1998-05-26AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, MAY 26, 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 MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
PAGE
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.
3. *CONSENT AGENDA
*A.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 12, 1998
REGULAR MEETING .................................... 1638-1645
*B
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 19, 1998
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ...................... 1646-1648
WHOLE MEETING.
*C.
CASE # 98-19: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK,
SIDE YARD SETBACK, DELTON & EVELYN RENSPE,
003 BLUFFS LANE, LOT1, BLOCK 1, THE BLUFFS,
PID # 22-117-24 44 0001 ..................................
1649-1664
CASE # 98-20: VARIANCE, LAKESIDE & SIDE YARD
SETBACK, HARDCOVER, ORVAL FENSTAD,
4366 WILSHIRE BLVD, LOT 82, PHELPS ISLAND
PARK 1sT DIVISION, PID # 19-117-23 13 0015 ................... 1665-1686
*E.
CASE # 98-21: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK,
ALLAN C WIGAND, 4754 HAMPTON ROAD,
LOTS 28-29-30, BLOCK 10, PEMBROKE
PID # 19-117-23 33 0106 .................................. 1687-1706
CASE # 98-24: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK,
THOMAS REESE, 5641 BARTLETT BLVD,
1635
P/SECTION 23
PID # 23-117-24 14 0003 .................................. 1707-1729
*G.
CASE #98-25: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK,
MICHAEL & KATHY MEYER, 1748 BAYWOOD SHORES DRIVE,
LOT 5, BLOCK 6, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES,
PID # ! 3-117-24 24 0016 ..................................
1730-1745
*H.
CASE # 98-12: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE
YARD SETBACK, REAR YARD SETBACK, MATT PHILLIPPI,
4519 MANCHESTER ROAD, LOT 22 AND PART OF
LOTS 1,2,3, & 5, BLOCK 14, AVALON, PID # 19-117-23 31 0059 ..... 1 746-1 784
CASE # 98-29: VARIANCE EXTENSION: FROM CASE 97-15
MARK MULVEY, 5900 CHESTNUT ROAD,
LOT 24, KOEHLER'S 2ND ADDN TO MOUND,
PID# 14-117-24 43 0006 ................................... 1785-1868
RESOLUTION 98 - RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING AUTHORIZING
CITY SPONSORSHIP OF STATE GRANT-IN-AID SNOWMOBILE TRAIL
FUNDS ..................................................
1869
*K. PAYMENT OF BILLS .................................... 1870-1880
4. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
PUBLIC HEARING: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER VI OF THE CITY CODE, BY
ADDING SECTION 650 RELATING TO STORM SEWER SYSTEM AND TO IMPOSE JUST
AND REASONABLE CHARGES FOR THE USE AND AVAILABILITY OF STORM SEWER
FACILITIES ........................................................
REPORT FROM STAFF REGARDING FACTS ASSOCIATED WITH DOCK#42129
(BARB CASEY) .............................................. 1881-1882
1997 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT - STEVE MCDONALD, ABDO, ABDO, EICK
& MEYERS
8. CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE RENEWAL ....................... 1883-1950
9. 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 ITEM TO ANY MINORS AND
AMENDING SECTION 510:00, SUBD.2, OF THE CITY
CODE RELATING TO FEES FOR CIGARETTE
LICENSES ......................... 1951-1954
1636
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: WOODLAND POINT LITIGATION .....................
11.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
Ao
Monthly Financial Report for April 1998 as prepared by Gino Businaro,
Finance Director .........................................
1955-1956
Letter from State Representative Steve Smith regarding our letter opposing
levy limits and the state sales tax ..................................
1957
Co
Memorandum from the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District regarding
Adult mosquito control notification procedures ......................... 1958
Letter from Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton, Minneapolis, regarding an upcoming
luncheon inviting Mayors from surrounding communities to discuss future challenges.
The luncheon is scheduled for Thursday, Jule 11, 1998, Noon - 1:30 p.m., Minneapolis
Club, downtown Minneapolis, RSVP'S must be received by June 5 ............ 1959
Annual Park Tour with Park and Open Space Commission will be held Thursday,
June 11, 7 p.m. Meet at City Hall if you are interested in attending.
REMINDER:
City offices will be closed on Monday, May 25, 1998 in
Observance of Memorial Day.
Go
Insert in City Newsletter regarding Storm Sever Utility Ordinance public hearing had
typographical error on the time of the hearing on Tuesday, May 26. It should be 7:30 p.m.
And not 7 p.m. We will put an notice on the front door in case person are coming for
1960-1969
a 7 p.m. hearing .........................................
Information received from Keith Rermerfeldt, Hennepin County Assessor's Office
regarding the results of the Open Book meeting held earlier this Spring. Also included
is some information from the Assessor on the County Property types, classes and class
1970-1972
rates .................................................
Letter dated May 20, 1998 from Ceil Strauss, Area Hydrologist, DNR, regarding
a request to her office to visit the Roanoke Commons area and a report on her visit
and her comments regarding the trimming of trees and tree removal along the
commons area. Apparently, residents in this area called her office to have her
view the area ...............................................
1973
Memoramdum from Jim Fackler, Park Director, regarding the issue of a dock site on
Paradise Lane raised at Tuesday's Committee of the Whole meeting. I think the memo
is clear that the fee paid by Mr. Klein was paid on time. Ms. Cornetet has no valid
1974-1987
claim ................................................
1637
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MAY 12, 1998
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, May 12, 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, Mark Hanus, and
Leah Weycker. Councilmember Liz Jensen was absent and excused. Also in attendance were:
City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney Jim Thomson, City Clerk Fran Clark,
Building Official Jon Suthefland, and the following interested citizens: Tom & Shaft Casey,
Dennis Hopkins, Becky Cherne, Greg Knutson, Gene & Gretchen Smith, and Dave Moore.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of
Allegiance was recited.
*Consent Agenda: Ali 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.
*CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus to approved the Consent Agenda as
presented. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
The Mayor asked to have the following item added to the Regular Agenda: A dock problem that the
City has been working on over the past several weeks.
Councilmember Weycker stated that per Ordinance #155:20, it takes a unanimous vote to add to the
Agenda. Weycker indicated she would not vote in favor of discussing this tonight, because the public
was not notified.
The Mayor stated he is not asking for action to be taken tonight. It is a request to ask the Staff to
look into a situation. Councilmember Weycker stated that she does not think this has to be an Agenda
item. She stated he could just request what he wants staff to look into.
The Mayor stated it needs to be an Agenda Item because the Staff is looking for direction and they
need the Council to direct them. It does not involve action on any dock locations.
Councilmember Weycker still objected to this being put on the Agenda because it could be voted on.
The Mayor stated that at the last City Council meeting he had a discussion with Barb Casey regarding
a safety issue that concerns her dock site. He indicated that he asked Ms. Casey to call him and
arrange to have himself and two members of the Staff go to her dock site and try to see if she would
be satisfied shifting her dock over approximately 4-6 feet from center in the opposite direction. This
would alleviate the safety concern he has about the site and would allow Ms. Casey safer access to
the dock. This is what he wants the Staff to look into and propose to Ms. Casey. He stated that the
ordinance could be amended to stipulate that all dock sites will be put on center. He stated the City
is trying to work with Ms. Casey, to cause her the least amount of inconvenience.
MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Hanus to have Ms. Casey's dock site be placed
on the regular Agenda for discussion this evening, in order to direct Staff to prepare a
f'mding of fact on the safety issues of this dock site. Councilmember Ahrens sbstained
from voting on this issue. The vote was 2 in favor with Weycker voting nay. Motion
fails.
The Mayor asked if any member of the Council had an objection to having Staff look into this
situation. There was no objection.
The Mayor accused Councilmember Weycker of trying to politicize the issue.
The Mayor stated he would like to direct Staff to go and look into the issue and report back on the
safety of this. He stated he wants the dock in the safest possible position to protect the health, safety
and welfare of the residents and the people using that dock. He then asked that the Staff bring a
finding of fact back to the Council. Councilmember Weycker stated there is objection if we are
voting on this motion. The Mayor stated it was not a motion.
The Mayor stated it is his opinion that the Staff has the authority to go in there and make sure that
this dock is put in a safest place for access. He further stated that he has not heard from Ms. Casey
so he is proposing that the Staff take the appropriate action to keep someone from being injured on
that site.
TOM CASEY, father of Barb Casey, addressed the Council on her behalf because she was
working. He stated that it is his understanding that she was not aware she was to call the
Mayor regarding this situation.
The Mayor stated he left a message on Ms. Casey's recorder asking her to call him and shxe has not
done so.
MR. CASEY stated that at the last meeting Ms. Casey was told to meet with the Dock
Inspector and determine where the safest placement of the dock would be. She met with the
Park Director, Jim Fackler, and they inspected the site and both agreed the safest place for that
dock is right where is was.
Mayor Polston stated that was not true. He stated he has talked with the Dock Inspector and he has
reassured him that he never told Ms. Casey that the dock was in the safest possible place. He further
stated that he has been told by another abutting citizen that he was told by Ms. Casey that the Mayor
and the Dock Inspector told her the dock was in the safest possible place. He stated that is simply
not true. He stated he has always indicated to Ms. Casey that it is in an unsafe situation for herself
and anyone trying to use it and that we would meet with her and do anything that we possibly could
to make it safe.
MR. CASEY asked why it is unsafe the way it is?
The Mayor responded that the Commons cannot be traversed in a safe manner because of the way the
dock is laid out in relation to a retaining wall that is built and installed on private property. He
pointed out that the Commons is very narrow at this point.
MR. CASEY stated he thought the Commons was 20 feet wide there.
The Mayor stated that is not the case.
MR. CAGEY gave the background of the house which he sold to his daughter, Barb Casey.
He stated that to his knowledge no one has ever been injured at this site. He stated there was
never a problem here before the gazebo and retaining wall were built. Mr. Casey stated the
gazebo that was built is within 15 feet of the lake. He then asked who created the problem
here? He stated is wasn't his daughter.
The Mayor stated it wasn't the City Council who created the problem. Mr. Casey disagreed.
GENE SMITH stated the gazebo and retaining wall should never have been placed that close
to the Commons.
The Mayor stated he was not on the City Council when the gazebo and retaining wall were put in and
he is looking at safety in the future of this dock site. He stated he cannot change anything that has
happened in the past, but he can protect the health, safety and welfare of the people that use it in the
future.
GENE SMITH stated that to eliminate this hazard would be to remove the trees that were
planted, in the first place, to hinder access to this dock site. Mr. Smith stated he was in
attendance at the meeting with Ms. Casey and there was never any mention of her calling the
Mayor. He stated she was requested to move the dock 2 feet.
The Mayor disagreed with Mr. Smith and stated that the Staff also tried to call Ms. Casey twice and
never got a return call.
The City Manager stated that Mr. Fackler and Mr. McCaffrey attempted to contact Ms. Casey.
GENE SMITH, stated that his wife was in attendance at the meeting with Mr. Fackler and
the Dock Inspector when he agreed with Ms. Casey that the dock was in the safest location where it
was. He stated that to move it to the east would put the dock right behind the tree.
The Mayor stated that it is not currently in the safest location now.
GENE SMITH, stated, "We know exactly what's going on here and so do you Mark. This
is a big smoke screen to get Andrea Ahrens more dock space. That's all she wants."
Hanus responded, "It has nothing to do with that. The only access to that site is on the top of the rip-
rap. It's either that or you walk in the middle of that hillside."
