the Zoning Administrator. Subd. 2. An application to develop a tower must include: 1. name, address, and telephone number of the applicant; o name, address, and telephone numbers of the owners of the property on which the tower is proposed to be located; 3. written consent of the property owner(s) to the application; o written evidence from an engineer that the proposed structure meets the structural requirements of this code; written information demonstrating the need for the tower at the proposed site in light of the existing and proposed wireless telecommunications network(s) to be operated by persons intending to place telecommunications facilities on the tower; a copy of relevant portions of a lease signed by the applicant and property owner(s), requiring the applicant to remove the tower and associated telecommunications facilities upon cessation of operations on the leased site, or, if a lease does not yet exist, a written agreement to include such a provision in the lease to be signed; and 7. an application fee established from time to time by resolution of the city council. 3 Section. 350:1320. Performance Standards. Subd. 1. Collocation capability. Unless the applicant presents clear and convincing evidence to the city council that collocation is not feasible, a new tower may not be built, constructed or erected in the city unless the tower is capable of supporting at least two telecommunications facilities comparable in weight, size, and surface area to each other. Subd. 2. Setback requirements. A tower must comply with the following setback requirements: A tower must be located on a single parcel having a dimension equal to the height of the tower, as measured between the base of the tower located nearest the property line and the actual property line, unless an engineer specifies in writing that the collapse of the tower will occur within a lesser distance under reasonably foreseeable circumstances. e Setback requirements for towers are measured from the base of the tower to the property line of the parcel on which it is located. Section 350:1325. Engineer Certification. Towers must be designed and certified by an engineer to be structurally sound and in conformance with the Uniform Building Code, and any other standards set forth in this code. Section 350:1330. Height Restriction. A tower may not exceed the lesser of 125 feet in height or a height equivalent to 10 feet more than the distance from the base of the tower to the nearest point of any property line. Measurement of tower height must include the tower structure itself, the base pad, and any telecommunications facilities attached thereto. Tower height is measured from grade. Section 350:1335. Lighting. Towers may not be artificially lighted except as required by the Federal Aviation Administration. At time of construction of a tower, in cases where there are residential uses located within a distance which is three times the height of the tower from the tower, dual mode lighting must be requested from the Federal Aviation Administration. Notwithstanding this provision, the city may approve the placement of an antennae on an existing or proposed lighting standard, provided that the antennae is integrated with the lighting standard. Section 350:1340. Exterior Finish. Towers not requiring Federal Aviation Administration painting or marking must have an exterior finish as approved in the site plan. Section 350:1345. Fencing. Fences constructed around or upon parcels containing towers, antenna support structures, or telecommunications facilities must be constructed in accordance with the applicable fencing requirements in the zoning district where the tower or antenna support structure is located, unless more stringent fencing requirements are required by Federal Communications Commission regulations. 4 Section 350:1350. Landscaping. Landscaping on parcels containing towers, antenna support structures or telecommunications facilities must be in accordance with landscaping requirements as approved in the site plan. Utility buildings and structures accessory to a tower must be architecturally designed to blend in with the surrounding environment and to meet such setback requirements as are compatible with the actual placement of the tower. Ground mounted equipment must be screened from view by suitable vegetation, except where a design of non- vegetative screening better reflects and complements the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Section 350:1355. Accesso~ buildines and Equipment. No more than one accessory building is permitted per tower. Accessory buildings may be no be more than 200 square feet in size. Telecommunications facilities not located on a tower or in an accessory building must be of stealth design. Section 350:1360. Security. Towers must be reasonably posted and secured to protect against trespass. All signs must comply with applicable sign regulations. Section 350:1365. Design. Towers must be of stealth design. Section 350:1370. follows: Non-tower facilities. Telecommunications facilities are permitted only as Subd. 1. Telecommunications facilities are a conditional accessory use in the Central Business District (B-I), General Business (B-2), and Neighborhood Business (B-3) districts, provided that the owner of such a telecommunications facility, by written certification to the building official, establishes the following facts at the time plans are submitted for a building permit: that the height from grade of the telecommunications facilities and antennae support structure does not exceed the maximum height from grade of the antenna support structure by more than 20 feet; that the antenna support structure and telecommunications facilities comply with the Uniform Building Code; and that telecommunications facilities located above the primary roof of an antenna support structure are set back one foot from the edge of the primary roof for each one foot in height above the primary roof of the telecommunications facilities. This setback requirement does not apply to antennas that are mounted to the exterior of antenna support structures below the primary roof, but that do not protrude more than six inches from the side of the antenna support structure. Subd. 2. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this ordinance, telecommunications facilities are a permitted accessory use on antenna support structures owned or otherwise under the physical control of the city, a school district, or the state or federal government provided a conditional use permit has been issued by the city council and provided further that the owner of such a telecommunications facility, by 5 written certification to the building official, establishes the following facts at the time plans are submitted for a building permit: that the height from grade of the telecommunications facilities and antennae support structure does not exceed the maximum height from grade of the antenna support structure by more than 20 feet; that the antenna support structure and telecommunications facilities comply with the Uniform Building Code; and that telecommunications facilities located above the primary roof of an antenna support structure are set back one foot from the edge of the primary roof for each one foot in height above the primary roof of the telecommunications facilities. This setback requirement does not apply to antennas that are mounted to the exterior of antenna support structures below the primary roof, but that do not protrude more than six inches from the side of the antenna support structure. Section 350:1375. Removal of Towers. Abandoned or unused towers and associated above- ground facilities must be removed within twelve months of the cessation of operations of the telecommunications facility at the site unless an extension is approved by the city council. Any tower and associated telecommunications facilities that are not removed within twelve months of the cessation of operations at a site are declared to be public nuisances and may be removed by the city and the costs of removal assessed against the property pursuant to state law and the code. Section 350:1380. Shoreland Management Ordinance. To the extent that any conflict exists between any provision of this Section 350:1300 of the code and any provision of the Shoreland Management Ordinance contained at Section 350:1200 of the city's zoning ordinance, the more restrictive provision shall apply. Section 350:1385. Additional requirements. Subd. 1. Inspections. The city may conduct inspections at any time, upon reasonable notice to the property owner and the tower owner to inspect the tower for the purpose of determining if it complies with the Uniform Building Code and other construction standards provided by the city code, federal and state law. The expense related to such inspections will be borne by the property owner. Based upon the results of an inspection, the building official may require repair or removal of a tower. Subd. 2. Maintenance. Towers must be maintained in accordance with the following provisions: Tower owners must employ ordinary and reasonable care in construction and use commonly accepted methods and devices for preventing failures and accidents that are likely to cause damage, injuries, or nuisances to the public. 6 Tower owners must install and maintain towers, telecommunications facilities, wires, cables, fixtures and other equipment in compliance with the requirements of the National Electric Safety Code and all Federal Communications Commission, state, and local regulations, and in such a manner that they will not interfere with the use of other property. go Towers, telecommunications facilities, and antenna support structures must be kept and maintained in good condition, order, and repair. Maintenance or construction on a tower, telecommunications facilities or antenna support structure must be performed by qualified maintenance and construction personnel. w Towers must comply with radio frequency emissions standards of the Federal Communications Commission. If the use of a tower is discontinued by the tower owner, the tower owner must provide written notice to the city of its intent to discontinue use and the date when the use will be discontinued. Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect upon publication. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL March 24, 1998 PUBLISH IN THE LAKER NEWSPAPER - March 28, 1998 7 to promote and encourage shared use and collocation oftelecommun/cation towers and antenna support structures; to avoid damage to adjacent properties caused by telecommunication towers and facilities by ensuring that those structures are soundly and carefully designed, constructed, modified, maintained and promptly removed when no longer used or when determined to be structurally unsound; o to ensure that telecommunication towers and facilities are compatible with surrounding land uses; and to facilitate the provision of wireless telecommunications services to the residents and businesses of the city in an orderly fashion. Section 350:1305. Definitions. For purposes of this section the following terms have the meanings given them, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Subd. 1. "Antenna support structure" means a building, athletic fieldlighting, water tower, or other structure, other than a tower, which can be used for location of telecommunications facilities. Subd. 2. "Applicant" means a person who applies for a permit to develop, construct, build modify or erect a tower under this section. Subd. 3. "Application" means the process by which the owner of a plot of land within the city submits a request to develop, construct, build, modify or erect a tower upon that land. Subd. 4. "Engineer" means an engineer licensed by the state of Minnesota. Subd. 5. "Person" means any natural person, firm, partnership, association, corporation, company, or other legal entity, private or public, whether for profit or not for profit. Subd. 6. "Stealth" means designed to blend into the surrounding environment; examples of stealth facilities include, without limitation, architecturally screened roof-mounted antennas, antennas integrated into architectural elements, and telecommunications towers designed to appear other than as a tower, such as light poles, power poles, and trees. Subd. 7. "Telecommunications facilities" means cables, wires, lines, wave guides, antennas or any other equipment or facilities associated with the transmission or reception of telecommunications located or installed on or near a tower or antenna support structure. The term does not include: a satellite earth station antenna two meters in diameter or less located in an industrial or commercial district; DJG137703 MU200-69 2. a satellite earth station antenna one meter or less in diameter, wherever located; or 3. a tower. Subd. 8. "Telecommunications tower" or "tower" means a self-supporting lattice, guyed, or monopole structure constructed fi.om grade that supports telecommunications facilities; the term does not include amateur radio operations equipment licensed by the Federal Communications Commission. Section 350:1310. Development of Towers; Approvals Required. Subd. 1. General Construction Prohibition. A tower may not be constructed in any zoning district unless such tower is a conditional or permitted use in the zoning district in which construction will take place. Subd. 2. Conditional Use Permits Required. A tower may not be constructed in any zoning district unless a conditional use permit has been issued by the city council if the tower is a conditional use in the zoning district in which construction will take place. Subd. 3. Building Permit Required. A tower may not be constructed in any zoning district unless a building permit has been issued by the building official. Subd. 4. Ci_ty Property. The city may authorize the use of city property for towers in accordance with the procedures of this code. The city has no obligation to allow the use of city property for this purpose. Subd. 5. Zoning Districts. A tower is not a permitted use in any zoning district. A tower is a conditional use in Light Industrial (I-1) and Planned Industrial Area (PIA) districts. Section 350:1315. Application Process. Subd. 1. A person desiring to construct a tower must submit an application for a building permit and, if applicable, for a conditional use permit, to the Zoning Administrator. Subd. 2. An application to develop a tower must include: 1. name, address, and telephone number of the applicant; name, address, and telephone numbers of the owners of the property on which the tower is proposed to be located; 3. written consent of the property owner(s) to the application; DJG137703 MU200-69 written evidence fi.om an engineer that the proposed structure meets the structural requirements of this code; written information demonstrating the need for the tower at the proposed site in light of the existing and proposed wireless telecommunications network(s) to be operated by persons intending to place telecommunications facilities on the tower; a copy of relevant portions of a lease signed by the applicant and property owner(s), requiting the applicant to remove the tower and associated telecommunications facilities upon cessation of operations on the leased site, or, if a lease does not yet exist, a written agreement to include such a provision in the lease to be signed; and 7. an application fee established fi.om time to time by resolution of the city council. Section. 350:1320. Performance Standards. Subd. 1. Collocation capabili _ty. Unless the applicant presents clear and convincing evidence to the city council that collocation is not feasible, a new tower may not be built, constructed or erected in the city unless the tower is capable of supporting at least two telecommunications facilities comparable in weight, size, and surface area to each other. Subd. 2. Setback requirements. A tower must comply with the following setback requirements: A tower must be located on a single parcel having a dimension equal to the height of the tower, as measured between the base of the tower located nearest the property line and the actual property line, unless an engineer specifies in writing that the collapse of the tower will occur within a lesser distance under reasonably foreseeable circumstances. Setback requirements for towers are measured fi'om the base of the tower to the property line of the parcel on which it is located. Section 350:1325. Engineer Certification. Towers must be designed and certified by an engineer to be structurally sound and in conformance with the Uniform Building Code, and any other standards set forth in this code. Section 350:1330. Height Restriction. A tower may not exceed the lesser of 125 feet in height or a height equivalent to 10 feet more than the distance fi.om the base of the tower to the nearest point of any property line. Measurement of tower height must include the tower structure itself, the base pad, and any telecommunications facilities attached thereto. Tower height is measured fi-om grade. Section 350:1335. Lighting. Towers may not be artificially lighted except as required by the Federal Aviation Administration. At time of construction of a tower, in cases where there are residential uses located within a distance which is three times the height of the tower from the tower, dual mode DJG137703 MU200-69 lighting must be requested fi.om the Federal Aviation Administration. Notwithstanding this provision, the city may approve the placement of an antennae on an existing or proposed lighting standard, provided that the antennae is integrated with the lighting standard. Section 350:1340. Exterior Finish. Towers not requiring Federal Aviation Administration painting or marking must have an exterior finish as approved in the site plan. Section 350:1345. Fencing. Fences constructed around or upon parcels containing towers, antenna support structures, or telecommunications facilities must be constructed in accordance with the applicable fencing requirements in the zoning district where the tower or antenna support structure is located, unless more stringent fencing requirements are required by Federal Communications Commission regulations. Section 350:1 ~ 50. Landscaping. Landscaping on parcels containing towers, antenna support structures or telecommunications facilities must be in accordance with landscaping requirements as approved in the site plan. Utility buildings and stmctures accessory to a tower must be architecturally designed to blend in with the surrounding environment and to meet such setback requirements as are compatible with the actual placement of the tower. Ground mounted equipment must be screened from view by suitable vegetation, except where a design of non-vegetative screening better reflects and complements the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Section 350:1355. Accessory_ buildings and Equipment. No more than one accessory building is permitted per tower. Accessory buildings may be no be more than 200 square feet in size. Telecommunications facilities not located on a tower or in an accessory building must be of stealth design. Section 350:1360. Security. Towers must be reasonably posted and secured to protect against trespass. All signs must comply with applicable sign regulations. Section 350:1365. Design. Towers must be of stealth design. Section 350:1370. Non-tower facilities. Telecommunications facilities are permitted only as follows: Subd. 1. Telecommunications facilities are a conditional accessory use in the Central Business District (B-l), General Business (B-2), and Neighborhood Business (B-3) districts, provided that the owner of such a telecommunications facility, by written certification to the building official, establishes the following facts at the time plans are submitted for a building permit: that the height fi'om grade of the telecommunications facilities and antennae support structure does not exceed the maximum height fi.om grade of the antenna support structure by more than 20 feet; that the antenna support structure and telecommunications facilities comply with the Uniform Building Code; and DJG137703 MU200-69 that telecommunications facilities located above the primary roof of an antenna support structure are set back one foot from the edge of the primary roof for each one foot in height above the primary roof of the telecommunications facilities. This setback requirement does not apply to antennas that are mounted to the exterior of antenna support structures below the primary roof, but that do not protrude more than six inches from the side of the antenna support structure. Subd. 2. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this ordinance, telecommunications facilities are a permitted accessory use on antenna support structures owned or otherwise under the physical control of the city, a school district, or the state or federal govemment provided a conditional use permit has been issued by the city council and provided fimher that the owner of such a telecommunications facility, by written certification to the building official, establishes the following facts at the time plans are submitted for a building permit: that the height from grade of the telecommunications facilities and antennae support structure does not exceed the maximum height from grade of the antenna support structure by more than 20 feet; that the antenna support structure and telecommunications facilities comply with the Uniform Building Code; and that telecommunications facilities located above the primary roof of an antenna support structure are set back one foot from the edge of the primary roof for each one foot in height above the primary roof of the telecommunications facilities. This setback requirement does not apply to antennas that are mounted to the exterior of antenna support structures below the primary roof, but that do not protrude more than six inches from the side of the antenna support structure. Section 350:1375. Removal of Towers. Abandoned or unused towers and associated above-ground facilities must be removed within twelve months of the cessation of operations of the telecommunications facility at the site unless an extension is approved by the city council. Any tower and associated telecommunications facilities that are not removed within twelve months of the cessation of operations at a site are declared to be public nuisances and may be removed by the city and the costs of removal assessed against the property pursuant to state law and the code. Section 350:1380. Shoreland Management Ordinance. To the extent that any conflict exists between any provision of this Section 350:1300 of the code and any provision of the Shoreland Management Ordinance contained at Section 350:1200 of the city's zoning ordinance, the more restrictive provision shall apply. Section 350:1385. Additional requirements. DJG137703 MU200-69 Subd. 1. Inspections. The city may conduct inspections at any lime, upon reasonable notice to the property owner and the tower owner to inspect the tower for the purpose of determining if it complies with the Uniform Building Code and other construction standards provided by the city code, federal and state law. The expense related to such inspections will be borne by the property owner. Based upon the results of an inspection, the building official may require repair or removal of a tower. Subd. 2. Maintenance. Towers must be maintained in accordance with the following provisions: Tower owners must employ ordinary and reasonable care in construction and use commonly accepted methods and devices for preventing failures and accidents that are likely to cause damage, injuries, or nuisances to the public. Tower owners must install and maintain towers, telecommunications facilities, wires, cables, fixtures and other equipment in compliance with the requirements of the National Electric Safety Code and all Federal Communications Commission, state, and local regulations, and in such a manner that they will not interfere with the use of other property. Towers, telecommunications facilities, and antenna support structures must be kept and maintained in good condition, order, and repair. Maintenance or construction on a tower, telecommunications facilities or antenna support structure must be performed by qualified maintenance and construction personnel. Towers must comply with radio fi'equency emissions standards of the Federal Communications Commission. If the use of a tower is discontinued by the tower owner, the tower owner must provide written notice to the city of its intent to discontinue use and the date when the use will be discontinued. DJG137703 MU200-69 Sec. 2. Th/s ordinance sha/l take effect upon Dated: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL- PUBLISHED IN THE LAKER DJG137703 MU200-69 Minutes - Mound Planning Commission March 9, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 9, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Bill Voss. Staff Present: Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clappsaddle. Absent and unexcused: Michael Mueller, Mark Hanus. Public Present: Dennis Kelm, Clyde & Denise Bonnema, Dave Willette, David Holm, Robert Wroda, Henry Reintz, Muriel Reintz, Larry & Rita Meehan, Jerry & Pamela Neumann, Chris Stuhr, Scott Hoelscher - US West. Meeting called to order 7:55 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. Chair Michael called for a brief moment of silence in remembrance of Gerald Reifschneider MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 9, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Glister to approve the Minutes of the February 9, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 5 - 0. BOARD OF APPEALS: TELECOMMUNICATION ORDINANCE The current zoning ordinance does not address current trends in the telecommunications industry. If an application were submitted to the City for a cellular phone transmission tower, it would be difficult to fit that use into the existing ordinance. Due to this code deficiency the City has established a moratorium on all activity until March 31, 1998. During this time an ordinance has been developed to help the City better address the issues of these uses in the community. The proposed Telecommunications Ordinance has been prepared to address the use and location of cellular communications facilities. These facilities come in many forms ranging from transmission towers commonly seen along major highways and business areas to more discretely located transmission equipment located on water towers and building rooftops. The framework of the ordinance was taken from the League of Cities model drafted by Kennedy and Graven. The ordinance has been tailored to fit a number of Minutes - Mound Planning Commission March 9, 1998 considerations for the City of Mound. The following is a summary of those considerations: · · · · · Mound is primarily a residential community. Mound has a smaller percentage of business and industrial land. The business and industrial land is very visible. Shoreland management regulations cover much of the community. Uses and structures that would detract from the character of the community are not desirable. There are a number of public facilities that can be utilized for the placement of telecommunication transmitting equipment. The ordinance is fairly straightforward. The intent of the ordinance is to prevent these facilities from disrupting the landscape and character of the community while staying within the guidelines of the federal legislation. The major points of the ordinance include: Utilization of the three City water towers is promoted by allowing telecommunication transmitters as an outright permitted use. Towers for cellular, PCS, and other transmission equipment are limited to I-1 and PlA districts and would be under review through a Conditional Use Permit. Roof and building mounted transmission equipment would be allowed in business districts subject to the review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Cellular, PCS and other transmission equipment would not be allowed in residential districts, except on publicly owned buildings and facilities such as water towers, school buildings, athletic field lighting standards, and utility poles. The ordinance is flexible to address the ever-changing conditions in the telecommunications industry. It is difficult to determine how many cellular transmission facilities are needed in Mound. There are six companies that could locate within the community and the potential exists for each company to have one or more transmission facilities. The number of facilities largely depends on existing coverage areas that are expanding as the metro grows to the west. In reality a couple of facilities located in Mound is more probable. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the Telecommunications Ordinance as drafted. Discussion: Glister questioned the removal of towers Section 350:1375, Is the city going to have to remove these towers and assess the property. Wants to make sure there is not a burden to remove obsolete towers in the city. Minutes - Mound Planning Commission March 9, 1998 There was further discussion on other cities who are using this ordinance. Things not included in the ordinance and will be separate agreements with the telecommunication companies: Revenue and Maintenance Agreements. Scott Hoelscher from US West spoke on the issues of removal of towers. MOTION by Burma, seconded by Glister to recommend Staff recommendation to approve the proposed Ordinance. Motion carried 5-0. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. imm mu TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: March 9, 1998 SUBJECT: Telecommunications Ordinance DISCUSSION: The current zoning ordinance does not address current trends in the telecommunications industry. If an application were submitted to the City for a cellular phone transmission tower, it would be difficult to fit that use into the existing ordinance. Due to this code deficiency the City has established a moratorium on all activity until March 31, 1998. During this time an ordinance has been developed to help the city better address the issues of these uses in the community. The proposed Telecommunications Ordinance has been prepared to address the use and location cellular communications facilities. These facilities come in many forms ranging from transmission towers commonly seen along major highways and business areas to more discretely located transmission equipment located on watertowers and building rooftops. The framework of the ordinance was taken from the League of Cities model drafted by Kennedy and Graven. The ordinance has been tailored to fit a number of considerations for the City of Mound. The following is a summary of those considerations: Mound is primarily a residential community. · Mound has a smaller percentage of business and industrial land. · The business and industrial land is very visible. · Shoreland management regulations cover much of the community. Uses and structures that would detract from the character of the community are not desirable. · There are a number of public facilities that can be utilized for the placement telecommunication transmitting equipment. The ordinance is fairly straightforward. The intent of the ordinance is to prevent these facilities from disrupting the landscape and character of the community while staying within the guidelines of the federal legislation. The major points of the ordinance include: · Utilization of the three City water towers is promoted by allowing telecommunication transmitters as an outright permitted use. · Towers for cellular, PCS, and other transmission equipment are limited to I-1 and PIA districts and would be under review through a Conditional Use Permit. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 Telecommunications Ordinance Draft March 9, 1998 · Roof and building mounted transmission equipment would be allowed in business districts subject to the review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit. · Cellular, PCS and other transmission equipment would not be allowed in residential districts, except on publicly owned buildings and facilities such as watertowers, school buildings, athletic field lighting standards, and utility poles. · The ordinance is flexible to address the ever-changing conditions in the telecommunications industry. It is difficult to determine how many cellular transmission facilities are needed in Mound. There are six companies that could locate within the community and the potential exists for each company to have one or more transmission facilities. The number of facilities largely depends on existing coverage areas that are expanding as the metro grows to the west. In reality a couple of facilities located in Mound is more probable. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the Telecommunications Ordinance as drafted. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 Bills · March 24, 1998 Batch 8032 Total Bills $254,384.24 $254,384.24 o~ L z L_J Z 0 0 r, .................................. 75~, z CC) 0 z 0 n z § 0 ~.o.~ ! o~ ~ ~ ~ ,,,,, ,, , ~ , ,, I , , ' i ~ I 0 0 F O, PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Kocgler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: March 24, 1998 SUBJECT: Seton Bluff PDA Final Plat Approval OWNER: Thomas Stokes LOCATION: Kildare Road and Kerry Lane ZONING: Residential District R-1A COMPREI-IENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a final plat for the Seton Bluff PDA. The preliminary plat was approved by Resolution ~g)7-54 in May of 1997. Council approval of the 'final plat is being sought at this time which would allow the development to proceed. Along with the approval of the plat is a conditional use permit which regulates the plan. The development is a 7 lot Planned Development Area on 1.35 acres of land located at the comer of Kildare Road and Kerry Lane. All lot areas and widths meet the minimum requirements for the R-IA district. The steep topo~aphy on the south and lakeside limits the locations for building on the site. Due to these constraints the applicant is requesting a number of variances which are listed as follows: Required Proposed Variance Right-of-way width 50' 35' 15' - Cul-de-sac ROW radius 50' 40' 10' Improved cul-de-sac radius 40' 35' 5' Improved Street width 28' 24' 4' Street grade 8% max 13% 5% PDA Site Area 2 acres 1.35 acres .65 acres Lots: Lot 1 - Bluff Setback 30' 14' 11' Side Yard Setback i0' 6' 4' Lot 2 - Side Yard Setback 10' 6' 123 North Third Street, Suite I00, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 86, 8I E~W ~Od ~£ ~39~30~ NOI~NISIOH Lot 3 - Bluff Setback 30' Side Yard Setback 10' Lot 4 - Bluff Setback 30' Side Yard Setback 10' 22' 8' 6' 4' 15' 15' 6' 4' Lot 5 - Bluff Setback 30' Side Yard Setback 10' Front Yard Setback 20' 12' 18' 6' 4' 15' 5' Lot 6 - Bluff Setback 30' Side Yard Setback 10' 10' 20' 6' 4' Lot 7 - Bluff Setback (mar) 30' 12' 18' Bluff Setback (side) 30' 10' 20' Front Yard Setback 20' 15 and 7' 5'and 13' Impervious cover 30% 32,8% 2.8% Some of the requested variances have changed from those approved on the preliminary plat. Bluff setbacks on lots 1, 3, 4, and 7 are increased from the prelim/nary plat. Lots 5 and 6 are now closer to the bluff setback. Also the front yard variance for lot 6 has been alleviated as well as the bluff setback variance for lot 2. COMMENTS: Thc City Engineer's memo discusses adding 2 feet of width to the driveway entrance. This could have an impact on the setbacks of lots 3 and 4 by potentially decreasing the bluff setback 2 feet. The proposed building pad for lot 7 shows the building pad has changed substantially from the preliminary plan. In discussing this with the architect, the actual building pad will meet the setback requirements. The storm water drainage facilities shown on the final plat differ from those approved as part of the preliminary plat. In the preliminary plat, storm water was collected and diverted to the north. On the final plat, a storm water drainage pond is shown in the southwest corner of the site surrounded by a retaining wall. Additional retaining walls are shown along the south side of Lot 7. The plans depict the retaining walls, pond and pond outlet structure projecting into the right- of-way for both Kildare Road and Kings Lane. It is the opinion of the planning, engineering and legal staff that these private improvements should not be located within public right-of-way and need to be accommodated within private property. Two alternatives exist to satisfy this concern. The first is to vacate all or a portion of both Kildare Road and Kings Lane. This action would place the storm drainage and retaining wails on private property. The second alternative is to modify the Grading, Drainage and Road Plan to relocate the pond and any required walls on private property, somewhere else within the current ownership boundaries. Unless Kildare Road 123 North Third $~xcet, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 770 is vacated as part of this request, an additional front yard setback variance will be needed for Lot 7 which shows a 7 foot setback from Kildare Road (unimproved) in lieu of the required 20 foot front yard setback. RECOMMENDATION: At this time, it is difficult to provide a definitive staff recommendation on the Seton Bluff PDA Final Plat because of issues surrounding the storm water pond and retaining walls. Two principal courses of action are possible: The City Council could consider the option of vacating, at a minimum, one-half of the right- of-way for Kings Lane and one-half of the right-of-way for Kildare Road. This would place the proposed improvements on private property. A street vacation can only be preliminarily discussed at the City Council meeting on March 24th and any such action would require an application and review under the applicable ordinance procedures. If the Council sees some preliminary merit in the street vacation concept, approval of the Final Plat could take place conditioned on the occurrence of the street vacation and other applicable conditions; or the Council could elect to withhold action on the Final Plat until such time as the street vacation Occurs. Bo The second alternative available to the Council is to find that the proposed drainage improvements need to be located within private property and table action on the Final Plat until such time as the applicant can bring back plans that are consistent with this finding. This would mean that the final Grading, Drainage and Road Plan would need to be consistent with the approved preliminary plans or some other alternative acceptable to the City Engineer and Watershed District. Regardless of which course of action is taken by the City Council, an approval motion for the Seton Bluff PDA Final Plat needs to address the following modifications and conditions: 1. The front yard setback and bluff setbacks for lots 3 and 4 be modified to reflect comments the City Engineer has in regards to adding 2 feet to the driveway. 2. The buildable area for each lot shall include all structures encompassing the house, attached garage, decks and porches to meet the setbacks as requested. 3. Hardcover calculations reflect any plan modifications. 4. The City Engineer and City Attorney approve any modifications to the pond. ing and retaining walls. 5. Approval is conditioned on approval by the City engineer. 6. Absent the vacation of Kildare Road, a 13 foot front setback variance is granted for Lot 7 as noted within this report. 