GENE SMITH, "Then take the trees down that were illegally planted there just to hinder the
traffic."
Hanus asked, "Which trees are those?"
GENE SMITH, "Those little trees right there that protrude out by that illegal
wall."
retaining
Hanus responded, "Those were not planted there by any individual.
GENE SMITH, "I was there when they planted the trees.
If you want to continue with this, we can do it in court."
conspiring.
I know all about this whole deal.
He then accused the Council of
Councilmember Weycker disagreed that there is a safety issue here. She stated there are safety
concerns whenever we are dealing with the Commons and lakeshore and outside. She stated her
fiancee was issued a dock through the City that they could not even access the location. She further
stated that if the Council is going to talk about safety issues, then this needs to be addressed across
the board for all dock areas. She stated the Council should not withhold someone's dock because of
a safety issue.
The Mayor stated that the Council is not withholding Ms. Casey's dock. He is asking that it be
shifted a few feet because it is in an unsafe spot.
Hanus stated if it is shifted, Ms. Casey will not have to crawl over the grassy knoll to get up to the
top of the small hill and then slide down a grassless dirt hill to get to the other side.
TOM CASEY, asked why there is a dirt hill there?
Hanus stated it is probably too steep to grow grass when it rains.
TOM CASEY, stated it is because someone cut into that hill to put in a gazebo.
Hanus stated the he was on the Planning Commission when that gazebo was approved with no
variances issued.
TOM CASEY, apologized for his daughter not returning the Mayor's phone call, but
explained that she has not been at home.
The Mayor asked who installed Ms. Casey's dock.
TOM CASEY stated he assumed it was Ms. Casey's ex-husband.
The Mayor stated he would have rather have met with Ms. Casey before the dock was installed.
The Mayor stated that the Council is directing Staff to prepare a finding of fact on the safety issue
that the City is confronted with at this dock site. He further offered to work with Ms. Casey to
resolve this situation.
DOCK SITE//42129
The Mayor stated there is a Memo that was handed out tonight to the Mayor and City Council from
Park Director, Jim Fackler regarding temporary issuance of an abutting dock site//42129 which has
not been paid to date by the abutting property owner (Gene Smith) at 4705 Island View Drive. Mr.
Fackler is issuing a Temporary Dock Site to Todd Stead to utilize dock site @42129 for this year.
The Mayor asked if there was any objection to this. There was none.
Mr. Gene Smith asked if he could have the vacant site on the other side of Ahrens. The Mayor
explained that at this point there is no dock over there.
Mr. Smith asked if two dock sites have been eliminated? Councilmember Hanus stated that he does
not think that has been determined yet.
Councilmember Weycker stated that if this area becomes a non-traversable Commons, she would like
to see the documentation of the so called safety issue which she does not believe exists. She did not
like the idea of eliminating 4-7 non abutting dock sites because of small incline in the Commons which
could be taken care of with a step, at a cost of probably under $100 to the City.
GENE SMITH stated that the responsible thing to do would be to remove those trees, because
they are hindering access to the area.
Councilmember Hanus, stated that those trees were used as findings when the gazebo was built as a
requirement for screening the gazebo. He stated to take those small trees out now would be in
violation of the Shoreland Management Ordinance.
GENE SMITH asked if the high water mark was ever surveyed and the appropriate setback
followed on that retaining wall.
The Council asked that this be checked out.
*1.0 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE APRIL 28, 1998, REGULAR MEETING.
MOTION
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
*1.1
CASE 97-45: MINOR SUBDIVISION, CHUCK DOWNEY, 2051 ARBOR LANE, LOTS
6 & 7, SKARP 7 LINDQUISTS RAVENSWOOD, PID#13-117-24 41 0005.
RESOLUTION//98-51
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION,
AT 2051 ARBOR LANE, LOTS 6 & 7, SKARP &
LINDQUISTS RAVENSWOOD PID 13-117-24 41 0005, P &
Z CASE//97-45
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
*1.2
CASE 97-41: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK,
CHUCK DOWNEY, 2051 ARBOR LANE, LOTS 6 & 7, SKARP & LINDQUISTE
RAVENSWOOD, PID# 13-117-24 41 0005
RESOLUTION//98-52
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD, SIDE
YARD AND IMPROVED STREET FRONTAGE
VARIANCES, TO ALLOW FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION
OF THE PROPERTY AT 2051 ARBOR LANE, LOTS 6 &
7, SKARP AND LINDQUISTS RAVENSWOOD, PID 13-117-
24 41 0005, P & Z CASE g97-41
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
*1.3
BID AW_ARD: 1998 SEALCOATING PROGRAM.
RESOLUTION//98-53 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE IX)W BID OF ASTECIt
CORPORATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $28,767.50 FOR
THE 1998 SEALCOAT PROJECT
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
· 1.4 APPROVAL OF RELEASE OF $168,750.00 FROM THE LETTER OF CREDIT FOR
MAPLE MANORS,
1544-1545
MOTION.
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
*1.5
PAYMENT OF BILLS.
MOTION
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
1.6 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
There were none.
1.7
PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 98-06: ZONING AMENDMENT (REZONING), 4901
SHORELINE DRIVE, JAMES JOHNSON/DAVE MOORE, LOT 6, BLOCK 3,
SHIRLEY HII.I$ UNIT A, PID#13-117-24 44 0032.
The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval.
The Mayor opened the public hearing. There were no comments. The Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Hanus moved and Ahrens seconded the following:
RESOLUTION #98-54
RESOLUTION TO ALLOW A ZONING AMENDMENT,
FROM A R-lA TO A R-2 ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE
PROPERTY LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS, LOT 6, BLOCK
3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, PID 13-117-24 44 0032, P &
Z CASE//98-06
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE #97-1998
AN ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN LANDS AS
DESCRIBED FROM R-lA SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL TO R-2 TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.8
CONTINUED DISCUSSION: COST OF SEDIMENT REMOVAL FROM PROPOSED
FISHING AREA ON WILSHIRE BLVD.
The City Manager explained the background. Minnetonka Portable Dredging estimates approximately
$2,200 to remove the silt and sand that has washed into the Lake. The DCAC recommended that this
be done.
Councilmember Weycker asked if there are other areas where this is a problem. The City Manager
stated that yes there are other areas where storm drains deposit material in the Lake. Councilmember
Weycker asked if the City feels responsible for cleaning this up. The City Manager stated there are
a certain amount of funds available, but the City has not had a full fledged program to do this. In
order to address this problem City wide, a much larger program would need to be implemented. At
this point the City responds to citizens requests for clean up of these areas and this is how the areas
are recognized. He stated if a program were implemented, a budget would need to be established for
this.
The following resident spoke in favor of the proposal:
Dennis Hopkins.
MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Weycker to authorize spending up to $2,200 out
of the Street Fund to remove sediment from the area at the end of the storm drain on
Wilshire Blvd. The Council asked that the City try to do this cleaning up by land not
necessarily by barge. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.9
A.
B.
D.
E.
F.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
Department Head Monthly Reports for April 1998.
Rule B Stormwater Management Recommendations of the Stormwater Task Force and
announcement regarding next Task Force meeting.
REMINDER:
REMINDER:
REMINDER:
Committee of the Whole meeting, Tuesday, May 19, 1998, 7:30 p.m.
HRA meeting, Tuesday, May 12, 1998, 7:00 p.m.
WCCB meeting Thursday, May 21, 1998, 7:00 p.m., City Hall.
Joyce Nelson, Recycling Coordinator, has indicated that a private firm has made arrangements
to establish a compost site near Watertown at the former Ecklund Tree Service property. It
is approximately 12 miles from Mound. The proposal is subject to various permit approvals
but it could be available sometime next Spring. In addition, Hennepin County, at its Lake
Minnetonka Regional Park site, has indicated that they would be willing, starting in the fall
of this year, to take leaves. Leaves would have to be hauled by the City. Residents could not
use this for a drop off site.
MOTION made by Ahrens, Seconded by Weycker to adjourn at 8:30 P.M. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Attest: City Clerk
MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - MAY 19, 1998
The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Polston, Hanus, Jensen,
Weycker and Ahrens.
Also Present: Mark Koegler, City Planner; John Cameron, City Engineer; and Ed Shukle, City
Manager.
Update of the City of Mound's Comprehensive Plan
Ed Shukle introduced this subject. He indicated that the State Legislature, in 1995, amended the
Metropolitan Land Planning Act requiring municipalities to update their comprehensive plans. The
last time Mound's comprehensive plan was updated was in 1990. Basically the update will follow
some of the same elements that were used in the 1990 plan but a new feature is the requirement for
a stormwater management plan. The plan must be completed by December 31, 1998, however, the
City Planner has indicated that extensions are likely to be granted that would allow the plan to be
submitted in the first or second quarter of 1999.
Mark Koegler, City Planner, presented an outline of how the comprehensive plan update process
would be conducted. The majority of the elements would be completed by Mr. Koegler and his
office. The stormwater management plan element would be completed by the City Engineer. John
Cameron, City Engineer, indicated that a member of their firm, Dan Parks, would be the key person
working on this document.
The cost of the City Planner' s work will not exceed $15,500. The stormwater management plan will
not exceed $39,800 for a total plan cost of $55,300.
Shukle indicated that $3,510 will be coming from a grant from the Metropolitan Council. This will
be applied against the $15,500. He also mentioned that the City Council will be considering a storm
water utility ordinance at the May 26 meeting which would be the source to cover the cost of the
stormwater management plan.
Council consensus was that they were not pleased with the mandate by the Legislature but realize
that there really isn't any choice but to complete the comprehensive plan update. The Council
directed to proceed with the City Planner and the City Engineer preparing the comprehensive plan
update.
Upcoming Public Hearing on the Proposed Storm Water Utili~ Ordinance
Ed Shukle presented the insert that was included in the Spring issue of the City newsletter regarding
the public hearing on the proposed storm water utility ordinance. He briefly reviewed the issue with
the Council and discussed how to present the subject at the hearing. The Council suggested that Dan
Parks, McCombs Frank Roos also be at the hearing to answer any questions relating to the storm
water management plan which is something that the utility will pay for as part of the comprehensive
plan update.
COW Minutes
May 19, 1998
Page 2
Cable TV Franchise Renewal
Ed Shukle indicated that the Cable TV franchise is up for renewal in 1998. He indicated that Mound
has been working with an attorney on the drafting of the franchise documents. This attorney is also
representing the cities of Wayzata, Chanhassen and Waconia. The informal review process has been
followed and the City Council will be asked to review the franchise documents and to consider
renewing the franchise with Triax Cablevision. Shukle indicated that notice of the item on the
agenda was published in the City Newsletter but the Council may want to schedule a public hearing
on the matter.
Cigarette Licensing - What do we do beyond 5/31/987
Ed Shukle asked the Council if they wanted to pursue the adoption of the new ordinance on tobacco
and regulation of the sale of tobacco products. Shukle indicated that the City must adopt the
ordinance or turn the licensing function over to Hennepin County. The Council was interested in
the County taking over this responsibility and asked staff to contact them regarding their fees and
to report back at the May 26 meeting when the ordinance will be considered. Staff is to notify the
licensees that this item will be on Tuesday's agenda.
Update on Minnetonka Boat Rental
Shukle reported that the DNR is conducting appraisals of the properties being considered for a
possible public access at this site. The owners of residential property in the area have also
indicated that they are interested in selling their property and appraisals are being done on this
location as well. More information will be available at a later date.