72/ 123 North Third S~eet, gulte 100. Minneapolis, Minneso~ 55401 (612)338-0800 Fax(612)338-6838 8~ ~WW PO~ ~P£ ~39~B0)~ NO±gNISIOH 8£898E£-219 McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, MN 55447 Telephone 61~/476-6010 612/476.8532 FAX Surveyors March 15, 199~ Mr. Jon Sutherland Planning and Zoning City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound Final Plat- Seton Bluff Case #96-64 MFRA #11542 Dear Jon: Enclosed is the engineering report for the final plat of Seton Bluff. Our major concern is the proposed improvements shown within the existing city right-of-way that were not approved at the preliminary plat stage. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact us. Sincerely, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron City Engineer JRC:pry Enclosure cc: Loren Gordon, Hoisington Koegler Group John Dean, Kennedy, & Graven e:h-nain:\l 1542~su~h3-I 8 ~739 'oi~ An Equal Opportunity Employer 866I 77, . CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA ENGINEER'S MEMO TO TIlE MOUND CITY COUNCIL DATE: CASE NO: PETITIONER: FINAL PLAT: LOCATION: March 18, 1998 96-64 Brenshell Homes Seton Bluff Kildare Road ASSESSMENT RECORDS: N/A Ye_..~s N_.~o X 2. X 3. X 4. X 5. X Watermain area assessments have been levied based on proposed use. Sanitary sewer area assessments have been levied based on proposed use. SAC and REC charges will be payable at the time building permits are issued. Area charges are subject to change periodically as they are reviewed annually on January 1. Thc rate assessed would be that in effect at thc time of final plat approval. Area Rssessmeilts. Other additional assessmems estimated: LEGAL / EASEMENTS /PERMITS: 6. X 7. X Complies with standard utility/drainage easements - The City will require utility and drainage easemems ten feet (10') in width adjoining all streets and five feet (5') in width adjoining side and rear lot lines. SEE SPECIAL CONDITIONS. All standard utility easements required for construction are provided - The City will require twenty feet (20') utility and drainage casements for proposed utilities along the lot lines were these utilities are proposed to be instaIled. This item has been reviewed w/th the final construction plans and the following changes are necessary: N/A YeS N__.~o SEE SPECIAL CONDITIONS X Complies with ponding requirements - Thc City w/Il require the dedication of drainage easements for ponding purposes on all property lines below the established 100-year high water elevation and conformance w/th the City's comprehensive stormwater drainage plan. SEE SPECIAL CONDITIONS. X All existing unnecessary easements and rio~hts-of-way have been vacated. SEE SPECIAL CONDITIONS. It will be necessary to vacate the obsolete casements/right-of- way to facilitate the development. This is not an automatic process in conjunction with the platting process. It is the Owner's responsibility to submit a petition as well as legal descriptions of easements proposed to be vacated. SEE SPECIAL CONDITIONS. 10. 11. X X Thc Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title has been submitted to thc City. with this application - If it is subsequently determined that the subiect property is abstract property, then this requirement does not apply. It will be necessary' for the property Owner to provide thc City Attorney with the Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title in order that he may file the required casements referred to ~bove. All necessary permits for this project have been obtained - The following permits must be obtained by the Developer: ~ DNR x__ MPCA' x__ State Health Department x__ Minnehaha Creek Watershed District __ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Other 12. X The Developer must comply with the conditions within any permit. SEE SPECIAL CONDITIONS. Conforms with the City's grid system for street names - tt3g N/._~_A Yes N_po The names of the proposed streets in the plat must conform to the City grid system for street names. The following changes will be necessary: 13. 14, X X Conforms with the City's Thoroughfare Guide Plan - The following revisions must be made to conform with the City's adopted Thorouglffare Guide Plan. Acccleration/decel~ation lanes provided - Acceleration/deceleration lanes are required at the intersection of and 15. X All existing street rights-of-Way are required width - VARIANCE REQUESTED AS PART OF FINAL PLAT APPROVAL. Additional right-of-way will be required on .UTILITIES: 16. 17. X X Conforms with City standards requiring the Developer to construct utilities necessary to serve this plat - In accordance with CiD' standards, the Developer shall be responsible for constructing the necessary sanitary sewer, water, storm sewer, and streets needed to serve this plat. A registered professional engineer must prepare the plans and profiles of the proposed sanitary sewer, waterrnain, storm scw~ facilities and streets to serve the development. Final utility plans submitted comply w/th all City requirements- The Developer has submitted the required construction plans for the proposed sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer facilities; and has also furnished profiles of these utilities ~ well as the proposed street system (public and private). N/A Yes N_.gq 15. X 19. X Per the Developer's request, final plans will be prepared by the City. If it is their desire to have the City construct these facilities as part of its Capital Improvement Pro,am, a petition must be submitted u) the City. The cutoff date for petitions is October 1st of the year preceding construction, if the Developer i$ paying 100% of the cost. The construction plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive Water Distribution Plan - The following revisions will be required: 20. X The construction plans conform to the City's adopted Comprehensive Sanitary Sewer Plan - The following revisions will be required: 21. X It will be necessary to contact C. rreg Skinner, the City's Public Works Superintendent, 24 hours in advance of making any proposed utility connections to the City's sanitary sewer and water systems. The Developer shall also be responsible for contacting the Public Works Department for an excavating permit prior to any digging within the City right-of-way. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL: 22. X Minimum basement elevations - Minimum basement elevations must be established for the following lots: 23. X Complies with Storm Drainage Plan - The grading, drainage and erosion control plan has been submitted to the City's Consulting Engineer for review to see if it is in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Storm Drainage Plan. All of their recommendations shall be incorporated in a revised plan. The Grading and Drainage Plan shall also indicate proposed methods of erosion control, including the placement of silt fence in strategic locations. AdditionalIy, the following revisions will be necessary: SEE SPECAL CONDITIONS. 866I '9I SPECIAL CONDITIONS REQUIRED: 24. What is the purpose and future ownership of Outlot A? It did not appear on the approved preliminary plat. 25. The relocation of the lot line between Lots 6 and 7 from the approved preliminary plat will not adversely affect the engineering plans. 26. The final plat does not have an easement sufficient in width to cover the proposed storm sewer. The easement adjacent to Kildare Road across Lots 1 through 4 and Lot 7 will need to be increased to 10-feet wide. 27. The Final Grading Plan shows a portion of the storrnwater pond located w/thin the platted fight-of-way of King's Lane and returning wails in both King's Lane and Kildare Road right-of-way. If this is the intention, it appears the best solution would be to vacate the east one-half of King's Lane right-of-way and north one-half of Kildare Road right-of- way and include it as part of Lot 7. This would also help solve the setback problem at the south side of the garage on Lot 7. 28. The City has not been furnished any drainage calculations. Copies of information submitted to the MCWD will be sufficient. 29. The approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) requires a pond maintenance agreement. Th/s will be the responsibility of the developer and ultimately the homeowners; thus this agreement should be included in the homeowners association covenents. 30. Driveway width needs to be expanded from the 16' wide shown (scaled dimension) to 18' as required in preliminary approval. This requires moving the proposed houses on Lots 2, 3 and 4 north 2 feet, which allows 20-feet in front of the garage for p~king, or a minimum of 54-feet from the north right-of-way of Kildare Road to the front of the garages. 31. The east/west length for the 5 parallel parking spaces must be increased to 113' face of curb to face of curb as approved with the preliminary plat. 32. The existing water service for the Steve Grand property at the southwest comer of Kildare Road and Kerry, Lane must be reconnected to the new watermain. 33. Specifications and construction details must be submitted for approval, including the proposed retaining walls. ' ,34. The Developer shall be responsible for the installation of private utilities, such as telephone, electric and natural gas services. The required utilities shall not be installed until the boulevard or utility easements have been graded. All such utilities shall be installed underground. 866I '8I 'a*~ 35. 36. 37. No building permits shall be issued until a contract has been awarded for utility and street construction and the MPCA permit is issued and the Final Plat has been filed and recorded at Hennepin County. Prior to accqxance of the completed subdivision by the City Council, it will be necessary. to furnish an Engineer's Certification of Completion. Upon receipt of said certification and recommendation by the City l~ngineer that the completed work be accepted, the City Council will be requested to accept the completed public improvements. Acceptance will be by formal Resolution of the City Council. The following items shall be the responsibility of the Developer and shall be cove'md by an escrow guarantee (survey bond, cash, certificate of deposit, or irrevocable letter of credit), as specified: Grading $ 43,000 Sanitary Sewer $ 15,600 Watermain $ 12,400 Storrn Sewer $ 11,850 Street Construction $ 27,650 Landscaping and Retaining Walls $ 25,000 ESIIMATED TOTAL $ 135,500 Amount of Escrow G-uarantec: Estimated total ($135,500) x 125% ~- $169,375 Submitted by: ~ _ ~~ John Cam/eton, Cit~' Engineer e:h'nain:\l 1542\breD3-16 866I CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA FINAL PLAT NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR "SETON BLUFF" RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF KILDARE ROAD AND KERRY LANE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, March 24, 1998 to consider the approval of Final Plat for "Seton Bluff" Residential Development. ]{ 1- All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting;__, j.-'~-h : q ' , '~. g Secretary Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on or before March 13, 1998 Published in the Laker, March 14, 1998 printed on recycled paper May 27, 1997 RESOLUTION ]/97-54 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL, FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LOT AND STREET DESIGN VARIANCES, SHORELAND VARIANCES FOR SETON BLUFF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Conditional Use Permit application for a single family development called Seton Bluff in the manner required for platting of land under the City of Mound Ordinance Code, Section 330:00 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statue and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have studied the practicability of the preliminary plat, the planned development area, and the variances, taking into consideration the requirements of the City, giving particular attention to the arrangement and location of the street, their relation to topography, floodplain, wetlands, water supply, sewage disposal, drainage, lot size and arrangement, the present and future development of adjoining lands and the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and other official controls, and WHEREAS, the City Council, on May 13, 1997, held a public hearing pursuant to Section 330:00 of the Mound City Code of Ordinances, to consider the approval of the Seton Bluff Subdivision located on property described as follows and shown on the attachment: Lots 15 through 32, Block 11, Seton, PID's 19-177-23 22 0036 to 0041 and 0054. WHEREAS, the Mound City Code allows the establishment of Planned Development Areas "to provide a method by which parcels of land in the Residential Use Districts having unusual building characteristics due to subsoil conditions, topographic conditions, elevation of water table, unique environmental considerations, or because of the parcel's unusual shape or location in relationship to lakes, trees or other natural resources requires a more unique and controlled platting technique to protect and promote the quality of life in the City", and WHEREAS, the physical conditions of the site and this area of Mound complicate development of the property. In lieu of a traditional platted lot approach which would result in driveway cuts and retaining walls for all of the lots in order to provide access to Kildare Road, the developers are proposing the project which facilitates the establishment of a common access drive serving all of the proposed homes. The common access drive allows much more control of storm water runoff, and WHEREAS, the Zoning Code requires a minimum of 2 acres of land area for Planned Development Areas. The net site area of Seton Bluff is 1.35 acres necessitating a variance of .65 acres in order to process the request as a PDA. Because of the physical conditions of the site, processing this request as a PDA gives the City the ability to add appropriate conditions 7gO May 27, 1997 tO the approval. The proposed density with the applicable bonus is consistent with the maximum density allowed under the shoreland ordinance, and WHEREAS, the applicant's proposal includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit to establish Seton Bluff as a Planned Development Area (PDA), together with a request for street design variances and variances from the bluff setback and impervious surface provisions of the Mound City Code, and WHEREAS, the development is located in the R-IA Zoning District which requires for lots of record, a minimum of 6000 sq. ft. lot area, a minimum lot width of 40', a front yard setback of 20', side yard setbacks of 6' and 6', a 15' rear yard setback and a 50' setback to the lakeshore and a minimum building floor area requirement of 840 square feet, and WHEREAS, all lots exceed the minimum lot size requirement of 6,000 square feet as required in the R-IA zoning district, and WHEREAS, impervious cover for the project totals 32.8 %. The additional impervious cover is largely due to the expansive common driveway and guest parking area. Developing the property with traditional driveways would reduce the amount of impervious cover, however, it would complicate storm water drainage problems in the area, and WHEREAS, the City has considered traffic and other aspects of the proposed project as it might affect public health, safety or welfare and imposed conditions upon the approval addressing those considerations, and WHEREAS, the street variances for the new portion of Kildare Road and the private drive will facilitate the construction of street extensions that will match the grade of the existing paved streets. Traffic resulting from the proposed development will be generated at the same rate as the existing households in the vicinity since the proposed development and all of the development in the area consists on detached single family homes, and WHEREAS, the physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the type and density of development contemplated subject to the conditions imposed herein, and the proposed subdivision as conditioned is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the existing land use in the area, and WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City to preserve wooded areas and to retain, as far as practicable, existing tree cover. Seton Bluff contains scattered tree cover. Construction of the access drive and units will necessitate removal of most of the vegetation in front portion of the site. The amount of tree loss is, in all likelihood, equal to the amount of tree removal that would be necessary to construct homes with individual driveways on to Kildare Road, and WHEREAS, adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities as required by the City subdivision regulations are being provided, and May 27, 1997 WHEREAS, the variances request~ are the minimum variances necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty created by the topography of the site and to facilitate the preservation of existing vegetation, and the granting of variances will would not be detrimental to the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance or to property in the same zone, and WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan and the regulations and the requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the City Code of Ordinances of the City of Mound. WHEREAS, at the Planning Commission has voted 7 to 2 for approval of the plan with 7 units. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: Approves the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to Preliminary Plat, establish a Planned Development Area including the establishment of a private drive and the following variances: Right-of-Way width Cul-de-sac right-of-way radius Improved cul-de-sac radius Improved street width Street grade PDA Site Area Lots: Lot 1 - Bluff Setback Side Yard Setback (west) Lot 2 - Bluff Setback Side Yard Setback (west) Lot 3 - Bluff Setback Side Yard Setback (west) Lot 4 - Bluff Setback Side Yard Setback (west) Lot 5 - Bluff Setback Side Yard Setback (west) Front Yard Setback Required Proposed Variance 50' 35' 15' 50'r 40'r 10'r 40'r 35'r 5'r 28' 24' 4'r 8% max 13% 5% 2 acres 1.35 acres .65 acres Required Proposed Variance 30' 10' 20' 10' 6' 4' 30' 10' 20' 10' 6' 4' 30' 10' 20' 10' 6' 4' 30' 10' 20' 10' 6' 4' 30' 20' 10' 10' 6' 4' 20' 15' 5' May 27, 1997 Lot 6 - Bluff Setback 30' Side Yard Setback (west) 10' Front Yard Setback 20' 20' 10' 6' 4' 15' 5' Lot 7 - Bluff Setback (rear) Bluff Setback (side) 30' 10' 20' 30' 10' 20' Impervious Cover 30% 32.8% 2.8% The above variances are hereby granted subject to compliance with the following requirements and those found within the City Engineer's memo dated April 1, 1997: The preliminary plat drawing labeled as Exhibit A is hereby incorporated into this Resolution and all improvements shall be as shown on the plans or as modified under the approval of the City Engineer. The location of all dwellings shall be only as provided on the City's Zoning regulations, or as modified by official action of the City Council; and anyt inconsistent references to dwelling locations in the preliminary plat shall be ignored. The Homeowner's Association documents will be prepared and submitted with the Final Plat and incorporated into final plat resolution. The Conservation Easement will be provided and included in the Final Plat Approval. The Developer shall secure and provide the City with a copy of a stormwater permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District prior to the City releasing the final plat. The Developer shall secure and provide copies to the City's Building Official of all required reviews and permits from the Minnesota Department of Health and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, or any other applicable permits, prior to beginning construction. The Building Official will not authorize construction until permits are secured. Prior to the City releasing the final plat, the Developer shall sign a development contract with the City. The development contract shall stipulate that construction of all items covered by said contract shall be completed within 280 days of the City releasing the final plat. As part of the development contract, the Developer shall furnish the City with a performance bond or an irrevocable letter of credit or other form of security approved by the City Attorney in the amount of 125 % of estimated construction costs as per plans approved by the City Engineer. The City Attorney shall examine title to the property and shall render a title opinion to the City showing the ownership status of the property prior to filing. The applicant shall provide the City Attorney a current abstract or register of property abstract for Seton Bluff. May 27, 1997 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. The plat shall be filed with Hennepin County within one hundred eighty (180) days of the City Council approving the final plat. If the plat is not filed within that time period, it shall become null and void. The cost of constructing all the public utilities in Kildare Road and in any other portion of the plat shall be borne by the developer, including all required utilities on which the design shall be approved by the City Engineer. The approval would not be construed as creating an obligation on the part of the City to expend funds to provide a location for off-site water storage. Street, Grading, Site and Utility plans prepared by the developer shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to the City releasing the final plat. A Homeowner's Association shall be established for all lots within the subdivision and provided prior to the Final Plat Approval. All these documents shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. Building permits or Certificates of Occupancy will not be issued for homes in the subdivision until utilities and access servicing the homes are approved by the City Engineer, Fire Chief and Building Official. The MPCA's Best Management Practices shall be applied to the development and subsequent management of the property. Park dedication in the amount of $500 per lot totaling $3,500 is to be paid prior to the City releasing the final plat. Any outstanding cash balance in the escrow account plus an additional $2,500 necessary to cover engineering, planning, legal and administrative fees shall be deposited with the City prior to the City releasing the final plat. 17. The developer shall modify the landscaping plan to provide additional overstory trees along Kildare Road frontage. The landscaping plan shall be reviewed and approved by City Staff. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such execution of the certificate upon said plat by the Mayor and City Manager shall be conclusive showing of proper compliance therewith by the subdivider and City Officials and shall entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further formality, all in compliance with Minnesota Statute Chapter 462 and the City of Mound Code of Ordinances. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jensen and seconded by Councilmember Weycker. Hanus, Jensen, and Weycker. May 27, 1997 The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Polston. Councilmember Ahrens was absent and excused. Mayor Attest: City Clerk NOV-10-199? 11:49 MINNEHAHA CREEK hI~TER~HED 6124710682 P.02/05 MCWD PERMIT APPLICATION: .96-180 REPORT DATE: 11-06-97 Applicant: Location: PID: Applicable Rules: Brenshe]! Homes -4839 Cumberland Road -Mound, MN 55364 Kildare Road. and Kerry I,ane~ Mound 19-1.17-23-22 R. ule B, Stormwater management Representative: Fine Line Design P.O. Box 1 611 Burnsville~ MN 55337-0611 Subwatershed: U- 10 SubSubwatershed: Exhibits Received: Site plans Runoffcalculations Drainage narrative MailinR labels Noticing Requirements: Mailed to residents w/in 600' of project on Wetland Conservation Act Notice mailed on 11,-6-97 Reviewed by: Mike Panzer, Steve Schmunk, Andrew Syverson, Jim Hafner Project Review Status by Other Governmental Units: DNR General Permit: Recommendations: Approval. Issuance of pendt upon receipt of signed pond maintenance agreement, Rev'Jew & Summary: This project involves the developmem of 7 rcsidcntial housing sites on a 1.35 acre site in Mound. The site is located on a bluff which, along with the small size ofxhe site, makes it difficult to provide water quality treatment on site. The applicant is proposing to construct a (.dry) detention pond to provide rate control and to provide some pretxeatment for the stormwaler runoff before it leaves the site. The applicant is requesting to make a contribution to a regional stormwater treatment project to meet the water requirements of Rule B. Thc contribution was calctdatcd to be $2860. Rule J Time*: Staff ];50.00 Engrs_$544.00 Legal Mailing costs $32.95 Total to date: $_626.95 Rule J fees listed in this re_~ort may not be the final total incurred for the application. PRECISION CLOSE~S INC. Fax:612~?2~181 Oct ~ '97 ?:~ P. 02 l%nn ii,. ;.M - WARRA.'~'V ~O M~ U~ C~ ~ (1~) Co~o~ti~ m P~cnhip to Individua~ts) NO delinqu~t ~xes ~d ~fet enters; Cerfificam of R~I ~m~ Value ( ) fd~ ( ) not ~equir~ Certificam of Re~ ~te Value No. County Auditor STATE DEED TAX DUE HEREON: Date: _. ~ I_._L~T/ Millo'.Davh Co., St. FOR VALUAllLE CONSIDERATION, l~asiness and Real~ R.l~s Int. ..... .................................... :. , a _.Clztl}oration ..... under the laws of . _ Minnemta ~ Grantor, hereby conveys and warrams to ~kul~l.~Brisgs Gran~¢(s), real property in Hennepin County, Minnesota, described as follows: Lots 7 and 9, Block 2, Lots 21, 22, 23.2~, 25, and 26, Block 11, 'Seam", according to the recorded plat thereof on file and of record in thc office of thc Registrar of Titles, Heaaepia Cotmty, Minnesota. The seller certifies that the s~ller does not know of any wells on the abo~,z described real property. TORRENS PROPERTY together with all hered/tamen~ and appurtenances ~l~g~ ~ereto, ~bj~t to ~e foHow~g exc~tions: Affix Deed Tax Stamp Here STATE OF MINNESOTA By COUNTY OF ........ } "' ny The foregoing was acknowledged before me this by __ Katherine~A mar and the __ President _and __ of ~luslnen~ and l~eal~ gale~, fn~ under tile laws of Minne,~nta Precision Clo~ers. Inc. 4313 Noe& Shore Drive Mound. MN $5364 (612) 472-3219 Its Katherine ,Amar_.J~.~[fiI~ Its da),' of .-. October., ,19 · on tx:half of the . Co?ratio,. for r~ n:~ p~vt...~y ~ in tl~ ~ six-,oki be ~nt m Orr. lnde mine md a~.e. of Gran~): GRANTEE IS TAXPAYER: Stephen L. Briggs 5931 Lakeview Drive Minnetrk~.a, MN 55364 ~TEPH£N .,t.. CABli www. ca rr-tu,,,nkey, corn E-Maii:lawyers~¢arr.-mankey. com February 24, 1998 ATTORNEYS SOUTH OPPIC. E $100 £D~N Av£M:r.. St:i'r£ 306 612-9274333 Fnx 612-92T-7~9 AT LAW NORTH OYFIC£ 7070 B#ooKLV~ BLVO. 612-560-4388 Fix 612-5~)-041fi John Dehn Mound City Attorney 470 Pillsbury Center Mpls, MN 55402 Re: My Client: Brenshell Homes Scton Bluffs Plat Application DearMr. Dehn: As a follow up to our telephone conversation of February 24, 1998, I am writing to clarify certain matters pertaining to the above-referenced Plat Application and matters regarding the recording of Amended Declarafons involving certain conservation easements and restrictions that the city of Mound is apparently requiring in conjunction with the new plat. The land in question as originally platted included the recording of declarations of covenants, conditions, restrictions and easements for Black Lake Homeowners II. This homeowners association was apparently established under Chapters 515 and 515A and incorporated as a nonprofit corporation under and pursuant to Chapter 317A Minnesota Statutes. This association was established prior to the enactment of the Common Interest Ownership Act, MS 515B. As I indicated during our telephone conversation it is my desire to simplify the process of including the additional restrictions and easements required by the city of Mound by retaining the original association as incorporated, amending the name of the association to Seton Bluffs Homowner~ Association and thereafter submitting to you for your review the amended declarations and proposed By-laws for the Seton Bluffs Homeowners Association. MS 515B.1-102(3)(c),provides that the common interest ownership act shall not invalidate any amendment to the declaration by-laws or condominium plat of any condominium created under chapter 515 or 515A if the amendment waS recorded before June 1, 1994. Further, any amendment recorded after that date is required to be adopted in conformity with the procedures and requirements of chapter 515B. Accordingly, the amendment of declarations which I intend to submit on behalf of my client will be in accordance with section 515B.2-118. I will appreciate your advice as to whether the city of Mound has any specific objection to the intended means of effecting the amendment to the declarations. In light of the fact that the City of Mound as of Friday this week will have all of the necessary documents for final plat ~0 3D~d ~d ~8~YO (IIq'¢ ~l~O 6PBiL~6~I9 8~ :PI 866ItS0tE0 subminal and ~ivcn the fair weather to commmce construction I appreciate your earliest r¢~onsc. Sinccrcly, Stephen A. Carr CC: Thomas Stokes 1ohn Sutherland 6~0LL~6~I9 8~:~I COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. SURVEYING, ENGINEERING AND LAND PLANNING 4E"'-A TAMARACK AVENUE LONG LAKE, MINN. 8835e 473-4141 Proposed Easement Descriptions for SETON BLUFF February 6, 1998 An easement for conservation, utility and travel purposes over, under and across the drainage easement as dedicated in the plat of SETON BLUFF. An easement for travel, drainage and utilities over, under and across the southerly 40 feet of Lot 2, the southerly 33 feet of Lot 3, the southerly 33 feet of Lot 4 and that part of Lot 5 lying southerly of the northerly 140 feet of Lot 5; all in Block 1, SETON BLUFF. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, RESTRICTIONS AND EASEMENTS FOR SETON BLUFFS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. THIS DECLARATION made this day of. March, 1998, by Thomas Stokes and Jack Schuster, hereinafter collectively called "Declarant"; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Declarant Thomas Stokes is the owner of the following described real estate Lots 1 through 7, inclusive, Block 1, all in SETON BLUFFS, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, Declarant Jack Schuster is the owner of the following described real estate: Lots 14 and 33, Block 11, SETON, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. all of which above-described land together constitutes and is hereinafter referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, the Property is the subject of a proposed residential development; and WHEREAS, Declarant desires to subject the Property to this Declaration at this time; and WHEREAS, the Common Areas subjected hereby and the improvements constructed thereon, will require continuing care and maintenance for the benefit and enjoyment of persons residing in the Property; and WHEREAS, SETON BLUFFS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Association"), is the successor in interest to Black Lake Homeowners Association II, Inc. and has been formed as an agency to receive the power to attend to and effectuate policies and programs set forth herein, to hold title to, maintain and administer the Common Area, to administer and enforce the covenants and restrictions, and to collect and disburse the assessments and charges hereinafter created; NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant declares that the property described in Article II hereof, is and shall be held, transferred, conveyed, sold, leased, occupied and developed, subject to the covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, charges and liens hereinafter set forth, which are for the purpose of protecting the value, desirability and attractiveness of the Property, and which shall run with the Property and be binding upon all parties having any right, title or interest in the Property, their heirs, successors and assigns, and which shall inure to the benefit of each Owner thereof, and the heirs, successors and assigns of each Owner. This Declaration hereby establishes a general plan for the individual ownership of real property estates consisting of residential lots, and the ownership by the Association of all of the Common Area as hereinafter defined. Every conveyance of any of such lots or Common Area, or any part thereof, or any interest therein, shall be and is subject to these easements, covenants, conditions and restrictions, as follows: ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS Section 1. The following words when used in this Declaration (unless the context shall prohibit) shall have the following meanings: A. "Owner" shall mean the record owner, whether one or more persons or entities, of a fee simple title to any Lot which is a part of the Property, including contract sellers, but excluding those having such interest merely as security for the performance of an obligation. B. "Property" shall mean and refer to that certain real property described and defined in Article II hereinbelow and such additions thereto as hereafter may be expressly brought within the jurisdiction of the Association, but shall not include any lots or outlots within said subdivision not so expressly named. C. "Association" shall mean Seton Bluffs Homeowners Association, Inc., a Minnesota nonprofit corporation. D. "Common Area" shall mean Lots 1-7 inclusive, Block 1, SETON BLUFFS and Lots 14 and 33, Block 11, Seton, including all improvements and structures constructed or to be constructed thereon, and such additions thereto (by way of easement or other grant from Declarant or others) as have been or may be granted to the Association for the common use and enjoyment of the Owners. Said Common Area will be conveyed to the Association prior to the first conveyance of a Lot to an Owner other than Declarant. E. "Lot" shall mean and refer to Lots 1 through 7, inclusive, Block 1, SETON BLUFFS and Lot 11 and 33, Block 11 SETON. F. "Member" shall mean any person or entity holding membership in the Association as provided in Article III hereof. G. "Declarant" shall mean the above named Declarants, their successors and assigns if such successors and assigns should acquire more than one undeveloped Lot from the Declarant for the purpose of development. H. "Mortgage" shall mean any mortgage or other security instrument by which a Lot or any part thereof of any structure thereon is encumbered. I. "Mortgagee" shall mean any person or entity named as the Mortgagee under any such Mortgage or any successors or assigns to the interest of such person or entity under such Mortgage. ARTICLE II PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THIS DECLARATION Section 1. The real property which is and shall be held, transferred, sold, conveyed and occupied subject to this Declaration is located in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, and is more particularly described as follows: Lots 1-7, Block 1, SETON BLUFFS and Lot ., Block __., SETON, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota ARTICLE III MEMBERSHIP AND VOTING RIGHTS IN ASSOCIATION Section 1. Membership. Every Owner of a Lot subject to assessment, except as herein provided to the contrary, shall be entitled and required to be a member of the Association. If title to a Lot is held by more than one person, such persons shall collectively be a member. An Owner of more than one Lot shall be entitled to one membership for each such Lot. Each such membership shall be appurtenant to the Lot upon which it is based and shall transfer automatically by voluntary or involuntary conveyance of the title of that Lot. No person or entity other than an Owner or Declarant may be a member of the Association, and a membership in the Association may not be transferred except in connection with the transfer of title to that Lot. Membership shall be further restricted to those persons who meet the eligibility requirements set forth in the Bylaws of the Association. Section 2. Transfer. A membership in the Association shall not be transferred, pledged or alienated in any way, except upon the transfer of the record title of a Lot and then only to such transferee by assignment, intestate succession, testamentary disposition, foreclosure of mortgage of record, or other legal process. It shall be the responsibility of each Owner, upon becoming entitled to membership, so to notify the Association in writing, and until so notified, the Association may continue to carry the name of the former Owner. as a member, in its sole discretion. In the event the Owner of any Lot should fail or refuse to transfer the membership registered in his name to the transferee of title of such Lot, the Association shall have the fight to record the transfer upon the books of the Association and issue a new membership to the transferee, and thereupon the old membership outstanding in the name of the transferor shall be null and void as though the same had been surrendered. Section 3. Voting and Quorums. A. Each member shall be entitled to one (1) vote in the affairs of the corporation for each Lot (as defined by this Declaration) owned by such member and for which Lot such member has paid the required assessments. When more than one person owns an interest in any Lot, the vote for such Lot shall be exercised as they among themselves determine, but in no event shall more than one vote be cast with respect to any Lot. B. At all meetings of the membership each member may vote either in person or by a representative appointed by a written proxy filed with the Secretary. A majority of members represented in person or by proxy shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Section 4. Suspension of Voting Rights. In the event any Owner shall be in arrears in the payment of any amount due under any of the provisions of this Declaration for a period of thirty (30) days or such period as shall be prescribed by the Association's Board of Directors, or shall be in default in the performance of any of the terms of this Declaration for a period of thirty (30) days, such Owner's right to vote as a member of the Association shall be suspended and shall remain suspended until all payments are brought current and all defaults remedied. ARTICLE IV PROPERTY RIGHTS Section 1. Easements. Covenants: Amendments. All easements described in this Declaration are permanent easements appurtenant, running with the land. They shall at all times inure to the benefit of and be binding on the Owner and the Mortgagee, from time to time, of any Lots and on the owner and mortgagee, if any, fi.om time to time, of the Common Area, and their respective heirs, successors, personal representatives or assigns. A. Easements for installation and maintenance of utilities and drainage facilities are shown on the recorded plat. Within these easements, no structure, planting, or other material shall be placed or permitted to remain that may damage oar interfere with the installation and maintenance of utilities, or that may damage, interfere with, or change the direction of flow of drainage facilities in the easements. The easement areas of each lot and all improvements on such lot shall be continuously maintained by the owner or owner of such lot, except for improvements for maintenance of which public authority or utility company is responsible. B. No Dwelling unit or other structure of any kind shall be built, erected, or maintained on any such easement, reservation, or the right of way, and such easement, reservations, and rights of way shall at all times be open and accessible to public and quasi-public utility corporations, their employees and contractors, and shall also be open and accessible to declarent, and declarent's successors and assigns, all of whom shall have the right and privilege of doing whatever may be necessary in, on, under, and above such lo0cations to carry out any purposes for which such easements, reservations, and rights of way are reserved. 