Annual Meeting of City_ Council and Advisory Commissions
There is no interest in pursuing this at this time.
Other Business
Items discussed included a dock site issue on Paradise Lane, tree removal on commons, storm
damage to a boathouse on Island View Drive and whether or not it needs a variance, data on the
streamlining of variances, park vacancy and the annual park tour. Mayor Polston excused himself
as he had another commitment. It was also the consensus not to have a Committee of the Whole
meeting in July.
It was noted that the next Committee of the Whole meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June 16, 1998,
7:30 p.m.
COW Minutes
May 19, 1998
Page 3
Upon motion by Jensen, seconded by Hanus and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned
at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
City Manager
May 26, 1998
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD VARIANCES IN ORDER TO
ALLOW FOR REPLACING THE EXISTING DECK,
AT 3003 BLUFFS LANE,
LOT 1, BLOCK 1, THE BLUFFS,
PID 22-117-24 44 0001
P & Z CASE #98-19
WHEREAS, the applicants, Delton and Evelyn Renspe, have applied for a
front yard and side yard variances to allow for replacement of the existing deck at 3003
Bluffs 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, front yard setback of 30 feet, and side yard
setbacks are 10 feet, and;
WHEREAS, the property is located on a corner lot with frontages to Bartlett
Blvd. ( Co Rd 110) and Bluffs Lane
WHEREAS, the existing side yard setback is 0 feet requiring a 10 foot side
yard variance, and;
WHEREAS, the existing Bartlett Blvd. front yard setback is 12 feet requiring
a 18 foot front yard variance, and;
WHEREAS, the existing deck appears to have been built at the same time the
house was in 1974, and;
WHEREAS, the lot directly south of the property is a vacant undeveloped
parcel identified as Outlot A on the plat map, dedicated as a City Park during the platting of
the development, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff, and;
May 26, 1998
Renspe - 3003 Bluff Lane
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a 18 foot front yard and a 10 foot side yard variances
setback as recommended by the Planning Commission.
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.
o
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following improvements:
Construction of a nonconforming deck.
o
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the
Hennepin County Property Information System:
LOT 1, BLOCK 1, THE BLUFFS, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
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 Coun¢ilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Attest: City Clerk
Mayor
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1998
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, MAY 11, 1998
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Jerry
Clapsaddle, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff Present:
Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist.
Public Present: Mark Mulvey, Hugh Bishop, Matt Phillippi, Delton Renspe, Curtis Berg, Michael
Meyer, Alan Nations, Steve Mayer, Vic Sacco, Quirin & Maria Matthys, Craig Goodrich
Meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 27, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
There were no corrections to the Minutes from April 27, 1998
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the
April 27, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 8-0.
Chair Michael explained how the Public Hearing would be conducted.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 98-19: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK,
DALTON & EVELYN RENSPE, 3003 BLUFFS LANE, LOT 1, BLOCK 1, THE
BLUFFS, PID # 22-117-24 44 0001
Loren Gordon presented the case.
The applicants, Dalton and Evelyn Renspe, have submitted a request to recognize
existing conditions for the replacement of a deck. The variance requests are listed
below.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Side yard 0' 10' 10'
Front Yard - Bartlett 12 30' 18'
The property is located at 3003 Bluffs Lane on the corner of Bluffs Lane and Bartlett
Blvd. The lot is a conforming 10,763 sf lot in a R-1 district which requires 10,000 sf of lot
area. The property has two existing nonconforming setbacks. The existing deck is
located 0 feet from the south side yard lot line. A 10 feet setback is required. Also, the
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1998
house is located 12 feet from Bartlett Blvd which is a front yard requiring a 30 feet
setback.
The applicant is proposing to remove the existing 10 feet by 20 feet deck and replace it
to the same dimensions. Also, a 6 feet walkway would extend from the existing deck
along the south side of the house with steps wrapping around the west side of the
home. The rear yard setback would be reduced from 43 feet to 39 feet which is
conforming.
The house is a split level with a walkout lower level on the south facing side. The
existing deck is on the upper level also on the south side. The deck appears to have
been built with the house in 1974. During this time there appears to have been few
improvements if any of the structural aspects of the deck. The deck is showing some
signs of decay but is not present an immediate safety issue.
Directly south of the property is a vacant undeveloped parcel identified as Outlot "A" on
the plat map. This is a City park site that was dedicated during the platting of the
development. There are currently no plans for the development of the park however,
play structures or other tot lot type equipment could be accommodated if addressed in
future planning.
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):
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.
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.
That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
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.
Eo
The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the
hardship.
The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this
Ordinance or to property in the same zone.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1998
The owners request to remove and reconstruct the deck appears to be a reasonable
request given the circumstances of the case. The existing deck was built with the home
and has not undergone any modifications to expand its size or intrusion into the
neighborhood. The design of the new deck would meet current code requirements
which have additional preventative safety measures the existing deck does not have.
Another circumstance with the case is the city park property will in all likelihood, remain
as public open space. This greatly reduces the possibility that a structure could be built
on the property causing concerns about sideyard setbacks.
In keeping with the policy of affording property owners with a reasonably sized deck.
The case appears to meet criteria that would suggest the request is appropriate. The
other issue the Planning Commission should address is the walkway which was not part
of the original construction. The walkway is 6 feet wide as shown on the building plans,
less than the 10 feet width of the deck. It would provide an additional exit from the
house not currently afforded.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
Council approval of the request by recognizing the variances as requested.
DISCUSSION:
Mueller commented that in this development that other homeowners have been denied
deck variances.
Hanus commented that the garage is too close to Co Road 110. Hasse commented
that when the house was built the code considered the yard a side not a front yard.
Weiland commented that the deck could be built in the rear of the home and be
conforming.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Hanus to recommend staff
recommendation. Motion carried 5-3. Burma, Weiland, and Mueller
opposed.
This will case will go to City Council May 26, 1998.
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: May 11, 1998
SUBJECT: Variance Request
OWNER: Delton and Evelyn Renspe - 3003 Bluff Lane
CASE NUMBER: 98-19
HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5r
LOCATION: 3003 Bluff Lane
ZONING: Residential District R-1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to recognize existing conditions for the
replacement of a deck. The variance requests are listed below.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Side yard 0' 10' 10'
Front Yard - Bartlett 12' 30' 18'
The property is located at 3003 Bluffs Lane on the comer of Bluffs Lane and Bartlett Blvd. The lot
is a conforming 10,763 sf lot in a R-1 district which requires 10,000 sf of lot area. The property has
two existing nonconforming setbacks. The existing deck is located 0 feet from the south side yard
lot line. A 10 feet setback is required. Also, the house is located 12 feet from Bartlett Blvd which
is a front yard requiring a 30 feet setback.
The applicant is proposing to remove the existing 10 feet by 20 feet deck and replace it to the same
dimensions. Also, a 6 feet walkway would extend from the existing deck along the south side of the
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
Renspe Variance Request
May 11, 1998
house with steps wrapping around the west side of the home. The rear yard setback would be reduced
from 43 feet to 39 feet which is conforming.
The house is a split level with a walkout lower level on the south facing side. The existing deck is
on the upper level also on the south side. The deck appears to have been built with the house in 1974.
During this time there appears to have been few improvements if any of the structural aspects of the
deck. The deck is showing some signs of decay but is not present an immediate safety issue.
Directly south of the property is a vacant undeveloped parcel identified as Outlot "A" on the plat
map. This is a City park site that was dedicated during the platting of the development. There are
currently no plans for the development of the park however, play structures or other tot lot type
equipment could be accommodated if addressed in future planning.
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):
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.
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
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 owners request to remove and reconstruct the deck appears to be a reasonable request given the
circumstances of the case. The existing deck was built with the home and has not undergone any
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (.612) 338-6838
]3.3
Renspe Variance Request
May 11, 1998
modifications to expand its size or intrusion into the neighborhood. The design of the new deck
would meet current code requirements which have additional preventative safety measures the
existing deck does not have. Another circumstance with the case is the city park property will in all
likelihood, remain as public open space. This greatly reduces the possibility that a structure could
be built on the property causing concerns about sideyard setbacks.
In keeping with the policy of affording property owners with a reasonably sized deck. The case
appears to meet criteria that would suggest the request is appropriate. The other issue the Planning
Commission should address is the walkway which was not part of the original construction. The
walkway is 6 feet wide as shown on the building plans, less than the 10 feet width of the deck. It
would provide an additional exit from the house not currently afforded.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the request by recognizing the variances as requested.
123 North Thixd Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax(612) 338-6838
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
,5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
APR 2 1991]
Application Fee: $100.00
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date: ~~~, ~~~ , 'gq ~)~~ Case No. (~ '~/9
City Council Date: ,
Distribution: ~-~1-~ ~ City Planner z~-~l-~ DNR
c~_l-I _C~ City Engineer ~-I-~ .c)8 Other
q,-i ~/-qc~ Public Works
SUBJECT Address ~.~CC~ ~-~ ~o(~ .'-~ LO~_.~
PROPERTY Lot
LEGAL Block
DESC. Subdivision
ZONING DISTRICT R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3
PROPERTY Name ~ I-TO N ~ ~'V' E/..y/~ ~ ~'/k/S' ,,0 ~
'J[" OWNER Address ~ o o '~ "~ t- U ~ F LAt~ E
Phone (H) y2,,F--- ~' / Z:~ ~ (W) (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.
2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
G' I ~)~q (Rev./Ill4~97)
Variance Application, P. 2
o
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No K). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe
reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard: ( N S~ ) ~ ft. ~L3 ft. ~ ft.
Side Yard: (~~) ~ ft. _' O'" '_~ ft. ~ ft.
S~dc Yar~ (~ E~) ~ o ft, ~ ~ ' ft. ~ ft.
Rear Yard: ( N S E~) ~ ft. ~ ft. -~ ft.
Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
: (NSEW) ft, ft. ft.
Street Frontage: ~ ~ ft. ~ ft. ~ ft.
Lot Size: jO~b ~q ft lbq~,f'~q 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:
(Rev. 11/14/97) JJ~5~'
Variance Application, P, 3
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 l~r. 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?
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 /~~
Date J~~"'
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
LOTAREA lO 7~:~.1"/"~ SQ. FT. X 30%
LOT AREA /L)'~.'~,)' .~,.~-~SQ. FT. X 40%
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15%
= (for all lots) .............. J ~ ~,~2~ .~/~' J
= (for Lots of Record*) ....... J ~ ;_~0,~. ~92~, J
= (for detached buildings only) . . J J
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1 225,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
x :
X =
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
X =
X =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
J ,¢' x ? =
X =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X =
X =
X --
TOTAL DECK ..........................
X =
X =
TOTAL OTHER .........................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
(/UNDER~/OVER (indicate difference) ..... . .z~..}.-./~.O. ..................
municipal
pianning
envi¢onmental
land surveying
exploration
'A For._
Oen,~te~ Ir~n Monumen,! O
er ifics e
T~F_. ~LUFFS
~E, NNEP~N CC~UNT'y, ~W~INNE~OTA
o. box j. osseo, minnesola55369 'i612) 425-2181
We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation al a survey al the botJndaries of the land described above
arid of IhS location of all buihfings there,on, and ell vmibl, encroachments, il any, from or on said land, that this survey was
prepared by me or unctor my d~..:~:':.t supe~vis;?n a-d that I am a duty Regislered Land Surveyor uflder lt~e laws of the Stale
of Minnesoln. As surveyed by ml th,s .'.. 44. ._ (1ay of . ..C~.t[c;e".~Le...~ ....... ,. lC~ .1'4..
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620
The applicant is: ___owner ~contractor __tenant ..................
LEGAL Lot ~ Block [ Plat #
DESCRIPTION Subdivision TH ~ ~;~L_L~-~" % PID~
O~ER Name~ ~ ~~ ~~ ,,,
CONTRACTOR Company Name
Contact Person ~
ARCHITECT Name ~ ~ ~ ~ ....
&/0R Address
ENGINEER Phone (HI (WI (MI
CHANGE OF FROM:
USE TO:
DESCRIBE WORK: ~---~t.~ C--~__-
VALUATION ~:~ ~fd.~Oo I VALUE APPROVED I
OF WORK BY INSPECTOR
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIREO FOR ELECTRICAL. PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. PERMITS SECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CON~'RUCTION
AUTHORIZED ~S NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 11~ DAYS. OR IF CONSTRUCTION O1~ WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A ~ER!OD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS
COMMENCED.
TIME UMIT$ ONBUILDING COMPLETION. PJ.L WORK TO BEPERFORMED PURSUANT TO A BUILDING PERMIT OSTAtNED FORNEW CONSTRUCTION, REPAIRS, REMO~JELING, AND ALTERATIONS
TO rile EX1 ~IOF,~'UP ANT BtJILDIN[3 OR STRUCTURE fN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN ONE (11 YEAR FROM THE DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE. THE PERSON
OBTAINING THE PERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETION. A VIOLATION ~: THIS ORDINANCE IS A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE, THE CITY
COUNCIL MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION UPON WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE PERMITTEI~, ESTABLISHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT
CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PERMITTEE PREVENTED COMPLETION OF THE WORK FOR WHICH THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED. TH~ EXTENSION SHALL BE REQUESTED
NOT LE$S THAN THIRTY (3OI BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD.
I HERESY CERTIFv THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AN0 CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING
TNIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITh WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT, THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUMETO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE
~ROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTtON~MANCE Gl= CONSTRUCTION,
PRINT APPLICANT'S NAME
APPLI~NT'S SIGNAl;URN
(OFFICE usE ONLY) 'SPECIAL CONDITIONS & COMMENTS:
DATE
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP / OlV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD · CQPIED APPROVED
ZONING
SL~G SIZE ISO PTI # STORIES FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED? CITY ENG;NEER
#~h~$ YES / ~ ~ ~BLICWO~KS
,: '.::
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SIIEET
SURVEY ON FILE'?~---~
! NO
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
_Ri , B1 7,500/0
R1A 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80
R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60
R2 14,000/80
R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100
EXISTING LOT SIZE:
LOT WIDTH:
LOT DEPTIh
I.O'F OF RECORD? YES / NO
YARD [ DIRECTI(,N I REQUIRED [EXISTING/PROPOSED VARIANCE
IIOUSE .........
FRONT
FRONT
S E W
N S EQ
SIDE N S E W
SIDE N S E W
REAR N S E W
LAKE N S E W
TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30'
GARAGE, SliED ..... DETACIIED BUll. DINGS
FRONT
N S E W
FRONT N S E W
SIDE N S E W 4'OR6'
SIDE N S E W 4'OR6'
REAR N S E W 4'
LAKE N S E W
TOP OF BLUFF
IIARDCOVER
50'
10' OR 30'
CONFORMING? YES / NO
30% OR 40%
? II,Y: I DATED:
This Zoning Information Sheet only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlincd in the Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, conlacl the City of Mound
Planning Department at 472-0600.
8(lB) g
o
OU'~ LO'[ A
(
· L
May 26, 1998
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE SETBACK VARIANCE IN ORDER
TO ALLOW FOR A NONCONFORMING DECK,
AT 4366 WILSHIRE BLVD,
LOT 82, PHELPS ISLAND PARK IsT DIVISION
PID 19-117-23 13 0015
P & Z CASE #98-20
WHEREAS, the applicant, Orville Fenstad, has applied for a lakeside setback
variance to allow for a nonconforming deck at 4366 Wilshire BIvd, 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, front yard setback of 30 feet, and side yard
setbacks are 6 feet for lot of record and Lakeside setback of 50 feet, and;
WHEREAS, the existing deck is 44 feet from Ordinary High Water, and;
WHEREAS, the proposed deck will b rdinary High Water
requiring a~ foot Lakeside setback variance, and;[~ I
!
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:
1. The City does hereby grant a foot lakeside setback variance as recommended by
the Planning Commission,
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.
May 26, 1998
Fenstad- 4366 Wi/shire BIv#
Page 2
o
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following improvements:
Construct a nonconforming lakeside deck.
,,
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the
Hennepin County Property Information System:
LOT 82 INCLUDING ADJACENT PRIVATE STREET, PHELPS ISLAND PARK lS~ DIVISION,
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA,
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
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1998
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, MAY 11, 1998
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Jerry
Clapsaddle, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff Present:
Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist.
Public Present: Mark Mulvey, Hugh Bishop, Matt Phillippi, Delton Renspe, Curtis Berg, Michael
Meyer, Alan Nations, Steve Mayer, Vic Sacco, Quirin & Maria Matthys, Craig Goodrich
Meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 27, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
There were no corrections to the Minutes from April 27, 1998
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the
April 27, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 8-0.
Chair Michael explained how the Public Hearing would be conducted.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 98-20: VARIANCE, LAKESIDE & SIDE YARD SETBACK, HARDCOVER,
ORVAL FENSTAD, 4366 WILSHIRE BLVD, LOT 82, PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1sT
DIVISION, PID # 19-117-23 13 0015
Jon Sutherland presented the case.
The applicant, Orval Fensted, is seeking a variance to allow reconstruction of the
existing nonconforming deck on the lakeside. The required setback to the lake is 50
feet, the existing/proposed setback as shown on the applicants site plan is 44 feet
resulting in a variance request of 6 feet. Also noted on the applicants application and
site plan is the existing nonconforming setback of 5.5 feet on the west side of the
dwelling. A 6 foot setback is required resulting in the recognition of a 0.5 foot variance.
All other setbacks are conforming, impervious surface is 418 square feet over the
maximum for 40% for lots of record.
Comments:
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1998
The deck replacement is minimal in size and it enhances the use and function of the
home with minimal impact, there are adjacent properties with similar setbacks to the
lake and recent variances to a deck that are comparable to this case.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the variance request as it enhances the use and function of the property
with a minimal encroachment.
DISCUSSION:
Hanus questioned the side yard setback and noted the required setback is 4 feet for the
garage. The side yard variance is not required to the garage.
MOTION by Burma, seconded by Weiland to recommend staff
recommendation including the fact that a variance is not required for
the garage. Motion carried 8-0.
This case will go to the City Council on May 26, 1998.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
CASE NO.
LOCATION:
ZONING:
Planning Commission Agenda of 5-11-98
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
Variance Request
Orval Fenstad
98-20
4366 Wilshire Blvd
R-lA Single Family Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to allow reconstruction of the
existing nonconforming deck on the lakeside. The required setback to the lake is 50
feet, the existing/proposed setback as shown on the applicants site plan is 44 feet
resulting in a variance request of 6 feet. Also noted on the applicants application and
site plan is the existing nonconforming setback of 5.5 feet on the west side of the
dwelling. A 6 foot setback is required resulting in the recognition of a 0.5 foot
variance. All other setbacks are conforming, impervious surface is 418 square feet
over the maximum for 40% for lots of record.
Comments:
The deck replacement is minimal in size and it enhances the use and function of the
home with minimal impact, there are adjacent properties with similar setbacks to the
lake and recent variances to a deck that are comparable to this case.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the variance request as it enhances the use and function of the property
with a minimal encroachment.
printed on recycled paper
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
'6,1998 C.C~
Application Fee: $100.00
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date: ~0~ I/, /~'~ CaseNo. q~__)-C'~0
City Council Date: ~k~ ('~ \~ ~,~[/?,
Distribution: ~d ~-~ City Planner ~-I~- ~ DER
~3_~ City Engineer ~-I~-~ Other
q Jl~-q~ Public Works '
SUBJECT Address ~' m/'~/~ ~/~ ~/~-~~l,
PROPERTY Lot ~
LEGAL Block
,~sc. ~u~,v,sion~~ i~~ ~.~ /~'~,~
PID~ /~ -~/~- ~ ~ ~ ~/,~ Plat
PROPERTY Name ~~/
OWNER Address ~~ /~7~ f~ ~/~ ~M~-~
Phone (H)~-- ~/ (W) (M)
THAN Phone (H) M~)-~ ¢¢ (w)F~-~d [ F
OWNER)
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
for this property? ( ) yes, ~,/(no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action
procedure
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.):
Variance Application, P. 2
o
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No J~'. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe
reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lo(area, etc.):
SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existing)
Yard: ( N~/E,[,W )
Front
Side Yard: ( N S~)
Side Yard: ( N S ~
Rear Yard: ( N S E W )
Lakeside: ~ E W )
: ('~S EW)
Street Frontage:
Lot Size:
Hardcover:
ft. ,'~) ,~ ft. '-- ft.
ft. -I ~,~ ft. ft.
ft. ~. Lo' ft. ,/--1t ' ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
sq ft ~sq ft ~ sq ft
sq ft ~O sq ft sq ~
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes ~, No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
/
o
Which unique physical characteristics of the s,ubject property prevent its reasonable use for any of
the uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography
( ) too small ( ) drainage
( ) too shallow ( ) shape
xisting situation
ther: specify
(Rev. 11/1419 7)
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).7 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 whic'. )~ou request a variance peculiar only to the property
described in this petition? Yes (), 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
AppIicant's Signatu r~~_ ~ _,~;~ .~/'/~'f ~~_.¢~
Date
Date
"' o' RECFIVF
""" ' 7La[..' ~lnll~,lnr~,~ ....
/-] o r..~ e.
~0
~ ~CE~ED
~ R- 6 1998
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-062(
SiTE Subject Address
Business Name/Tennant
The applicant is: __owner __contractor __tenant
DESCRIPTION Subdi~sion /' PID~
Phone (HI ~ (WI ' '/ (MI
CONT~CTOR Company Name ~C~r~ ffe~~/'~ .cerise,
ARCHITECT Name ~ ~ ~ r ~/~ V~
&/OR Address
ENGINEER Phone (HI (WI (MI
CHANGE OF FROM:
USE TO:
DESCRIBE WORK:
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING.
PERMITS BECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED W1THIN lB0 DAYS. OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED
FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TiME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED.
TIM E LIMITS ON BUILDING COMPLETION. ALL WORK TO SE PERFORM ED PURSUANT TO A BUILDING PERMIT OBTAIN ED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, REPAIRS. REMODELING, AND ALTERATIONS
rO TH~ P.X¥~RIOR$ OF ANY I~UILDtNG OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN ONE (1) YEAR FROM THE DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE. THE PERSON
OBTAINING THE PERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHALL 8E RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETION. A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE IS A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE. THE CiTY
C0UNClL MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION UPON ~/RITTEN REQUEST OF THE PERMITTEE, ESTABLISHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTiON OF THE CITY COUNClL THAT
CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PERMIT-FEE PREVENTED COMPLETION OF THE WORK FOR WHICH THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED. THE EXTENSION SHALL BE REQUESTED
NOT LESS THAN THIRTY {30I BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD.