7 5- C. The easements, reservations and rights of way referred to herein shall specifically include though are not limited to the following: (i) An easement for conservation, utility and travel purposes over, under and across the drainage easement as dedicated in the plat of SETON BLUFFS. This easement is designated as a "no-mow, no-cut zone". (ii) An easement for travel, drainage and utilities over, under and across the southerly 40 feet of Lot 2, the southerly 33 feet of Lot 3, the southerly 33 feet of Lot 4 and that part of Lot 5 lying southerly of the northerly 140 feet of Lot 5; all in Block 1, SETON BLUFFS. Section 2. Right of Enjoyment. Every Owner shall have a non-exclusive right and easement of enjoyment in and to the Common Area. Such right and easement shall be appurtenant to and shall pass with the title to every Lot, subject to the following provisions: A. The right of the Association to pass reasonable rules, with respect to the Common Area, for the health, safety and welfare of persons using same which may include (by way of example and not limitation): restrictions on swimming, boating, picnicking, guest use and other similar activities. B. The right of the Association to suspend the voting rights (but not rights of access to Lots) by an Owner for any period during which any assessment against his Lot remains unpaid, and for infraction of its published rules and regulations as set forth in the Bylaws; Declaration; The right of the Association to levy assessments as provided in this D. The rights of the Association and Declarant reserved under Article IV, Sections 4 and 5 hereinbelow. Section 3. Delegation of Enjo_vment. Any Owner may delegate, in accordance with the by-law's of the Association, his right of enjoyment to the Common Area to residents of his Lot, including the members of his family, his tenants, or contract purchasers, and the invitees thereof. Section 4. Association's Riehts. A. The Association shall have the right to manage, build, reconstruct, repair, maintain and improve the Common Area. Bo Common Area. The Association shall have no right to mortgage all or any portion of the C. The Association shall have the right to dedicate or transfer all or any part of the Common Area to any governmental subdivision or public agency or utility, and to grant permits, licenses, and easements over the Common Area for utilities, roads, and other purposes necessary or useful for the proper maintenance or operation of the Property, subject to any prior written approval of Owners of a majority of Lots. D. The Property shall be subject to easements of record on the date hereof and any easements in the Common Area which may hereafter be granted by the Association (subject to the approval referred to in the preceding paragraph) to any public or private utilities or governmental bodies for the installation and maintenance of electrical, telephone, cable television and data conduit and lines, gas pipes, sewers or water pipes, coaxial cable, or any other utility services serving any Lots or the Common Area. E. Except as provided in the preceding two paragraphs, no abandonment, partition, subdivision, encumbrance, sale or transfer of the Common Area or other common property or any part thereof shall be effective unless it shall have received the prior written approval of all Owners. Section 5. Declarant's Rights. Declarant shall have the same rights as any other Owners so long as Declarant owns a Lot. In addition, until the last Lot is conveyed to an Owner other than Declarant, Declarant shall have the right and easement over the Common Area for the construction and completion of improvements and making repairs to improvements (whether on the Common Area or upon Lots) and the right to maintain and use parking and signs upon the Common Area for the purpose of marketing Lots, and to invite and escort the public thereon for such purpose. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Declarant shall have the right (until the last lot is so conveyed) to construct, relocate, remove and alter improvements on the Common Area, including paths, driveways, docks, parking areas, utilities, lighting, walls, fences, and landscaping. Section 6. Non-Dedication to Public Uses. Nothing contained in this Declaration shall be construed or be deemed to constitute a dedication, express or implied, of any part of the Common Area to or for any public use or purpose whatsoever. ARTICLE V. USE RESTRICTIONS The Lots and Common area of the subdivision shall be subject to the following restrictions: purpose. Section 1. Each lot shall be used as a residence for a single family and for no other Section 2. No business of any kind shall be conducted on any residence with the exception of the business of declarant and the transferees of declarant in developing all of the lots as provided in Section 11 of this article. Section 3. No noxious or offensive activity shall be carded on in or on any lot with ~ ,,Ill the exception of the business of declarant and the transferees of declarant in developing all of the lots as provided in Section 11 of this article. Section 4. No sign of any kind shall be displayed to public view on a lot or the common area without the prior written consent of the association, except customary name and address signs and lawn signs of not more than five square feet in size advertising a property for sale or rent. Section 5. Nothing shall be done or kept on a lot or on the common area that would increase the rate of insurance relating to a lot or the common area without the prior written consent of the association, and no owner or owners shall permit anything to be done or kept on a lot or the common area that would result in the cancellation of insurance on any residence or on any part of the common area, or that would be in violation of any law. Section 6. No animals, livestock, or poultry of any kind shall be raised, bred, or kept on any lot or on the common area. However, dogs, cats, and other household pets may be kept on lots subject to such rules and regulations as may be adopted by the association, so long as they are not kept, bred, or maintained for commercial purposes. Section 7. No rubbish, trash, or garbage, or other waste material shall be kept or permitted on any lot or on the common area except in sanitary containers located in appropriate areas concealed from public view. Section 8. No Fish houses, recreational vehicles or similar vehicles of this type shall be stored or parked on the guest parking lot located on the south portion of the Common Area adjacent to Kildare Road. Guest parking on this lot shall be limited to Seven (7) days unless extended by approval by the board of directors of the Association. Section 9. No outbuilding, basement, tent, shack, garage, trailer, shed, or temporary building of any kind shall be used as a residence, either temporarily or permanently. Section 10. Nothing shall be altered in, constructed on, or removed from the common area except on the written consent of the association. Section 11. Declarant or the transferees of declarant shall undertake the work of developing all lots included within the subdivision. The completion of that work, and the sale, rental, or other disposal of residential units is essential to the establishment and welfare of the subdivision as an ongoing residential community. In order that such work may be completed and the subdivision be established as a fully-occupied residential community as soon as possible, nothing in this declaration shall be understood or construed to: (a) Prevent declarant, declarant's transferees, or the employees, contractors, or subcontractors of declarant or declarant's transferees from doing on any part or parts of the subdivision owned or controlled by declarant or declarant's transferees or their representatives, whatever they determine may be reasonably necessary or advisable in connection with the completion of such work; (b) Prevent declarant, declarant's transferees, or the employees, contractors, or subcontractors of declarant or declarant's transferees from constructing and maintaining on any part or parts of the subdivision property owned or controlled by declarant, declarant's transferees, or their representatives, such structures as may be reasonably necessary for the completion of such work, the establishment of the subdivision as a residential community, and the disposition of lots by sale lease, or otherwise; (c) Prevent declarant, declarant's transferees, or the employees, contractors, or subcontractors of declarant or declarant's transferees from conducting on any part or parts of the subdivision property owned or controlled by declarant or declarant's transferees or their representatives, the business of completing such work, of establishing the subdivision as a residential community, and of disposing of lots by sale, lease, or otherwise; or (d) Prevent declarant, declarant's transferees, or the employees, contractors, or subcontractors of declarant or declarant's transferees from maintaining such sign or signs on any of the lots owned or controlled by any of them as may be necessary in connection with the sale, lease, or otherwise of subdivision lots. As used in this section, the words "declarant's transferees" specifically exclude purchasers of lots improved with completed residences. ARTICLE VI ASSESSMENTS Section 1. Personal Obligation. Declarant, for each Lot owned by it within the Property, hereby covenants, and each Owner of a Lot by acceptance of a deed, or other conveyance therefor, whether or not it shall be so expressed therein, shall be and is deemed to covenant and hereby agrees to pay to the Association: (a) annual assessments or charges, which shall be payable, in regular installments and shall include, but not be limited to, real estate taxes, insurance and maintenance, repair and replacement of those improvements and elements of the common property that must be replaced on a periodic basis, and (b) special assessments, such assessments to be established and collected as hereinafter provided. Any assessments authorized herein, together with interest, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, shall be a continuing lien from the first day of January (for annual assessments) and from the date the first installment is payable (for special assessments) against the Lot assessed. Such annual assessments shall be due and payable in monthly, quarterly or annual installments, as determined by the Board. Each assessment, together with interest, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees, also shall be the personal obligation of the person who was the Owner of such Lot on the date said assessment became due and payable. Said personal obligation of an Owner shall not pass to his successors in title or interest unless expressly assumed by them or unless, prior to such transfer, a statement of lien for such assessments shall have been filed in writing with the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles (as applicable) for Hennepin County, Minnesota. No Owner shall escape liability for the assessments which fell due while he was the Owner by reason of non-use of the Common Area or non-use, transfer or abandonment of his Lot. Section 2. Purpose of Assessments. The assessments levied by the Association shall be used exclusively to promote the safety and welfare of the Owners and residents of the Property, and to construct, manage, improve, maintain, repair and administer the Common Area and all roads, pathways, docks, beaches, utilities and equipment located upon the Common Area, except to the extent such repairs are the responsibility of a public or private utility. An adequate reserve fund shall be maintained for working capital and for the periodic maintenance, repair and replacement of those improvements and elements of the common property that must be replaced on a periodic basis. Such fund shall be maintained out of the regular assessments. Section 3. Annual Assessments. The maximum annual assessment shall be at the rate fixed by the Board of Directors, but not to exceed $ per Lot per year. The Hoard of Directors may fix said annual assessment to cover any and all expenses and projected expenses. Section 4. Special Assessments. In addition to the annual assessments authorized above, the Association may levy, in any assessment year, a special assessment applicable to that year only for the purpose of defraying, in whole or in part, the cost of any unforeseen or unbudgeted common expense, including without limitation the unexpected construction, reconstruction, repair or replacement of a capital improvement and including fixtures and personal property related thereto, provided that any such assessment shall have the assent of not less than three-fourths (3/4) of the votes of each eclass of Members who are voting in person or by proxy at a meeting duly called for this purpose. Section 5. Notice and Quorum. Written notice of any meeting called for the purpose of taking any action authorized under Sections 3 or 4 of this Article shall be sent to all Members not less than thirty (30) days in the case of annual meetings and not less than 15 days in the case of special meetings in advance of the meeting. At the opening of such meeting, the presence in person or by proxy of Members entitled to cast a majority of the votes of the membership shall constitute a quorum. If the required quorum is not present, another meeting may be called subject to the same notice requirement, and the required quorum at the subsequent meeting shall be one-half (1/2) of the required quorum at the preceding meeting. No such subsequent meeting shall be held more than sixty (60) days following the preceding meeting. Section 6. Rate of Assessment. Both annual and special assessments must be fixed at a uniform rate for all Lots except that boating facilities expense may be assessed against Lots whose owners have the right to make use of the available and projected boating facilities for the season. Section 7. Commencement of Initial Annual Assessments. The annual assessments provided for herein shall commence as to all Lots at such time as the Board of Directors shall determine. Section 8. Commencement of Annual Assessments. By April 15 of each year the Board shall fix the amount of annual assessments against each Lot for the following fiscal year and shall send written notice thereof to each Owner. The due date for payment of annual assessments shall be as set by the Board. At the time the Board fixes the amount of annual assessments it shall adopt a budget for the following fiscal year and cause a copy of such budget in reasonable detail to be fumished to each Owner. Section 9. Proof of Pa.wnent. Upon written demand of an Owner or Mortgagee, at any time and for a reasonable charge, the Association shall furnish a written certificate signed by an officer of the Association setting forth whether there are any then-unpaid annual or special assessments levied against such Owner's or Mortgagee's Lot. Such certificate shall be conclusive evidence of payment of any annual or special assessments not stated therein as unpaid. Section 10. Nonpa.vment of Assessments. Any assessments which are not paid when due shall be deemed delinquent. In the event of a default of more than thirty (30) days in payment of any assessment or installment thereof, the Board of Directors may accelerate the remaining installments of the assessment due in the current assessment year upon notice thereof to the Owner, and thereupon the entire unpaid balance of the assessment with all accrued interest and penalties shall become due and payable upon the date stated in the notice. If an assessment is not paid within thirty (30) days after the delinquency date, it shall bear interest fi.om the delinquency date at the rate of eight percent (9%) per annum and shall become a continuing lien in favor of the Association on the Lot against which assessed and the improvement thereon, and the Association (or any Owner acting in the name and for the benefit of the Association) may bring an action at law or in equity against the person personally obligated to pay the same, including interest, costs and reasonable attorneys' fees for any such action, which shall be added to the amount of such assessment and included in any judgment rendered in such action, and the Association may also enforce and foreclose any lien it has or which may exist for its benefit. There shall be no right of set-off against the Association based upon a failure to provide services or for money owed by the Association to the Owners. Section 11. Recording and Enforcement of Liens. To evidence a lien for sums assessed pursuant to this Article, the Association may prepare a written notice of lien setting forth the amount of the assessment, the date due, the amount remaining unpaid, the name of the Owner of the Lot, the name of the person personally obligated to pay the same, and a description of the Lot. Such a notice shall be signed by an officer of the Association, and it or a notice of lien or adverse claim thereof may be recorded in the office of the County Recorder or Registrar of Titles (as applicable) for Hennepin County, Minnesota. No notice of lien shall be recorded until there is a delinquency in payment of the assessment for thirty (30) days. Upon such a delinquency for thirty (30) days, the Association shall proceed promptly to enforce the lien or, in its discretion, to sue the person personally liable to pay the lien for the delinquency. Such lien shall be enforced by action (or by power of sale, which is hereby deemed granted by each Owner, at the option of foreclosing party) in the same manner in which mortgages on real property may be foreclosed in Minnesota. In any such foreclosure, the person personally obligated to pay the lien shall be required to pay all costs of foreclosure including interest, costs, and reasonable attorneys' fees. All such interests, costs, and expenses shall be secured by the lien being foreclosed. The person personally obligated to pay the lien also shall be required to pay to the Association any assessments against the Lot which shall become due during the period of foreclosure. The Association shall have the right and power to bid at the foreclosure sale or other legal sale and to acquire, hold, convey, lease, rent, encumber, use and otherwise deal with the foreclosed interest in the Lot as the Owner thereofi The Association shall upon written request report to any encumbrancer of a Lot any assessments remaining unpaid for longer than thirty (30) days after the same shall have become due, provided, however, that such encumbrancer first shall have furnished to the Association written notice of such encumbrance. Section 12. Subordination of Lien. The line of the assessments provided for herein shall be subordinate to the lien of any first mortgage and to tax liens and liens for special assessments in favor of any taxing and assessing unit of government. Sale or transfer of any Lot shall not affect the assessment line. However, the sale or transfer of any Lot pursuant to mortgage foreclosure or remedies provided in the mortgage, or any proceeding in lieu thereof, shall extinguish the lien of such assessments as to charges which accrued prior to acquisition of title pursuant to such sale or transfer. No such sale or transfer shall relieve a Lot from liability for any assessments thereafter becoming due or from the lien thereof or shall relieve the person personally obligated to pay the lien of personal liability for assessments due prior to such sale or transfer or acquisition of premises. Any delinquent assessments the lien for which is extinguished by reason of this provision may be reallocated and assessed to all Lots as a common expense. ARTICLE VI OTHER RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE ASSOCIATION Section 1. The Common Area. The Association, subject to the rights of the Owners as set forth in this Declaration, shall be responsible for, and be vested with, the exclusive management and control of the Common Area and all improvements thereon (including equipment related thereto), and shall keep the same in good condition, order and repair. Such responsibility shall include, but not be limited to, the following: the maintenance and repair of the Common Area improvements~ such as docks, beaches, picnic and playground facilities, walkways, exterior ornamental lights, and all other improvements or material located within or used in connection with the Common Area. In the event that the need for maintenance or repair is caused through the willful or negligent act of an Owner, his family, guests or invitees, the cost of such maintenance or repair shall be added to and become a part of the assessment to which such Lot is subject. Section 2. Hazard and Liability. Insurance for Common Property_. The Association shall procure fire and extended coverage on insurable common property (if any) on a current replacement cost basis in an amount not less than 100% of the insurable value (based on current replacement only), and shall use the proceeds of such hazard insurance solely for the repair, replacement or reconstruction of such insurable common property including insured improvements. The cost of such insurance shall be assessed as provided in Article V above. First mortgagees of Lots, jointly or singly, may pay overdue premiums on hazard insurance policies, or may secure new hazard insurance coverage on the lapse of a policy, for the common property, and first mortgagees making such payments shall be owed immediate reimbursement therefor from the Association. The Association is authorized to enter into an agreement in favor of all first mortgagees of Lots establishing entitlement to such reimbursement. ARTICLE VII GENERAL RESTRICTIONS. OBLIGATIONS AND RIGHTS OF OWNERS Section 1. Common Area Restrictions. There shall be no obstruction of the Common Area, nor shall anything except construction materials and equipment be kept or stored on any part of the Common Area during the construction period without the prior written consent of the Association or except as specifically provided herein. Nothing shall be altered on, constructed in, or removed from the Common Area except upon the prior written consent of the Association. Section 2. Rules and Regulations. The Board from time to time shall adopt such other rules, regulations and Bylaws governing the use and enjoyment of the Common Area as the Board in its sole discretion deems appropriate or necessary. ARTICLE IX Section 1. Maintenance of Insurance,. The Association shall maintain, to the extent reasonably available: Comprehensive public liability insurance in such amounts and with such coverage as the Board of Directors shall from time to time determine, but at least: (i) covering events occurring anywhere on the Common Area (and public ways, if any, and any other areas that are under its supervision) or arising out of or in connection with the use, ownership or maintenance of the Common Area; (ii) covering, without limitation, legal liability of the insureds for property damage, bodily injuries and deaths of persons in connection with the operation, maintenance or use of the Common Area, and legal liability arising out of lawsuits related to employment contracts of the Association, and such other coverage's as are customarily covered with respect to projects similar in construction, location, and use; (iii) insuring each officer and member of the Board of Directors, the managing agent and each Owner and with cross liability endorsement to cover liabilities of the Owners as a group to an Owner and with a "Severability of Interest Endorsement" which would preclude the insurer from denying the claim of an Owner for the negligent act of another Owner, occupant or the Association; and in amounts generally required by private institutional mortgage investors for projects similar in construction, location and use. All such policies must provide that they may not be cancelled or substantially modified by any party without at least 10 days' prior written notice to the Association and to each holder of a first mortgage which is listed as a scheduled holder of a first mortgage in the insurance policy. ARTICLE X GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1. E~lZ.C..q, lllgul. Enforcement of these covenants and restrictions and of the provisions contained in the Articles of Incorporation and by-law's of the Association (and of decisions made by the Association pursuant thereto) may be by any proceeding at law or in equity instituted by the Association or by any Owner against any person (including the Association) violating or attempting to violate any covenant or restriction, either to restrain violation, to compel compliance, or to recover damages, and against the land, to enforce any lien created by these covenants; and failure by the Association or by any Owner to enforce any covenant or restriction herein contained shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter. Attorneys' fees and costs of any such actions to restrain violation or to recover damages as determined by the Court shall be assessable against and payable by any persons violating the terms contained herein. Section 2. Severability. Invalidation of any one of these covenants or restrictions by legislation, judgment or court order shall in no way affect any other provisions which shall remain in full force and effect. Section 3. Duration and Amendment. The covenants and restrictions of this Declaration shall mn with and bind the land, and shall inure to the benefit of and be enforceable by the Association or the Owner of any Lot subject to this Declaration, their respective personal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns, for a tern of thirty (30) years from the date this Declaration is recorded, after which time the covenants and restrictions shall be automatically renewed for successive periods often (10) years. Except as elsewhere herein provided~ this Declaration may be amended during the first thirty-year period by an instrument signed by not less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the Owners. Any amendment must be recorded. Section 4. Notices. Any notice required to be sent to any Member of the Association (or Owner) under the provisions of this Declaration shall be deemed to have been properly sent when mailed, postage prepaid, to the last known address of such Member appearing on the records of the Association at the time of such mailing. In the case of multiple Owners of a Lot, notice to any one of such Owners shall be deemed notice to all. Section 5. Captiorl~. The Article and Section headings are intended for convenience only and shall not be given any substantive effect. Section 6. Construction, In the event of an apparent conflict between this Declaration and the by-law's, the provisions of this Declaration shall govern. The use of pronouns such as "his", "he" and "him" are for literary purposes and mean whenever applicable the plural and female forms. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Declarants have executed this document as of the day and year first above written. Thomas Stokes Jack Schuster SETON BLUFFS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) By. Thomas Stokes, its president The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1998,by Thomas Stokes and Jack Schuster, individually, and by Thomas Stokes on behalf of Seton Bluffs Homeowner's Association I, Inc., a Minnesota corporation. This instrument was drafted by: Stephen A. Carr Carr and Mankey PA 5100 Eden Avenue #306 Notary public appearing on the records of the Association at the time of such mailing. In the case of multiple Owners of a Lot, notice to any one of such Owners shall be deemed notice to all. Section 5. Captions. The Article and Section headings are intended for convenience only and shall not be given any substantive effect. Section 6. Construction. In the event of an apparent conflict between this Declaration and the by-law's, the provisions of this Declaration shall govern. The use of pronouns such as "his", "he" and "him" are for literary purposes and mean whenever applicable the plural and female forms. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Declarants have executed this document as of the day and year first above written. Thomas Stokes Jack Schuster SETON BLUFFS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. STATE OF MINNESOTA ) SSi COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) By Thomas Stokes, its president The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 1998,by Thomas Stokes and Jack Schuster, individually, and by Thomas Stokes on behalf of Seton Bluffs Homeowner's Association I, Inc., a Minnesota corporation. This instrument was drafted by: Stephen A. Carr Carr and Mankey PA 5100 Eden Avenue #306 Edina, Minnesota 55436 Notary public LI::RIII-ILAII:: UP lilLE No, 750108 DISTRICT COURT NO.(i) 247 Transfer [rom No. 720758 Originally registered tile 2Oth day of October A. D. 1904 Volume 2 Page 444 ,rAT[ ol ou~ of HrLmro~ his'h: 1o certify thai Norman T. 8erglund, REGISTRATION 1905 Concordia Street, City o£ Wayzata, County of ilennepln, State of Hlnnesota t. now the owner(s) of an estate in fee simple of and in the following described land situated in the County of Hennepin and Isle of Minnesota, lo wit: Lots 11, I2, 14, 15, 32, 33, 35 and 36, Block Il, "Satan", according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County. Subject to minerals and mineral rights reserved by the State of Hinne~ota as to all lot~ except Lot 35; Subject to the encumbrances, liens and interesl noted by the memorial underwritten or endorsed hereon; and subject to the · )llowlng rights or encumbrances subsisting, as provided in file twenty.fourth section of "An act concerning the registration of land the title thereto" of the General laws of the State of Minnesota for Ihe year 1905, and Ihs amendmetrts thereof, namely: 1. Liens, claims or rights arising under the Jowl or lite conslilullon of lite Uniled Stales, which lite slatutel o1 Ibis slate cannot require to appear at record. 2. The lien of any real properly tax or special assessment far which the land has not been sold al the dale of tlJexa(i;etJRHl¥~.laltld'~ July 28, 1986. 3. Any lease far o period not exceeding three years, when lhere is aclual occupation of lbo p~emlses under the lease. 4. Att rlghtl In public highways upon lbo land. 5. Such right of appeal or right to appear and contest the application as Is allowed by law. 6. The rlghtl of any person In possession under deed or contract for deed from the owner of the certificate of title. 7. Any oulstanding mechanics lien rJghJs which may exisl under sections 514.01 to 514.17. That the said Norman T. Berglund is of tile age of 61 years, is married to Carol II. Berglund and ts under no disability. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the SeEI of my office ~% this Twenty-fifth day of July 1990 ~ R. Dan Carlson Registrar of Tllles, In and for the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota. MEMORIAL OEPUTY ESTATES, EASEMENTS OR CHARGES ON THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE HERETO ATTACHED. DOCUMENT NUMBER gEE OVER COUNTY OF HENNEPIN RECEIVED STATE OF MINNESOTA THIS IS A CONDITION OF THE FEB - 6 1998 REg;STErl AS TO THE WITHIN CELTIFICATE OF TITLE ON MOUND PLANNING & INSR FILE IN THE OFFigE OF THE REG':STRAR OF TITLES AS OF THE ~,,~0~. 197'7 REGI~I*R)tR OF TfILES MEMORIAL 750[08 2515 Berglund o[ MINNESOTA, [Y o[ HENNEPIN. ~936 FtC t03l HC 1030 STAI~ of MINNESOTk COL~ ~ H~EJ~ This is to certify fhaf CERTIFICATE OF TITLE No. 748~?~ DISTRICT COUR'~ Ne. lB) 2/*7 Transfer from No. 525044 Originally registered the 20ch day of October A. D. 1904 Volume 2 Page 444 REGISTRATION Norman T. Berglund, 1905 Concordia SCreet~ Clt~y of Wayzata, County of He~nepia, SEaCe ~f Minnesota 748576 is now the owner(s) of an estate in fee simple of and in the following described land situated in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, to wit: Lots 16, 17, 18, l.,, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31, Block Il, "[eton", according Co the p[ac thereof on iile or of record in the office of the Registrar of T:tles in and for said County. Subject to mineral.J and mineral rights reserved by the State o.f.,Mt.~nds~cat}a~'}C&.~alZt :i-'ocs except Lots 18 and 29, Block 11; S~bject to the encumbrances, liens and interest noted by the ' memorial underwritten or endorsed hereon; and ,ubject to the and the title thereto" of the General Jaws of the State of Minnesota for the year 1905, and the amendments thereat, namely: 1. Liens. claims of rights arising under the laws or the' canstil,~tlon of the United -e,OIL.. v.hich the ISolates of this sta~e cannot require to appear of record, 2. The lie? of any real property tcx or special assessment for which the land has not been sold at the dote of 3k~f.~le,v.4~Hlfl~ December 5, 1975. 4 All rights in pubJi- highways upon the land. 5, Such right of appeal or right to appear and contest the opplicalion as is allowed r)y Jaw. That rnu sala Norman T. Berglund is of the age of 61 years, :.~ married Co Carol H. Berglund and is un,;er no disability. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the seal of my office this Twenty-second day of June t990 ~~ MEMOI~IAL OF ESTATES. EASEMENTS OR CHARGES ON THE LAND DESC~;BED IN THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE HERETOA~ACHEO. ~[ '" DOCUMENTl KIND OF ,NSD~ki~FNT DATE OF REGISTRATION NUMBER INSTRUMENT J , n i · [ · · our R. Dan Carlson Registrar of Tides, In and for the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota. DEPUTY SIGNATURE OF DEPUTY REGISTRAR FEB t~00ND PLA~ SEE OVER !IVED 1998 'NG & ItlSP. S.S. It For ~ years ,(~') Own ( ) Rent Number of d~pendents Ages Employer /~/L~/~.// /Z/~/7)~or Business Phone For~ years Positio._ ? ' Base gross pay $ per month Employer Business Phone For years Position Base gross pay $ per month Employer Business Phone For ~ years Position Base gross pay $ per month Other income $ per month. Source Date of Birth. ~ Dale of Birth Phone(day) ~of/- (eve.) ~/~" ~'~'~:~/ Checking account balance before down ~3~yment .. ....... ; ..../ ................. $ Savings account balance ........... ~. ..... '.~/.~?.~.~_./'.~.¢ .............. ~ ./... $.. Value o, stocks or bonds (include savings bonds). ~.. ~~. ~ .~,. $ Value of real estate owned (est,mated sale price) ..... ~. ~~ ............. $ Value of household goods (furniture, etc.) ............. ~ ~ $.. Value of automobiles ............... Other assels, list Auto loan, $_.. per month .................................... Balance $. Furniture loan, $ per month ............. .............. Balance $. Personal loan, $_ per month ................................. Balance $ Real estate, $. per month ................................... Balance $. Other loans, $ per month. .................................. Balance $... Is it necessa~ to sell your home before closing? ( ) Yes ( ) No If you do not have all the cash required for the down payment and closing costs, will you receive a gift? ( ) Yes ( ) No From whom? Relationship Amount of gift $ I hereby consent to Ihe disclosure of this data to the propeHy owner(s). Buye . te ~ Buyer_ Date _ BUSINESS RELATIONSHip DISCLOSURE YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO USE ANY PA~ICULAR PROVIDER OF MO~GAGE LOANS. SETTLEMENT SERVICES OR INSURANCE. YOU MAY OBTAIN SETTLEMENT SE~ICE5 OR INSURANCE FROM ANYONE WHO IS ACCEPTABLE TO YOUR LENDER. If you shou~ ~oose Greal Lakes Mortgage or Flrsl Security Tille lot a mortgage or settlement cornices, an eslimale of lite ~sls for Iheso so,Ices shown on the ~everse side of this form. WARRANTY PLAN OPTION ackn~ledge thai I hm~ been explaln~ the beneftls of a Home Ownerl Warranty Plan which has been offered al m cost of $ ~ and I: ~ree to purchase the plan and pay lot It al cloelng. -, Decline lo purchase a plan. :REDIT AUTHORIZATION ~ulhorize G~eal Lakes Modgage. ils agents or assigns. Io order a consumer c[edil ~epo~ and verily other cledll inlormahon, including pasl and presenl m~lgage and landlord ~elerences. II ia underslo~ Ihal a phol~opy ol Ihil Iorm will also same as aulhorizalion. he mlo~mahon G~eal Lakes Mortgage. ils agen s o~ assigns, oblains s lo be u ' Io G~eal Lakes Modgage in conneclion w Ih my appl calion lot a modgage loan. p~ided Io Great Lakes Mo~gage in connection wilh my application Ior a moRgage loan. habilihes ;uyer Date Buyer _ Date 'lvacy ~1 Notice: The inlormalion Io be oblained will be used by Ihe lender, ils agenls or assigns, and any lederal agency insu~mg, gua~anlee ng. law You do not have to give us Ihis inlo~malion bul il you do nol, you~ mo~gage loan ap~iCalion may be delayed or ~ejecled. The inlo[mabon we II oblam ~s aulhor~zod by TIIle 38, US.C , Chaplet 37 (~1 VA); and 12 U.S.C., Seclion 1~1 et seq. (il HUD/FHA} Right Io Financial Privacy ~1 Ce~lllcallon (Exhlbll B) · ~ Depanmenl of Housing and U~ban Development ce~ilies, in complia~e ~lh the tighl Io Financial Privacy ~t ol 1978. Ihal in Connechon wilh Ibis luesl lot access Io linanc~al ~eco~ds, ~1 is m compliance wilh Ihe applicable pr~tsions ol said wo J Debadolomeis ne~al Del)uly ~sistanl Sectelary JAN-02-96 TUE 04:04 PH BURNET LAKE MINNETONKA FAX HO. 8124717044 P. 02 PURCHASE AGREEMENT l'hl~ t~rm 11~,o~4 t~y the M~o~i !. Da~ ~o~ 7. Ixdom lhe hem bualnels day after aoceplanoe, In a ImM aO~unt of IIMIn~ bm~r but lo ~ returned ~ Burr I! Pumhs~ ~o. ~ ~ ~ ....... ' .......... ~- ~. (F) Others (Mu5~ bo r~ in ~; ~0, SPF_~IAL A~EF.~A~MEHT~ ~l ~ ~id u ~: 41. "UY~ ~O S~LE. gHA~ P~ AS OF THE DAL~~ ~SlHG I~N ~~ ~ ~m~ ~. aUY~ SH~ A~UME / ~~ P~VIDE FOR PAYM~ ~1 ~ 47. BUY~R_S~SS~p~LLER SHALL~ ~e ~ c~flg ~ d~t~r~ r~ ~e ~ ~ ~ymenl ~ ~ ~ ~ui~ ~ e r~uR ol the ~1~ M ~b ~ gWer ~ ~ re~ ~ ~ d~ ~ payee Iff the ~K~a~ IS I~u~ ~r the da~ d thb a~ ~ ~ o~ ~ ~m ~te ~s ~.. ~ ~,~~,~c~ ........................ ~ 57. Pu~ ~ ~1 ~ null ~ ~d ~ ~ler'a ~; ~M ~ ~ ~ ~ I~ ~d 9BgG~PlPG l~:~ 96Gl/Eg/lg ~n u ;,;d~ 51~11 b~ ma(la in wriling r~r d~m~ wai~d If eny ~li~ is ~ ma(lo, ~llPr rh~ll (~. liiJ, o~a~;tiul~s Ia ndlly Duper o[ ~;'Jl~r's intant~ Iom~e lille mar~3ble within 1~ da~ Iran ~'l,.,'s lacoJj,~ DJ :~L~h w~itlun obj~Dn. II ~ice 60. is given, paymen~ heloui~del r~.l,.,ired shall be postponed pending corredion et title, but upon ooo,-:liomo~ til;e arH wi'~hin 10 days alter writlen 02. nulice Io Buyer Ihe padies shatl ly,:rfon'n this Purchase Agreement acceding Io its terms. If no s~ch nolice is given or il notice is given hut 70 lille is not conodod within tho time provided for, this Purchase Agreement shall be iiuII and void, a, .t~li<~r~ nl Buyer; neither pady shall be liable 71 lei damages hemunrlel lo the other and earnest money shall be relulrded to Buyer; Buyer ~n(J S.,lle~ ajjr(~, l,~ -.i~ cancollalion of Purchase ;'2. /~.,3reoment. ItUYER AI.",IiEE'.; 1() ^CCEPr AN OWNER'S Ttrt.E POLICY IN HIE Ftll.I AM(~'tlr ¢~! I~'.! I'llt;~Ctlf.,SE PRICI--. IN LIELI /'J OF Ahl ABS[P, ACT OF I'ITLE !F THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO A MASTER ABSTRACT OR iF i'!O/~.[~'.;fRf,.CT OF TI]I E IS IN SEI.LER'.c.; 74. POSSESSION OR CONTHOL Il Buyer is Io receive such policy (1) the lille examinat~r period shall canmenca 75. lille insurance cornmilment and (2) Seller shall pay the enlire premium for.such policy it no leedor's ix)li~.'y i~ obtained, and cwrly the n(Idilion~d 7[', cosl of obtaining a simultaneously issued owner's policy il e lender's policy is obtained (Buyer shall pay the premium for the lender's policy). SUBDIVISIOr,I OF I_^I'.ID: Il Ihis sale constitutes or requires a subdivision of laed owned by Seller, .,?,e~ler shall pay all subdivision expenses a~l oblate all n(~c~.-.;!~a~y .(jover~mental approvals. Seller warrants the legal description o{ the real poperty 1(i be conveyed has been ~ will be approved lei ~ecording ~ of the dale of closing. 80 SELLER WARRAtlIIf~: SELLER WARRANTS THAT BUILDINGS, ARE OR WILL BE, CONSTiiUCrED EN II[IELY WITliI~,I ]HE BOUNDARY ~1 LI|',IES OF THE PRtmERrY. SELLER WARRANTS THAT THERE IS A RIGHT OF ACCESS 10 1lIE PROPF. II1'Y FROM A PUBLIC RIGHT 112. OF WAY. 'TIIESE WARRAI'ITIEG SHALL SURVIVE THE DELIVERY OF THE DEED OR CONIRACT FOR DEED. ::{ .?r.-LI.ER WARR/,,~rF.-' il;.',r PRIOR TO Tt-IE CLOSING, PAYMENT IN FULL WILl. HAVE I.~EF'~ I'.IADE FOr; ALL l.,'.noR, ~1.1. i',l,".¢:tlltlEl,tY, FI~'I URE~ UR 1OOL$ FURNISHED WITHIN TIlE 120 DAYS IMMEDIATELY PI1FCFDII1(.I lite 6LOSING IN CONNEC[IO;I 1',. ~,~'1111 COI'I.G'I'Rt.I¢;IIOf. I, /3,ErERArlON OR REPAIR OF ANY STRUCTURE ON OR IMPFIOVr ~'IEIlT 10 'lllE P[IOr'~EI1TY. t'.6. t;I[I.LER WAI{IIAI'1115 TItAF ,~ELt_ER HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY NO[ICE FROM ANY GOVEI{I" t~ I'IIAL/,.U [tlORli Y AS 1'O VlOLAIIOI..~ ri! OF ANY LAW, Oltn~l.I/'r,~l:E OR REGLII../t;rlON. II-' TIlE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO RESIRICIIVE COVEI,IANIG, SELLER WARRAN'I~ RlJ. '1 liar SELLER I I,V.; l,l[~r RECEIVED ANY NOTICE FROM ANY PERSON OR AUTHORITY AS T,J A BREACll OF '1 lie COVENANTS. ANY h9. tIOtlCES RECEIVED DY SELLER WILL BE PROVIDED 'rD BUYER IMMEDIATELY." f~ RISK OF LOSS: II there is any loss or damage Io Ihe prof)edy betweeo Ihe dale hereef and Ihp d~te of cln~in[I, fr,r any m,'tson includin!l ~lt. fife, vandalism, flu(xl, eadhquako or act of Ged, the risk of loss shall be on Seller II the prop~ly i,,; desl~oyed or subslanlially damaged bolo~e 92. the closing dale, this Purchase Atjreement shall becel'ne null and void, al Buy~'s orion, and e~mast money shall be relunded to Buyer; 93 Buyer and Seller agree ID sign cancellation of Purchase Agreement. 94. TIME OF ESSENCE: Time is o~ the essence in this Purchase Agreement. , 95. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This Purchase ,N:jreement, any a~tached exhibits and any addenda or amendments signed by the po/lies, shall constitute 96 the enlire agreemenl between Seller and Buyer, and supercedes any olher written or oral agreements between Seller and Buyer This Purchase gT. Agreement can be modilied only in writing signed by Seller and Buyer. pti ACCEPTAt,ICE: Buyer un(lerslands a.-'~cl agrees that lhis Purchase ,4greemenl is 'subject Io acceptance by Seller in wdting. Tho delrve-ry of 99. all papers and monies shall be made al 'the listing broker's ofr~ce. 10(.). DEFAULT: II Buyer delaults in any of the agreements heroin, Seller may terminate this Pumha.~.~ kj~eement, and payments made hereunder 101. may be retained by Seller as Ikluidated damages. If lhis Purchase Agreemenl is eel so terminalod. B.~yef or Seller may seek actual damages 102 f~fr breach nf thi~ /~ql~mt, nl ~ .~pec. ir~c pedo~mance of this ~jrL~.mnnl; and, ~'~ Ir) Rr.~c. il~c p',rf,~rm,3nc~, n,Icl) ,3clinn rn~l~t h,~ rnmmP~lco(I lt);~ within slx Iltu~llhs alter such righl et action allses. J~N-02-96 TUE 04:05 Pff DURNET LhKE HINNETONKR F~X NO, 6124717044 P, 03 106 REAl ESTATE ' , Yr I~. SPECIAL WARRANTIES: 1H. SELLER WARRANTG THAT THE PROPERTY I$ DIRECTLY OONNECTED ~. C/TY SEWERoYEGJ~iG0 on'Y WATERDYEOJ:~f~o 1~ I~F'I I I=IVilUyEj~ Al~t~pe ~ PROVIDE WAT~ QUAUYY T~BT RESULI~ AND~ BEPTIC 8Y~TEM CERTIFICATION IF REQUIR6D BY 17.4. GOVERNING AUTHORITY AND/OR LENDER. SELLER WARRAI~rI~ THAT AI.~ APPI, IANOE~ HEATING, AIR CONDITIONING, ~IRING 1~ AND PLUMBING 6~f~I~M$ USED AND LOCATED ON ~AJD P~OPERTY WILl. BE IN WOlf',lNG ORDER ON THE DATII O~ CLOSING, 126. iD(CEPT A5 NOTED ON ATTACHED ADDENDUI~L BUYER HA~ THE RIGHT TO IHSPECT PROPERTY PRIOR TO CLOSlNCL 128. 14/, union J~btx=.d olh~.w'4e In v~nO. t~m-4 ~ ~ ~ foflh ~ qrlqr, qr t, I pF, F,Z :RZ, qF-,F, t IF'Fl I I fl JAN-02-96 TUE 04~OG P~ BURNET L~KE HINNETONKA F~X NO. 6124717044 P. 04 VACANT LAND ADDENDUM :[ ~dendum to Pumha~e Agn~m~nt betvm~n pattie,= deled .~ 1~ p~t~Jnlng tO Ihe pumhl~ SPEC1AL ~W_~.RRANTIE~;~.~II~ wananm th~ the l:m~erty de~fbed In thle ' ~..,__..~,-~,~.,.~ ~ --.. , t~e~le~ IS~.~,~i~ do~gr~ 100 year lbed ~n m~ 34. THIS I~ I LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT BETWEEN BUY[RS AND SELL£nS, 35. IF YOU D~ ~ OR T~ A~IC~ ~NS~ AN A~OP~AIE P~F~I~ qr, F, I/Fa / 1 ~t 11. 13. 14. 15. 17. 22. P4. 25. ~1. J~N-02-96 TUE 04:07 PH BURNET LAKE ~INNETON[A -[ (,-,,,llililim .,.. F~X NO. 6124717044 P. 06 · .* ADDENDUM TO :' * '. , PURCHASE AGREEMENT ',z:,¢,¢ /s'/,,'?434,,,l¢~,¢,¢ 7 5. 7. 8. 11. l& 14. 17. 30. 34. Addendum tO Purchase Agreement betweerl pal'tie, dl~ed h'~ ~".c~',.~, . 19 ~ertainilln tO the .,.,. o,,,..~.~., ~ ~/~,~ ~:~~" ~- ' .~" - 35. 36. £o · ' IBSh~ (DM) THIS IS A LEGALLY BIN ..... T BFTWEEN BUYEI~ AND SELLERS. 989,S§£t, 1~6 6Z; :0~ 9661/E0/1~ JAN-02-9§ TUE 04:08 PM DU~NET L~KE HINNETONKR FAX NO. 6124717044 P. 07 AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT 4. hereby murkily ~ree lo ~memd .id Purcha~ ~;eemem ~ foll~: I0. . ' 11 . . .. / - o ~ ~ . . . .~/. ',, ~,~.7~.. ,~ / . . , , . , · . .. _ ~- , ~ . 29. ~11 olh~r J~rm~ ~nd ~dHion~ ~ ~he Purchase ~reeme~ ~o remain the ~m~. . ,. o ...... ~/ _ ~ _ _ ,~ ~- ~- ~ .... ~ , . 33. Tills I~ A L[~LLY BIHDINO ~HTRA~ BFTWEEN BUYEn$ AND ~ILLEA$, l[1 ~t q~qr, qFP Tbg AT :AZ qRRT/FR/TO UI/UJ/I~gb 2U:IU ~41~J§~Ub 6 JAN-02-g6 TUE 04:09 PH I~URNET LAKE IIlNNETOXKR FP, X NO. 8124717044 P. 08 ARBItrON OlSC~SURE You I~ve th~ ~0h~ to c~se whether ~o ~ve any dltp~ ~ the phy,~l ~lon M the pro~ t~t you ~n0 or sellt~ d~ by bl~ln~ =~ratlon or by · ~uR ~ law. 8y eo~l~ to bi. InO =rb~mtlon you give up your right ~o go to couP. By ~lg.h,g tim RESIDENTIAL R~L PROPER~ ARBITRATION AQREEMENT ~BIT~TION A~REEMENT') ~, ~U agr~ tO ~t~lflQ arb~ratlon u~er t~ Res~e.t~l R~I Pro~ Afb~r~ 8~tem ~Afbkrgtlon ~tem~ ~mlnlstor~ by tho Amer~n Arbitration ~lon [~ a~ m~ by ~ M~I A~tlon ~ R~LTOR~ (MAR). The ~BITRATION AGREEME~ ~ enforc~Ue only ff ~ I~ ~lg~ ~ ~1 buyers, s~em. II~lng a~ ~llh,g brokers/agerd~. The ARBIT~ON AGREEME~ 18 n~ ~d of the p~c~se ag~e~nt. Yo~ p~me agreement will ~tlll be valid wheth~ not you a~n tho ARBI~TION AGREEMENT. The At.ration Syfl~ I~ a prate disco ~e~ ~ystem offor~ a8 an alter~t~e to the cou~ sy~em, it i8 nm go~mment ~nso~. The ~ a~ the MAR Jointly adopt t~ r~o= t~l ~ Ihe Arbkmtlon System. The ~ a~ the MAR a~ not alffilel~. U~er the ARBITRATION AGREEME~ you m~ u~ the 8rb~mt~n ee~c~ ~ the ~ NI dl~e~ a~ or r~atlng to t~ physl~ co~n ~ the ~o~ are 8u~ to a~mtlo~ u~er the ARBITRATION AGREEME~, ~hl8 Incl~es ~l~ ~ ~, mlsm~s~t~n, ~ e~ ~llgen~. An agr~ment tO arb~Te 0~S ~t a ~ from oo~lng the Min~s~ De~dme~ ~ ~m~, tag ~ age~ tl~ l~UlateB the ~1 es~e The ~mln~lmt~e tH lot tho A~mtion ~ystem ~rl~ de~ing on I~ a~uht of the ~aim, b~ E lO more t~n coun filing fees. In ~ ~a, eo~ll~don cou~ b ¢h~r ~n arb~mtl~ The ~lmum ~alm allow~ In ~n~tl~ I~ ~,~ as of July t, I~ 1~ w~l ~cr~e to $7,~ ~ J~V t, l~. T~ amounts a~ sublet to ~url change. In ~, E ~ q~ch~ a~ le~ ex~ns~e to arbRmte d~p~ ~n to 0o to c~, b~ the time to file ~ clslm a~ pre~Hng dl~e~ ~8 are time, The dght to ap~t an arb~mt~8 ~ 18 ~ IIm~ c~ ~ the r~ht ~ ap~ a A r~ue~t f~ a~mtlon mull ~ ~ within s~ (6) monthB of fl~e date on which relB~nt lacb ab0~ the claim ~m. ~ reaBonablv cou~ ~ve ~en. dlacover~ ~ el~ tam elmira ~nnot ~ puraued. A ~ w~ ~mB ~ arboreta a dlsp~e ~ea.a Oe~, along w~h the appropr~te adml~l~e fee, w~h the ~. TI~ ~ ~t~e9 ~ ~r ~dV, who may file a retina. T~ ~ work~ ~th the ~la8 to ~1~ a~ ap~l~ an to h~r a~ d~e t~ dlsp~e. A thr~rb~mtor ~ ~1 ~ ap~nt~ i~ of e single a~mtor at the re~e~ of any ~. ~he ~ ~uesllng a ~n~ mu~ ~y an ~d~l I~ ~hr~ors ~e ~grou~s In law. ~1 es~e, arch~lure, ~ngin~i~, ~,shUct~ ~ other r~at~ Ar~mtlon heatings a~e ~lly I~ at t~ home ~Re. Padle~ Bm n~ll~ I~ the head~ at I~sl 14 d~ya In s~ance. A ~ ~y ~ m~e~ent~ by e ~er at lhe h~Hng ~ he or e~ g~es 5 days ad.nco noli~ to t~ ~r a~ Io I~ ~ Ea~ ~ ~y pre~ent ~en~. Incl~lnO ~umem~ ~ tea~mony by w~nos~[ Tho alb~rator mu~ ~ke a.y a~ ~ptly. The a~ must ~ in wrying a~ ~y r~ulm any ready t~ arb~ator c~s~ers Jusl a~ ~u~e that Is wffhln the ~ ~ the ~lee' ~gre~ent. The a~t~ does not ~ve to ~ke R~lngs ~ fact ~t ~ain the ~n lot granting ~ dense an ~a~. The a~mt~ ~y r~Ulre lhe ~ who d~ n~ ~a~ to ~y the admlnl~rat~o foe. TAll ~b~tl~ Dilolosure pro~ea only I general dil~l~n of the Arbhretlon Systam ind I general ove~ew ol the ~bWiUo~ Syria ales. If ~ ~e any qu~tlonl a~ ar~mt~n, ~1 the ~ at (612) ~ ~ c~s~t a I~e;. ~ ~ Ihl ~tl~ System ~es am a~la~e f~ ~e ~ ~ your R~LTOR~. ~lS IS AN ~ONA~ VO~NTARY AGREEMENT. R~D ~E ARBIT~ON DtSCLOgURE ABOVE IN FULL BEFORE R~,S~Ep~A~ R~L PROP~ ~RBI~ON AGREEMENT Any disco ~lw~n the u~erslgn~ ~les. or.a~y M them, a~ or r~atlng to ~e phyd~l co~lon ~ Ihe prope~y c~or~ by the pu~ .or.merit dat~ /~~ . Ind~g ~alm~ ~ Im~. mlsrepre=~ntat~n, warm~ .~ 7he mien, ~n ~ ~. ~O~ by the Amain A~ltmtl~ A~llOn a~ I~ Mlnno~a A~tlon ol R~LTORS~ g~m tim pr~l~(s). ~ls agreem~t stall sure Ihe del~ ~ tl~ d~ or ~tm~ for de~ In the purctm~ agr~m~. Th~ agr~me~ I~ ordy e~or~e ~ ~1 ~ ~ the ~rc~se agreemem p~ ~r~em/qge~e ~e agr~ to (S~&r'~ S~t~) ~ x (D~e) (~uye¢, 9lecture)" ~" (Da~) (Suyar'e $~gnature) (Date) THE RESIDENTIAL REAL PROPERTY A~e~TRATIOH AQREEMENT IS A LF. GALLY BINDING CONTRACT MN:ADf~A 16/93) BETWEEN BUYER~, aEU.,EIq$ AND ~ROKeRI/AO~FIll. IP YOU DESIRE LEGAL ADVICE CONSULT A LAWYER. .RECE VEDOf' 4. PURCHASE AGREEMENT This fern3 approved by the Minnesota Association of REALTORS'. which disclaims any liability adsing out of use or misuse of this fo~m. 1. Date.~')./~ ' /~ .... 2, Page 1 of ........... Pages 6. b~,.~-C~,.,,~,,c,S,,H~ as earnest money to be depos ted upon acceptance of Purchase Agreement by all parhes' , on or .... Fiv~e--~sa. nd ~.ollars to be ~romissory note g~ven to sellers *SEE ADDENDUM #l** 7. De*ore me next business Day a~er acceptance :n =- *-,,~ ....... ' "~ - .... ~--"c- ~ ......... 8. Agreement is not acceRt~d by Seller. ~aid earnest money is part payment for the purchase of the property located at: 9. Street Address: ~~lgh~A~_ ~3 ...................................... 10. City of ~~~_~_~.__ ~ ........... Counly of _ZJ_~4~ .... State ~f Uinnesota, 11. Legally described as: .~OC( / ~ ~_/~'~ _~_~ L~r~__~/ ;_~> / '~ 1_~ ,_~_~ ~ _~/ ~.~_ 12. 13. includiczg. JJ3,~_~_lov~mg property, if any, owned by Seller and used and located on said property: garden bulbs, plants, shrubs, and 14. trees; storm sa~ awnings; window shades, blinds, traverse and curtain and drapery~ighting 15. fixtures and~e~g plants (with any burners, tanks, stoker~~er equipment used in 16. conne~ / NONE built-in humidifier 17. and d~~sion antenna, cable TV jacks 18. and W~rowave ovens, hood fans 19. interc~e-~r~', ~;rs an; 20. heatilaters; AND: the foltowing p . 21. 22. 23. all of which property Seller ha~.s this day agreed to sell to Buyer for s. um of: ($ - ~O-,(~ ~-.~ .......... ) 24. ,/~;,*~.-;"/'&,d ~'~O~)..~JO //~)~(,.~,,~/t~" ~- '[~//~ ~ ~ '0' '"Dollars, 25. which Buyer agrees to [~ay in thejollowing manner: Earnest money of $ ~ ~D0 ~ . -_ 26. and $ ......... [~' ~.j~ ~'~r~ ....... cash on ,.~ ~.. ~)~ ,~. _&_-~Z/.~ / ..... ,/~.~?~w-, the date of closing, and 27. the balance of $ ..~ by financing in accordance with the attached addendum: 28. Conventional FHA VA Assumption Contract for Deed Purchase Money Mortgage Other: ~ ~'/.~ 29. This Purchase AgreementI1_...~_ ubject to a Contingency Addendum. (If answer is IS, see attached addendum.) 30. This Purchase Agreement I~ubject to cancellation of a previously written Purchase Agreement dated Buyer has been made aware of the availability of property inspections. Buyer elect~o~ have a property inspection performed at Buyer's expense. This Purchase Agreement I~,N~,OT)ubject to an Inspection Addendum. (If answer is IS, see attached addendum.) 31. 32. 33. 34. Attached are other addenda which are made a part of this Purchase Agreement. (Enter page or pages on line 2) 35. DEED/MARKETABLE TITLE: Upon pedormance by Buyer, Seller shall deliver a ~/"'~..~-- C 36. joined in by spouse, il any, conveying marketable title, subject to: Warranty Deed 37. (A) Building and zoning laws, ordinances, state and federal regulations; (B) Restrictions relating to use or improvement of the property 38. without effective torfeiture provisions; (C) Reservation of any mineral rights by lhe State el Minnesota; (D) Utility and drainage easements which 39. do not inter/ere with existing improvements; (E) Rights of tenants as follows (unless specified, not subject to tenancies): 40. _ 41. (F) Others (Must be specified in writing): 42. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS shall be paid as follows: 43. BUYER AND SELLER SHALL PRORATE AS OF THE DATE OF CLOSING / SELLER SHALL PAY ON DATE OF CLOSING all installments 44. of special assessments certified for payment with the real estate taxes due and payable in the year of closing. 45. BUYER SHALL ASSUME~LE~HAL. I- ~A-~n date of closing all other special assessments levied as of the date of this Agreement ASSUMFy,~RoVlDE FOR PAY?lEgIT OF~pecial assessments pending as of the date of this 46. BUYER SHALL Agreement 47. for improvements that have been ordered by the City Council or other assessing authorities. (Seller's provision for payment shall be by 48. payment into escrow of two (2) times the estimated amount of the assessments, or less as required by Buyer's lender.) ASSU,,~Eo~PAY~ date of closing any deferred real estate taxes (i.e. Green Acres, etc.) or 49. BUYER SHALL special 50. assessments payment of which is required as a result of the closing of this sale. Buyer shall pay real estate taxes due and payable in 51. the year following closing and thereafter and any unpaid special assessments payable the~ereafter, the payment of which ~s 52. not otherwise provided. As of the date of this Agreement, Seller represents that Seller HA~ceived a notice of hearing for a 53. new public improvement p~oject from any governmental asseSSa'~ authority, the costs et wi-ach project may be assessed against the property. If a 54. not~ce of pending sp~.,C~.J.~s_essment is issued after the date of this Agreement and on or belore the date of closing, Buyer shall assume 55 payment of ALL~THER: of any such special assessments, and Seller shall provide for 56. payment on date el closing ALL~E.~OTHE~R: of any such special assessments. If such special ......... mr, nt~'. ..... r'mw zimn,,nfs~for/~jId sn¢~assessments as reo~red by Buv~r.'s lender, sha exc.e~P'S .~ PURCHASE, AGREEMENT 108 REAL ESTATETAXES shall be paid as follows: 109 Bu er shall a Q ~ · y P y~RATED FROM DAY 0 F..C,.LOS~.~G,~' 2'HS, ALL, NON E real estate taxes due and payable in the year 19 -~.~. 2 110. Seller shall pa ,'~RORATED TO DAY OF CLOSING,~12THS, ALL, NONE real estate taxes due and payable n the year t9 the ~(c,rc~ ' 111. closing date is chaRge__ate laxes paid sh~rated, be adjusted Io the new closing date. Seller warrants taxes due an~ 112. payable in the year 19_~ ~11 be FULL-PA~-NON ~omestead classification. If pa~ or non-homestead classification s crc ed ' -~ ~(c~¢cle c~)~ J ' 113. Seller agrees to pay Buyer at closing $. ~. 114. toward the non-homestead real estate taxes. Buyer agrees to pay any remaining balance of non-homestead laxes when they become 115. due and payable. No representations are made concerning the amounl of subsequent real estate taxes. ll6. POSSESSION: Semmer shall deliver possession of the prope.y not mater than ~= O~ ~¢~1~ after ciosinm 117. All mnterest, homeowner assocLatmon dues, rents, fuel oral hqu(d petroleum gas and a)m c~rges for city water, city sewer, electricity, and natur~ 118, gas shall be prorated between the pa~ies as of ~ale of closing. Seller agrees to remove ALL DEBRIS AND ALL PERSONAL PROPERTY 119. NOT INCLUDED HEREIN from the property by possession dale. 120. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: To the best of the Sellers knowledge Ihere are no hazardous substances, or underground storage tanks, except 121. herein noted: 122. 123. SELE~W,~,,~,~S THAT THE PROPERTY tS DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO: CITY SEWER [] YES [] NO CITY WATER[lYEs [] NO 124 SELLEPJBUYER A-G"I~ PROVIDE WATER QUALITYTEST RESULTS IF REQUIRED BY GOV 'AND/OR LENDER. 125 SELLE~y GOVERNiNG AUTHORITY AND/OR LENDER -- (c~cle one)-- - .......... 126· SELLER WARRANTS THA~ONDITIONING~D WIRING SYSTEMS USED AND LOCATED ON 127· SAID PROPERT~.~,..~N WORKING ORDER ON DATE OF CLOSING~EPT ~HIS AGREEMENT, 128· ~ THE RIGHT TO A WALK~ERTY P~OR TO C~ESTABLISH THAT THE 129. PROPERTY IS IN SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME CONDITION AS OF THE DATE OF PURCHASE AGRE 130. ~LEDGES THAT NO ORAL REPRESENTATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE REGARDING POSSIBLE PROBLEMS OF WATER 131. ~NBASEMENT'~E~'~.'~-~ECAUSEDBY~ATER~R~CEBU~LD~UP~R~F~FTHEPR~PERTYANDBUYERREL~ES 132. ~GARD O~TATEMENT BY SELLER: 133. SELLERHAS/HASNOTHADAWETBASEMEN~HASNOTHADR DAMAGE CAUSED BY WATER ---.{clrcle onet-- ~ ~.~'~ ~,,....~ 134 OR ICE BUILD-UP. BUYE_..,P,P,P,P,P,P,P,~ NOT RECEIVED A SELLER'S PRO~:~L~'f;i-T~DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. ~R~--tS~]Y~VED THE WELL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OR A STATEMENT THAT NO WELL~L'IS-T..~N THE PROPERTY, 137. AND A SEPTIC SYSTEM DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OR A STATEMENT THAT NO SEPTIC SYSTEM EXISTS O~THE 138. PROPERTY, AS REQUIRED/B.~ MINNESOTA STATUTES. // 139. I ACKNOWLEDGE TH/~r./f HAVE RECEIVED/~ HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE ARBITRATION DISCLOSURE AND RESIDENTIAL REAL~OPERTY ARBITR,~(~I AGREEJ~,~,EI~. f40 142. SELLER(S) ~ BUYER(S) 143. DUAL AGENCY REPRESENTATION 144. DUAL AGENCY REPRESENTATIO[~"~'~OES NOT APPLY IN THIS TRANSACTION. ~.,~_.,~cle one)-- 145. Broker represents both the Seller(s) and lhe Buyer(s) of the property involved in this transaction, which creates a dual agency This 146. means that Broker and Its salespersons owe hduciary aut~es to both Seller(s) and Buyer(s). Because Ihe parties may have conflicting 147. interests, Broker and its salespersons are prohibited frcm advocating exclusively for e~ther party. Broker cannot act as a dual agent m th~s 148. transachon w~ihout the consent of bolh Seller(s) and Buyer(s). Seller(s) and Buyer(s) acknowledge that: 149 (1) conhdential inlormahon commumcated to Broker which regards price, terms, or motivation lo buy or sell will remain confidential 150. unless Se.~er(s) or Buyer(s) instructs Broker in wnting to disclose this information. Other inlormal~on will be shared; 151. (2) Broker~j;/d its salespersons will not represent the ,merest of eilher party to the detriment of lhe other; and 152 (3) withxC'/~1e limits of dual agency, Broker and its salespersons will work dihgenUy to facihtate the mechanics of the sale. 153 With Ihe kn~.,~edge and unde~'~nding of lhe explanat~cn.at~ove, Seller(s) and Buyer(s) authorize and mstrucl Broker and its salespersons 154 tO act as ~1 agents in th~.~-J.~sachon J . / Seller ~/ / ~ ~ Buyer 156, Seller Buyer ,87 ..... %z./__C .............................. Date Date 160. 161. OTHER: PURCHASE AGREEMENT 158. Address 159. Page 4 Date 162. I, the owner of the property, accept this Agreement and authorize 163. the listing broker to withdraw said property from the market, 164. unless instructe~herwise in writing and I have reviewed all all pages of this Purchase Agreement. 165. pa~ ~chase Agreement. (Se e s Signature)f/y / ' I[~atet ( uyer's Signature) (Se~er's Prin~ed Name) (Buyer's Printed Namei ' I agree to purchase the property lot the price and in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth above and I have reviewed (Date) 166. x 5'×- (social Security Number) ( tatusi (Social Secunty Number) (Marital Status) 169. X X (Seller's Signalu~'e) (Da~e~ (Buyer's Signature) (Date) 170. X X (Seller's Pnnte~i Name) (Buyer's P~ntecl Name) 171. X X. (Social Security Number) (Marital (Social Secunty Number) (Mantal Status) 173. MN:PA-3 (8/96) THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT BETWEEN BUYERS AND SELLERS. IF YOU DESIRE LEGAL OR TAX ADVICE. CONSULT AN APPROPRIATE PROFESSIONAL AMENDMENT TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT This form approved by the Minnesola Association ol REALTORSe: Minnesota AssociaMon of REALTOR.S· disclaims any liability arising out of use or misuse of this form. 2. The undersigned parties to a Purchase Agreement dated ~7_ //~. 3. purchase and sale of the property at ~ .~'. /L~'L~t~.~ r~_.~ .~j~ 19..~'~ pertaining to 4. hereby mutually agree to amend said Purchase Agreement as follows: 10. 7 ' 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 28. conditions of the Purchase Agreement to remain the same. 30. ~s..,,- ~ - / . ~., ~.~.~ __ 32. (Date) vAC ', 2~2095 ' V' i 91 ~i 90 ,~! 89 ~t 86 ~ 39 rO /71 84 ~65 k 82 182 8! 'k, '%% k \ i RD KiLDARE ~ RD 159 ~RLOW RD 01401 ,' i ' 40 40140! 40 ! 4 '~ fi'-:'i'-:; , ~ ',, .,I I ~ i~n.~ 1[.~5} 40i 66 % I' i%h~ '~ I CARL OW iRD 204. I 180. SS z (36) 156.2 131.86 4 ('58) 107.5 AUD iL, ~ / '".., ~ ~[ .--~ ~ -. ...... /,,' L~ ,. /- ---.. x ~9 5,, ~ /~.//> ~.--_. .... (62) ..) .. - March 24, 1998 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A TEMPORARY LAKESIDE VARIANCE, AND FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD, STREET FRONTAGE, LOT SIZE, AND HARDCOVER VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION AND ATTACHED GARAGE AT 1916 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT PID 18-117-23 23 0007, P & Z CASE #98-09 WHEREAS, the applicants, Douglas and Dennis Kelm, have applied for a lakeside, front yard, side yard, street frontage, lot size, and hardcover setback variances to construct an addition and; WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to build a 12 by 33 foot two-story addition to the existing home with an attached garage, and; WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District according to City Code, and; WHEREAS, the proposed variances are listed below: Existin.q/Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 22' 30' 8' Side Yard (east) 2.7' 6' 3.3' Lakeside (boat house) 6' 50' 44' Street Frontage 50' 60' 1 O' Lot Size 7,180 sf 10,000 sf 2,820 sf Hardcover 3,059 sf 2,872 sf 187 sf , and; WHEREAS, the foundation of the existing boathouse is in poor condition with a number of visible cracks and bows in the walls, and; o March 24, 1998 Kelm - 1916 Shorewood Lane Page 2 WHEREAS, there have been two previous variances on the property. Resolution 77-516 granting a Lake Front Variance and Expansion of a non-conforming use. Resolution 72-102 granting a side yard variance, and; WHEREAS, the existing deck is a safety concern, it will be removed and be replaced by a new conforming deck, and; WHEREAS, the proposed project is a substantial improvement to the property and the scope of the project meets the intent of what the City wants in a lakefront residential project, and; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff with alterations, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a lakeside, front yard, side yard, street frontage, lot size, and hardcover setback variances with the following conditions: The existing deck in the front yard as indicated on the survey dated 2-2-98 be removed. The applicant shall enter into an agreement to be approved by the City Attorney to ensure the removal of the boathouse within 2 years from the date the resolution is filed. A grading plan be submitted at the time of building permit for approval by the City Engineer. The Lakeside deck be removed and any reconstruction shall be conforming to current zoning setbacks. 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 structures described in paragraph number one above remain as lawful, nonconforming structures 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: Building a non conforming 2 story addition with attached garage. March 24, 1998 Kelm - 1916 Shorewood Lane Page 3 This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: LOT 5, BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk Minutes - Mound Planning Commission March 9, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 9, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orr Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Bill Voss. Staff Present: Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clappsaddle. Absent and unexcused: Michael Mueller, Mark Hanus. Public Present: Dennis Kelm, Clyde & Denise Bonnema, Dave Willette, David Holm, Robert Wroda, Henry Reintz, Muriel Reintz, Larry & Rita Meehan, Jerry & Pamela Neumann, Chris Stuhr, Scott Hoelscher - US West. Meeting called to order 7:55 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. Chair Michael called for a brief moment of silence in remembrance of Gerald Reifschneider MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 9, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Glister to approve the Minutes of the February 9, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 5 - 0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE #98-09: VARIANCE, TO RECOGNIZE NON-CONFORMING LOT SIZE AND SETBACKS, TO CONSTRUCT A NON-CONFORMING ADDITION AND ATTACHED GARAGE, DENNIS KELM, 1916 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 18-117-23 23 0007 Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented this case. The applicant is requesting a number of variances for an addition and attached garage to the existing home. The property is located at 1916 Shorewood Lane and is zoned R-1. A summary of the proposed variances is outlined below. Existin.q/Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 22' 30' 8' Side Yard (east) 2.7' 6' 3.3' Minutes - Mound Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Lakeside (boat house) 6' 50' 44' Street Frontage 50' 60' 1 O' Lot Size 7,180 sf 10,O00 sf 2,820 sf Hardcover 3,059 sf 2,872 sf 187 sf The improvements the applicant is proposing are substantial. A 12 by 33 foot two story living space will be added to the front of the home. The east wall of the addition will match the existing wall. The west addition wall will extend 9 feet past the existing wall of the house. On the front of the addition a 24 foot by 22 foot attached garage is proposed. The garage is a front entry and would maintain a 22 foot setback from Shorewood Lane. The driveway would be located on the existing gravel parking area. A number of other improvements are also proposed to the existing structure to bring it up to date. These include new windows, doors, siding, electrical, plumbing, and flooring. The home will be re-roofed with the proposed home and garage projects. The basement in the home is currently about 6.5 feet in height. The home will be raised 18 to 20 inches increasing the basement height to 8 feet. There is a two level boathouse on the property that is about 9 feet from the 929.4 contour and 1 foot from the side yard lot line. The boathouse structure is in reasonable condition however, the foundation is in poor condition with a number of visible cracks and bows in the concrete walls. The first floor is below the minimum building elevation of 933 feet. It appears that the boathouse is used as storage for miscellaneous household items at the present time. The home has a deck on the lakeside of the house that also wraps around the west side of the home. Upon visiting the site, the Building Official noted the deck was an immediate safety concern. A portion of the flooring on the west arm of the deck has collapsed due to rotting. A number of the other floorboards are in similar condition. Although it is not indicated in the application as being part of the project, the applicant has stated that it will be replaced along with the improvements. The existing deck is setback approximately 62 feet from the lake. The owner has indicated the new deck will most likely be smaller than the current. The lot is undersized for the R-1 zoning district which is typical of lots along Shorewood Lane. Almost every lot has 50 feet or less of lot frontage and is short of the required 10,000 sf lot size by 2,500 sf or more. Past variances for the property include a side yard variance in 1972 and a lakefront variance in 1977. The proposed project is a substantial improvement to the property. The existing home is in a state of decline and would have continued as such if left alone. Staff is in agreement Minutes - Mound Planning Commission March 9, 1998 that the proposal is a positive improvement for the property and surrounding neighborhood and the scope of the project meets the intent of what the City wants in a lakefront residential project. There is not currently a garage on the property for parking cars. A gravel parking area adjacent to the street serves as parking for the residents. The 22 feet proposed setback of the garage is adequate for parking a vehicle in front of the garage without intruding into the street. Although an attached garage must meet principle structure setbacks, the garage would meet setback requirements if it were detached. The boathouse on the property is a nonconforming structure as regulated by the Shoreland Management Ordinance. The City has worked to comply with these regulations by working with property owners to remove these structures when possible. A visual inspection of the boathouse showed it to be in a state of decline. Because the code will not allow structural work to the boathouse, its condition will continue to deteriorate. The boathouse appears to serve some usefulness as storage for household items. With additional square footage in the house, there could be storage room for those goods. Staff would like to take a position of asking the applicant to remove the boathouse to comply with the code. Given the scope of the house project, allotting some time for its removal may be an approach to consider. This would allow the owner to focus resources on the house project first before taking on another substantial project. The applicant has stated that he would like to use the top floor of the boathouse as a screened porch. Staff discussed with the applicant the intent of the ordinance and other options for a lakeside patio. Another related issue with the removal of the boathouse of benefit to the property is a decrease in hardcover. If the boathouse were removed along with the concrete sidewalk, the hardcover would be within 74 sf of meeting 30 percent for the lot. Staff recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested subject to the following conditions: 1. The existing deck in the front yard as indicated on the survey be removed. 2. The existing boathouse be removed within 2 years of the date of the resolution. 3. A grading plan be submitted at the time of building permit for approval by the City Engineer. Discussion: Weiland asked what the side yard setback requirement would be for the deck facing the lakeside. Gordon stated that there is a 6 foot setback requirement. The applicant stated that he would be willing to make the deck conforming. Minutes - Mound Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Weiland and the applicant discussed the boathouse removal. There was further discussion on the construction of the new deck be in a conforming location. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Voss to accept Staff recommendation with the following alterations: Item #2 to read: 2. An easement approved by the City Attorney be placed on the existing boathouse to ensure the removal of boathouse within 2 years of the date the resolution is filed. The addition of item #4. Should read: 4. The Lakeside deck be removed and any reconstruction shall be conforming to setbacks. Motion carried 5-0. This case will go to Council on March 24, 1998 03/18/98 WED 14:44 March l g, 1998 O02 RECEIVED HAR 1 8 1998 City o ' Mound 53-~1 1 {a)~'ood Road Moun, t, MN 55364 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. Dcm- .~ irs, An iss :lc has been raised by Douglas Kelm, regarding Paragraph 1, item b and therefore i submit the follox~ ing: 1) D, the be few y, condi~ .uglas Kelm wishes to keep the boathouse. He likes to use the upper three-season porch section of ~.thouse for outdoor relaxation. And due to several medical issues that have occurred during the past ars, his physicians recommend that he spend as little time as possible in direct sunlight. The medical ions include heart attacks, high blood pressure and diabetes. 2) Tle existing structure.at 1916 Shorewood lane was remodeled prior to being purchased by the current Owne 's. The previous remodeling was not completed to code and because &this there are several probh ms causing rapid deterioration to the subject property. Therefore updates are mandatory at this time. 3) In :reference to the proposed variances on thc subject property: All variances were existing prior to this reque; t: except the following: 1) S feet frontage less than 30' for an attached garage. 2) [ ardcover over 30 percent- This will meet the 40 percent requirement for existing structures upon c ,repletion of the proposed work. The proposed hardcover calculation of 3059 square feet will a;tually be 2028 upon completion. Part of the work will haclude the removal of 120 square feet of p ~tio and the removal ofa 101 square foot deck on the street side &the property. There !6re there is only one new variance being requested on the subject property. 4) Tle condition of the Boathouse is unchanged fi'om that of which it was at the time of purchase except for th; following: 1 ~ During the past winter, the west wall has sustained some ground pressure damage, which extends up the wall approx. 18 inches. The cost to repair this is rather inexpensive in comparison to building a new three-season porch. Estimated cost to repair is $500.00 dollars. 2, Current regulations allow repairs to a structure up to a maximum of 50% oft. he structures value. For which we feel is approximately $2,500.00 dollars. Other individuals that would purchase such a property have supported this value. Cone'. also f advet usion: The removal of this structure will create significant expenses. Not only for the destm~tion but ;,r the rebuilding ora new structure with similar uses. The removal of the slructure will also ;ely affect the market value of the subject property Regu The [ and ,, ations allow for minimal repairs to such a structure ;'oposed remodel of the subject residence will create higher tax revenue through higher property value ill enhance the neighborhood appeal. We a k for the councils leniency on 'this issue ,'md request that paragraph 1, item b, be removed from the prop¢ :;ed resolution. Denn ~ Kelm PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: March 9, 1998 SUBJECT: Variance request OWNER: Douglas and Dennis Kelm- 1916 Shorewood Lane CASE NUMBER: 98-09 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5h LOCATION: 1916 Shorewood Lane ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is requesting a number of variances for an addition and attached garage to the existing home. The property is located at 1916 Shorewood Lane and is zoned R-1. A summary of the proposed variances is outlined below. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 22' 30' 8' Side Yard (east) 2.7' 6' 3.3' Lakeside (boat house) 6' 50' 44' Street Frontage 50' 60' 10' Lot Size 7,180 sf 10,000 sf 2,820 sf Hardcover 2,872 sf 2,872 sf 187 sf The improvements the applicant is proposing are substantial. A 12 feet by 33 feet two story living space will be added to the front of the home. The east wall of the addition will match the existing wall. The west addition wall will extend 9 feet past the existing wall of the house. On the front of the addition a 24 feet by 22 feet attached garage is proposed. The garage is a front entry and would maintain a 22 feet setback from Shorewood Lane. The driveway would be located on the existing gravel parking area. A number of improvements are also proposed to the existing structure to bring it up to date. These include new windows, doors, siding, electric and plumbing, and flooring. The home will 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 Kelm Variance Request March 9, 1998 be re-roofed with the proposed home and garage projects. The basement in the home is currently about 6.5 feet in height. The home will be raised 18 to 20 to inches increase the basement height to 8 feet. There is a two level boathouse on the property that is about 9 feet from the 929.4 contour and 1 feet from the sideyard lot line. The boathouse structure is in reasonable condition however, the foundation is in poor condition with a number of visible cracks and bows in the concrete walls. The first floor is below the 933 feet floodplain elevation. It appears that the boathouse is used as storage for miscellaneous household items at the present time. The home has a deck on the lakeside of the house that also wraps around the west side of the home. Upon visiting the site, the Building Official noted the deck was an immediate safety concern. A portion of flooring on the west arm of the deck has collapsed due to rotting. A number of other floorboards are in similar condition. Although it is not indicated in the application as being part of the project, the applicant has stated that it will be replaced along with the improvements. The existing deck is setback approximately 62 feet from the lake. The owner has indicated the new deck will most likely be smaller than the current. The lot is undersized for the R-1 zoning district which is typical of lots along Shorewood Lane. Almost every lot has 50 feet or less of lot frontage and is short of the required 10,000 sf lot size by 2,500 sf or more. Past variances for the property include a sideyard variance in 1972 and a lakefront variance in 1977. COMMENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or practical difficulty. Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the following circumstances exist (Section 350:530): mo Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since enactment of the ordinance have no control. Bo The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. D. That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 ~l. ,Ill p. 3 Kelm Variance Request March 9, 1998 that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to property in the same zone. The proposed project is a substantial improvement to the property. The existing home is in a state of decline and would have continued as such if left alone. Staff is in agreement that the proposal is a positive improvement for the property and surrounding neighborhood and the scope of the project meets the intent of what the City wants in a lakefront residential project. There is not currently a garage on the property for parking cars. A gravel parking area adjacent to the street serves as parking for the residents. The 22 feet proposed setback of the garage is adequate for parking a vehicle in front of the garage without intruding into the street. Although an attached garage must meet principle structure setbacks, the garage would meet setback requirements if it were detached. The boathouse on the property is a nonconforming structure as regulated by the Shoreland Management Ordinance. The City has worked to comply with these regulations by working with property owners to remove these structures when possible. A visual inspection of the boathouse showed it to be in a state of decline. Because the code will not allow structural work to the boathouse, its condition will continue to deteriorate. The boathouse appears to serve some usefulness as storage for household items. With additional square footage in the house, there could be storage room for those goods. Staff would like to take a position of asking the applicant to remove the boathouse to comply with the code. Given the scope of the house project, allotting some time for its removal may be an approach to consider. This would allow the owner to focus resources on the house project first before taking on another substantial project. The applicant has stated that he would like to use the top floor of the boathouse as a screened porch. Staff discussed with the applicant the intent of the ordinance and other options for a lakeside patio. Another related issue with the removal of the boathouse of benefit to the property is a decrease in hardcover. If the boathouse were removed along with the concrete sidewalk, the hardcover would be within 74 sf of meeting 30 percent for the lot. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested subject to the following conditions. 1. The existing deck in the front yard as indicated on the survey be removed. 2. The existing boathouse be removed within 2 years of the date of the resolution. 3. A grading plan be submitted at the time of building permit for approval by the City Engineer. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 VARIANCE APPLICATION 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 F~'B .1. C ,~,:Al~pl~ie~,~,ee: $100.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: ~-/FCZ ~ity Planner ,..~-/~'- ~ City Engineer .~/~- ~'~ Public Works Other DNR SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Lot ~ Block ~ SurVives,on ,_ p,D# I'~: jlq-~,~ -~ - ~O~ Name ,~~ ~~~ ~1~ Address I~/~ ~~ Z~--~ ,, ~o~, ~ Plat # B-1 B-2 B-3 Phone (H) x/72.-7~c~ (W) Name Address Phone (H) (W) (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, ffno. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resblutions. 2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): (Rev. lll14/97) Variance Application, P. 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 use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, Iot'area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: ( N/~E W ) ~ 0 ft. c:~ o~ ft. (~ ft. Side Yard: ( N~h/ ) ~ ft. (~. '~ -ft. ~. ~ ft. Side Yard: ( U S E W ) ~ ft. ~0, ~ ft. ~ ft. Rear Yard: ~EW) ft. ft. ft. Lakeside: E W) ~ ft. ~ ft. G~ ft. ~~ : (NSEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ~ ft. ~ ft. I ~ ft. Lot Size: ~~ ft '~ ~ s q ft ~ ~O s q ft Hardcover: 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-conforming use: o Please (.a . Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( '~-too narrow (~) too small too shallow ( )topography ( )soil ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) shape ( ) other: specify (Rev. 11114197) Variance Application, P. 3 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: Was the hard_ship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road~ Yes (), No~l~'.' If yes, explain: · affected? 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 9. 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 ~' _ Date ~--~-/~- ~"2 Applicant's Signature Date (Rev. 11/14/97) BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone' 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620 Business N amelTennant ~1~~ The applicant is: ~,owner __contractor __tenant LEGAL Lot J Block ~ Plat # OWNER Name ~ Address ~ Phone (H) ~Y~-~? 7 (W) ~O "~--~ (M) CONTRACTOR Company Name Contact Person Address Phone (H) {W) (M) ARCHITECT Name &tOR Address ENGINEER Phone (H) (W) (M) CHANGE OF FROM: USE TO: DESCRIBE WORK: BY INSPECTOR SEPARATE ~ERMiTS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTI~TING OR AiR ~ONDITIONING. PERMITS BECOME NULL ANO VOID iF WORK OR AUTHORIZED I$ NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK COMMENCSD TIME LIMITS ON BUILDING COMPL~iON. ALL WORK TO BE PERFORMED PURSUANT TO A BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED FOR N~ ~ONSTRU~TION. REPAIRS, REMODELING, AND ALTERATIONS 7Q ~ H~ ~X;:H~5 ~ ANY ~UILDIN~' OR STRUCTURE iN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE COMPLIED WITHIN ONE (1) YEAR FROM THE DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE THE OBTAINING THE PERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPL~ION. A VlO~TION OF THIS ORDINANCE IS A MISOEMEANO~ OFFENSE. THE CITY COUNCIL MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPL~ION UPON WRI~EN REQUEST OF THE PERMITTEE, ESTABLISHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE ~ITY ~OUNC~L THAT C;ACUMSTANCES BEYOND THE ~ONTROL OF THE PERMt~EE PREVENTED COMPL~ION OF THE WORK FOR WHICH THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED. THE EXTENSION SHALL BE REQUESTE~ NOT LESS T~AN THIRTY (30) BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD. i HEREBY ~E~T[FY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO 8E TRUE AND ~ORRE~T. ALL PROVISIONS OF ~WS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED W TH WH~HER SPE~IFfED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING~OF A PERMIT DO~ NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR ~ANCEL THE PROVISIONS 0F ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL ~W REGU~TiNG CONSTRUCTION OR THE ~6 ~ x_ -- ~CANT'S SIGNATURE DATE PRINT APPLICANT'S NAME (OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS &COMMENTS: CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP / DIV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD I COPIED APPROVED I BLDGS, E,S':'FT, ,STQR,ES FI. SPR,NK'.ERSRE U,RED, IG'TYENGINEER 12' 22' NEW ADDITION 24' NEW GARAGE 02/18/1~9B 16:82 4?3-443§ COFFIN & GRONBEI~G · * C']'I'Y OF' uOUND C~Y OF MOUND HARDCOVER OALOULA'['ION~ PAGE 84 NAMe: ' ' ADDI~$$: .. j. : EXISTING LOT AREA SQFTXao% =, EXISTING LOT AR~ LENGTH · . -' WIDTH HOUSE: X .... X _ ' TOTALHOUSE *****'*****''****** (~ARA(~E: . .. X .. · X · .. -. TOTAL'QAPJ~(3E *"~ ~"& "* * -* * * * * ~ * ' * *" -' DRIVEWAY: *' " '[ I~ ' ':' -- ' X :, -- . . ; ' X ......... -- '" .... .' ' ' '"" · 'TOTAL DPJVEWAY * * * * * * * * * * * * * *.* * * ; ' OTHER: ,TOTAL OTHER · '- -T'crr, qL- .~$T,~ . TOTAL PROPOSED I'~DCO~R RESOLUTION NO. 77-516 77-516 11-8-77 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND GRANT LAKE FRONT VARIANCE AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING USE - Lot 5, Block 2, Shadywood Point WHEREAS, owners of property described as Lot 5~ Block 2, Shadywood Point have applied for a lake front variance and variance to allow, expanding a non-conformi.ng use~ and WHEREAS, the ~lanning Commission has recommended variances be granted, NOW, THEREFOREt BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the Council concurs with the Planning Commission and does hereby grant a 7 foot 6 inch lake front variance and variance to expand the non-conforming use. Adopted by the City Council this 8th day of November, 1977. 72-102 RESOLBTION NO. 72-102 HESOLUTION GRANTING ~IDE YARD YARIANCE (Lot 5, Block 2, Shad~wood Point) WHEREAS, the owner of I~t 5, Block 2, Shad~wood Point would like to put an addition to his existing house, and W~:REAS, the present structure is closer than 10 feet to the south- easterly lot line, and W~m~AS, it is felt by the Phnning Commission that the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the other property in the area and will not have an adverse effect on traffic or traffic safety, and WHEREAS, the Council on April 11, 1972 delayed action on this item in order to determine the disposition of the shed located on the property, I~0W, T~E. REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY T~ VILLAGE COUlt~IL OF MOUND~ That a side yard variance of six feet, two inches be granted, and it is not necessary to remove the shed. Adopted by the Council this 25th d~y of April, 1972. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR DENNIS KELM LOT 5, BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 4 Lot 5, Bb~~nt o: d~otes ir~ m~ker (943.o): ~enotea ex,ting spot elevation, me~ n~ ~vel datum ~: denote~ ~oposed spot e~vation, me~ eeo lev~ datum Be~i~ s~ ~e based ~ ~ ass~ed datum. This ~vey in~s to show the bou~i~ of t~ ~ove dascr~d ~erty. ~he ~cotl~ of on existi~ ~e and boatho~e. ~ the bcatton of "~rdcov~" t~re~. ~ doe~ ~t ~p~t to ~ow ~y ot~ or ~ooc~s. ADDRESS: REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE/WIDTH: ZONE: LOT OF RECORDyYESJ NO/? % ,~.,..- EXISTING LOT WIDTH: EXISTING LOT DEPTH: EXIST. LOT AREA: SQ FT REQUIRED SETBACKS PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: 15' 50' (measured from O.H.W.) ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' REAR: N S E W 4.' LAKESHORE: 50' {measured from O.H.W.) TOP OF BLUFF: EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: HARDCOVER CONFORMING7 YES / NO / ? ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED BY: FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING? YES / NO / 7 DATE: this General Zoning Information Sheet only summanzes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. 18 117-13 t-I :3' o o CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 To: Mayor, City Council and City Manager From: Joel Krumm, Liquor Store Manager ~-~i.//d Date: March 2, 1998 Re: February Monthly Report So far this year sales have gotten offto a fairly good start. We were up in January by $8,000 and we were also up by almost that much in February. Sales for February were $107,948. Last year in February sales, (gross that is), were $100,635. To date for the year we are at $228,955 compared to $214,000 at this same time last year. And we have had 934 more customers so far this year. There are four reasons why we are enjoying these increases. 1) As I mentioned in last month's report, (January), we had one extra weekend day for sales. That helps greatly. However in February things were equal. 2) The "EL NINO" factor has to be considered. The upper Midwest has been having some unusually mild weather this winter. This has allowed for people to get out more and be more active. I would also venture to guess there are fewer "snowbirds" heading south this year for the warmer climates. 3) In February, all the different breweries decided to raise their prices to us. I raised most of my price also. Beer sales last month were $44,824 compared to $41,702 last year in February. So this was a significant factor. 4) We have had a lot more customers this year due to the three reasons cited above. printed on recycled paper City of Mound . Monthly Report Utilities Month of: February 1998 Residential Commercial No. of Customers: Water Sewer Water Used: (in 1,000 gallons) Billing: Water Sewer Recycle Payments: Water Sewer Recycle 03/02/98 Utility-98 Total 1,157 12;3 1,280 1,155 123 1,278 17,281 2,770 Total 20,051 $29,153 $5,910 $35,063 $74,115 $16,636 $90,751 $6.166 $124 $6,290 $109.434 $22.670 $132,104 $29,062 $6,630 $35,692 $65,791 $17,409 $83,200 $5.473 $102 $5.575 $100.326 $24.141 $124,467 Total MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT. ~.Q.<.~_H OF FEBRUARY 1998 %0 DAT~ TO DATE X©. OF C.kLLS 43 46 ~" ~9 97 MOUND H!NNETONKA BEACH FI~ ~G~ O O O 0 .... S'=:R!STA 5HCREWOOD FI~ ~ ~ ~ 0 SPRING PARK F%~ ~~~ 1 ?JUTUAL AID F~ 0 O~ 0 2 iOTAL FIRE CALLS A~ 8 2 10 10 MOUND ,~g~ ~ 497 812' 590 - STKA SZXC~ ~ 0 ~ 0 0 PI~ 21 0 21 289 ~ ~ 12~ ~3 167 . 503 FI~ 102 110 212 ~ 180 - ORONO ~G~ 32 47 79 48 ~ 134 157 291 228 FI~ 0 0 0 0 - $HOR EWOOD M~G~. 0 23 23 ~ ~ 0 23 23 FI~ 51 0 51 13 SP. PARK' ~~ 115 65 180 2~ !?.TAL DRILL HOURS 1~5 ]6?.5 q27,5 347.5 79TAL FIRE HOURS tOTAL EMERGENCY HOURS 565 675 ] 24Q ]097 DL~L F~E & ~G~ {UTUAL AID RECEIVED 0 1 1 2 ~UTUAL AID GIVZN MOUND VOLUNTEER~ 'FIRE"' DEPARTMENT MOUND, MINNESOTA FOR MONTH OF p~br~,~ry l qQg FIRE FIGHTERS DRILLS & MAINTENANCE FIRE & RESCUE 2/9 2/16 kmSES HIRS H1RS RATE 1 JEFF .A2qI)T~SEN X X 2 19.00 2 37 6.50 240.50 2 GREG AA~DER. SO~; X × 2 19.O0 4 32 6.50 208.00 3 P.:',L~L BABB X X 2 19.O0 8.5 34 6.50 2~1,00 4 DA\~ BOlD X X ~ 19.00 0 23 6.75 155.25 5 SCOTT BRYCE X X 2 19,00 3 22 6,5Q 143.O0 6 J~I CASEY X X 2 19.00 2 24 ~,50 156.00 7 ST~E COLLINS RETIRED 0 -0- 0 3 6.50 19.50 8 B,')B CRAWFORD X X 2 19.O0 4.5 37 6.50 240.50 9 k~Y IP~GELHAP, T ' X X 2 19.00 7.5 18 6.50 117.00 10 STEVE ERICKSON RETI} ~]D .......... ~ .... fY. 5%) ........ 11 DAN GRJi)Y X X 2 19.00 4 24 6.50 156.00 12 KEVIN GRADY X X 2 19.00 2.5 24 6.50 156.00 13 BRUCE GUSTAFSON X X 2 19.00 6 26 6.50 169.00 14 CRAIG h~>.~DEP, SON X X 2 19.00 3 27 6.50 175.50 15 SAUL H~YRY X X 2 19.00 2 23 6.50 149.50 16 ~t:,Lf% HYlx~fGES X X 2 19.00 3.5 32 6.50 208.00 17 ~t~TT JAKUBIK X X 2 19.00 2 17 6.50 110.50 18 ROGER k2RYCK X X 2 19.00 2.5 25 6.50 162.50 19 JOH~ LAP, SON X X 2 19.00 3.5 30 6.50 195.00 20 JASON ,~.[i,~.,S X X 2 19.00 2 ' 27 6.50 175.50 21 JO}I~ NAYUS X ' E~ 1 9.50 2.5 19 6.50 123.50 22 J~S N~ELSON X X 2 19.00 4 22 6.50 143.00 23 BRET NICCL~M ~ X 1 9.50 2 18 6.50 117.00 24 GREG PAL~ X X 2 19.00 3 25 6.50 162.50 25 ~iLI PAl>! X X 2 19.00 3 34 6.50 221.00 26 TIM P.%I2~ X X 2 19.00 2.5 30 6.50 195.00 27 GREG ?EDERSON X X 2 19.00 0 28 7.00 196.00 28 C}Cti£ POUNrDEP, X X 2 19.00 7.5 32 6.50 208.00 29 tlCH ROGERS X X 2 19.00 2.5 37 6.50 240.50 30 '-~IKE SAVAGE X X 2 19.00 3 32 6.50 208.00 31 KEVIN S!PPRELL X X 2 19.00 2 17 6.50 110.50 32RON STAI~LMAN ~ (~> 0 -0- 2 21 6.50 136.50 33 BRUCE SVOBODA X X 2 19.00 2 18 __~6'50 117.00 .... ED VA~CEC FX X X 2 19.00 2 29 6.50 188.50 35 RiC~< WILLI;2~S X X 2 19.00 6.5 22 6.50 143.00 36 TIM L~ILLIA~.'IS X X 2 19.00 8 26 6.50 169.00 37 DE~IS WOYTCKE X X 2 19.00 4 27 6.50 175.50 33 33 66 IOrAI$ 82.5 82.5 165 627.00 119 922 W~6~S ~,012.75 165 llq]]; ~ 627.00 119 bBIKr .1,250.00 %UrAL 7,889.75 TO: FROM: RE: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR FEBRUARY FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT Investment Activity Money Market 4M Plus 4,683 Money Market First Bank 80,419 CD First Bank 5.53% 97,383 CP Dain Bosworth 5.55% 404,404 CP Smith Barney 5.708% 300,674 Money Market First Bank (97,383) CP Smith Barney 5.864% (361,712) CP Dain Bosworth 5.86% (399,421) Audit of the Year 1997 During this month we continued to work on getting the books ready for the audit. The annual written report of the department, submitted to you on the 24th, reflected preliminary amounts. Adjustments will be needed to meet the national reporting requirements set by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, which is the board that sets what is referred to as GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principals) for governmental entities. Recyclino_ Seminar Conference. (As reported by Joyce Nelson) In the past I have told you about the "Food to Hog" program. Food from restaurants, schools, and other similar places is taken to a hog farm and placed into a device that looks like a cement mixer, and heated to 180 degrees. The mixture is then fed to the pigs. Now there are plans to build a plant in Hasting at a cost of about $6 million, which will process leftover food from manufacturers (such as McGlynns bakery) and will turn it into dry feed for livestock. Finally, the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance is working toward reducing waste by 10 percent by the year 2000. Their goal is to obtain this reduction in the area of food waste, wood pallets, corrugated cardboard, and office paper. LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Ed Shukle Chief Len Harrell Monthly Report for February, 1998 The police department responded to 1,057 calls for service during the month of February. There were 20 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses included 2 criminal sexual conduct, 1 aggravated assault, 4 burglaries, 11 larcenies, and 2 vehicle thefts. There were 62 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 5 child abuse/neglect, 3 forgery/NSF checks, 5 narcotics, 5 damage to property, 9 liquor law violation, 8 DUI's, 2 simple assaults, 1 domestics (0 with an assaults), 6 harassment's, 8 juvenile status, and 10 other offenses. The patrol division issued 137 adult citations and 3 juvenile citations. Parking violations accounted for an additional 38 tickets. Warnings were issued to 149 individuals for a variety of violations. There was 1 adult and 5 juveniles arrested for a felonies. There were 22 adults and 14 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were an additional 2 felony warrants and 11 misdemeanor warrant arrests. The department assisted in 10 vehicle accidents, 1 with injuries. There were 32 medical emergencies and 53 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on 16 occasions in February and requested assistance 3 times. Property valued at $3,733 was stolen in February. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - FEBRUARY, 1998 II, INVESTIGATIONS The investigators worked on 7 child protection issues and 2 criminal sexual conduct cases accounting for 73 hours of investigative time. Other cases included assault, burglary, arson, fraud, terroristic threats, damage to property, forgery, violation of OFP, missing person, NSF checks, narcotics, theft, harassment, and absenting. Formal complaints were issued for stolen license plates, underage consumption, domestic assault, possession of marijuana, gross misdemeanor driving after cancellation, gross misdemeanor DWI and child endangerment, DWI, and no insurance. Personnel/Staffim, The department used approximately 52 hours of overtime during the month of February. Officers used 38 hours of comp-time, 32 hours of vacation, 106 hours of sick time, and 15 holidays. Officers earned 49 hours of comp time. There were 3 shifts at double time for holidays worked. Officers attended training in firearms during the month of February as well as defensive tactics training. Several officers attended mandatory training through PTAC. Two officers attended weights and measures training, one officer attended the Juvenile Officer Institute, and Officer Nelson attended DARE training. Shirley attended a secretarial workshop. Vo COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFICERS Officer's Packard and Piper addressed 30 animal complaints, 43 ordinance violations, and 191 miscellaneous calls for services. 2 citations were issued in February. CSO Packard resigned in February to pursue a full-time position. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT FEBRUA~RY 1998 OFFENSES CLEARED EXCEPT- CLEARED BY ARP. ESTED REPORTED UNFOUNDED CLEARED ARREST ADULT JTJV PART I CRIMES Homicide 0 0 0 0 0 Criminal Sexual Conduct 2 0 0 2 0 Robbery 0 0 0 0 0 Aggravated Assault 1 0 0 0 0 Burglary 4 0 0 0 0 Larceny 11 0 1 2 1 Vehicle Theft 0 0 0 0 0 Arson 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 TOTAL 20 0 2 PART II CRIMES Child Abuse/Neglect 5 3 0 0 0 Forgery/NSF Checks 3 0 2 1 1 Criminal Damage to Property 5 0 0 0 0 Weapons 0 0 0 0 0 Narcotic Laws 5 0 0 5 5 Liquor Laws 9 0 0 9 6 DWI 8 0 0 8 8 Simple Assault 2 0 1 0 0 Domestic Assault 1 0 0 1 1 Domestic (No Assault) 0 0 0 0 0 Harassment 6 0 1 0 0 Juvenile Status Offenses 8 0 1 7 0 Public Peace 1 0 0 0 0 Trespassing 2 0 0 1 0 All Other Offenses 7 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 2 0 TOTAL 62 4 5 33 22 14 PART II & PART Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Medicals Animal Complaints Mutual Aid Other General Investigations TOTAL 9 1 0 32 53 16 896 1,139 HCCP Inspections 7 43 TOTAJ~ 1,057 37 23 19 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT FEBRUARY 1998 DWI More Than .10% BAC Careless/Reckless Driving Driving After Susp. or Rev. Open Bottle Speeding No DL or Expired DL Restriction on DL Improper, Expired or No Plates Stop Arm Violations Stop Sign Violations Failure to Yield Equipment Violations H&R Leaving the Scene No Insurance Illegal or Unsafe Turn Over the Centerline Parking Violations Crosswalk Dog Ordinances Code Enforcement Seat Belt Overweight Vehicles Miscellaneous Tags TOTAL 8 5 2 8 0 66 2 0 19 0 2 0 3 0 5 0 1 38 2 1 1 3 0 175 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT FEBRUARY 1998 Insurance Traffic Equipment Crosswalk Animals Trash/Derelict Autos Seat Belt Trespassing Window Tint Miscellaneous TOTA~ WARRANT ARRESTS Felony Misdemeanor 50 33 28 0 1 10 0 0 6 1! 139 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 2 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT FEBRUARY 1998 GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY Hazardous Citations Non-Hazardous Citations Hazardous Warnings Non-Hazardous Warnings Verbal Warnings Parking Citations DWI Over .10 Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Adult Felony Arrests Adult Misdemeanor Arrests Juvenile Felony Arrests Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests Part I Offenses Part II Offenses Medicals Animal Complaints Ordinance Violations Other Public Contacts THIS YEAR TO LAST YEAR MONTH DATE TO DATE 75 108 187 52 113 174 25 39 46 64 117 189 105 156 155 38 77 219 8 10 20 5 6 15 9 21 19 1 4 4 0 0 0 3 3 4 31 55 75 5 6 0 16 21 11 20 34 33 62 103 120 32 63 46 53 88 100 43 55 51 896 1,816 1,209 TOTAL Assists Follow-Ups HCCP Mutual Aid Given Mutal Aid Requested 1,543 2,895 2,677 72 132 118 77 159 57 7 11 5 16 34 17 3 8 8 Run: 4-Mar-98 10:09 PRO03 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 01/26/98 - 02/25/98 Activity codes: All Property Status: All Property Types: All Property Descs: All Brands: All Models: All Officers/Badges: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Property Report STOLEN/RECOVERED BY DATE REPORTED Prop Prop Inc no ISN Pr Prop Date Rptd Stolen Date Recov'd Tp Desc SN Stat Stolen Value Recov'd Value Prop type Totals: 500 0 Prop type Totals: 140 140 Prop type Totals: 50 50 Prop type Totals: 281 41 Prop type Totals: 1,849 100 Prop type Totals: 100 100 Prop type Totals: 35 10 Prop type Totals: 200 0 Prop type Totals: 71 0 Prop type Totals: 310 0 Prop type Totals: 197 116 Report Totals: 3,733 557 Page Quantity Act Brand Model Off-1 Off-2 Code Assnd Assnd 1.000 1.000 1.000 2.000 8.000 1.000 2.000 1.000 2.000 1.000 7.000 27.000 Run: 4-Mar-98 9:16 OFF01 Primary ISN's only: Date Reported range: range each day: Dispositions: Activity codes: Officers/Badges: Grids: No 01/26/98 - 02/25/98 oo:oo - 23:59 All All All All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITy DISPOSITIONS Page 1 ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL CODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING A224D ASLT-2-SUBSTANTIAL INJ-OTHER WEAPON-CHLD-UN 4 A5355 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HR/~-HAN-DS-CHLD-ACQ A5502 ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HARM-NO WEAP-ADLT-ACQ AL351 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-AD-FAM AL354 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HA/~DS-C~-FAM AL554 DOM ASLT-MS-FEAR BODILY FIARM-HkNDS-CH-FAM B3334 BURG3-UNOCC RES FRC-D-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT ~ BURG3-UNOCC RES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT )0 BURG 4-AT FRC RES-U-UNK WEAP-UNK ACT B4995 BURG 4-AT FRC RES-U-UNK WEAP-COM PROPERTY DA540 DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-F~IJ-UNK DCS00 DRUGS-DRUG PARAPH-POSSESS-UNK-UNK DH550 CON SUB 5-POSSESS-COCAINE-UNK Fll2B ARSON 1-INIqA~-NO WEA-OT RESID-$300-$999 F400C ARSON 3-MS-UNK COND-OT PROP-S299 LESS 13060 CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD 13070 CRIM AGNST FAM-MS~MALIC PUNISHMENT CHILD J2501 TRAFF-GM-DUI LIQUOR-UNK INJ-UNK VEH J2E01 TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV J2R01 TRAFF-GM-FAIL TO SUBMIT TO TEST-UNK INJ-MV TRAFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE J3601 TRAF-ACC-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFL J3E01 TPOkF~ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV ..... OFFENSES CLEARED .... ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED 0.0 100.0 0.0 100,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100,0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100,0 100.0 Run: 4-Mar-98 9:16 OFF01 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 01/26/98 - 02/25/98 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: All Activity codes: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page 2 ..... OFFENSES CLEARED ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT CODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED L3071 CSC 2-b'NK ACT-ACQUAINT-UN'DER 13-F 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 L7051 CSC 4-UNK ACT-POS OF Ab'TH-UlqDER 13-F 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 M3001 JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 100.0 M3005 JUVENILE-USE OF TOBACCO 3 0 3 0 0 3 0 3 100.0 M4140 LIQUOR-D~rDERAGE CONSUMPTION 18-21 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 M5313 JUVENILE-CURFEW 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 2 100.0 M5350 JUVENILE-RUNAWAY 3 0 3 0 0 3 0 3 100.0 N3030 DISTURB PEACE-MS-DISORDERLY CONDUCT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 N3190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-~P. ASSING COMMUNICATIONS 6 0 6 5 0 0 1 1 16,6 P2110 PROP DAMAGE-GM-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 P3110 PROP DAMAGE-MS~PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 P3120 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 P3310 TRESPASS-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 50.0 P3600 LITTER-UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF GARBAGE-MS 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 P3630 LITTER-UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF GARBAGE-COM-BUSINES 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 TF059 THEFT-201-500-GM-YARDS-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 TF159 THEFT~201-500-GM-MOTOR VEH-OT~ PROP 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0,0 TG019 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-FRM PERSON-OTH PROP 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 t 100.0 TG021 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-BUILDING-MONEY 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0 TG029 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-BUILDING-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 TG059 T~EFT-LESS 200-MS-YAP~DS-OT~IR PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 ~ TG069 //{EFT-LESS 200-MS-MAILS-OTHER PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 TG159 T~EFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-OTHER 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 50.0 Run: 4-Mar-98 9:16 OFF01 Primary ISN's only: Date Reported range: range each day: Dispositions: Activity codes: Officers/Badges: Grids: No 01/26/98 - 02/25/98 00:00 - 23:59 All Ail All All MOUND POLICE DEP;kRTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page 3 ..... OFFENSES CLEARED ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- AC/~3AL ADULT JI/VENILE BY EX- PERCENT CODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST AP. REST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED U3028 THEFT-MS-ISSUE WORTHLESS CHECK-200 OR LESS 3 0 3 0 1 0 2 3 100.0 U3288 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 X3250 CRIM AGNST ADMN JI]ST-MS-VIOL ORD PROTECTION 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 **** Report Totals: 79 4 75 31 22 15 7 44 58.6 R%~n: 3-Mar-98 15:25 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 01/26/98 - 02/25/98 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: All Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE ACTIVITY CODE Nl3MBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS 9000 SPEEDING 66 9001 J-SPEEDING 2 9002 NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L 2 9014 STOP SIGN 2 9018 EQUIPMENT VIOLATION 2 9020 CARELESS/RECKLESS 2 9026 OVER THE CENTER LINE 1 9030 CROSSWALK VIOLATION 2 9036 OBSTRUCTED VISION 1 9038 ALL OTHER TRAFFIC 2 9040 NO SEATBELT 3 9100 PARKING/ALL OTHER 14 9140 NO PARKING/WINTER HOURS 24 9200 DAS/DAR/DAC 8 9210 PLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED 19 9220 NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF 5 9221 J-NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF 1 9240 CHANGE OF DOMICILE 6 9253 STOP ARM VIOLATION/NO TICKET 1 9300 LOST ARTICLES/OTHER 1 9312 FOUND ANIMALS/IMPOUNDS 2 9313 FOUND PROPERTY 2 Page Run: 3-Mar-98 15:25 CFS08 Page 2 Primary ISN's only: Da~e Reported range: range each day: How Received: Activity Resulted: Dispositions: Officers/Badges: Grids: Patrol Areas: Days of the week: No 01/26/98 - 02/25/98 00:00 - 23:59 All All All All All All All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE ACTIVITY CX)DE NUMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS 9314 9430 9450 9451 9520 9561 9710 9720 9730 9740 9800 9900 9904 9920 9921 9930 9945 FOb-ND VEHICLES/IMPOI/NqDED 2 PERSONAL INJIJRY ACCIDENTS 1 PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENTS 6 H/R PROPERTY D/MXiAGE ACC. 3 PUBLIC PROPERTY ACCIDENTS 1 DOG BITE 1 ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS 1 DANGEROUS DOG 1 MEDICAL/ASU 1 MEDICAL/DOA 1 MEDICALS 29 MENTAL CASES 1 ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIED 7 ALL HCCP CASES 7 OPEN EKDOR/AL.~RMS 2 INSPECTIONS DEPAR774ENT 1 INSPECTIONS CITATION 1 FJ%NDGUN APPLICATION 4 SUSPICIOUS PERSON 2 INFO/INT 2 W~alR~NTS 13 MISC. VIOLATIONS 2 9980 9990 Run: 3-Mar-98 15:25 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No Daue Reported range: 01/26/98 - 02/25/98 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: All Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS 9991 J-MISC. VIOLATIONS 1 9992 MURAL AID/8100 8 9993 MI~AL AID/6500 3 9994 MUTUAL AID/ ALL OTHER 5 A224D ASLT-2-SUBSTANTIAL INJ-OTHER WEAPON-CHLD-UN 4 1 A5355 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD MP, M-MA~S-CI-LLD-ACQ 1 A5502 ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HARM-NO WEAP-ADLT-ACQ 1 AL351 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARR-HANDS-AD-FAM 1 AL354 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY H/~-~/~DS-C~-FAM 1 AL554 DOM ASLT-MS-FEAR BODILY HA~RM-HAArDS-CH-FAM 1 B3334 BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC~D-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1 B3394 BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1 B4990 BURG 4-AT FRC RES-U-UNK WEAP-UNK ACT 1 B4995 BURG 4-AT FRC RES-U-UNK WEAP-COM PROPERTY 1 DA540 DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-UNK 3 DC500 DRUGS-DRUG PARAPH~POSSESS-UNK-UNq( 1 DH550 CON SUB 5-POSSESS-COCAINE-UNK 1 Fll2B ARSON 1-INHAB-NO WEA-OT RESID-$300-$999 1 F400C ARSON 3-MS-UNK COND-OT PROP-S299 LESS 1 I3060 CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD 1 I3070 CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-MALIC PUNISHMENT CHILD 2 J2501 TP~AFF-GM-DUI LIQUOR-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 2 Page Run: 3-Mar-98 15:25 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No e Reported range: 01/26/98 - 02/25/98 range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 HOW Received: All Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION J2E01 J2R01 J3501 J3601 J3E01 L3071 M3001 M3005 M4140 M5313 M5350 N3030 N3190 Plll0 P2110 P3110 P3120 P3310 P3630 TF059 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE NL~MB ER OF I NC I DENTS TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV 1 TP~AFF-GM-FAIL TO Sb-BMIT TO TEST-LrNK INJ-FfV 1 TRAFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE 5 TRAF-ACC-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFL 1 TP. AF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV 4 CSC 2-UNK ACT-ACQUAINT-UNDER 13-F 1 CSC 4-UNK ACT-POS OF AUTH-LrNqDER 13-F 1 OllVENI LE- ALCOHOL OFFENDER 2 JUVENILE-USE OF TOBACCO 3 LIQUOR-UNDERAGE CONSUMPTION 18-21 1 JUVENILE - CURFEW 2 JUVEN I LE - RUNAWAY 3 DISTLrRB PEACE-MS-DISORDERLY CONDUCT 1 DISTLrRB PEACE-MS-H/LRRASSING CObgMUNICATIONS 6 PROP DAMAGE- FE- PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 1 PROP D;kMAGE-GM- PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 2 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 1 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT 1 TRESPASS-MS- PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 2 LITTER-UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF GAP. BAGE-MS 1 LITTER-UNLAWFLrL DEPOSIT OF GARBAGE-COM-BUSINES 1 THEFT- 2 01 - 5 0 0- GM- YARDS- OTH PROP I Page Run: 3-Mar-98 15:25 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: NO Date Reported range: 01/26/98 - 02/25/98 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: Ail Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE ACTIVITY CODE N-UMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS TF159 THEFT-201-500-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP 2 TG019 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-FRM PERSON-OTH PROP 1 TG021 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-BUILDING-MONEY 2 TG029 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-BUILDING-OTH PROP 1 TG059 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-YARiDS-OTHR PROP 1 TG159 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-OTHER 2 U3028 THEFT-MS-ISSUE WORTHLESS CHECK-200 OR LESS 3 U3288 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS 1 X3250 CRIM AGNST kDMN J~JST-MS-VIOL ORD PROTECTION 2 **** Report Totals: 353 Page CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MARCH 5,1998 MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: JIM FACKLER, PARKS DIRECTOR /7 SUBJECT: FEBRUARY 1998 MONTHLY REPORT PARKS; With the warm weather there were no ice rinks at all. We made the decision early in the month not to attempt to flood the three parks. We began looking into the Depot and the improvements that were budgeted for in 1998. Currently we have scheduled all the work to be done early in March so it will be ready for spring rental. CEMETERY; The cemetery had no burials. TREE REMOVAL; There were no hazardous trees marked on private or public property last month. DOCKS; The dock inspector has been busy with the 1998 renewals, generally the majority of applications come in the last week of February so as to not pay a late fee. At this time there are over forty individuals on the waiting list for a dock site. We will only have about ten sites open up so we will not come close to meeting the demand. printed on recycled paper MONTHLY REPORT FEBRUARY PUBLIC WORKS STREET DEPARTMENT Street sweeping routes will be put in the newspaper this month on when Public Works will be doing them. We have done a little because the weather has been good but the full ronte will be done around the end of March. February we did not see much snow so we did a lot of sign work that had gotten damaged or faded and we will continue doing it. Along with that we put up all the road restriction signs. The road restrictions went into effect on February 23, 1998 because of the frost coming out we got some leakage from the cracks and the pot holes started forming. The restrictions started on the 23rd of February and when they will come off, I am not sure. The earliest I have ever put them on before was the second week in March. The weather will pay a big factor in when restrictions will come off. Also with the nice weather, we were able to do some tree trimming along the right-a-way for hanging trees that were below 13 to 15 feet. If the weather stays good, we will continue to do more trimming. Regarding the dispute for the street light on the comer of Cambridge and Bedford some residents have come up with a petition to remove the light. I have worked with a couple of people and N.S.P. and we do have a shield that goes around the light so it is not as bright shining into the neighbor's houses. The shield has been up for about two weeks and I have not heard anything back from the residents so I am assuming, the problem has been corrected. WATER DEPARTMENT We only had one water main break in February. We have been reading meters and repairing some meter heads we had problems with from Schlumberger. We are still getting paid ten dollars an installation plus the part. It has been bothersome but it is not coming all out of our pocket. Jerry said he has had around nine hundred heads that were replaced out of the bad batch we got in the beginning of 1995. We have been doing lots of locates for contractors with the weather being so nice. SEWER DEPARTMENT We have been doing repairs on the pumps and the panels have been holding up very well. We have had a couple of problems with seals but we did fix them our selves. It does take some time but is cheaper for us to do it. The Maple Manors have not met the city specks completely with that and they wanted to set up an occupancy at the end of February. I have a letter from Northern Water Works stating, everything will be up and running March 14th. They are going to put the pumps and electrical panel up to city specks. I do not think this so going to slow anything up for the occupancy that wants to get in by the end of the month but we are unsure about it at this time. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 DATE: March 6, 1998 TO: FROM: City Manager, Members of the City Council and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~ SUBJECT: JANUARY 1998 MONTHLY REPORT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY There were 10 building permits issued in February for a construction value of $100,137. We issued 21 plumbing, mechanical, and miscellaneous permits for a total of 31 permits this month, and 60 permits year-to-date. Total valuation now stands at $196,231. PLANNING & ZONING The Planning Commission reviewed three (3) cases and sent three (3) variance cases to the City Council. kl printed on recycled paper City of Mound BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT Month: FEBRUARY Year: 1998 THIS MONTH SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 0 0 0 0 ... SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED (CONDOS) 0 0 0 0 TWO FAMILY ! DUPLEX 0 0 0 0 MULTIPLE FAMILY (3 OR MORE UNITS) 0 0 0 0 TRANSIENT HSG. (HOTELS / MOTELS) 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL 0 0 0 0 NON-RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT) 0 0 0 0 OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL 0 0 0 0 INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 PUBLIC / SCHOOLS 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL 0 0 0 0 RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS TO PRINCIPAL BUILDING i 40 , 000 3 88, 067 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS 1 15 ~ 150 1 15 t 150 DEC~S i 3~500 2 4~ 780 SWIMMING POOLS 0 0 0 0 REMODEL- MISC RESIDENTIAL 7 41,487 14 68,234 REMODEL- MULTIPLE DWELLINGS 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL 10 100,137 20 176,231 COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT) 0 0 1 20,000 OFFICE I PROFESSIONAL 0 0 0 0 INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 PUBLIC / SCHOOLS 0 0 0 0 DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL 0 0 1 20,000 RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS 0 0 0 0 NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS 0 0 0 0 TOTAL DEMOLITIONS 0 0 0 0 # PERMITS # UNITS VALUATION # UNITS VALUATION // PERMITS TOTAL 0 10 100,137 -~ 21 196,231 PERMIT COUNT YEAR-TO-DATE · BUILDING 10 21 FENCES a RETAINING WALLS 0 0 SIGNS 1 1 PLUMBING 10 18 MECHANICAL 7 17 GRADING 0 0 S&W, STREET EXCAV., FIRE, ETC. 3 3 TOTAL I 31 I 60 BUILDING PERMIT REPORT FOR MONTH OF FEBRUARY 1998 MONTHYEARDAY PERMIT # ADDRESS OWNER CONTRACTOR TYPE OF CONST. FEB 98 2 11879 FEB 98 5 12278 FEB 98 9 12279 FEB 98 9 12280 FEB 98 10 12281 FEB 98 13 12282 FEB 98 18 12283 FEB 98 18 12284 FEB 98 24 12285 FEB 98 25 12286 FEB 98 25 12287 FEB 98 25 12288 6208 RED OAK RD 4547 ISLAND VIEW DR 5322 MAYWOOD RD 5201 PIPER RD 4673 ISLAND VIEW DR 5801 BARTLETT BLVD 4916 HANOVER RD 4570 DORCHESTER RD CLIFFORD LARSON 6041 RIDGEWOOD RD STEVE JOHNSON 5070 BAYPORT RD JEFFREY MCMURRAY 6020 LYNWOOD BLVD EDNA FOX 4379 WILSHIRE BLVD HAROLD BROOKS SELF VOiD TIM MAYEK JOHNSON CONST GARAGE; RETAINING WALL ROYAL APARTMENTS ALLIED ROOFING REROOF AL & ALMA'S EDISON SIGNS WALL SIGNS FRANK AHRENS DON SCHERVAN JR REROOF CiTY OF MOUND - DEPO'~ SPECIALIZED WOODCR COUNTER TOPS & CABINETS LINDA KUNDEE DRS HOME REPAIRS SCREEN PORCH SELF BASEMENT, FINISH SELF ADDITION OF BED & BATH SELF REROOF; INSUL; SUBFLOOR SELF REROOF PALMERWEST CONST REROOF VALUATION SAC UNIT VOID VOID 16,16o I I 11,660 700 3,597 I~ 3,500 2,5oo 1'4 40,000 tO 5,ooo 2,400 15,630 MONTH FEB FEB FEB FEB FEB FEB FEB FEB FEB FEB FEB FEB FEB FEB FEB FEB FEB FEB FEB FEB FEB GENERAL PERMIT REPORT FOR MONTH OF FEBRUARY 1998 YEAR DAY PERMIT# ADDRESS CONTRACTOR 98 2 3915 4684 HAMPTON RD CUSTOM PLUMBING 98 2 3916 5574 SHERWOOD DR NORBLOM PLUMBING 98 5 3917 4826 GLASGOW RD SUPERIOR CONT 98 5 3918 VOID VOID 98 9 3919 5201 PIPER RD FIRESIDE CORNER 98 9 3920 2600 WlLSHIRE BLVD SUPERIOR PLUMB 98 11 3921 1724 SHOREWOOD LANE CENTAIRE INC 98 11 3922 4431 DORCHESTER RD CRAIG FORCIER 98 12 3923 4650 MANCHESTER RD NORBLOM PLUMB 98 17 3924 4686 ISLAND VIEW DR ROTO ROOTER 98 18 3925 4570 DORCHESTER RD CLIFFORD LARSON 98 19 3926 5621 BARTLETT BLVD DEAN'S TANK INC 98 20 3927 5501 SHERWOOD DR MN WATER TREAT 98 20 3928 3162 ALEXANDER LANE SEDWICK 98 20 3929 4835 BARTLETT BLVD MN WATER TREAT 98 20 3930 2868 PELICAN POINT CIR STEINKRAUS PLUMB 98 20 3931 2868 PELICAN POINT CIR FLARE HEATING 98 20 3932 2548 AVON DRIVE ROSS PLUMBING 98 23 3933 5300 LYNWOOD BLVD COPPIN PLUMBING 98 23 3934 1718 EAGLE LANE BRUCKMUELLER PLUMB 98 27 3935 4994 MANCHESTER RD TOM ALEXANDER PERMIT TYPE PLUMB - PLUMB - MECH - VOID MECH _ PLUMB - MECH - MECH - PLUMB- SEWER REPAIR PLUMB - TANK REMOVAL PLUMB - MECH - PLUMB' PLUMB- MECH PLUMB -- WIS CONNECT - PLUMB _ MECH - CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT FEB. 1998 16.67% GENERAL FUND Council Promotions Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspections Streets City Property Parks Summer Recreation Contingencies Transfers FEB. 1998 BUDGET EXPENSE YTD PERCENT EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED 71,610 2,998 14,283 57,327 19.95% 4,000 0 0 4,000 0.00% 3,000 0 0 3,000 0.00% 210,970 30,929 46,832 164,138 22.20% 13,200 0 1,772 11,428 13.42% 62,450 9 24 62,426 0.04% 172,710 11,812 23,538 149,172 13.63% 18,550 1,983 7,678 10,872 41.39% 86,460 5,358 9,246 77,214 10.69% 990,170 95,107 168,768 821,402 17.04% 4,250 75 653 3,597 15.36% 173,280 12,223 22,542 150,738 13.0t% 420,820 31,054 68,681 352,t 39 16.32% 103,380 3,421 8,968 94,412 8.67% 192,380 7,169 14,058 178,322 7.31% 37,290 0 0 37,290 0.00% 45,000 981 981 44,019 2.18% 167.430 13.952 27.905 139,525 16.67% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 2t7~07t A_1_5~9_29_ ~ 14.98% Area Fire Service Fund 360,220 Recycling Fund 126,830 Liquor Fund 215,200 Water Fund 445,400 Sewer Fund 981,020 Cemetery Fund 6,710 Docks Fund 76,660 11,203 25,289 334,931 7.02% 6,477 21,345 105,485 16.83% 16,483 32,218 182,982 14.97% 29,537 43,284 402,116 9.72% 88,725 217,748 763,272 22.20% 60 60 6,650 0.89% 414 1,192 75,468 1.55% Exp-97 03/13~98 G.B. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT FEB. 1998 16.67% GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non-Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Transfers from Other Funds Charges to Other Departments FEB. 1998 YTD PERCENT 1,271,520 0 0 4,780 260 460 105,300 3,577 6,982 950,850 34,283 34,283 50,650 1,524 2,308 85,000 6,909 6,909 71,000 139 5,739 43,500 0 0 12.000 3,042 5.773 (1,271,520) 0.00% (4,320) 9.62% (98,318) 6.63% (916,567) 3.61% (48,342) 4.56% (78,091) 8.13% (65,261) 8.08% (43,500) 0.00% (_6.227) 48.11% TOTAL REVENUE 2,.5.9_4.,.6.0.0. 49.734 FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCKS FUND 360,220 16,235 81,401 (278,819) 22.60% 118,920 6,264 11,836 (107,084) 9.95% 1,530,000 99,225 210,510 (1,319,490) 13.76% 451,000 35,043 68,069 (382,931) 15.09% 924,000 90,621 172,313 (751,687) 18.65% 5,100 700 700 (4,400) 13.73% 77,300 40,079 55,606 (21,694) 71.94% 03/13~98 rev97 G.B. MAR-15-i998 18:40 MINNEH~H~ CREEK WRTERSH'ED2L~ 6124710682 Minnehaha Creek 0 Watershed District Gray Freshwater Center Hw,js. 15 & 19, Navarre Mail: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331-9578 Phone: (612) 471-0590 Fax: (612) 471-0682 Email: admin@minnehatlacreek.org Web Site: www.minnehahacreek.org Board of Managers: C. Woodrow Love Vice President Pamela G. Blixt Treasurer Monlca Gross Secretanj Thomas W. LaBounty Thomas Maple. Jr. Malcolm Reid Didrlcl Office: Diane P. Lynch District Administrator al la&l! 30~ p~1 ~ualr wal~. DATE: TO: FROM: RE: MEMORANDUM March 13, 1998 Stormwater Task Force Managers, MCWD Diane Lynch, District Administrator Next meeting and agenda The next meeting of the Stormwater Task Force is scheduled for Tuesdav~ March 24 from 2:30-4:00 p.m. in the Shady Oak Room in the Minnetonka Community Center. Please contact me 471-0590 if you will be unable to attend. _AGENDA Continued review of the draft Rule B Bin Issues: Public Notice' Requirements & Erosion Control Next meeting M ! NNEHt:IHI::I CREEK I,II:::ITERSHED STORMWA1]:j.R T^$K FOR. Cl~ FAX LIST 61~471068~ P.01/11 Phone # Annis, Daryl Laketown Township 442-5282 Charbonneau, Rick Sierra Club 722-4942 Durgunoglu, Ali HCD 544-$572 Eastling, Mike City of Richfield 861-9792 Elkin, Philip City of Chanhassen 937-1900 x] o$ Gappa, Crreg City of Orono 473-7357 Goff, Bill City of Victoria 443-2363 Griffin, Tim Biko Associates, !nc. 529=8170 Gross, Monica MCWD 922-5356 Gustafson, Lee City o£Minnetonka 939-8239 Haertel, Jim BWSR 296-3767 Hafner, lira MCWD 471-0590 Houle, Wayne City of Edina 826-0443 Knaeble, Peter Terra Engineering 5930325 Larsen, Jim Met Council 602-1159 Larson, Bob City of Deephaven 474-4755 Lee, Jeff MPRB 370-4900 Love, Woody MCWD 470-2552 Lynch, Diane MCWD 471-0590 Maple, Tom MCWD 471-0590 Oliver, left Panzer, Mike Polston, Bob Polzin, Jodi Rardin, Mike Schwalbe, Terry Smith, Louis Soderbeck, Gene Stadler, Steve Strauss, Ceil Young, Scott City of Golden Valley Wenck Associates, Inc. City of Mound City of Minneapolis City of St. Louis Park City of Wayzata Smith Parker/MCWD MI'CA City of Hopkins DNR Rust Envir. & Infrastructure 593-8034 479-4207 472-0600 673-3000 924-2500 404-5312 344-1400 296-6300 939-1338 772-7914 551-2426 Fax# .442-6465 379-3855 544-9437 861-9749 937-5739 473-0510 443-2110 928-8488 922-6652 939-8244 297-5615 471-0682 826-0390 593-9325 602-1130 474-1274 370-4831 474-9583 471-0682 471-0682 593-3988 479-4242 472-5754 673-2048 924-2663 404-5318 344-1550 282-6247 939-1381 772-7977 551-2499 12/0 [/97 MAR-13-1998 18:41 MINNEHAHA CREEK WAtERShED 61247i06S2 P.03/11 M~NNE~rAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTR1CT RULE B STOI~dVlWATER MANAGEMENT & EROSION CONTROL .~L'JP. !ND~r!~U.~.L PP.O.TECTS I. POLICY. It is the policy oftl~e Board of Managers to; (a) Requh'e stormwater facilities to be constructed on individual si[es where practicable m~d effective. (b) Manage stormwater and <nowmelt runoff on a regional or subwatershed b,a.~is and promote natural infiltration of runofffl~rou§hout the District to: 1) provide ef£ective water quality treatment and where possibJe provide sucl~ treatment prior [o discharge to surface wa/erbodies and wetlands; and 2) so that future peak rates of runoff into m~.jor surt~ce water bodies are less than or equal to existing (c) RCClUirc preparation and implemcnta[ion oF crusion cpm.roi plans £or construction and land developme~t activities. 2. REGULATION. [~xccpt as provided in paragraph $, prior to commencing any land alee. ring activities ~, a developer of Jund for residential, commercial industrial, institutional, or publio roadway uses shall submit a stormwaler management plan and an erosion con~ol plan to the District in conformity with the requir~ts of this rule and s~cure a peri: item :he Dis~ict approving the ~ormwater managem~t plan and the erosion control plan. [~. ................ ................ ~ ........... ~ ..... r~..) ......-..-~ .~:', ::c::-~. ~,.....~ ~a~'. ............. ~., Thc ~anagers will review ~ stormwater managcmen~ plan and the erosion control plan only a~er ~e applicant demonstrates that the project hm received preliminary approv:l from d~c municipality indicating compliance wifl~ existing municipal plans. Sin_l~ie-Fa .mil¥ Homes. Apermit is_not reLquired f:_o_r the construe, flea or recenstruqtion sin~Ie t'am[ly home_or its res. identia] appurtenances (_b) Sin_ele-Fnmilv, Rural. Residea, tinI Development. A permit is not required fi'qmtl~, _MCWD_for the constroc, tion or_recon .~.uctio..n of sites less fl~an fiye (5) acres with a de~_~sitv oft,v,, (23 units or. less p~.r. acre. A permi.t is requ.i.red f.o.r resid, ential, cpnstruetion or reconstruc.~ion wj~h a dens'ity o.f two (2) units or Jess per acre on sites o$ five (5.) acre~ or more=as fo. llows: For ~qnstruetlon o.r rc.constr, uction qn sims qfl%e ['5) acm_s_or more bL~t less i ] O) ac. res, the_heal ma. Jla~e~nen[ practice~ provisions sc~ t~rth in s_e_ction 3 oflllis rule arc r_cquimd. - ' - ' -- MRR-13-1998 18:41 MINNEHRH~ CREEK W~TERSHED 6124710682 P,04/11 {~f) For construction1 qr r¢co. nstructio o sit of te 10 ac 'es or more but I ss than twcn 2 acre the best manae eat racticc~ rovi~io~ s set forth in sec,.ion 3 and water quan~i~ cqnt'ml provi~ipns s~~ 4 ol'zhis rule ar~ required. maria eme~ ~cti es rev' ions set fo~h '~scctio ~ thc atcr u'~ltJt contro'~ r visions set tbrth i s~tion 4. and thc wute~ ~uaJ[~ pr~visions set ~11 Jn secLion S of this ruJ~.a~, .~ubd'visio~ s with dcnsit o 'more titan two ('2} units per acm,, ifthe site is less than two 2 acres. ^ ermit is e uired for coast uction or reconstructio orr sidenttal subdivis'ons wi[h a densit of more titan two 2 un'" er acre if the site is two 2 ac cs or rester a_~ follows: i For construction o recons' eden on a.~ite of two 2 acres or more but less than For construction or roconst action on a site ~ five acres or mo · but less than control ovisJons set forth J,n sect,ion 4 of'this rule are require. iii or con trtr~io ~ reconsrrucfion on a site ofei ht acres or more the best mrna 'emet ra.ct'ces revisions set Forth in section 3 the wa~r uanti con'~0I rovision~ setfo~hjnsectjon4 and the watcr alit revision s~tfo hinsectionSo,'t isrulewiH · ciai dusr' r 'tu i ~al De elo me t. A ermit i,~ re .i from the MCI~'D c~nstructio, o~new commercia~ industrial or insti[utional develo ~ent · · ...... "1 as t~llow~: mm a ~ e t ractices rov'sions set fon~ in Seotion 3 o' ~is rule will e re uJrod. less than ei hi acres the ~t ma · ,ement ractices revisions set f~ in se tion 3 and the water uant~t ontrol revisions se~ ~orl'h in sectio~ 4 oftl~i~ rule will be r~quir~d. ma ~a =ment racVccs ~r v~Jons ~ct [o ['h Jn section 3~ tl~e water ~uantity control pro~Jsion~. ~et FoTth in ~e,ction ~ and the water quali~, orov~sions ;et fo~h h~ section S oftl)i~ rule will ho required: - . ~ [co~lSider deleting paragraph MAR-l~-1998 18:42 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED 61~4710682'"P.OSXll (~) Existine n_n.d ~e_w. Roads~_Strcets an.d Biehwn.~. ^ ~m[t is n~t ~u~d From d~e MCWD ~or the ~econ~l'ruction o~or addition to a pt,~l~c or pri~aLe road...s~t o~hi.~hwa~. ~ th~ r~constru~ion or. add ition ~es not ~ult in.a net incr~_ase ~T i'm~rvious~n?ace. ~ permit fi'om ~C~D is required [or the cqnsl'rucfi~n, recons~uction, qr add~ti~n to a D~.blic or oriva.te rqad ~zroc~ or hi~y~.hat m~ulT~ in a net inc/e~e in impervioq~ ~ac= arca~ ~ follow~: (i) jF~or co. nstruction, reeonsTructionLor addifio, n activlti=s th~tt.r, esult in a net increase in imnerv, i,ous surface et' one-h_aJf (1/2) acm or ]c~.% Thc hcs[ management practices_in sectio))_3 p_fthis ruJe will be ]~equired~ (ii) For construction, rec.o_nstruction, or addi.tion acti×it, ies that resul.t, ina n~ i]3crease in impcrviotts_surface oJ' one-half ('!/2) ac~re or mor_e, the be_$_t mana_R~ment_oractices provisionc ~¢_t_l'orth in.$.cction 3, the wa.te_r qt~antity contr, ql provis_~_ons set forth in section 4~ and thc. waTe. r quality provisions set ~'0~.th in se:Lion 5 of'..this rule will be required to treat.tiber, increase______.__. (iii') Munici]~alities.,_countie_s, ~ state agen.c, iesoons, tructing road, street, or highway iml)rovcmcn.ts may b. ank mifl.eation credits for reduction 0'1' impervipus sur. far~, s~ that any stormwater treatment re. quire~ents pursuan.t_~to s.e.c_tions 4 or S ot'thls rule may be met U~rouRh thc elimination 0lan e~ual.amoun~_of ip)~e, rvious s.u. rface w;ithin the MCW'D. (iv) Municipaliqe. s, coun:ie_s, or s~ate a~eD.cies con~ructinl~ road, stree_T, or highway imp. r. ovements may e. nter in~o c_ooperd[tiye a~reements with the MCWD to bank mitigation3 credits for each acre tbot ot'.~tormw~ter s. tora~.e and treatment caRacitY c.r. eatcd by thr, municip_~litv, co_unty, or_state a~.e_~cv within the MCVTD (v) ^ Perm it i.~ not requ. ired if tl.~e reco. ns~'uctio, n of' a road, street er. hip:hwa¥ does no: result in an_incrcas~in imo¢~ious.surfa~e~ Sidcwq]ks q.nd trails whic~.do not excecd, t*n ~1 0)t~ in width do apt requ. irc a p.e. rmk and arc not included in any calculafio, n of'net increase in.imperviou.~ su~ac.e_whe]l part of'a road or_street project Performance 1lend. A per£ormance bond or other surety in a [orm satisfactory to the District is required e'er all activity, including clearing, grading, and excavation, that results in thc MRR-13-1998 18:42 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED 6124710682 disturbance of'ten (10) or more acres or'land, e District will not re uire a efformance bo d or od · t c or'sure from cities ownshi s munici a.! cot orations counties the state or t~deral over merit o a the'es o'an o 'heaforemcnfioned. BEST ANAGE ENT P. CTIC.ES R'E UIRE ' TS. (a) .An Ero~sion Control Plan ~rcpm'ed by a qualified individual d:=.~; showin_~ proposed memods ut retaining waterborne sediments on-site during the period of construction and show~ how thc site will be restored, covered, or revege~.ted after construction. (bi Tho Erosion Control Plan shall be consis~nt wi~ specifications of the ~CA manual "Proteming Water Quality in Urban Arem" (revis, d July ?991) and its futur~ revisions. (c) Sil~ Fences ~d othectemnorarv musica control structures shall be removed after all disturbed areas have been fully stabilized. ' " ' (d,) Sites with high erosion potential characterized by steep slopes or erodi'bl~ soils may require cash deposit, erform ncc bond or ther su t in a Form saris actor to the District to ensure ~ performance and any necessary remedial actioli. 4. .WATER UANTTTY CON OL RE UI EMENTS. ~ (a) The ralie of stormwater runoff from the site shall not increase as a result o£the proposed development. Developed peak rates of runoff shall be controlled such that the existing peak rates are not exceeded. Th is cril~.-ria shall be analyzed a,~d met for runoff producing events of critical duration with return frequencies o~ 1 I 0 and ! O0 years in the subwatershed in which the site is locate. (b) Natural existing Iow areas will bc used for detention o.t'runoffto comply with rate control criteria. Reservoir routing procedures and critical duration runoff events shall be used for design detention arca.~ and outlet.s. (c. g) Tile proposed project shall not adversely at't~ct water ~cvcls offthe site during or at'~er construction. Runoff draining onto the sit~ must be accommodated in thc analyses and design ct' nc,,, stormwater management facilities. (~ h) The volume of site tuner'f may not increase duc to the project when tile receiving arcs of said runoff is landlocked, and not capable othandling the increased volume of runoff. In addition, the applicant shall either own or have proper rights over tile landloaked property to handle'water from the development. Draft. M~c. tt 13, 11~9# 4 MRR-13-199@ 18:43 MINNEHRHR CREEK W~TER~'HED ~ '" 6124710682 P.07/11 ~'~) All stormwater rate control facilities shall be located above the pm. jeered I O0-year Flood eleva~;ion for the site and within drainage, utility and/or f'lowage easements to provide access and to prevent future alteration or encroachment, (g.~) Water quantity control methods and facilities used pr constructed pursua, n:t..to ~'_-mg_,-':=.,:~: 'P!.:.~: ',:'n'Jc*.-this rule shall be in conformance with approved Munlcip~] StormwRter Management Plans. (_.h k.) The outt'a]l structures within wetlands and public waters and wetlands shall incorporate a .~tilling-basin, surge-basin: energy dissipater, pla=ement o.r ungrouted ~atural rock rip rap ar other devices to minimize disturbance and erosion of natural shoreUne and bed resulting from peek discharges. C[ ~) All new residential, commercial, industrial and institutiona.l structures shall be constructed such that all door and window openings m'e a minimum of two feet above the I U0 year hi&h water elevation of nearby surface waterbodies, wetlands and stormwater basins. WATER QUA LITY_REC~U I ILEMENTS, (a e) Wet detention basins shal! be requi~d on-site and designed z.o mce.t.the leye_t 0rpcrFormance L~% phosphorus removal ef~ci~nc~) ~or ponds de~i~¢d in accordance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) design recommendations published in sections 4. i-4 through 4. J-5 ("Protecting Wamr Quali~ in Urban Are~ 1991"), ~nd iu future revisions. These design criteri~ were developed b~ed upon the results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program ~P)(US~A, 1983). Total si~ area and any contributing off-site drainage area sh~ll be used ~o calculate permanent pool volume. StructurmI outle~ shall remove flostables t~om pearled runo~ for a ] year event. All ponds must pcovide a ten [I 0) foot smfc~ bench at a SlOpe no dee~er th~9 I 0: .l. (bb_ ~1) Ifa dsvsLc;;.-..:::t c~:,:.~:;,:!cr,,-,,cnt site i.~ less than 40 acres and the Board of Managers determines that the wet delention and/or ston~water storage requirements would be better addressed on a regional basis, the applicant may instead contribute to a dedicated District water quality/.~tormwater s~oragc Fund in lieu of providing the neces.~ary f'acilitics on-sit~: The fund will be used in planning, constructing, and maletaining regional dcl:ontion basins/wetlands. Contribution to the above fund will only be allowed: if an agreement ['or a regional facility is in place with thc a~ffected municipalities; or, * if there is an exi~ing or planned District regional stormwater t~oility within the same subwatershed; o~5 if the Board of Manager~ detem~ines that another facility in a difJ~erent subwatershed is of a higher water qu~,lity priority and would b~tter serve the public health and welfare and the purpose of the watershed law. The Distric~ will utilize t'unds collected within the same subwatershed, provided that tho Board of' Managers may allocate cont~'ibutions to the dedicated fund for a different subwatershed if the Board d~ermines that s region%l s~rmwater faciliz~ wi[hin thc ~ame subwa~ersh~ is not feasible, or tllat a t~cili~y ~n a diffe~mt subwatorsh~ is ora hi~hcr ~ater qu~iit~ priority ~nd would be~er ~erve ~he public health ~nd welfare ~nd [he pu~ose of the w~tershe~ law. The contribution wild he equ~! ~o :l)e core oFthe land, basin ~nstruc[ion and basin nl~ntenance. Land value will be based on thc ~x essessed value and basin costs of $20,000 per acre tbot of required pond volume. MAR-l~-1998 1@:4~ MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED 6124710682 P.BSxll ...................... ~:trL~, the stormwater wet detentio,] a,~d storage requiremenzs for a g~ven site may be spilt between on-site facilities and contributions to the District. water quality/stormwa~er storage £und. ' '. . , . . . . D~s,l:,r~ctI water qua]Jty/stormwater storage £und for additions to exisl:i ' .?onl:nb, u.t,o,~s ~o the ~ are based on the area of the new addition " ,ng ~]~es ann ~'Rr roads, $_treet_s~ · ' °r ~o-.C.- ~_~or_co_ag~. streets~ and highways. jnorealse, d hard suffa.ce are~n and not ',J~e total sitc area. Contributiona to the above £und t~r new devc]opntent or reeonstn,ctio,~ ~ are based on zhe total site area. i/'a site drains to a~ existing or planned Distri~.-~ regional stor,nwater I~cJlity, the applicant is required Io contrib,,~e to the water quality/stormu, ater storage fund as stated above. (_c §) Runoff drain lng onto the site mus~. be accommodated in the analyses and design of new stormwater rnanagen~ent f,'mili:'~es. (d_~A) __Wet detention basips construcred:l, pursuant t,', ~l~*te,~,~ ._ncg::-...c::: .?!...::: ::?~: fl~is rule shall be in contbrmance with approved Municipal Stormwater Management Plans. (_e b) The outfall structures within wet]ands and public waters and wetlands shall incorporate a stilling-basin, surge-basin, encr~,T dissipater, placement oI' ungrouted natural rock rip rap or oth~r devices to minimize distt,rbance and erosion et'natural shoreline and bed resulting from pe~t/¢ discharges. (_f;) AIl new residcntialo commercial, indust~'iaJ and institutional structures sllall be constructed · ~uch that all door and window opening.~ are a minimum of two feet above the ~00 year high water elevation of nearby surfi, c~ waterbodies, wetlands and stormwater basins. REQU'[R£D £XHiBiTS. Minne'ota and,-etlec i the followin item- 'hall a om an the erin' a I/cation one set of' must be R, II size' ne set m st be ,'edt, ed to a maximu 'ze of I I" x 17": ~ (]) Property lJne.~ and delineation of lands under ownership o£the applicant. (2) Delineation of the subwatershed contrJbt~ting runoff from off-site and proposed and existing subw~te,'sl~eds on-sim. (3) Proposed and e~isting stonnwat,~r t'~ci]itics [ocatio,~, alignment, and eltra:ion. (~) Delineation of existing on-site wetland,.marshes, shorcland, and/or floodplain are~. ($) l?.xisting and proposed norton4 and i 00 Meat water el~afions MAR-l~-l~J98 18:44 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED 6124710682 P.09/11 (6) Ex~stlnS; end propo.~ed site contour elevations at two toot in[ervsis, rela~ed to NGYD, ! 9:29 datum. (7) Construction plsns and specifications of all proposed storm',rater management facilities. (g) Stormwater runoff volume and rate analy~es for the I, 10 m~d 100 year cdl'ical events, existing and proposed conditions. (9) All hydrologic, water quality, and hydraulic computations completed to design the proposed s~ormwater management facilities. (t0) Documentation indicating conformance with a.~ existing municipal stormwater management pJan. When a municipal plan does not exit, documentation that the municipality I~as reviewed the pro. jeer. (i i) Delineation of any tlowage easements or other property interests dedicated to s'tormwater management purposes, including, but not limited to, county or.judic'ial ditches. (12) Documenta[ion that t~e plo. jeer has received a ~adonal Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPD]~S) Stormwater Permit from th~ ~innesoza Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) it' required by the MPCA. ~ e) A maintenance agreement shall be submitted for; stormwater treatment ponds, out]et $1~'uctures for such ponds, culvei~s, curt'all strucTu~s, and ~li other ~ormwatcr [acilities. This maintenance agreement shall ~pecify d~e m~ods, schedule and ~sponsible parties ~or maintenance and must include at a minimum, the ebments contained in the District's Maimenancc Agreement Form. A Maintenance Agrm~ent Form will be provided to the applicant for usc by the applicant as a maintenance agreement or ~ guidance if the applicant desires to draft a separate maintenance agreement. Thc main~nance a~eement must be recorded with th~ county within 10 days of the issuance date of the permit. EXCEPTIONS. (a) If the District has approv~ a municipal stormwater management plan tot a municipality, or for a subwatershcd withi~l a municipality, the requirements b~pe~ of this rule which are not met ~ '~'-~'-'-"---r-.-;^;"~ p!:-':- ~ ma)' be deemed satis~ed upon showing of' complia,lee by an individual developer will] thc municipal plan. Draft- M~rch 13, 7 MAR-l~-1998 18:44 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED 6124718682 P.1Oxll desi n d with nde ua :e ca. acit to contro eak runoft~rate Fro thc subw~ter~hed under f'ull Draft-Af,~c'A I$, 199# 8 MAR-13-~.cJc:Je 1@:45 MINNEHAHA CREEK klAYERs'hED 61:~4?lOBEI:P P. llxl':t DEFINITIONS "Di.~turbance" mean.s, the altorinR in_any way, including, b_ut not limited to, tile r_emoval of veget~ti9n, of .r. eal property. ' - -- "Roconstruction". m cans alterinR more than one_-half of Minnehaha Creek Watershed Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life District Gray Freshwater Center H~Ws. 15 & 19, Navarre Mail: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331-9578 Phone: (612) 471-0590 Fax: (612) 471-0682 Email: admin@minnehahacreek.org Web Site: www.minnehahacreek.org Board of Managers: John E. Thomas President C. Woodrow Love Vice President Pamela G. Blixt Treasurer Monica Gross Secretary Thomas W. LaBounty Thomas Maple, Jr. Malcolm Reid District Office: Diane P. Lynch District Administrator ~ ;rint ee °t leasL,1 ~ ro/oeToc~o nPasPue~r ~i,, ?ie.n. g MEMORANDUM DATE: March, 13, 1998 TO: Residents - Langdon Lake FROM: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Alum Treatment on Langdon Lake During the period of April 15 - 24, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will be treating Langdon Lake with alum (aluminum sulfate). The alum will be applied in liquid form in water depths of 5 feet or greater and is not harmful to fish, wildlife, or humans at the specified dosage. The treatment will remove phosphorous from the water column and will quickly settle to the bottom in the form of a floc (or precipitate) over the bottom sediments. In order to obtain an even and complete distribution of alum, and as a safety factor for the treatment equipment, we will require the restriction of boat and recreational use of the lake (including fishing and swimming) during the application of alum. The project is scheduled for treatment to be implemented between April 15 and April 24, 1998. Weather or unforeseen circumstances could affect this schedule, but it is anticipated that the lake will be again available for recreational use by April 27th. Thank you for your cooperation during this treatment phase to improve the water quality of Langdon Lake. If you have any further questions or concerns, please contact the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District at 471-0590. Sincerely, District Administrator Alum Re =ue: A Pho ,pho ,u. Tha W'm Reduce Algae in Lake 16/lag are we treatir~ lakee with a/urn? The alum treatment will provide safe, effective and long-term control of the amount of algae in our lakes. The remalt? Cleaner, clearer water and a more pleasurable environment for recreation on and around the lake~ (aluminum sulfate) is a compound derived from aluminurr~ the earth's meet abundant metal Alum has been u~ed in water purification and wamewater treatment for centuries and in lake remoration for decades. What cloe~ alum do.* Alum reduce~ the growth crf algae btj trappir~j the nutrient phosphorus- algae'¢ food source-in sediments. Like mom other plan~, algae require phosphorus to grow and reproduce. Algae growth is direefltg dependerrt on the amount of phosphoru~ available in the water. Without available phosphorus, algae eanno~ eorrtinue to grow and reproduce. Where doee pho~phnn~ come from.'? Phosphorus enters the water in two wa~s: 0 Fm,~aall~j: from marface runoH entering the water or from groundwater. 0 InterimS: {rom the sediment~ on the bottom of the lake. Phosphoru~ alreadw in the lake naturallW settles to the bottom and ia periodica11~ re-releaaed from the sediment~ back into the water. Yes. Even when exlernal ~ources me phosphortm have been reduced or eliminated through beet manage= merit practices, the ~ rec~jc!ing crf phosphorua can etill ~upport explo¢ive algae growth. Alum is uced primaril9 to control ~ internal loadin~ of phosphorus from the ~ediments of the lake bottora The treatment is most effective when it occurs after external sources of phosphoru~ have been activel9 controlled or elimir~te& How doe~ alum trap phn phorus?. Alum is injec~d into water several fee~ below the surface. On contact with water, alum becomes aluminum h~jdroxide (the principal ingredient in common antacids roach aa Maalox). This fluffnj mabs-~anee, called a floc, settles to the bottom of the lake. On the wa~ dowr~ it interacts with phosphorus to form an aluminum phosphate compound that is ir~oluble in water. The reallt? Phosphoru~ in the water is trapl~d aa aluminum phosphate and can no longer be u~ed aa food bw algae. An added bonum A~ the floc ee~dea downward through the wa~er, it also collec~ other maspended particles in the water, carr~jing them down to the bottom and leaving the lake noticeabltj clearer. And what happens at the bottom of the l~ke? On the bottom of the lake, the floc forrne a lawer that ac~ aa a kind crf phosphoru~ barrier b~ combining with (and trapping) the phosphorua aa it ia releaaed from the sedimente. This reduces the amount of internal recwcling of phosphorua in the lake. (over) Chain of Lakes CL6 W ER P t-IIP City of Minneapolis · City of St. Louis Park ' Hennepin County long will the alum An alum treatment can last 10-15 9ears or even longer, dspendinq on the level of external pho~phoru~ loading to the lake. The less pho~phoru~ that enters the lake from external ~ource=, the more effective the treatment. (Alum ia effective onl9 at controlling internally released phosThoru~.) How can we make the tzeatment last longe~? We can extend the effectivene== of the treatment by limiting the amount of pho~phoru~ in s~rface runoff entering our lake= from leave=, grass clippings, soft ero=ior~ fertilizer=, animal droppings and other sources. A~ phos-phonm from these external sources builds up in our lake=, alum becomes unable to continue to control it. B~ being good =rewards of our watershed, we can pos-~pone the buildup of external phoaphomm and help the alum continue to do it=job. By recognizing how water- abed activities affect water qualit~j, we can make a difference. ls alum an alqicide? No. B~ de£nitior~ an al~icide kill= algae present at the time of applicatior~ An alum treatment does not kill akjae. What it doe= ia 9reatl~j reduce the availabilit~ of phosphorus- the nece=sary food ~ource for algae. This "pho.~phoru~ inactivation' can last for man~ year~, as opposed to the venj ~hort-term effectiveness of an algicide. alum ~a£e? Yes. Alum ia u~ed extens-ivel~l in lake restoration and water/waste- water treatment proce~e=. Water treatment plant= throughout the United States u~e hundreds of thousand~ of ton= of alum annuall~l. Man~ Minnesota communities-- including Minneapolis, St` Paul White Bear Lake, Duluth, St` Cloud and Little Fa~e alum for wate~ and wa=tewater treatment. The floc is harrnle~ to water creatures and aquatic plant=. (Therefore, alum does not control rooted aquatic plant=, including Eura=ian water milfoiL) No evidence exi=t= to ~uggest that aluminum ingested in water poses a health threat. While there have been past report~ linking aluminum in drinking water with Alzheimer's Disease, manw recent s-~x~die= negate these reports. The Food and Prug Administratior~ the U.g. Environmental Protection Aqencw and leading medical experts an concur that aluminum is not a risk factor in the ormet of Al~.heimer's lN'h~l i~ this the ticjht time to tzeat ou~ lakes?. First of all. effort~ to control external ~ource= of phosphorus loading are complete for Cedar Lake and are nearl9 complete for Lake of the Secondly, funding is available. The treatment will be funded b~ the 6~ain of Lake= Clean Water Partner:h/p, a seven-year initiative to improve water qualitxj in the Minneapolis Chain of Lakes. Thi~ partnership ia funded and ~pon=ored bW the Ci~ of Minneapolis, the CitW of St` Loui~ Park l-Iennepin Count~, the Minneapolk Park and Recreation BoarcL the Minnehaha Creek Water- =bed District, and the Minnesota Ponution Control Agency. When will tmeatment oectm.* Treatment of Lake of the I~les and Cedar Lake is ~cheduled for late October 1996. It will take 7-10 daws. Will recreation a~ound the lakes be affected? People win be a~ked to stag out of the area during the actual treat- ment process. Most shoreline wes of the lakes will not be affected. Because the floc collect= suspended particles as well aa phosphorus, lake transparency will increase dramaticallw-even within a few houm The effect= of the prima~ purpose of the alurr~ though-to 'starve' the algae bg trapping it= food source in the sediment= for rnanW ~ears--wi" take a bit longer to see. Reduction in algae should be noticeable by next ~ummer. l~otecting a unique and i~eplaceable u~ban Fe~ou~ce An alum treatment ia a aa£e, economical component ora com- prehendve water~hed management program to reduce algae ~rowth in lake~. B9 controlling external sources of pho~phortm entering our lake~, while a1~o reducir~ internal loading b9 trapping phos'phoru.~ in the ~edimen~ £or rrmny year~, we can improve the qualit9 o£ water in Lake oi the I~le~ and Cedar Lake. Working together, the Chain of L~kea Clean Water Partnership and lake area residents can improve the beaut~ and u~abilit~ of our unique and irreplaceable urban resource: the Minneapolia Chain of Laker. ~ on rectjded paint. ~ontair~ at lea_~ lOC~5 po~-cons'urnar waste. RECEIVED ;'1AR 1 6 1998 March 13, 1998 Ed Shukle, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound MN 55364 Dear Mr. Shukle: I am responding to your advertisement in the Laker for the position on the Planning Commission. I would like to be considered for the position of a Planning Commissioner. I have resided in the Mound area for the past 51 years. I was on the Planning and Park Commissions for ten years and on the Mound City Council for one year. I was an active member in the Mohawk Jaycees for 12 years and held many officer positions. I was in the construction business for 45 years prior to my retirement. I care about my conm~unity and would like to see it prosper in the years to come to make Mound a better place for people to shop, visit, and also to raise their families. I feel with my previous experience on the Planning and Park Commissions, Council, in the Construction business and my knowledge of our community that I would make a good candidate for the position of Planning Commissioner. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Cklair Hasse 6627 Bartlett Blvd Mound, MN 55364 Home Phone 472-1938 RECEIVED ;.iAR 1 § 1998 FRESHWATER HAR VESTING 2025 Arbor Lane Mound, MN 55364 March 14, 1998 Mr. Ed Schukle City Manager Mound City Hall 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Schukle: Please allow me to go on record as having a profound interest in making a difference in the City of Mound by becoming a Planning and Zoning Commissioner. Although we have only resided in the city since September, 1997, we have been conducting business here for eight years and have been impressed with the obvious civic pride felt by our friends and neighbors. I have been asked several times since moving her how I like living here. My answer is always the same: We love it here and can't think of a nicer place to be. This is a city that works, and we (I include my wife of 32 years) would like to make it work even better. I am looking forward to meeting you. Sin , j~ol~~M. Evans ' Owner JOHN M. EVANS 13205 Gladiola Street N.W. Coon Rapids, MN 55443 754-5705 EXPERIENCE 1989 - Present (summers) Al ~,-,-' - 1987 - Present (school year) 1983 - 1987 1976- 1982 1969 - 1976 1965- 1969 Chief Administrative Officer of Freshwater Harvesting, Coon Rapids Substitute teacher ~ct #I 1 ' * --' ........ :--' School District #279 (Osseo-Brooklyn Park) Quality Engineer - TRW Cylindrical Connector Division, Minneapolis Quality Control/Quality Assurance Inspector - Carter-Day, Minneapolis Operations Officer - Naval American Medical Research Unit, Cairo, Egypt German Teacher - St. Paul Public Schools GENERAL Graduated H.S., Cairo American School (Egypt), 1954. Worked for NAMRU #3 (Naval American Medical Research Unit) under Dr. G.T. Evans M.D., Rear Admiral USN (ret). Obtained fluency in French, German and Arabic, reinforced by much travel in Europe. Lived with German family in Bavaria while attending the Goethe Institute. Translated while in Navy as Operations Officer and obtained extensive public relations experience. While in quality control, worked closely with customers, engineering, order processing, sales/marketin~ inventory control, contract administration and manufacturing departments as well as various governmental regulatory agencies. Have had considerable public contact as a member of numerous organizations and political activities. Interact with all levels of management as well as rank and file. Assisted with development of the puller on Lake Minnetonka - a joint effort with the LMCD, the LMLOA and Hennepin County. Currently in charge of all facets of administration and field operations of Freshwater Harvesting including public relations, human relations, QA/QC, PQA, budget, customer service, hiring, equipment design, maintenance and function. ORGANIZATIONS - Crooked Lake Civic Association, present board member; past president (1976 - 1979) - Cost Reduction Committee Chair, TRW, 1983 - 1987 - Entered and won Coon Rapids primary race for Ward 1 Councilman, 1985 - American Field Service advisor, Washington H.S., 1966 - 1968 - Veteran's Club President, University of Minnesota, 1964 - 1965 FUTURE PLANS To continue working to protect and preserve our precious water and land resources from harm, and to promote respect for and prudent use of our natural environment so that it may be enjoyed by all and preserved for future generations. ED UCA TION B.A. International Relations - University of Minnesota, 1959 B.S. German (Education) St. Cloud State University, 1965 24 graduate level credits toward Masters degree in the area of Human Relations. References available upon request. Salary negotiable. PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES- MARCH 12, 1998 PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES March 12, 1998 Present were: Peter Meyer, Bev Botko, Rita Pederson, and Tom Casey. Also present was and Park Director Jim Fackler and Secretary Clare Link. Those absent and excused were: City Council Representative Leah Weycker MINUTES Motion made by Casey, seconded by Pederson to approve the minutes of the February 12, 1998 Park and Open Space Commission meeting. Motion carried unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES Comprehensive Plan process was added to the agenda as well as a report on small items. PUBLIC INPUT ON PARKS There were no citizens present to discuss parks. Pederson suggested putting this item on the agenda for May. FUTURE USE OF ISLAND PARK HALL Commissioners discussed new bids received for windows for Island Park Hall. Several options were reviewed. Casey stressed the need to keep the original look as much as as possible. Meyer asked if staff should get quotes for sandblasting the frames, painting exterior and a new roof. He noted the roof has been repaired now. Motion made by Pederson, seconded by Casey to request staff get three estimates for a new roof, painting of the outside building, and prepping of the frames. Motion carried unanimously. Meyer suggested holding the Park and Open Space Commission meetings at the IP Hall for May through September. It can be discussed at the April meeting. PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 12, 1998 Fackler stated the building isn't suited at this time for public use. Commissioners suggested staff provide information on the feasibility of having POSC meetings there at the next meeting. Fackler recommended an open house be held. Meyer stated there is water in the rooms on the lowest level and suggested Public Works pump out the water. Fackler stated it is seepage from the ground and will just come back until the groundwater level goes down. Motion made by Meyer, seconded by Pederson to recommend the water be pumped out. Motion carried unanimously. MARCH FOR PARKS Meyer stated this will be a joint cooperation between Orono, Long Lake and Mound and will be held in April. He discussed pledge forms, pre-registration, press releases, contact phone numbers, and the walk route. Pledges can be designated to a specific city. Casey stated he would prefer the money earmarked for Mound be put into a park acquisition fund. Pederson believed the money should be used for something people will see every day. PETE MEYER TO REVIEW BABE RUTH FIELD USE Meyer stated the Babe Ruth group will no longer be able to use the Community Service ballfield and will be making a proposal on upgrading Swenson Park. Fackler stated there are storm drains in the park that have gone bad, and this is a big issue. Extensive work is needed to repair the problems, and it is very costly. Meyer stated he will work with the Babe Ruth people and will report back to the POSC. POSC CAPITAL OUTLAY REQUESTS Meyer discussed the timetable for completing the capital outlay request list. He 2 PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 12, 1998 asked for additions to the list. Pederson asked a skating rink be added. Meyer stated a new location for a skating rink will need to be found. He suggested this be an agenda item for a future meeting. Pederson suggested Christmas lights for the Depot be included on the list. Meyer suggested adding IP Hall restoration. Botko discussed information provided by Community Service on funding for Music in the Parks. She stated no funding is provided by the City, but they do use park facilities. Community Service has provided for funding. Pederson suggested March for Parks monies be earmarked for Music in the Parks. Casey suggested each commissioner pick an item from the capital outlay list for these funds. Pederson preferred earmarking the dollars for Music in the Parks. Casey suggested it be put in a fund for park acquisition. Meyer preferred IP Hall restoration. Botko was in favor of Music in the Parks. Meyer suggested it be broken down percentage wise. Fackler suggested a sign for the Depot building to advertise events. Meyer suggested it could also be added to the capital outlay list. Meyer stated he could support Music in the Parks. He also suggested asking the City Council if there is any money available to also support Music in the Parks. 