FHE_RE_.BY_ CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT, A~OV SONS OF LAWS AND ORDNANCES GOVERN NG
HIS TYPE OF WORK WILL SE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HERE N OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT P.~ESU~IE TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE
PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTJ~N. /
(gFFI~E pSE ONL~ SPE~,IAL.CONDITIONS & COMM~NTS:~~% ~~ ~~~ ~
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP / DIV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD · COPIED APPROVED
I ZONING
SLDG SIZE (SD FTJ //STORIES FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED? CITY ENGINEER
#um~s YES / NO PUBLIC WORKS
VED BY / DATE;t /~ _ PLANS CHECKED BY:' APPROVED BY t DATE: · J ASSESSING
July 25, 1995
RESOLUTION #95-69 c~~Lo/L~/~
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE SETBACK VARIANCE {~ ~/~IL/~~
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK AT ~
4:360 WILSHIRE BLVD., LOT;81, ~ ~ r~ ~
PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST DIVISION ./- ~,~
PID #19-117-23 13 0014 ~ [,
P&Z CASE #95-25 ~ ~
WHEREAS, the owner, Robert Mitchell, has applied for a 13 foot lakeside
setback variance to replace and slightly enlarge a lakeside deck, 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;
WHEREAS, all other setbacks and impervious surface coverage are conforming.
WHEREAS, the adjacent property, 4350 Wilshire Blvd., received a 32.7 foot
lakeside variance in 1 992 to allow a 2-1/2 story addition, and;
WHEREAS, this site is narrow and somewhat limited due to its shape, and;
WHEREAS, the proposed 8' x 24' deck is minimally sized and is a reasonable
use of the property, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
unanimously recommended approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a 13 foot lakeside setback variance to allow
construction of a deck.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section
350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express
understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to
all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by
the authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the
property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of a 8' x 24' deck on the lakeside of the
dwelling.
Resolution 95-69
July 25, 1995
This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lot 81, Phelps Island Park First Division, PID #19-117-23 13 0014.
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.
Se
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 Jensen and
seconded by Coun¢ilmember Ahrens.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen and Polston. Jessen was absent and excused.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: None
(A~:est: Cit~ IV~ana~ger
Mayor
BIo~ck
Lc~k¢
'929.~ Conf'~u~
CERTIFICA'I'E OF SURYEY FOR
ROBERT AND JAN MITCHELL
OF LOT 81, PHELPS ISLAND PARK FIRST DIVISION
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
~_.×istin9
o: denotes iron marker set
e: denotes iron marker found
Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum.
This survey intends to show'S'he boundaries of the above des-
cribed property, the location of an existing house, and the
location of ail existing "hardcover" thereon. It does not
purport to show any other improvements or encroachments.
November 24, 1992
RESOLUTION ~92-153
RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIOUS SETBACK VARIANCES
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION AND A DECK
AND APPROVING A FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR
4350 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, LOTS 78 AND 79,
THE FIRST RE-ARRANGEMENT OF PHELP'S ISLAND PARK 1ST DIVISION
PID #19-117-23 13 0010, P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-068
WHEREAS, the appligant, Mike Gilbertson, has requested
approval of a front yard setback variance and a lake side setback
variance to construct a 2-1/2 story garage/bedroom addition and a
various decks, and;
WHEREAS, the applicant also requested a fence height
variance to allow a 5 foot high privacy fence in the front yard,
and;
WHEREAS, the garage/bedroom addition was originally
proposed to be setback 2.7' from the front property line, however,
the applicant revised his plan requesting a 7.5' setback from the
front property line which will be 22.5' from the curb of Wilshire
Blvd., and;
WHEREAS, the decks are proposed to be 17.3' at the
closest point from the ordinary high water elevation, the house is
currently setback 20', and;
WHEREAS, The subject property is located within the R-1
Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City
Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front
yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard
setback, and;
WHEREAS, there is an
building which lies within the
Blvd./County Road 125), and;
existing fence and accessory
public right-of-way (Wilshire
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request
and unanimously recommended approval upon the condition that the
shed and fence be moved off the public right-of-way by July 30,
1993.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby approve a the following variances to
allow construction of a garage addition, a deck and a fence at
4350 Wilshire Blvd. as shown on the revised plan received
November 9, 1992:
1. A 22.5' front yard setback variance.
November 24, 1992
2 o
A fence height variance of 1' and 2' as needed to allow
a 5' high fence along the front property and within 50'
of the shoreline.
A 32.7' lake side setback variance measured to the
proposed deck.
Recognition of the existing nonconforming 9.4' side yard
setback resulting in a .6' variance.
These variances are approved upon the condition that the shed
and fence be moved off the public right-of-way (Wilshire
Boulevard) by May 1, 1993.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below,
pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code
with the clear and express understanding that the use remains
as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the
provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404.
It is determined that the 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 2-1/2 story garage/bedroom
addition, decks at the lakeshore side of the house
both at the lower level and upper level as shown on
the plans, and a 5' high privacy fence along the
front property line.
This variance is granted for the following legally described
property: Lots 78 and 79, The First Re-arrangement of Phelp's
Island Park 1st Division.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or
the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to
Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property
may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing
this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for
such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has
been filed with the city Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Smith
and seconded by Councilmember Jessen.
The following voted in the affirmative:
Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith.
275
' I
0
~ 0
I
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SIIEET
ADDRESS: ....
SLIRVEY ON FILE? YES la(NO
LOT OF RECORD?
NO
YARD
Bt d
J DIRECTION J
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
R1 10,000/60 Bi 7,500/0
R1A ~ B2 20,000/80
R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60
R2 14,000/80
R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100
REQUIRED
EXISTING/PROPOSED
EXISTING LOT SIZE:
LOT WIDIH:
LOT DEPTII:
VARIANCE
ilOUSE .........
FRONF
FRONT
N S E W
N S E W
SIDE N S E W
SIDE N S E W
REAR N S E W
LAKE N S E W
TOP OF BLUFF
10' OR 30'
GARAGE, SIIEI) ..... DETACIIED 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'OR6' '
REAR N S E W 4'
LAKE N S E W 50'
'I'OP OF BLUFF IO' OR 30'
IIARDCOVER 30% OR 40%
CONFORMING7 YES
,No
IBY: (~
'1 his Zoning Information Shcel only summarizes a portion of die requirements outlined in file Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound
Planning l)epaltment at 472-0600.
' I
;
O~
O
· ~ (D
0 _
Ct',
May 26, 1998
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD VARIANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR
A NONCONFORMING ADDITION TO THE EXISTING NONCONFORMING DETACHED
GARAGE,
AT 4754 HAMPTON ROAD,
LOTS 28-29-30, BLOCK 10, PEMBROKE,
PID 19-117-23 33 0106
P & Z CASE #98-21
WHEREAS, the applicant, Allan Wigand, has applied for a front yard variance
to allow for a nonconforming addition to the existing nonconforming detached garage at
4754 Hampton Road, 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, front yard setback of 20 feet, and side yard
setbacks are 6 feet for lot of record, and;
WHEREAS, the property is a corner lot with frontages on both Hampton Road
and Drury Lane where a 20 foot setback is required, and;
WHEREAS, the existing garage has a 2.67 foot setback to Drury Lane, the
proposed addition maintains the same setback and results in a variance of 17.33 feet, and;
WHEREAS, Resolution #92-94 recognized the front yard setback to build a
conforming addition to the dwelling, and;
WHEREAS, all other setbacks and impervious surface is conforming, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff, and;
Wigand ~ 4754 /-/ampton Road
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a 17.33 foot front yard variance as recommended by
the Planning Commission.
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 improvements:
Construct a nonconforming addition to the existing nonconforming detached garage.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the
Hennepin County Property Information System:
LOTS 28, 29, AND 30, BLOCK 10, PEMBROKE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
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
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1998
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, MAY 11, 1998
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, On/Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Jerry
Clapsaddle, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff Present:
Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist.
Public Present: Mark Mulvey, Hugh Bishop, Matt Phillippi, Delton Renspe, Curtis Berg, Michael
Meyer, Alan Nations, Steve Mayer, Vic Sacco, Quirin & Maria Matthys, Craig Goodrich
Meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 27, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
There were no corrections to the Minutes from April 27, 1998
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the
April 27, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 8-0.
Chair Michael explained how the Public Hearing would be conducted.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 98-21: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, ALLAN C WIGAND, 4754
HAMPTON RD, LOT 28-29-30, BLOCK 10, PEMBROKE, PID # 19-117-23 33 0106
Jon Sutherland presented the case.
The applicant, Allan Wigand, is seeking a variance to allow construction of a
nonconforming addition to the existing nonconforming detached garage. This property
is a corner lot in the R-lA zone with frontage on both Hampton Road and Drury lane
where a 20 foot setback is required. The garage presently has a 2.67 foot setback to
Drury Lane the proposed addition maintains the same setback and results in a variance
of 17.33 feet. This situation was recognized by resolution #92-94 that allowed a
conforming addition to the dwelling. All other setbacks and impervious surface is
conforming.
Comments:
In the previous case the variance was issued based on practical difficulty since the
location of the garage was established prior to the adoption of the ordinance. The
existing garage is in a suitable condition. Although the garage and addition are situated
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1998
very close to the street they have a minimal impact when considering the topography
and steep slope of the adjacent Drury Lane. Alternate locations for a garage are
available on the site but not without a negative impact to the existing layout of the
buildings, and not without a substantial modification to the retaining walls along
Hampton Road. There is an obvious convenience that the proposed location has that
allows easy access from the garage to the dwelling. The option of an attached garage
was explored and this option was not favored due to a problem with the roof that would
intersect with the existing windows.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the variance request as it enhances the use and function of the property
with a finding that the conditions as stated above create enough practical difficulty that
a variance is warranted in this case.
DISCUSSION:
There was no discussion on this case.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Mueller to recommend staff
recommendation. Motion carried 8-0.
This will go to City Council on May 26, 1998
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
CASE NO.
LOCATION:
ZONING:
Planning Commission Agenda of 5-11-98
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
Variance Request
Allen C. Wigand
98-21
47§4 Hampton Road
R-lA Single Family Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a nonconforming
addition to the existing nonconforming detached garage. This property is a corner lot in the
R-lA zone with frontage on both Hampton Road and Drury lane where a 20 foot setback is
required. The garage presently has a 2.67 foot setback to Drury Lane the proposed addition
maintains the same setback and results in a variance of 17.33 feet. This situation was
recognized by resolution //92-94 that allowed a conforming addition to the dwelling. All
other setbacks and impervious surface is conforming.
Comments:
In the previous case the variance was issued based on practical difficulty since the location
of the garage was established prior to the adoption of the ordinance. The existing garage is
in a suitable condition. Although the garage and addition are situated very close to the street
they have a minimal impact when considering the topography and steep slope of the adjacent
Drury Lane. Alternate locations for a garage are available on the site but not without a
negative impact to the existing layout of the buildings, and not without a substantial
modification to the retaining walls along Hampton Road. There is an obvious convenience
that the proposed location has that allows easy access from the garage to the dwelling. The
option of an attached garage was explored and this option was not favored due to a problem
with the roof that would intersect with the existing windows.
prJnted on recycled paper
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the variance request as it enhances the use and function of the property
with a finding that the conditions as stated above create enough practical difficulty that a
variance is warranted in this case,
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
C~TY OF MOUND
Application Fee: $100.00
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
~-II-q~ City Planner
~-/7. ~)~ City Engineer
z~- 17-q ~ Public Works
Other
DNR
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTY
OWNER
Address
Lot ~,
Block J ~
Subdivision
ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-1A
Phone (H) .zJ-"'7~-W-~ (W)
B-1 B-2
Plat #
B-3
APPLICANT
(IF OTHER
THAN
OWNER)
Name ~/~_ =$ /Z)'JOou~
Address
Phone (H) (W) (M)
1. 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 p'rovide copies of resolutions.
2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
(Rev. lll14197)
Variance Application, P. 2
Case No. q¢ zI
reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No lX:). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe
REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard: (N S E(~ ~,~C) ft. ,~f(~" ft. ~q f~" ft.
~ ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Side Yard: ~E 'W) ,~. ft. (~ ft. ft.
Rear Yard: ( N S(~/) { ft. ~Ci, '~ ft. ft.
Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
~t;.~J¢ i~,~ ( N~E W ) ,:~ L') ft. ~ ft. ft.
Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft.
Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq ft
Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft
SETBACKS:
REQUIRED
4. 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 ( ) soil
( ) too small ( ) drainage (~ existing situation
( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
(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 j~. 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?
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 Signatur~
Applicant's Signatu re~J~
Date
164
1992
RESOLUTION ~92-94
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING A NONCONFORMING
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A
CONFORMING ADDITION ONTO A QONFORMIN~ PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE
AT LOTS 28, 29, & 30, BLOCK 10, PEMBROKEt PID #19-117-23 33 0106
4754 HAMPTON ROAD
P&Z CASE NUMBER 92-039
WHEREAS, The applicant, Allan Wigand, has requested a
17.33' front yard setback variance to recognize an existing
nonconforming detached garage with a 2.67' setback to Drury Lane to
allow construction of a conforming addition onto a conforming
principal dwelling, and;
WHEREAS, There is a storage building which encroaches .8
feet onto the neighboring property. Mr. Wigand indicated that the
storage building will be removed during construction.
WHEREAS, The subject property is located within the R-2
Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City
Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 foot front yard
setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks for "Lots of record," and a 15
foot rear yard setback, and;
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request
and unanimously recommended approval, with conditions, upon the
following Finding of Fact: The Planning Commission finds that the
recognition of the existing nonconforming garage variance for the
purpose of constructing a conforming addition to the home is
consistent with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Code of Ordinances.
The existing garage setback variance is considered a practical
difficulty under the Zoning Code since the location of the garage
was established prior to ordinance adoption.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby approve a variance recognizing the
existing nonconforming detached garage with a 2.67' front yard
setback to allow construction of a conforming addition to the
dwelling at 4754 Hampton Road, subject to the following
conditions:
ae
The existing nonconforming storage building shall be
removed or relocated to a conforming location on the lot
prior to final inspection of the addition.
bo
Approval of the recognition of the garage variance for
the purpose of expanding the existing home shall not
164
165
July 28, 1992
confer upon the applicant, the right to improve or expand
the existing garage without further issuance of a
variance from the city of Mound.
The city Council authorizes the alterations set forth below,
pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code
with the clear and express understanding that the use remains
as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the
provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404.
It is determined that the 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 14.5' x 28'
addition with a basement, and
three season porch.
one story bedroom
a 10.5' x 38.16'
This variance is granted for the following legally described
property:
Lots 28, 29, and 30, Block 10, PEMBROKE.
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.
e
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing
this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for
such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has
been filed with the City Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and
seconded by Councilmember
The following voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith.
The following voted in the negat]
none.
Attest: city Clerk
165
CITY OF MOUND
· HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
ADDRESS:
I[OwNER'S NAME: .~Z~ ~
LOT AREA 15, ',~ ?~ :~ SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) ..............
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) .......
LOT AREA j2, ~ ~ '~ 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,
ETC.
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
ol~eni~g between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
37.'7 x ~7.5 = i~fB~/
X =
TOTAL HOUSE
x ,~7,5 =
X =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
57 x
£,5 x
4; x
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC
X
TOTAL DECK
TOTAL OTHER
'Ei i¥
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ...............................
PREPARED DATE
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620
Business Name/Tennant ~'~-~ aN C. '~d,L~'~,~, cJ
The applicant is: ~owner __contractor __tenant
~GAL Lot ~ 3, ~. ~ C Block J C Plat
DESCRIPTION Subdivision ~e~b~Ke PIP* I~-il7-~3
Phone(H) '~'~6' (W) ~7~-~;~ (M)
CONT~CTOR Company Name ~ r~[0e~'~ License g
Contact Person
Address
Phone (H) (W) (M)
ARCHITECT Name ~& ~l*r ~0
ENGINEER Phone (H) (W) (MI
CHANGE OF FROM:
USE TO:
VALUATION
OF WORK: ~., ~ I ~
VALUE APPROVED:
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING.
PERMITS BECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED W1THIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED
FOR A -~F. RIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED.
TiME LIMITS ON BUILDING COMPLETION. ALL WORK TO BE PERFORMED PURSUANT TO A BUILDING PERMIT OBTAIN ED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, REPAIRS, REMODELING, AND ALTERATIONS
TO THE EXTERIORS OF ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE COMPLETED WITHIN ONE (1! YEAR FROM 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 WRIT'TEN REQUEST OF THE PERMITTER. ESTABLISHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT
CIRCtJMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PERMITTER PREVENTED COMPLETION OF THEWORK FOR WHICH THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED. THE EXTENSION SHALL BE REQUESTED
NOT LESS THAN THIRTY (30~ BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO SE 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 OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCT:ON.
APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE
DATE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!!!~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CO_NDITIONS & COrv!MENTS:
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP / DIV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD [ COPIED APPROVED
ZONING
BLDG SIZE (SQ FTI //STORIES FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED? I CITY ENGINEER
# UNrTS YES I NO B PUBLIC WORKS
ED BY/DATE= PLANS CHECKED BY: APPRovED S¥ ]DATE; :::.
· . : ASSESSING
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SIIEET
LOT OF RECORD? YES / NO
YA RI) ] DIRECTION
I
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
R1
R1A
EXISTING LOT SIZE:
LOT WIDTH:
LOT DEPTH:
10,000/60 B1 7,500/0
6,000/40 B2 20,000/60
~,ooo/40) B3 ~0,000/60
14,000/66
SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100
IEXISTING/PROPOSED
REQUIREI) VARIANCE
IIOUSE .........
FRONT
N S E W~)
N~,~E W
SIDE N~ S E W
SIDE N S E W
REAR N S/'E)W
LAKE N S E W
TOP OF BLUFF I0' OB 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 IH.UFF 10' OR 30'
IIARDCOVER 30% OR 40%
This Zoning Information Sheel only sununarizcs a portion of the requirements outlined in the Cily of Mound Zouing Ordinance. For furfller information, conlact Iht City of Mound
Planning Department at 472-0600
bL
May 26, 1995
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD AND LAKESIDE SETBACK VARIANCES IN
ORDER TO ALLOW FOR A CONFORMING DECK,
AT 5641 BARTLETT BLVD,
P/SECTION 23
PID 23-117-24 14 0003
P & Z CASE #98-24
WHEREAS, the applicant, Thomas Reese, has applied for a side yard and
lakeside setback variances to allow for a conforming deck at 5641 Bartlett Bird, 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, front yard setback of 30 feet, and side yard
setbacks are 6 feet for lot of record, and;
WHEREAS, an existing detached garage is setback 3.2 feet requiring a .8
foot side yard setback variance, and;
WHEREAS, the existing Lakeside Boathouse setback is 12 feet requiring a
38 foot Lakeside variance, and;
WHEREAS, this property has received variances previously for the same
setback requirements, Resolution 92-146 and 91-79 and;
WHEREAS, the home has an existing deck and the applicant wishes to add a
second deck which would be conforming, and;
WHEREAS, the exis. t[ng Boathouse i~ Ln sound condition, and; ~
\ ~ ~d)~,v,, ,v--.-.~ WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the reques~ and
recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff with alterations, and;
May 2~ 1998
Reese- 5641Ba~Ntt Blvd
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a .8 foot side yard and 38 foot lakeside setback
variance~,~,s recommended, b~ the_~Planning Commission.
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 improvements:
Construct a conforming lakeside deck.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the
Hennepin County Property Information System:
ALL THAT PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1 , SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 117, RANGE 24, IN
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA, WHICH LIES SOUTH OF CHAPMAN PLACE, NOW COUNTY
ROAD NO. 7, AND EAST OF LAKE AVENUE, AS SAID AVENUES ARE SHOWN ON THE PLAT OF
MOUND BAY PARK, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTH LINE OF
CHAPMAN PLACE, NOW COUNTY ROAD NO. 7, WHICH POINT IS DISTANT 300 FEET
EASTERLY, MEASURED ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE FROM THE EAST LINE OF LAKE AVENUE;
THENCE SOUTH 9 DEGREES 42' EAST 420.5 FEET TO AN IRON MONUMENT IN LAKE SHORE;
THEN NORTH 65 DEGREES 10' EAST ALONG SAID SHORE 89.5 FEET TO AN IRON MONUMENT;
THENCE NORTH 6 DEGREES 10' WEST 389.5 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
CHAPMAN PLACE, NOW COUNTY ROAD NO. 7, 105 FEET EAST OF POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE SAID SOUTH LINE OF CHAPMAN PLACE, NOW COUNTY ROAD
NO. 7, 105 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF ON FILE OR
OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS IN AND FOR SAID HENNEPIN COUNTY.
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.
iqo8
May 26, 1998
Reese - 5641 Bartlett Bird
Page 3
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by
Councilmember.
The following Coun¢ilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Attest: City Clerk
Mayor
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1998
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, MAY 11, 1998
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orr Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Jerry
Clapsaddle, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff Present:
Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist.
Public Present: Mark Mulvey, Hugh Bishop, Matt Phillippi, Delton Renspe, Curtis Berg, Michael
Meyer, Alan Nations, Steve Mayer, Vic Sacco, Quirin & Maria Matthys, Craig Goodrich
Meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 27, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
There were no corrections to the Minutes from April 27, 1998
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the
April 27, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 8-0.
Chair Michael explained how the Public Hearing would be conducted.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 98-24: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK, THOMAS REESE, 5641
BARTLETT BLVD, PI SECTION 23, PID # 23-117-24 14 0003
Loren Gordon presented the case.
The applicant, Thomas Reese, has submitted a request to add a conforming lakeside
deck. The associated variance request is listed below.
Garage - Side Yard
Boathouse - lakeside
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
3.2' 4' O.8'
12' 50' 38'
The property is located at 5641 Bartlett Blvd just east of its intersection with Commerce
Blvd. The lot is 39,000 sf in area, conforming to the 10,000 sf R-1 standard. Current
improvements to the property are a one-story house walk out house, three detached
garages, and a boathouse.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1998
The property has received a previous variance in 1992 for a deck, recognizing the
detached garage setback. That deck is a lakeside deck located along the southeast
side of the house. The proposed deck would also be located on the lakeside of the
house, but not connected to the existing deck. As proposed, the deck dimensions are
10 feet by 12 feet, similar to the existing. The existing lakeside setback would be well
over 100 feet as proposed.