3/4 of the March for Parks money will go toward Music in the Parks, and 1/4 will go for park acquisition. After considerable discussion, Meyer decided to support future park acquisition. Motion made by Meyer, seconded by Pederson to use 1/2 the March for Parks money for Music in the Parks and 1/2 for park acquisition. Motion carried 3-1. DEPOT IMPROVEMENTS Fackler reviewed repairs and improvements proposed for the Depot. PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES - MARCH 12, 1998 Pederson asked if the doors will be sanded down that have started to rust already. Fackler indicated they would be sanded and painted. PARKS TOUR Commissioners discussed the area proposed for touring this year. Meyer suggested visiting the sites included in the 1999 capital improvements request. Pederson suggested also visiting the park in Waconia. Commissioners preferred having the tour in June. Exact locations will be determined once the capital outlay priorities are determined in May. APRIL POSC AGENDA April agenda items were discussed including public input on parks, IP Hall meetings, and capital outlay requests. Casey asked if there is anything known on the Comprehensive Plan update. Fackler stated there is no new information. Meyer suggested it be on the April agenda. Meyer stated the information on natural areas has been provided and suggested it be on a future agenda. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Casey suggested the City Planner be asked for input on how best the POSC can be involved in the process. Motion made by Casey, seconded by Meyer to request the City Planner to provide information on how the POSC can be involved in the Comprehensive Plan process and provide a timetable on the process. Motion carried unanimously. FOR YOUR INFORMATION POSC books have been updated. Meyer suggested a park list and location map be provided for all the commissioners' books. Meyer stated he will provide a copy of the tax forfeiture process for the next meeting. PARK & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTE8 - MARCH 12, 1998 REPORTS No report from the City Council representative. l~ackler reported equipment is coming in for Avon Park. It will be installed in the next few months. Meyer discussed flag replacement in the parks. Meyer discussed the pebble problem in Sorbo Park, and additional ties may be needed this summer. ADJOURN Motion made by Pederson, seconded by Botko to adjourn the meeting at 9:20 p.m.. Motion carried unanimously. 5 11:SSAM LEAGUE OF MN CITIES P.1 FRIDAYFAX VoL 3, NO. ~ A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities March 12, 1998 House passes tax bill Little for cities--levy limits for three more years After nearly 11 hours of contentious debate, the House adopted its version of the omnibus lax bill. The bill now includes an immediate reduction of the property class rates for nearly every class of property including Iow value homes, levy limits for three more years, and an aggressive limited market value provision. The bill does not include a repeal of the sales tax on The business community pushed fa' an accelerated reduction in the class rate for commercial, industrial, and public utility property. The odginal tax bill included a three-year phase-in of the class rates. The amendment, offered by Rep. Ron Abrams (R- Minnetonka) was adopted on a 75 to 58 vote. The amendment crealed concerns about potential shifting tax burdens. As a result, House tax chair Dee Long immediately offered a counter amendment that reduced the class rates for nearly all other classes of property. Her amendment was also adopted. The effect of the Long amendment was to reduce and perhaps even eliminate much of the class rate advantage contained in the original version of the House tax bill. We will have to wait until ~ bill is fully analyzed by House Research to understand the implications of all of the changes contained in the two amendments. Rep. Bob Miibert (DFL-South St, Paul) offered an amendment that extended the limited market value provisions to all classes of property for taxes payabte in 1999, 2000, and 2001. For 1999, the provision would limit the market value increase to the increase in the consumer price index. For the following two yearn, the increases would be limited to the lesser of 5 percent or the increase in the consumer price index. New construction market value increases would not be covered by the limitation. Attached to the amendment was language offered by Rep. Abrams which extends levy limits through taxes payable in 2002. The amendment passed on an 89 to 44 vote. Late in the evening, Rep. William Kuisle (R-Rochester) offered an amendment to delete each of the nine local sales tax provisions with a local income tax. The amendment was defeated bya 110to 23 vote. Rep. Ron Kraus (R-Albert Lea) offered Ihe amendment to repeal the sales tax on local and state govern- ment purchases. After 10 minutes of debate, the vote was taken. The Speaker was forced to keep the vote board open for at least 10 minutes because the amendment clearly had sufficient votes to pass. Alter some dramatic arm twisting, the vote board was closed and the amendment failed on a 66 to 66 vote. In a subsequent amendment, Rep. E Haas (R-Champlin) would have eliminated construction materials and capital equipment purchases of local govemments from the sales tax. After a brief speech where he supported cities by citing the need to address the issue in the near future, Rep. Haas wilhdrew his amendment. The amended bill ultimately passed by a wide margin (g3-.40). The House bill will now go to the Senate where they will likely replace the House language with the Senate bill. The House will likely refuse to concur and a confer- ence committee will be appeJnted. We expect that the conference committee will not meet until late this week or eady next week. We will fully summarize the House tax bill in next week's Bulletin. SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY ANNUAL REVIEW 1997 The following is a brief summary intended for the city councils of Suburban Rate Authority ("SKA") member cities. It highlights the major activities and achievements of the SPA during 1997. The SPA is a joint powers association consisting of 41 Twin Cities subur- ban municipalities that monitors rate and service issues of electric, gas and telecommunications utilities on behalf of members of governments, residents and businesses. 1997 was again a very active and successful year for the SPA. FIRST OF ITS KIND NATIONALLY-AREA CODE SPLITS ALONG MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES In the first municipally boundary-drawn area code split in the country, the Minnesota PUC ordered US West and Frontier to divide the 612-651 area codes along municipal boundaries rather than telephone wire center boundaries (that rarely coincide with municipalities). This is a significant accomplishment for the SPA, the only party originally supporting the concept. The SPA argued that area code boundaries should be drawn along municipal lines as a matter of public policy. The Department of Public Service supported this position and submitted an area code split proposal following municipal boundaries. The PUC accepted the municipal boundary concept in October 1997. After the initial order, US West sought a reconsideration, advocating wire center boundaries. On December 30, 1997, the PUC reaffirmed the municipal boundaries order, noting the importance of building communities and neighborhoods. As this year end review is being sent, US West and Frontier have again approached the Commission for relief from a municipal boundary order. In a preliminary hearing, the PUC reaffirmed its municipal boundary order but will be considering evidence on technical feasibility. This now established PUC policy is an excellent example of the influence of a joint powers organization like the SPA. SRA LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANCE ROW 1997 legislature passed a comprehensive law establishing local management rights and statewide uniform standards for use of the right-of-way ("ROW") by telecommunications providers. The law defined a previously unsettled area (causing the US West v. Redwood Falls decision) and established specific requirements for ROW users and local government units (cities, townships and counties). The SPA was significantly involved in review of the legislation and in a legislatively appointed ROW Task Force that met intensively in September and October of 1997. The Task Force attempted to further define the rules that would be applicable in ordinances and statewide standards promulgated by the PUC. This is an on-going process that will unfold during 1998 and 1999. The League of Minnesota Cities is taking the lead on this matter. The SRA's input will continue but the involvement will be limited in 1998 and 1999. URBAN, SUBURBAN, RURAL COST OF LOCAL TELEPHONE SERVICE The SPA has intervened in a case known as the US West Generic Cost Proceeding, a telephone cost of service case presently before the PUC. In this case, the actual cost of serving customers in the statewide US West area will be determined. The costs established in this case and in the Universal Service Proceeding (funding for low income customers-high cost areas) will dictate retail rates paid by all ratepayers, whoever the local provider is. SPA member residents and businesses will possibly pay varying rates, depending on metro location or density of population in the area. US West argues that the average cost of service on a residential customer throughout the state is approximately $30/month for the customer wire "loop". The primary competing model sponsored by AT&T argues that the cost is closer to $13/month. The wholesale rates established in this proceeding will have a tremendous impact on competition for local service as well as retail rates ultimately paid by business and residential customers. The retail rates will be established when the Universal Service proceedings are completed at the federal and state level, not expected until later 1998 or early 1999. 1998-99 ANTICIPATED PROJECTS 1. 612 AREA CODE SPLIT. The SRA has fought hard for municipal boundaries protecting the integrity of the cities in the metro area. In 2001, there is an anticipated additional area code split in the Minneapolis and southwestern suburban area. The PUC has strongly affirmed its intention to draw these boundaries along municipal borders. This issue will be revisited in the year 2000. In the meantime, US West and Frontier are attempting to deviate from the municipal boundary area code separating 612 and 651. The SRA is opposing that position. 2. US WEST ALTERNATIVE FORM OF REGULATION FILING. US West has filed a rate proceeding that proposes to freeze basic rates for three to five years and allow flexible pricing of the "nonessential" services subject to effective competition, e.g., call waiting, caller ID, 3-way calling, etc. The SRA is involved in the proceedings. The SRA has specifically objected to a provision that would appear to allow US West to place a line item on customers' bills that could include cost recovery of legitimate police power fees. If done, this approach would shift the "blame" for such appropriate cost recovery fees to city councils and be automatically passed throughout to customers. 3. US WEST GENERIC COST PROCEEDING AND UNIVERSAL SERVICE. The SRA will continue to monitor the cases establishing the wholesale cost of service for competitors of US West. This will influence the retail rates ultimately paid by business and residential customers, unless the PUC prohibits a correlation between wholesale rates and retail rates. The major policy issue in these cost proceedings and the Universal Service proceeding is whether rural rates should be subsidize by the lower cost urban and suburban rates. Suburban ratepayers stand in the transition between the lowest cost urban areas and the highest cost rural areas. 4. TELECOMMUNICATION - UTILITY RIGHT OF WAY USE. The 1997 legislation governing municipal right of way use was only the beginning of a several year process of establishing municipal and telecommunications/utility rights in the ROW. 1998 and 1999 will see additional rules, possibly legislation and possible litigation arising out of the new laws. The SRA will need to monitor these matters to promptly advise members of the rights and restrictions governing ROW. 5. ELECTRIC AND GAS DEREGULATION. The PUC and state legislature continue to take ~ deliberate approach towards the deregulation of electric and gas services. The interest of customers and groups of customers are being examined. The interest of municipalities as customers and as franchisors and other related matters is also a part of the PUC-legislative review. The SRA will monitor developments in these areas. 6. TELEPHONE, ELECTRIC AND GAS RATE CASES. It is not known at this time, whether the primary utility providers of SRA cities, US West, NSP or Minnegasco, will file rate cases. Minnegasco and NSP are the most likely candidates. The SRA typically intervenes in such cases. RECEIVED ::hR ; 1998 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday, March 11, 1998 Tonka Bay City Hall PUBLIC HEARING 7:00 Sailors World, Inc., Smiths Bay, Consideration of new multiple dock license application to accommodate 79 Boat Storage Units (BSU's), and variance application for variances from 40' side setbacks required by LMCD Code to zero feet and for length from 100' to 200'. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock READING OF MINUTES- 2/11/98 Regular Board Meeting 2/25/98 Regular Board Meeting 3~4~98 Workshop/Planning Session PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) CONSENT AGENDA - Consent Agenda items identified by "'"' will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests a discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. WATER STRUCTURES A. Sailors World, Inc., Discussion on Public Hearing for new multiple dock license and variance applications; B. 1998 Multiple Dock/District Mooring Licenses, approval of 1998 multiple dock/district mooring license applications, w/o change, as outlined in 315198 staff memo; C. Additional Business; 2. LAKE USE & RECREATION *A. Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Significant Activity Report; B. 1998 Lake Minnetonka Boat Density Survey Update; C. Additional Business; 3. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE A. Review of draft EWM Diesel/Hydraulic Mechanic Position Description; B. Additional Business; 8. 9. 10. ADJOURNMENT SAVE THE LAKE FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers for payment; · 311/98 - 3115/98 B. Additional Business; ADMINISTRATION A. Consideration of staff recommendation for compensation adjustment for part-time Administrative Clerk, Jan Briner;, B. Additional Business; ~ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS RECEIYE § 1998 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 7:00 P.M., Wednesday, February 25, 1998 Tonka Bay City Hall DRAFT PUBLIC HEARING Pelican Point HOA, Spring Park/Phelps Bays, Mound, Consideration of a new multiple dock license application to relocate five inner Boat Storage Units (BSU's) to the outside of the structure. Vice-Chair Foster opened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. He asked the applicant to provide background on the proposed application. John Boyer, representing Pelican Point Homeowners Association, reviewed the proposed change in the application noting it is to reconfigure the structure by relocating five of the inner slips frcrn the approved license to thc. outer side of the structure by moving them to the south. He clarified if the proposed change was approved, it would add 14' of width rather than 52' to the structure as previously reported at the 1/14/98 meeting. Nybeck reminded the Board that the new multiple dock license, with minor change, application submitted by the applicant was tabled at the 1/14/98 meeting because the proposed changes were significant and cannot be applied for with a minor change application. He added whether the proposed change adds 14' or 52' to the width of the structure, it still merits a new multiple dock license application, with public hearing, because both changes are significant based on LMCD Code. Boyer stated the primary reason for the slip relocations is because of water depth concerns. He added if the proposed changes are not approved, they may need to go to the low water scenario that has already been approved by the LMCD Board. Ahrens stated in the case the proposed application is denied, there may be a need to relocate some of the slips to the secondary, low-water plan approved to the south. She added she had talked to the neighbor to the south of this secondary site and reported they would prefer approving the proposed application rather than requiting the applicant to relocate slips to the secondary plan approved for low-water conditions. Rascop stated he wanted to insure that all of the slips are located within 100' from the 929.4' lake elevation. All parties being heard, Vice-Chair Foster closed the public hearing at 7:07 PM CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Foster called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Tonka Bay; Bert Foster, Greg Kitchak, Minnetonka; Lili McMillan, Orono; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista, Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Bob Rascop, Shorewood; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Also present Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Gregory Nybeck, Executive Director; Diane Samis, Administrative Assistant. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 25, 1998 Page 2 Members Absent: Douglas Babcock, Deephaven; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Sheldon Wert, Greenwood; Craig Nelson, Spring Park. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS Foster reported he attended the Mayors Meeting on 2/17/98 at the Lafayette Club with Babcock, McMillan, Ahrens, and Nybeck. He stated it was a well attended meeting, there were several comments regarding future public access on Lake Minnetonka, and there was general agreement regarding the process agreed upon. He noted there was sentiment from some of the Mayors in attendance that it would beneficial to receive information sooner from the MN DNR on sites being considered. He reviewed the MN DNR's obligation to contact the cities, the District, and the affected neighbors within five working days once an option has been agreed upon. He noted this has been agreed upon to protect the property owner's rights. He concluded the MN DNR has agreed to encourage potential property owners to allow the Mayor of that city to get involved earlier in the process rather than waiting for an option. READING OF THE MINUTES Ambrose moved, McMillan seconded to approve the minutes of the February 11, 1998 Regular Board meeting submitted. Foster asked for questions or comments from the Board on the minutes. Foster noted in the John Barren discussion regarding the 1997 Water Quality of Lake Minnetonka, the minutes do not reflect the discussion that lawn fertilizer previously was not considered a problem for lakes in general, including Lake Minnetonka; however, new scientific study provides proof that lawn fertilizer with phosphorous is a concern to lakes. He added there is a further problem with state law regarding the labeling of fertilizer with regards to the level of phosphorous in that the percentage noted on the label is a minimum rather than ~?aximum and that state law should be considered to be changed with regards to labeling. Ambrose added he recalled there was a suggestion to send a reminder letter to the member cities expressing our concerns regarding the phosphorous issue. Foster added a key element of the letter to be sent to the cities is that the science has changed. LeFevere stated he has reviewed the minutes and that there are a number of typos and minor grammatical errors in addition to these changes. He recommended the Board table approval of the minutes and bring them back for Board consideration at the 3/11/98 meeting Ambrose and McMillan withdrew their original motion. A_mbrose moved, McMillian seconded to table consideration of the minutes of the February 11, 1998 Regular Board meeting and reconsider them at the March 11, 1998 Regular Board meeting. Motion to table carried unanimously. I~UBLIc COMMENTS There were no public comments from persons in attendance on subjects not on the agenda. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 25, 1998 Page WATER STRUCTURES A. Pelican Point HOA, Discussion on Public Heating for new multiple dock license application. MOTION: Suerth moved, Ahrens seconded to approve the new multiple dock license application from Pelican Point HOA for 1998 as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Heimepin County, consideration of minor change application to reorganize slip locations. Foster introduced the agenda item and asked for background from staff on the proposed application. Nybeck stated the applicant is proposing two minor changes to their multiple dock facility on Spring Park Bay. He noted currently, they have an approved special density license for 65 slips on 650' of continuous shoreline. He added of these slips, they currently break down to 40 for transient use and 25 for private use. He stated the first proposed minor change is reduce the number of designated transient slips from 40 to 34 and to increase the number of private slips from 25 to 31. He added the reason for the proposed change in designation of transient and private slips is to address added housing demands across Shoreline Drive, per agreement. He stated the second proposed minor change is to realign eight slips as outlined in the 2/20/98 staff memo. He added in addition to the proposed changes, the applicant has provided an updated list of public amenities provided for the increased densi~ allowed with a special density license. He reviewed the public amenities proposed by the applicant, the points associated with each of them, and reported the applicant is proposing sufficient amenities to comply with Code. He concluded Denis Bailey is present for the applicant. Foster expressed trouble with losing transient slips on the lake in general. He added he believed the District has made a mistake in not designating a differential in transient and overnight storage from the standpoint that overnight storage' brings boats onto the lake and causes over crowding, whereas transient slips create destinations for people to boat to, and reduces crowding. He concluded this is clearly a big destination area and that he would like to hear more about the need for change from the applicant. Bailey provided background on the agreement referred to by Nybeck and the need to reduce the number of designated transient slips. He noted Hennepin County does not have a lot of choice because when the property was donated to the County back in 1946, it was donated with the stipulation that property owners have aexess rights over across the street. He stated if these properties are not given dock privileges, the land would have to be given back which includes the Water Patrol building. He concluded Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 25, 1998 Page 4 the County does provide several public amenities and that he does not recall the transient slips being fully used. Some Board members clarified on weekends and holidays, the transient slips at this location are generally fully used. Foster asked if it is possible to lengthen the docks to allow the same number of designated transient slips and allow the proposed increase in private slips. Nybeck stated that is not possible because they are at the maximum 1:10' Code allowance for special density licenses. Rascop asked Bailey if Hennepin County has a written agreement with Spring Park regarding future higher density development across Shoreline Drive? He added if they do not, this places extra burden on Hennepin County and the District to provide private dockage rights at these locations. He expressed concern that this may not be last time for a similar request. Bailey stated Hennepin County does not have an agreement with Spring Park regarding future development. He concurred with Rascop's concern in that they would like this to be the last request. Rascop stated he would like to see if Hennepin County can make an arrangement with Spring Park to ensure this is the last time the District has to consider a request to reduce the number of transient slips. He added the District may have the moral obligation, but not legal authority, to talk to the City of Spring Park regarding this. Foster stated he could not vote on the proposed application until the Board and the District attorney had the opportunity to review the legal document between Hennepin County and the residents across Shoreline Drive.. Bailey stated in two separate instances, attorneys for Hennepin reviewed this document with similar feedback that Hennepin County cannot deny docking privileges. LeFevere explained that if Hennepin County was not involved in this multiple dock, this property would be allowed a maximum of 13 slips. He added just because the number of dwellings increase across Shoreline would not be justification to increase the number of slips with the multiple dock. He noted Code looks at the amount of shoreline and not the number of dwellings. He added the problem the District currently has with the Code is that Hennepin County is involved with the application, they conform to Code, and they are proposing sufficient public amenities based on staff review. He concluded the only basis for turning down the proposed application is criteria established for special density licenses. Kitchak questioned whether the District has the ability to dictate the number of transient and private slips at this facility. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 25, 1998 Page 5 LeFevere stated there may be circumstances where the Board took into consideration that there were transient slips in making its decision on the special density license. He noted because the applicant easily exceeds the proposed public amenity points required by Code and the history of past Board actions, it would be difficult legally to turn down the proposed application. McMillan stated she would like to have this issue tabled to allow for feedback from the City of Spring Park. She believed input from them would be valuable before we go off in some direction and proceed with the application. Foster stated he would like to see legal aspects with District counsel and staff working with Bailey to review opinions of previous attorney's. Staff was directed to work with the Craig Nelson, LMCD Board representative for Spring Park, to contact Spring Park and extend an invitation to the Mayor to talk about this issue with the Board. MOTION: Rascop moved, McMillan seconded to table further discussion on the proposed application, to direct staff and legal counsel to review past opinions and documents regarding the agreement with the property owners across Shoreline Drive, and to direct staff to invite a representative from Spring Park to discuss future development on these properties with the Board at a future Board meeting. VOTE: Motion to table carded unanimously. C. City of Wayzata, petition to amend LMCD Code Section 2.01, Subd. 3c). Foster introduced the agenda item and asked for background from staff on it. Nybeck introduced this agenda item noting last Fall, the City of Wayzata provided a petition for Code amendment to LMCD Code Section 2.01, Sub& 3c). He added it was tabled last November to allow the applicant to provide further documentation for the Board to consider. He noted the applicant has provided this documentation and would like to be able to mn a seasonal dock parallel to the shoreline from the Depot dock site west towards the Boat Works Development. He added the proposed dock is for accessibility to handicap accessible restrooms on the Boat Works development property. He noted the City of Wayzata has secured a permanent easement behind the Boat Woks Development from the Depot to the beach property to the west. Foster clarified the Code that is being petitioned to be amended was originally adopted for the transient dock in the City of Excelsior. He noted despite these being similar projects, the Code does not allow for this project because it does not allow the adjustment of lot lines between a municipality and a commercial dock. Nybeck added the hilly terrain in that area does not allow the proposed handicap accessible dock to end on Wayzata's property. He added a key element in the Code Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 25, 1998 Page 6 being petitioned to be amended is that on-going mutual consent is required with the abutting property owner. Foster stated the cities are under pressure to meet American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. Terry Schwalbe, representing the City of Wayzata, noted there were other issues raised at the Board meeting that have been worked with staff. He clarified the Depot dock has a handicap accessibility ramp to the Depot; however, the Depot does not have handicap accessible rest. rooms. He noted making these changes to the Depot would be extremely expensive and improper because the building is on the Historic Register. He noted the handicap restroom facilities would be provided at the Boat Works Development and there is a letter of mutual consent from the owner. He reviewed options to be considered to deter transient boats from tying up to the proposed structure. He reviewed details of the proposed dock including the slope and the distance between the structure and the nearest structure on the Boat Works Development Property. Foster stated he had not been able to contact Chair Babcock to discuss some of the concerns that he has regarding the proposed dock. He stated he would be reluctant to approve anything tonight without input from him at the next meeting while having the attorney prepare a draft code amendment. Partyka suggested there may another way of considering this project. He stated he would be more comfortable in considering a variance application rather than a code amendment. LeFevere stated one grounds established by Code for a variance is handicapped access. The Board discussed the method of considering the proposed project with a consenus that a joint variance application and a new multiple dock license application from the City of Wayzata required. MOTION: Foster moved, Partyka seconded to table further discussion on this agenda item, and to allow District staff and attorney to work with the applicant on proper applications to consider the proposed project. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously D. Additional Business. to7 There was no additional business. LAKE USE & RECREATION There was no discussion. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 25, 1998 Page 7 e EWMJEXOTICS TASK FORCE A. Proposed changes in EWM mechanic position. Nybeck stated Nancy Randall and Gene 5trommen had discussed the idea of hlr~g a second mechanic with Marsh Gabriel, current EWM mechanic, for the 1998 EWM harvest season. He noted the idea is not to significantly increase the number of hours budgeted for mechanical work, but to split these hours between the two mechanics and to allow Gabriel to train the new mechanic. Foster stated he understands the idea is to hire a second mechanic to gain the expert knowledge from Gabriel so there is a smoother transition if he decides to retire or leave in the near furore. Nybeck noted an updated job description for this position has been reviewed with Randall and Strommen. He noted this was included in the handout folder and recommended it be reviewed at the 3/11/98 meeting. He added a draft advertisement has been done and that staff would like get authorization from the Board to advertise it in the three local newspapers. Foster noted staff may want to check into local industrial arts teachers to see if they have any interest in the position. Rascop questioned whether there is enough money in the budget to hire a second mechanic? Nybeck stated there axe sufficient funds to do this. MOTION: Rascop, Dahlen to authorize staff to advertise the mechanic position and to direct staff to discuss the draft position at the 3/11/98 Board meeting. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. There was no additional business. SAVE THE LAKE A. Consideration of the 1998 Lake Minnetonka Winter Ice-Cleanup Project request. Nybeck stated this the third annual clean-up planned on Wayzata Bay, Smiths Bay, Browns Bay, and parts of Lower Lake. He noted it was planned for Saturday, 2/28; however, it had to be moved up to Tuesday, 2/24 because of thin-ice concerns. He added the City of Wayzata works with the District by providing a dumpster for garbage picked up from the ice. He asked for Board approval for $250 of "Save the Lake" funds for the 1998 Lake Minnetonka Winter Ice-Cleanup Project. MOTION: Rascop moved, Ambrose seconded to approve the request of $250 of Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 25, 1998 Page 8 "Save the Lake" funds for the 1998 Lake Minnetonka Winter Ice-Cleanup project. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Additional Business. There was no additional business. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers for payment. * 2/16/98 - 2/28/98 Nybeck reviewed the audit of vouchers for payment for the period of 2/16/98 - 2/28/98. MOTION: Rascop moved, Partyka seconded to approve the audit of vouchers for the period of 2/16/98 - 2/28/98 as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. January financial summary & balance sheet. Nybeck reviewed the January financial summary and balance sheet. MOTION: Ahrens moved, McMillan seconded to accept the January financial summary and balance sheet as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. Additional Business. There was no additional business 6. ADMINISTRATION There was no discussion. 7. EXECUTIVE DIRF~TOR REPORT Nybeek noted staff has included a March calendar of events and an updated Board of Directors roster for the Board's convenience. Rascop noted there should be an intra-office copy of the Board of Directors roster for limited use by staff and Board members which includes all essential telephone numbers and e-mail addresses where available. 