The site plan shows the existing boathouse location. It is approximately 12 feet from the
lake and 7 feet from the side yard line. The floor elevation is not indicated, but is
probably well above the OHWL. The boathouse is constructed on concrete and is good
condition. It is used for storage of recreational equipment. The top of the boathouse
serves as a patio in the summer months and storage area for the dock in the winter
months.
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):
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.
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.
The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the
hardship.
Fo
The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this
Ordinance or to property in the same zone.
The existing nonconforming detached garage is used for storage of cars and is in good
condition. The previous deck request recognized the nonconformity and the conditions
since that time have not changed. It would appear that the variance request for the
deck would be reasonable considering the previous case history.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1998
The existing boathouse is a nonconforming use in/ts present lakeside location, similar
to other boathouses in Mound. Although its status will eventually require its removal,
the applicant states it is used on a daily basis for storage of equipment and as a patio.
This dual function of storage and patio could be accommodated in a conforming
manner. Lock boxes and lakeside patios could be approved for the property to afford
the owners the same function of the boathouse. The Planning Commission and Council
have worked to remove boathouses when conditions are present that would cause a
safety issue. Most of these conditions occur with deteriorating boathouses where the
structural integrity is below acceptable building code levels. In recent boathouse cases,
the Planning Commission has recommended they be removed. If the Commission feels
there is reason to remove the boathouse, the findings should be stated as such.
Conversely, if there is reason to allow it to remain, finding should reflect this decision.
In keeping with Staff's position on the nonconforming boathouse issue, it is
recommended the structure be removed or moved to a conforming location. If the
Planning Commission agrees with Staff, the resolution should reflect an appropriate
time period for its removal and assurances in the form of an easement or bond.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend
Council approve the request as stated with the following condition.
The existing nonconforming boathouse be removed or moved to a conforming
location.
DISCUSS/ON:
Hanus commented there are 4 accessory buildings
Mueller commented that he feels that the boat house should remain.
MOTION by Burma, seconded by Hasse to recommend staff
recommendation. Motion failed 2-6. In favor: Burma & Weiland. Opposed:
Michael, Mueller, Voss, Hasse, Glister, Hanus.
Finding of Facts: The condition of the boathouse is in sound condition and it is
somewhat hidden in the hillside.
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Voss to recommend staff
recommendation with the condition that the existing nonconforming
boathouse remain. Motion carried 7-1. Burma Opposed.
This case will go to the City Council on May 26, 1998
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: May 11, 1998
SUBJECT: Variance Request
OWNER: Thomas Reese - 5641 Bartlett Blvd.
CASE NUMBER: 98-24
HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5u
LOCATION: 5641 Bartlett Blvd.
ZONING: Residential District R-1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to add a conforming lakeside deck. The
associated variance request is listed below.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Garage - Side Yard 3.2' 4' 0.8'
Boathouse - lakeside 12' 50' 38'
The property is located at 5641 Bartlett Blvd just east of its intersection with Commerce Blvd. The
lot is 39,000 sf in area, conforming to the 10,000 sf R-1 standard. Current improvements to the
property are a one-story house walk out house, three detached garages, and a boathouse.
The property has received a previous variance in 1992 for a deck, recognizing the detached garage
setback. That deck is a lakeside deck located along the southeast side of the house. The proposed
deck would also be located on the lakeside of the house, but not connected to the existing deck. As
proposed, the deck dimensions are 10 feet by 12 feet, similar to the existing. The existing lakeside
setback would be well over 100 feet as proposed.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
Reese Variance Request
May 11, 1998
The site plan shows the existing boathouse location. It is approximately 12 feet from the lake and
7 feet from the side yard line. The floor elevation is not indicated, but is probably well above the
OHWL. The boathouse is constructed on concrete and is good condition. It is used for storage of
recreational equipment. The top of the boathouse serves as a patio in the summer months and storage
area for the dock in the winter months.
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.
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 existing nonconforming detached garage is used for storage of cars and is in good condition. The
previous deck request recognized the nonconformity and the conditions since that time have not
changed. It would appear that the variance request for the deck would be reasonable considering the
previous case history.
The existing boathouse is a nonconforming use in its present lakeside location, similar to other
boathouses in Mound. Although its status will eventually require its removal, the applicant states it
is used on a daily basis for storage of equipment and as a patio. This dual function of storage and
patio could be accommodated in a conforming manner. Lock boxes and lakeside patios could be
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (.612) 338-6838
p.$
Reese Variance Request
May 11, 1998
approved for the property to afford the owners the same function of the boathouse. The Planning
Commission and Council have worked to remove boathouses when conditions are present that would
cause a safety issue. Most of these conditions occur with deteriorating boathouses where the
structural integrity is below acceptable building code levels. In recent boathouse cases, the Planning
Commission has recommended they be removed. If the Commission feels there is reason to remove
the boathouse, the findings should be stated as such. Conversely, if there is reason to allow it to
remain, finding should reflect this decision.
In keeping with Staff's position on the nonconforming boathouse issue, it is recommended the
structure be removed or moved to a conforming location. If the Planning Commission agrees with
Staff, the resolution should reflect an appropriate time period for its removal and assurances in the
form of an easement or bond.
RECOMMENDATION: Staffrecommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve
the request as stated with the following condition.
1. The existing nonconforming boathouse be removed or moved to a conforming location.
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 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
!
Application Fee: $100.00
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date= ~O~ \/, /qq5
Distribution: q-,~"l - £~ ~ City Planner 'L~-~-/- cl~ DNR
4 -D-I- ~ ~, City Engineer ~4-,JN-~;~ Other
q-,:~-I-~ ~ Public Works
SUBJECT Address .%-¢(~z~z ! ¢-i~- Cci-'-L~-'T/ ~/..-r' ~
PROPERTY Lot
LEGAL Block
o sc. ,u ivis,o
ZON~N~ ~STR~CT (R-~2 R-~A R-~ R-~ B-~ B-~ B-3
PROPERTY Name '-'~/14 ~i ~,/J. ~::¢:---a m-
Phone (H) Z~.~I ' ~3 ~- {W)
APPLICANI Name
(IF OTHER Address
THAN Phone tH) (W) tM)
OWNER)
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
Has an application ever been ma~de for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? (I,~es, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
(Rev. 11/14/9 7)
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 (H~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describ~
reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS: 'JREQUIRED
REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard:
Side Yard:
Side Yard:
Rear Yard:
Lakeside:
NSEW)
NSEW)
NSEW)
NSEW)
NSEW)
: NSEW)
Street Frontage:
Lot Size:
Hardcover:
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
sq ft .sq ft .sq ft
sq ft sq ft sq ft
4. Does the present use .oft, be property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes (), No (/,)C. If no, specify each non-conforming use:
5. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of
the uses permitted in that zoning district?
Please
( ) too narrow ( ) topography
( ) too small ( ) drainage
( ) too shallow ( ) shape
( ~xisting situation
( ) other: specify
(Rev. 11 I1419 7)
Variance Application, P. 3
Was the hardship described above created by the acti°n of anyone having property interests in the
land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (i~"~f yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
Yes ( ), No (~f/. If yes, explain:
o
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property
described in this petition? Yes (), No (b)~'. 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
Date
Applicant's Signature
Date
(Rev. ll/14/97) \~"~ ~ C~
257
November 10, 1992
RESOLUTION ~92-~46
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE
AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DECK AT
5641 BARTLETT BLVD. v PART OF ~OVERIQ(ENT LOT 1,
SECTION 23v PID ~23-117-24 14 0003v
P&Z CASE NO. 92-065
WHEREASv the applicant, Thomas W. Reese has applied for
a variance to recognize existing nonconforming setbacks of a
detached accessory structure with is setback .8 feet from the side
property line to allow construction of a conforming deck, and;
WHEREAS, the City Council approved Resolution #91-79 on
June 11, 1991 recognizing the same nonconforming accessory
structure to allow construction of an additional conforming
detached structure, and;
WHEREAS, the existing nonconforming structure encloses
utilities, is well maintained, and in good condition, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1
Single Family Residential Zoning District which according to City
Code requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, a 30 foot front
yard setback, and a 4 foot side yard setback for accessory
structure in the front yard, and;
and;
WHBRBA~, All other setbacks and lot area are conforming,
WHEREAS, The Planning Commission has reviewed the request
and unanimously recommended approval·
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby recognize the existing .nonconforming
setback to the accessory structure resulting in a 3.2 foot
side yard setback variance to allow construction of a
conforming 6' x 12' deck at 5641 Bartlett Blvd.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below,
pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) of the Zoning Code
with the clear and express understanding that the use remains
as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the
provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404.
257
November 10, 1992
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 6' x 12' deck.
This variance is granted for the following legally described
property:
Ail that part of Government Lot 1, Section 23, township
117, Range 24, in Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies
South of Chapman Place, now County Road No. 7, and East
of Lake Avenue, as said Avenues are shown on the plat of
Mound Bay Park, described as follows: Beginning at a
point in the South line of Chapman Place, now County Road
No. 7, which point is distant 300 feet Easterly, measured
along said South line from the East line of Lake Avenue;
thence South 9 degrees 42' East 420.5 feet to an iron
monument in Lake Shore; then North 65 degrees 10' East
along said shore 89.5 feet to an iron monument; thence
North 6 degrees 10' West 389.5 feet to a point on the
South line of said Chapman Place, now County Road No. 7,
105 feet East of point of beginning; thence Westerly
along the said South line of Chapman Place, now County
Road No. 7, 105 feet to the place of beginning, according
to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of
the Register of Deeds in and for said Hennepin County.
e
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or
the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to
Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this property
may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing
this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for
such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has
been filed with the City Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Smith
and seconded by Councilmember Jessen.
The following voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith.
258
259
The following voted in the negative:
none.
Attest: City Clerk
Nov-~ber 10, 1992
1 z19,, -
142
June 11, 1991
RESOLUTION %91-79
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING CO)[MISSION TO
RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF
A CONFORMING DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
FOR 5641 BARTLETT BLVD. v PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT lv
SECTION 23~ PID %23-117-24 14 0003v
P&S CASE NO. 91-016
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to
recognize existing nonconforming setbacks of a detached accessory
structure which is setback .8 feet from the side property line to
allow construction of an additional conforming detached accessory
structure at 5641 Bartlett Blvd., Part of Government Lot 1, Sec-
tion 23, PID #23-117-24 14 0003, and;
WHEREAS, the existing nonconforming structure encloses
utilities, is well maintained and in good condition, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1
Single Family Zoning District which according to the City Code
requires a lot area of 10,000 square feet, and a side yard set-
back of 4 feet for accessory structures in the front yard, and;
WHEREAS, the lot area is conforming and all other set-
backs to existing structures are conforming, and;
WHEREAS, Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) provides that
alterations may be made to a building containing a lawful, non-
conforming residential property when the alterations will improve
the livability thereof, but the alteration may not increase the
number of units, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the
request and does recommend approval due to practical difficulty.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby recognize the existing nonconforming
setback resulting in a 3.2 foot side yard setback variance
to allow construction of a 20' x 36' detached garage for the
property located Part of Government Lot 1, Section 23, PID
#23-117-24 14 0003.
143
Se
143
June 11, 1991
The City Council authorizes the violations and authorizes
the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404,
Subdivision (8) with the clear and express understanding
that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject
to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404.