8. OLD BUSINESS Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting February 25, 1998 Page 9 There was no old business. NEW BUSINESS Rascop stated he would like to talk to George Hoff or LeFevere prior to signing the interrogatories. Suerth stated his concern for need to become proactive in requiting snowmobiles or snowmobile suits to float. He noted law requires life jackets on the lake when boating and why not enforce life jackets for snowmobiles as well. Kitchak stated most snowmobilers die of hypothermia rather than drowning. The Board encouraged Suerth to do further research on this and report back in the future. There being no further business, Vice Chair Foster adjourned the meeting at 8:35 PM Bert Foster, Vice Chair Eugene A. Partyka, Secretary Westonka Community Action Network · Emergency Assistance · Meals on Wheels · Human Services · Job Development & Placement 5600 Lynwood Blvd. Mound, MN 55364 (612) 472-0742 (612) 472-5589 (FAX) SERVICE AREA Greenfield Mound Independence Rocldord LoreMo St, Bonifacius Maple Plain Spring Park Minnet0nka Beach Tonka Bay Mmnetrista Western 0r0n0 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Craig Anderaon St Boni-Minnetrista Police Chief Larry B~iley Director of West Hennepin Public Safety Mary DeVinney Westonka Foo~shelf Coordinator Roaemarie Flbrega-Snydar Commun/ty Volunteer Steve Harpeltld CommUmty Volunteer I.em Harrell Mound Poi/ce Chief Mary Hurley Adult Basic Education Program Mgt Marvin Johnson Mayor of Inde~ndence Ronnle Madsan Community Volunteer Sharon McMenamy-Cook Norwest Bank V/ce President Dorothy McQueen Community Volunteer Susan Meyera Community Volunteer Sandy Olatad Parish Nurse Kate Perkina Spec/al Education Teacher Charles Pugh Community Volunteer Ken Rlbe Pastor of F/ret Presbyterian Church Richard Schleffer Local Attorney Sandy Slmar Head Start Manager Fr. Michael Tegeder Pas/Bt Our Lady of the Lake Church Bob Tomalka Community Volunteer Mardl Watt Westonka Chamber-Ada ASs/ ADMINISTRATION Klkl Sonnen Executwe D/rector Rachel Enter Jobs Counselor/Program Manager Audrey Ogland Adm~mstrat/ve Assistant Meals on Wheels Coordmator February 25, 1998 Mr. Ed Shukle, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Shukle, At the Feb. 24th City Council hearing on CDBG funding there were some questions asked about the Hennepin County Consolidated Pool Communities CDBG funding process. I said I would get the information to you so you could pass it along. I talked with Jim Ford, Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development. He said if you or any of the council have any questions they can call him at 541-7091 or his boss Barbara Hayden, Administrative Manager, at 541-7083. Here is the information: The 1998 Consolidated Pool Communities Steering Committee consists of nine members. They are Jason Oberg (Dayton), Teresa Rasmuson (Greenfield), Sue Vergin (Hanover), Julie Klemp-Wischnack (Minnetrista), Ron Moorse (Orono), David Callister (Osseo), Nancy Evers (Rockford), Gary Eitel (Rogers), and Jim Hurna (Shorewood). How the Committee makes decisions, their guidelines, proposal review, and other process questions can be answered best by reviewing the enclosed application packet of information which the County sent to WeCAN and all other applicants for pool funding. The packet includes the 1998 timetable schedule, a 5 year priority needs list and rankings, an application form and the application review criteria. The map of the consolidated pool communities is not enclosed because I gave it to Councilmember Ahrens at the meeting last night. '~nnen" WeCAN Executive Director Memo DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: January 19, 1998 Public Service O.rg, e~nizations Barbara Hay'den, Administrative Manager Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development 1998 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CONSOLIDATED POOL REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR CDBG-FUNDED PUBLIC SERVICES The application process for 1998 CDBG funding is unchanged from 1997. Organizations seeking CDBG funding for public service activities in the Consolidated Pool area (see attached map) will submit applications directly to the selection committee. Organizations seeking funding for public service activities in all other areas of the urban county must apply through individual cities. CONSOLIDATED POOL COMMUNITIES As part of the 1997-99 Hennepin County CDBG Joint Cooperation Agreement, it was determined to pool funding from communities that would have received $50,000 or less in CDBG funding. A selection committee, comprised of nine representatives from the Consolidated Pool communities, was created to establish application procedures, review all proposals and formulate a funding recommendation. The following procedures have been established for public gervice proposals within the Consolidated Pool area: A set-aside of up to $75,000 for public service activities has been made available. CDBG regulations limit annual public service funding to 15 percent of the grant. County staffwill review all public service funding requests to assure compliance with this provision. If public service requests exceed the 15 percent cap, final funding mounts may have to be adjusted downward. Public service organizations would apply directly to Hennepin County for CDBG Consolidated Pool funding. A public service proposal must be eligible under CDBG regulations, must be consistent with established Urban Hennepin County housing and community development priorities, and must serve Iow and moderate-income populations. The Committee developed the enclosed application review criteria which will be utilized to review all public service applications. Heunepin County Office of Planning & Development, Development Pla--lng Unit, 10709 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 260, Minnetonka, MN 55305 Mail Code: 604 Phone: (612) 541-7080 Fax: (612) 541-7090 TDDFFI~: (612) 541-7981 APPLICATION PROCESS FOR CONSOLIDATED POOL The following items have been included to assist in applying for CDBG funding of public service activities: 1998 Consolidated Plan Schedule Map of Consolidated Pool Communities Five-Year Priority Needs Summary Consolidated Pool Public Service Application Form Consolidated Pool Public Service Application Review Criteria SUBMISSION ~Q UIREMENTS Each applicant must prepare a Consolidated Pool Application Form and submit it to Hennepin County by March 13, 1998. Applications should be submitted to the Hennepin Office of Planning and Development, 10709 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 260, Minnetonka, MN 55305. Hennepin County staff will review each application. If information is missing, staff will contact you and assist with revisions. Completed applications will be reviewed by the selection committee against the County's Priority . Needs and Public Service Application Review Criteria. Upon ranking the applications, the committee will prepare and submit a funding recommendation to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. ALL OTHER COMMUNITIES For suburban communities outside the Consolidated Pool area, organizations must request CDBG funds from the communities directly. This process of requesting funding for public service activities directly from non-pool communities remains the same as in recent years. Public service organizations should request CDBG funding and be prepared to present their proposal at each city's public hearing. The public hearings will be scheduled during the month of February. Contact the individual cities for the specific date and time of the public hearings. If you have questions or need assistance with any of the above procedures, please contact Jim Ford (541- 7091) or me (541-7083). Enclosures U:\CDBGI998\CPPSERVP.MEM ILl ZZ URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY Five Year Priority Needs Summary Cost Bu~en > 30% High High Medium Cost Bu~en > 50% High High Low Small Substandard High High Medium Related Overcrowded Medium Low Eow ~ost Burden > 30% High High Medium Cost Burden > 50% High High Medium Renter Large Related Substandard High High Medium Overcrowded High High Medium Cost Burden > 30% High Medium Low Cost Bu~en > 50% High Medium Low Eldedy Substandard High High Medium Overcrowded Low Low Low Cost Bu~en > 30% Medium Low Low Cost Burden > 50% High Medium Low Owner Substandard High High Medium Overcrowded Low Low Low ~m~n~Outma~h ~dium MeOium M~dium [m~r~n~ Shelter H~h M~dium Medium ~an~nt 8uppo~iv~ ~h High High ~man~nt Hou~in~ High High High I Senior Centers I High I Youth Centers Medium Neighborhood Facilities Child Care Centers Parks and/or Recreation Facilrdes Health Facilities Parking Facilities Other Public Facilities Solid Waste Disposal Improvements Flood Drain Improvements Water Improvements Medium Low Street Improvements Sidewalk Improvements Sewer Improvements Asbestos Removal Other Infrastructure Improvement Needs Senior Services Handicapped Services Youth Services Transportation Services Substance Abuse Services Employment Training Crime Awareness Fair Housin Counseling Tenant/Landlord Counseling Medium Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low High High High High Low Low Medium Medium Medium Child Care Services High Health Services Low Other Public Service Needs Medium :::::::::::::::::::::: :::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::: :: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: ::::::::::::::::::::: ::.;:!:i:i:i: i:.::!:~ :i: i:i: :,:~:!::.:i:i:i:!:!:i:~:~:.:~:.:::': !~:!:!:!::.:~::.:i:;.:!:i:!:i:i ~i: !:!:!: ::::.;:i :i:i:i::.-'!:i:! ~:~:i:i:i:~ ~:.;: :.:i:i:!;i:!:i:i:i: !:::i:i::::::~:2:;;:;:::;:::::~:;:;:;::~:::~:~::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::~:~::::~:~:::~;~::~;~::::::::::::::::::~:;5:::i:~::.:i::~:.:;i:i:i~i:{~;i:i:i:i:~:~-~:~i:i:i~i:i:~:i:i:~:{:~;i::::::::::::::::::::::::::~::~:~:::i:i:i~:i~;~:i~i:i~i~i;`;:i:i:!:i:i:i: Commercial-Industrial Rehabilitation Medium Commercial-lnd ustrial Infrastructure Medium Other Commercial-Industrial Improvements Low Micro-Business Medium Other Businesses Low Technical Assistance Low Other Economic Development Needs Medium Energy Efficiency Improvements Medium Lead Based Paint/Hazards High Code Enforcement Medium Defining Need Levels: The level of need is defined as follows: Hiclh prioritv: Funding for these activities will be heavily pursued dudng the five-year pedod. Medium priority: If funds are available, activities to address this need may be funded by the city during the five-year pedod. Low priority: The city will not fund activities to address this need dudng the five-year period. No such need: The city finds there is no need or that this need has already been substantially addressed. U:\Cdbg1998\form priority needs.doc 1998 URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG CONSOLIDATED POOL REQUEST FOR PUBLIC SERVICES FUNDING Applicants are due by March 13, 1998 at the Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development. Any questions regarding this application should be directed to Jim Ford at 541-7091. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Project Name: 2. CDBG funding request: $ 3. Total program costs: $ 4. Name: 5. Comact Person: Phone: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Provide a brief description of the project. (Limit one page) 2. Describe the service area. 3. Describe the target clientele. 4. Describe any unique features of the proposal. PROJECT FEASIBILITY 1. Provide a detailed project budget. 2. Explain why CDBG funds are needed to implemem this project. 3. Provide a list of all funding sources and the status of each source. 4. Is this an on-going project? 4. Describe applicant's expertise and capacity to provide the service. 5. Describe the applicant's experience in working with the targeted population. PROJECT BENEFIT 1. Describe how the project principally benefits low/moderate income residents. 2. Estimate the number of Consolidated Pool area, low/moderate-income households/persons to be served. If this is an on-going project, identify the total number of clients, the number of low/mod income clients, and the number of Consolidated Pool area clients served last year. 3. Describe how the service promotes self-reliance or reduces reliance on other forms of public assistance. 4. Describe how the project provides expanded opportunities for residents or preserves existing resources. COMPREI-IENSIVE APPROACH 1. Describe the multi-community or multi-agency nature of the project. 2. Identify the Consolidated Plan priority need(s) this project will serve and describe how thc proj~t will address this need(s). 3. Describe how the project meets locally identified, public service needs not currently being met by other programs. 4. Letters of support may be included with the application. Applications should be submitted to: Jim Ford Henuepin county Office of Planning and Development 10709 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 260 Minnetonka MN 55305 Tel: 541-7091 Fax: 541-7090 TDDFrTY: 541-7981 Applications are due by March 13, 1998 at the Hennepin County Office of Planning and Development. U://cdbg98/ConPool PubServ App AUTtIORIZATION FOR SUBMITTAL I/We certify that this application is presented in good faith and that the information is true, accurate and complete to the best of my/our knowledge, and should the application be approved, I/we am/are prepared to enter into any agreement/s necessary to initiate the implementation of the proposed activity and assure compliance with all requirements related thereto. Signed Signed Title: and, as necessary, HENNEPIN COUNTY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ACCEPT OR RF_JECT ALL FUNDING REQUESTS AND RESCIND THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS. ALL INFORMATION SUBMITTED THROUGH THIS SOLICITATION BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF HENNEPIN COUNTY. U:\CDBG1998\CP PS AUTH.WPD Urban Hennepin County CDBG Consolidated Pool Review Criteria for 1998 Public Service Applications To assure tha the projects meet CDBG eligibility, program benefit and other requirements, all applications will first be reviewed by Hennepin County staff. The selection committee will use the following criteria as a guide in reviewing applications and in formulating funding recommendations to the Hennepin County Board of Commissioners. Point Range Score 0-10 0-10 0-10 PROJECT FEASIBILITY 1. The extent to which the applicant has demonstrated a level of financial commitment needed to complete the activity. Funding sources are documented, indicating the level of commitment, conditions and time frame for expending funds. (This may be evaluated based on the experience of the applicant in obtaining these commiunents). 2. The extent to which the applicant has combined other public and/or private funds to minimize the amount of requested funds. · Percentage of CDBG funding as compared to the entire project cost. · The CDBG request is the minimum necessary to implement the project (project costs are reasonable; other funding has been leveraged to the maximum extent feasible). · CDBG funds are being prudently utilized to accomplish the proposed project. 3. The extent to which the applicant has demonstrated the capacity to complete the activity within the designated time period. · The project schedule is reasonable. · Applicant has the expertise in place to implement the activity. NOTE: Projects must score a minimum of 20 points in the above section to receive further consideration. 0-15 PROJECT BENEFIT 1. The extent to which the proposed project addresses the needs of low and moderate- income residents within the Consolidated Pool area. · Number of households/persons to be served. · Project reduces reliance on public services and promotes serf-reliance. 0-15 0-10 0-10 0-10 0-10 2. The extent to which the proposed project serves (or has served) very low-income households/persons. Points will be awarded, as follows, for the income group being served: Over 80 % of median family income 61% to 80 % of median family income 51% to 60 % of median family income 31% to 50 % of median family income 0 % to 30 % of median family income 0 points 3 points 7 points 12 points 15 points 3. The extem to which the proposed activity provides a new or expanded level of service, or maintains the current level of service. · Project creates new opportunities or prevents the loss of current resources. · Project reduces taxpayer expense of serving the targeted population. · Project will prevem a decrease in the level of service or loss of service regulting from a loss of other funding and from events outside the ~ency's control. COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH 1. The extem to which the proposed project is consistent with the high priority needs as identified in the Hennepin County Consolidated Plan and addresses local needs. · Proposed project addresses a high priority need identified in the Hennepin County Consolidated Plan. · Proposed project will be/is filling a need not addressed by other existing programs. · Proposed project addresses a locally identified, high priority need. 2. The proposed project is a multi-community initiative. · Several communities are participating in this initiative. · Project is a cooperative initiative with public and private panners. 3. Demonstrated community anti/or constituency support for the proposed project. · Letters of support must be from a person or authority represeming a particular agency or jurisdiction. TOTAL PROJECT POINTS /100 U :\CDBG 1998\ConPoolPubScrvRcv Minutes - Mound Planning Commission March 9, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 9, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Bill Voss. Staff Present: Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clappsaddle. Absent and unexcused: Michael Mueller, Mark Hanus. Public Present: Dennis Kelm, Clyde & Denise Bonnema, Dave Willette, David Holm, Robert Wroda, Henry Reintz, Muriel Reintz, Larry & Rita Meehan, Jerry & Pamela Neumann, Chris Stuhr, Scott Hoelscher - US West. Meeting called to order 7:55 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. Chair Michael called for a brief moment of silence in remembrance of Gerald Reifschneider MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE FEBRUARY 9, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Glister to approve the Minutes of the February 9, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 5 - 0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE #98-05: PUBLIC HEARING, MAJOR SUBDIVISION, TO CONSTRUCT TWINHOMES, JAMES JOHNSON/DAVE MOORE, 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, PID # 13-117-24 44 0032 CASE #98-06: PUBLIC HEARING, REZONING, FROM A R-lA TO A R-2, TO CONSTRUCT NEW TWINHOMES, JAMES JOHNSON/DAVE MOORE, 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOT 6, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, PID # 13-117-24 44 0032 CASE #98-05: VARIANCE, LOT SIZE, TO CONSTRUCT NEW TWINHOMES, JAMES JOHNSON/DAVE MOORE, 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, PID # 13-117-24 44 0032 These three cases have been tabled until further notice. Minutes- Mound Planning Commission March 9, 1998 CASE #98-08: VARIANCE EXTENSION, THE REMOVAL OF THE OLD RESIDENCE, RESOLUTION # 96-24, DAVID HOLM, 4321 WILSHIRE BLVD, PART OF LOT 1, FIRST REARRANGEMENT OF PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1sT DIVISION, PID 14-117-24 42 0070 Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented this case. The applicant, David Holm, is requesting an extension to complete the construction of a house. The approved variance was for a new house with an 18 foot lakeside setback. Resolution #96-24 approving the project was granted by Council on February 27, 1996. One year later, the applicant made a request for a one year extension because the project was not yet complete. The zoning ordinance allows one variance extension after the first year has expired. Further extensions require a new application as the code does not provide for a second extension. Procedurally, this is a new request although the project scope has not changed from the first application. Staff recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance request subject to the condition of Resolution #96-24. Discussion: There was discussion about the small shed that is located on the property located on street side. The applicant stated that he would like to keep the shed until he constructs his garage. It was concluded to allow the applicant keep his shed 60 days after the start of construction on the garage. MOTIONED by Weiland, seconded by Voss to accept staff recommendation with the condition that there be a 60-day allowance for the shed to remain until the garage is constructed and then be removed. Motion carried 5-0. This Case will go to Council on March 24, 1998. CASE #98-09: VARIANCE, TO RECOGNIZE NON-CONFORMING LOT SIZE AND SETBACKS, TO CONSTRUCT A NON-CONFORMING ADDITION AND ATTACHED GARAGE, DENNIS KELM, 1916 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 5, BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 18-117-23 23 0007 Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented this case. The applicant is requesting a number of variances for an addition and attached garage to the existing home. The property is located at 1916 Shorewood Lane and is zoned R-1. A summary of the proposed variances is outlined below. Minutes - Mound Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Existing/Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 22' 30' 8' Side Yard (east) 2.7' 6' 3.3' Lakeside (boat house) 6' 50' 44' Street Frontage 50' 60' 10' Lot Size 7,180 sf 10,000 sf 2,820 sf Hardcover 3,059 sf 2,872 sf 187 sf The improvements the applicant is proposing are substantial. A 12 by 33 foot two story living space will be added to the front of the home. The east wall of the addition will match the existing wall. The west addition wall will extend 9 feet past the existing wall of the house. On the front of the addition a 24 foot by 22 foot attached garage is proposed. The garage is a front entry and would maintain a 22 foot setback from Shorewood Lane. The driveway would be located on the existing gravel parking area. A number of other improvements are also proposed to the existing structure to bring it up to date. These include new windows, doors, siding, electrical, plumbing, and flooring. The home will be re-roofed with the proposed home and garage projects. The basement in the home is currently about 6.5 feet in height. The home will be raised 18 to 20 inches increasing the basement height to 8 feet. There is a two level boathouse on the property that is about 9 feet from the 929.4 contour and 1 foot from the side yard lot line. The boathouse structure is in reasonable condition however, the foundation is in poor condition with a number of visible cracks and bows in the concrete walls. The first floor is below the minimum building elevation of 933 feet. It appears that the boathouse is used as storage for miscellaneous household items at the present time. The home has a deck on the lakeside of the house that also wraps around the west side of the home. Upon visiting the site, the Building Official noted the deck was an immediate safety concern. A portion of the flooring on the west arm of the deck has collapsed due to rotting. A number of the other floorboards are in similar condition. Although it is not indicated in the application as being part of the project, the applicant has stated that it will be replaced along with the improvements. The existing deck is setback approximately 62 feet from the lake. The owner has indicated the new deck will most likely be smaller than the current. The lot is undersized for the R-1 zoning district which is typical of lots along Shorewood Lane. Almost every lot has 50 feet or less of lot frontage and is short of the required 10,000 sf lot size by 2,500 sf or more. Past variances for the property include a side yard variance in 1972 and a lakefront Minutes - Mound Planning Commission March 9, 1998 variance in 1977. The proposed project is a substantial improvement to the property. The existing home is in a state of decline and would have continued as such if left alone. Staff is in agreement that the proposal is a positive improvement for the property and surrounding neighborhood and the scope of the project meets the intent of what the City wants in a lakefront residential project. There is not currently a garage on the property for parking cars. A gravel parking area adjacent to the street serves as parking for the residents. The 22 feet proposed setback of the garage is adequate for parking a vehicle in front of the garage without intruding into the street. Although an attached garage must meet principle structure setbacks, the garage would meet setback requirements if it were detached. The boathouse on the property is a nonconforming structure as regulated by the Shoreland Management Ordinance. The City has worked to comply with these regulations by working with property owners to remove these structures when possible. A visual inspection of the boathouse showed it to be in a state of decline. Because the code will not allow structural work to the boathouse, its condition will continue to deteriorate. The boathouse appears to serve some usefulness as storage for household items. With additional square footage in the house, there could be storage room for those goods. Staff would like to take a position of asking the applicant to remove the boathouse to comply with the code. Given the scope of the house project, allotting some time for its removal may be an approach to consider. This would allow the owner to focus resources on the house project first before taking on another substantial project. The applicant has stated that he would like to use the top floor of the boathouse as a screened porch. Staff discussed with the applicant the intent of the ordinance and other options for a lakeside patio. Another related issue with the removal of the boathouse of benefit to the property is a decrease in hardcover. If the boathouse were removed along with the concrete sidewalk, the hardcover would be within 74 sf of meeting 30 percent for the lot. Staff recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested subject to the following conditions: 1. The existing deck in the front yard as indicated on the survey be removed. 2. The existing boathouse be removed within 2 years of the date of the resolution. 3. A grading plan be submitted at the time of building permit for approval by the City Engineer. Discussion: Minutes - Mound Planning Comrn/ssion March 9, 1998 Weiland asked what the side yard setback requirement would be for the deck facing the lakeside. Gordon stated that there is a 6 foot setback requirement. The applicant stated that he would be willing to make the deck conforming. Weiland and the applicant discussed the boathouse removal. There was further discussion on the construction of the new deck be in a conforming location. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Voss to accept Staff recommendation with the following alterations: Item #2 to read: 2. An easement approved by the City Attorney be placed on the existing boathouse to ensure the removal of boathouse within 2 years of the date the resolution is filed. The addition of item #4. Should read: 4. The Lakeside deck be removed and any reconstruction shall be conforming to setbacks. Motion carried §-0. This case will go to Council on March 24, 1998 CASE #98-10: VARIANCE, LAKESIDE SETBACK, TO BUILD A NON-CONFORMING 12x18 THREE SEASON PORCH, CLYDE & DENISE BONNEMA, 5513 BARTLETT BLVD, W 40' OF LOTS 13 & 14, THE BARTLETT PLACE, PID 24-117-24 23 0018 Assistant Planner Loren Gordon presented this case. The applicant, Clyde and Denise Bonnema, are requesting a lakeside variance to build a 12 by 18 foot three season porch. The home is currently setback 45 feet from the 929.4 contour. The proposed porch would be setback 36 feet from the contour requiring a 14 foot variance. Existinq/Proposed Required Variance Lakeside 36' 50' 14' The lot is in a R-lA zoning district and exceeds the lot area and width requirements at 15,600 sf and 85.13 feet respectively. Total impervious surface as proposed is under the 30 percent hardcover requirement by 120 sf. Except for the lakeside setback, the existing home, attached garage and shed all meet zoning requirements. The home does not currently have a deck. The proposed porch would be centered in the middle of the house over the existing living room window. The applicant has submitted building elevations of the lakeside view which are included in your packets. There is an encroaching concrete sidewalk on the west property line. The sidewalk extends 2 feet onto the adjacent property. Minutes - Mound Planning Commission March 9. 1998 The Planning Commission has usually applied the policy of affording lakeshore properties a deck. This case seems to fit the parameters of past practice. The porch with its walls and roof does have more bulk than a deck of the same size. The adjacent property to the west has a porch similar in size. That porch however, seems to function much more like a room addition than a porch. Because of the setback of the home, there is not another location for a porch that would meet lakeside setback requirements. The proposed porch does line up with the adjacent lakeside homes which is a consideration of the code. The encroaching concrete walk is an encroachment although it is not a structure. The Planning Commission has worked to alleviate encroachments during the variance process as a proactive approach to alleviating future problems. The amount of concrete encroaching onto the adjacent property is minimal and the Planning Commission may want to pursue its removal as a condition of approval. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as requested. Discussion: Weiland questioned if there was commons in front of the home toward the lakeside. The applicants commented that they had the legal description changed a year or two ago. Weiland also questioned about the concrete encroaching on the neighbors property. Burma questioned the lakeside setbacks on the survey. MOTIONED by Voss, seconded by Weiland to recommend Staff recommendation. Burma stated that this is not a deck it is a three season porch and the line of sight from the home to the east. Glister agreed with Burma. Staff perceives it as a porch. Burma doesn't perceive this to be a hardship case. Further discussion was made about the neighboring properties in getting variances for their decks. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland to recommend Staff recommendation. Motion carried 3-2. Glister and Burma opposed. This case will go to Council on March 24, 1998 Minutes ~ Mound Planning Cornm/$sion March 9, 1998 CASE #98-11: VARIANCE, TO RECOGNIZE NON-CONFORMING LOT SIZE, TO CONSTRUCT A NEW CONFORMING HOME, STEVE MARTIN, 2910 OAKLAWN LANE, PARTS OF LOTS 37,38, & 39, BLOCK 1, THE HIGHLANDS, PID # 23-117- 24 31 0008 Building Official Jon Sutherland presented this case. The applicant, Steve Martin, is seeking a 104 square foot variance to the minimum 10,000 of lot area that is required in the R-1 zone. The intention of the applicant is to sell the parcel so a new home can be constructed in the near future. It appears there is a suitable footprint to construct a new dwelling that will be conforming to the zoning ordinance. The property was released for sale in 1987 by resolution #87-134 as a lot with adequate buildable area although calculations were not based on an actual survey. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance as requested. Discussion: A letter was received by an adjacent homeowner expressing they were not in favor of this variance. Weiland commented that on answers to the applicant's application. Aisc that possibly tot 10's driveway is on the corner of this property. Voss questioned the topography of the land. Sutherland stated part of it runs to the street side and part runs to the wetlands. Glister questioned if a variance was needed to sell the property. Sutherland stated that it is in the contingency of the sale of the property. Larry Meehan, 2900 Oaklawn Lane, said that when he looked into purchasing the property a few years ago he was told it was un buildable. He expressed many concerns about property. Jerry Neumann, 5979 Bartlett Blvd, is the neighbor behind the concerned property. He stated that if this becomes a buildable lot, his property will have increased erosion and more of his land will be lost to the swampland in the rear of his property. He is not in favor of this variance. Burma questioned where the sliver of land that was added to the south of the property came from. Mr. Neumann explained that there was some tax forfeit property and it was divided to make the parcel larger. Minutes - Mound Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Chris Stuhr, 2920 Oaklawn Lane, owns part of lot 37, questioned the line of sight with his property with the proposed new dwelling. He questioned whether or not if there was a sewer stub. Staff commented that there is a sewer stub but no water. He expressed concern if the contractor would tear up his property in the right-of-way. Orv Burma questioned about what kind of auction this property was in. Mr. Meehan responded that it was at a Hennepin County Court House Auction. There was lengthy discussions and commented concerns about the property by adjacent homeowners. Sutherland stated that the City Attorney is aware of the case and agrees with staff recommendation. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Burma to recommend Staff Recommendation. Motion carried 5-0. This case will go to Council on March 24, 1998 CASE #98-13: MINOR SUBDIVISION, DAVID & ELEANOR WILLETTE, XXXX LYNWOOD BLVD., LOTS 6-11, KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND, PIDS # 13- 117-24 33 0028 & 13-117-24 33 0029 Assistant City Planner Loren Gordon presented the case. The applicants, David and Eleanor Willette, have submitted a minor subdivision request for a boundary adjustment. The property includes lots 6 - 11 of "Koehler's addition to Mound" and is located at the corner of Belmont Lane and Lynwood Blvd. Currently, lots 6 - 8 and 9 - 11 are separate tax parcels. The proposal is to move the dividing line 40 feet to the east, enlarging the size of parcel A and decreasing parcel B. The proposal meets all zoning code requirements for lot area and frontage. The applicants intentions are to sell parcel A and retain parcel B for future development. The applicant has indicated future plans for parcel B are for a laundry business. At this time, a site plan has not been prepared. The applicant has a tentative purchase agreement for parcel A with the adjacent shopping center. Future plans for the property are unknown. Staff has been in contact with the applicant in preparation of this request. Staff has meet with the applicant to discuss implications the downtown redevelopment project and the relocation of County Road 15 on this parcel. Most of the initial impacts are access related, especially to parcel A. Hennepin County is currently reviewing where access will be given along the relocated County Road 15. At this time, it seems that Belmont Lane will Minutes - Mound Planning Commission March 9, 1998 connect. What is uncertain is if Parcel A would be allowed a driveway access directly to CR 15. Preliminary signs indicate that direct access would probably not be the first choice. Depending on future development plans access to the parcel could be provided in a couple of ways. The parcel could not be denied some means of access. Because the applicant does not have development plans, it is difficult to address future impacts of the proposal. Parcel A could be much more difficult to address due to the uncertainty of future ownership and development plans. Certainly access is a larger issue with parcel A than B. Other issues that will need to be addressed when development plans are clear include utility service and hardcover issues. Both parcels have water and sewer service stubs. Depending on the type of use service lines may or may not be sized to accommodate business activities. Hardcover would be limited to 30 percent at this time. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the minor subdivision as requested. Staff will continue to work with the property owners and Hennepin County in securing access arrangements. These parcels although on the periphery of the downtown project are very visible from CR 15. It will be important that the City continue to be proactive in addressing the future development of these two parcels. Discussion: Weiland stated that if the realignment of the road is completed, Access to Parcel A would have to be granted. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Burma to recommend Staff recommendation. Motion carried 5-0. This case will go to Council on March 24, 1998 TELECOMMUNICATION ORDINANCE The current zoning ordinance does not address current trends in the telecommunications industry. If an application were submitted to the City for a cellular phone transmission tower, it would be difficult to fit that use into the existing ordinance. Due to this code deficiency the City has established a moratorium on all activity until March 31, 1998. During this time an ordinance has been developed to help the City better address the issues of these uses in the community. The proposed Telecommunications Ordinance has been prepared to address the use and location of cellular communications facilities. These facilities come in many forms ranging from transmission towers commonly seen along major highways and business areas to more discretely located transmission equipment located on water towers and building rooftops. The framework of the ordinance was taken from the League of Cities model drafted by Kennedy and Graven. The ordinance has been tailored to fit a number of considerations for Minutes - Mound Planning Commission March 9, 1998 the City of Mound. The following is a summary of those considerations: Mound is primarily a residential community. Mound has a smaller percentage of business and industrial land. The business and industrial land is very visible. Shoreland management regulations cover much of the community. Uses and structures that would detract from the character of the community are not desirable. There are a number of public facilities that can be utilized for the placement of telecommunication transmitting equipment. The ordinance is fairly straightforward. The intent of the ordinance is to prevent these facilities from disrupting the landscape and character of the community while staying within the guidelines of the federal legislation. The major points of the ordinance include: Utilization of the three City water towers is promoted by allowing telecommunication transmitters as an outright permitted use. Towers for cellular, PCS, and other transmission equipment are limited to I-1 and PlA districts and would be under review through a Conditional Use Permit. Roof and building mounted transmission equipment would be allowed in business districts subject to the review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Cellular, PCS and other transmission equipment would not be allowed in residential districts, except on publicly owned buildings and facilities such as water towers, school buildings, athletic field lighting standards, and utility poles. The ordinance is flexible to address the ever-changing conditions in the telecommunications industry. It is difficult to determine how many cellular transmission facilities are needed in Mound. There are six companies that could locate within the community and the potential exists for each company to have one or more transmission facilities. The number of facilities largely depends on existing coverage areas that are expanding as the metro grows to the west. In reality a couple of facilities located in Mound is more probable. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the Telecommunications Ordinance as drafted. Discussion: Glister questioned the removal of towers Section 350:1375, Is the city going to have to remove these towers and assess the property. Wants to make sure there is not a burden to remove obsolete towers in the city. There was further discussion on other cities who are using this ordinance. Minutes - Mound Planning Commission March 9, 1998 Things not included in the ordinance and will be separate agreements with the telecommunication companies: Revenue and Maintenance Agreements. Scott Hoelscher from US West spoke on the issues of removal of towers. MOTION by Burma, seconded by Glister to recommend Staff recommendation to approve the proposed Ordinance. Motion carried 5-0. INFORMATION: CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 10, 1998 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 24, 1998 There were no questions at this time. REDEVELOPMENT IMPACT COMMITTEE: UPDATE SINCE JANUARY 26 MEETING VERBAL FROM BILL VOSS Voss commented that he review Jon Sutherland's annual report and on the budget for the department. Voss commented that he had hoped that by bringing in Richfield's Housing and Redevelopment program to a meeting that it would help in aiding to have the Council recognize that the City needs to act on some type of similar program. In response to Sutherland's budget, there has been increased production over the years and there has not been any additional staff support. He commented that other departments such as Police and Public Works have staff increased when the work load increases. He commented that something should be done to help increase staff support in the Planning and Building Department so that the City is not faced with a problem down the road. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Weiland commented that he feels the Planning Commission should have some type of identification when visiting case sites. Some possibilities could include: A Jacket, Business Cards, ID tags. It would help prevent a confrontation at the sites. MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland to adjourn the meeting at 10:23 p.m. The Motion carried 5-0. RECEIVE[3 ~AR