It is determined that the livability of the residential
property will be improved by the authorization of the fol-
lowing alterations to a nonconforming use of the property to
afford the owner reasonable use of his land.
a. To construct a conforming detached accessory structure
20 by 36 feet to be used as a garage.
This variance is granted for the following legally described
property:
All that part of Government Lot 1, Section 23, township
177, Range 24, in Hennepin County, Minnesota, which lies
South of Chapman Place, now County Road No. 7, and East
of Lake Avenue, as said Avenues are shown on the plat of
Mound Bay Park, described as follows: Beginning at a
point in the South line of Chapman Place, now County
Road No. 7, which point is distant 300 feet Easterly,
measured along said South line from the East line of
Lake Avenue; thence South 9 degrees 42' East 420.5 feet
to an iron monument in Lake Shore; then North 65 degrees
10' East along said shore 89.5 feet to an iron monument;
thence North 6 degrees 10' West 389.5 feet to a point on
the South line of said Chapman Place, now County road
No. 7, 105 feet East of point of beginning; thence
Westerly along the said South line of Chapman Place, now
County Road No. 7, 105 feet to the place of beginning,
according to the plat thereof on file or of record in
the office of the Register of Deeds in and for said Hen-
nepin County.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or
the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Min-
nesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision (1). This
shall be considered a restriction on how this property may
be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing
this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs
for such recording. The building permit shall not be issued
until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk.
144
143
June 11, 1991
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
Jensen and seconded by Councilmember Ahrens.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Jensen, Johnson and Smith.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
none.
Councilmember Jessen was
Attest: City' Clerk
t and excuse~/~
TOM & AMY REESE
5641 Bartlett Boulevard
Mound, Minnesota 55364
tel: 612-472-4435
To: Mound Planning Commission
From: Tom and Amy Reese
Subject:
May 9, 1998
Recognition of an existing non-conforming equipment house
We are sorry that we cannot be present for the May 1 l meeting when
this topic is scheduled for discussion. We have been called out of town on a
business matter. We will attempt to get back by late Monday night. If the
agenda is a lengthy one, we might make it. If not, here are the facts of the
case as we see them.
The hardship is that we have stored our dock sections on the roof of the
equipment house for 32 years. The shore is steep but stabilized. What little
near level land there is, is more than taken up with the storage of the metal
sections of the dock and the boat lift. There is no other place to store the
wooden sections. This alone satisfies every circumstance listed (A thru F) of
the planner's report on conditions for appproval.
We are a very active, lake using, extended family. In the warmer
seasons, the equipment house is accessed on a daily basis for the storage of all
manner of recreational boating equipment, fishing gear, and dock Installation
and repair materials, which may or may not all be accommodated in a lock box.
To replace the equipment house with an appropriate lock box would
require that the floor of the present house be maintained, as there is no other
area available for the new box. Since the present house is set deeply into the
bank, three walls and the floor of the house would have to be retained to shore
up the ban.k, and the new box added in the same location.
If the intent of the new ordinance is to make lakeside scructures as
unobtrusive as possible, the suggested revision will only make the view from
the lake worse. At present the old 8' by 8' equipment house, is set deeply into
the bank and during the growing season, is nearly covered by sumac and
lilacs so as to be scarcely visible. It is a useful structure in good repair, that
fulfills its purpose for us. We would like to keep it.
/~o/m & Amy l~se
J
RECI::~\/FP
APR 2 '~ 1998
MOUND PLANI'~Nu ~ iNS"
MO
RECEIVED
~PR 2 '~ 1998
~ID PLANNING & INSP.
~428 OM
.,,y' ' ' DATE'~
CHKD. BY DATE
"t
SHEET NO.
JOB NO.
OF
RECEIVED
APR 2 '~ 1998
MOUND PLANI~JH~U & iNS,
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET
SURVEY ON FILE? YES ~
.47
Ill}USE .........
FRONT
FRONT
SIDE
SIDE
REAR
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF
GARAGE, SIIED .....
FRONT
~)S E W
N S E W
N S E~W
N S E'W~
N S E W
FRONT
SIDE
SIDE
REAR
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF
HARDCOVER
O~ER DETACHED
E W
N S E W
N SG)W
N S E W
N~% E W
( 30'~%~R 40% I
/ ? -- I By: ~-~"
ZONING DIST~CT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
R! 10,000~60) B1 7,900/0
~zA o,'O00"~ B2 20,000/80
R2 6,000/40 B$ 10,000/60
R2 14,000/80
R3 SEE ORD. ~! 30,000/100
REQUIRED
EXISTING/PROPOSED
i0'
10' OR 3O'
.+
BUILDINGS
4' OR 6'
4' OR 6'
4~
10' OR 30'
I!/70~
LOT WIDTH:
lCD
I~OT DEPTH:
This
Z.ning
Information
Sheet
n portion of the r quirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further informution,
.PInnnlng D~pm'tment nt 472-0~00.
contact the City of Mound
I
4O
May 2~ 1998
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD AND LOT FRONTAGE VARIANCES IN ORDER
TO ALLOW FOR MODIFICATIONS TO A CONFORMING DECK,
AT 1748 BAYWOOD SHORES DRIVE,
LOT 5, BLOCK 6, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES,
PID 13-117-24 24 0016
P & Z CASE #98-25
WHEREAS, the applicants, Michael & Kathy Meyer, has applied for a side
yard and lot frontage variances to allow modifications of a deck at 1748 Baywood Shores
Drive, 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, front yard setback of 30 feet, and side yard
setbacks are 6 feet for lot of record, and;
WHEREAS, the existing lot frontage is 44 feet in width requiring a 16 foot
lot frontage variance, and;
WHEREAS, an existing shed is located in the side yard with a setback of 0
feet requiring a 6 foot side yard variance, and;
WHEREAS, the existing shed is located within a drainage and utility
easement, currently there are no utilities within the easement, and;
WHEREAS, the proposed deck would modify the existing deck and would be
conforming, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff with alterations, and;
May 26, 1998
Meyer - 1748 Baywood Shores Drive
Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a 16 foot lot frontage setback as recommended by the
Planning Commission with conditions:
A. The shed be removed or moved to a conforming location.
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 improvements:
Modify the existing deck.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the
Hennepin County Property Information System:
LOT 5, BLOCK 6, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
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
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1998
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, MAY 11, 1998
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Jerry
Clapsaddle, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff Present:
Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist.
Public Present: Mark Mulvey, Hugh Bishop, Matt Phillippi, Delton Renspe, Curtis Berg, Michael
Meyer, Alan Nations, Steve Mayer, Vic Sacco, Quirin & Maria Matthys, Craig Goodrich
Meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael
MINUTES -APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 27, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
There were no corrections to the Minutes from April 27, 1998
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the
April 27, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 8-0.
Chair Michael explained how the Public Hearing would be conducted.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE #98-25: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK, MICHAEL & KATHY MEYER,
1748 BAYVVOOD SHORES DRIVE, LOT 5, BLOCK 6, REPLAT OF HARRISON
SHORES, PID # 13-117-24 24 0016
Loren Gordon presented the case.
The applicants, Michael & Kathy Meyer, have submitted a request to add a conforming
lakeside deck. The associated variance request is listed below.
Existinq/Proposed Required Variance
Side Yard - shed 0' 6' 6'
Lot Width 44' 60' 16'
The property is located at 1748 Baywood Shores Dr. The lot is 21,530 sf in area,
conforming to the 10,000 sf R-1 standard. Existing noncomformities on the property
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1998
include a shed which is located on the side yard line and lot frontage. Current
improvements to the property are a one-story walk out home and a shed.
The existing shed is also located on a drainage and utility easement that runs along the
north and east 5 feet of the property. At present there are no utilities located within the
easement. Drainage across the site is from north to south with some fall to the east as
well.
The proposed deck would modify the existing deck. Plans for the deck have not been
finalized however, the applicant indicated a 3 or 4 season porch that would be
integrated to match the design of the house. Construction is still hoped for this year.
The property also has a nonconforming lot width along Baywood Shores Drive.
Developable lots in the R-1 district are required to have 60 feet of lot width at the 30
feet building setback line. The lot was platted with the replat of Harrison Shores in order
to maximize the number of lakeside homes.
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):
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.
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.
Co
That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
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.
Eo
The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the
hardship.
The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this
Ordinance or to property in the same zone.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1998
The applicant states that the shed was built in its location over twenty years ago. The
easements on the property preceded the shed construction. It does not appear that the
shed presents a large impediment to drainage along the lot lines. Much of the drainage
probably drains southeast across the property to the railroad tie retaining wall and onto
the adjacent property. The City Engineer has reviewed the case and did not uncover
any other issues on the site.
In most cases where there is a structure place over an easement, it is an owner beware
issue. At any point in time access to the easement may be needed. Although there are
no utilities within the easement currently, the potential is always present that conditions
could change. The burden is placed on the property owner to move the shed if access
to the easement is needed. The entity accessing the easement would not be
responsible for relocation or damage to the structure. A hold harmless agreement would
protect the City from any liabilities knowing the condition exists.
There is no clear answer to the issue. It is probably good planning practice to remove
the shed from the easement and meet code requirements. A conscious effort is usually
made to correct these situations if it is deemed necessary. On the other hand, there are
other situations such as this in Mound that have been allowed to continue. Again, the
owners take the responsibility for any future actions that may occur.
In making a decision on the shed the Planning Commission should consider the
following issues:
The impact of the shed's location on the adjacent parcel.
If there are drainage issues the applicant or adjacent property owners attribute to
the shed.
Future utilities that could be located within the easement.
Other circumstances that could constitute a hardship.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve
conforming modifications to the deck and the lot frontage variance as requested. The
Commission should discuss the alternatives presented for the shed and make a
recommendation to Council with supportive information.
DISCUSSION:
Hanus made comments about the easement.
Suthedand commented that have an option to address the nonconformity in the
resolution stating that if the shed needs to be moved in the future for the easement
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1998
purposes that it could be removed.
Weiland commented that the shed is in poor condition.
Michael commented on putting a time limit on the shed.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Voss to recommend staff
recommendation with the condition that the shed be removed or
moved to a conforming location. Motion carried 5-3. Mueller, Hanus,
and Michael opposed.
This case will go to the City Council on May 26, 1998
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: May 11, 1998
SUBJECT: Variance Request
OWNER: Michael and Kathy Meyer-1748 Baywood Shores Dr.
CASE NUMBER: 98-25
HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5v
LOCATION: 1748 Baywood Shores Dr.
ZONING: Residential District R-1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to add a conforming lakeside deck. The
associated variance request is listed below.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Side Yard - shed 0' 6' 6'
Lot Width 44' 60' 16'
The property is located at 1748 Baywood Shores Dr. The lot is 21,530 sfin area, conforming to the
10,000 sfR-1 standard. Existing noncomformities on the property include a shed which is located
on the side yard line and lot frontage. Current improvements to the property are a one-story walk out
home and a shed.
The existing shed is also located on a drainage and utility easement that runs along the north and east
5 feet of the property. At present there are no utilities located within the easement. Drainage across
the site is from north to south with some fall to the east as well.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
Meyer Variance Request
May Il, 1998
The proposed deck would modify the existing deck. Plans for the deck have not been finalized
however, the applicant indicated a 3 or 4 season porch that would be integrated to match the design
of the house. Construction is still hoped for this year.
The property also has a nonconforming lot width along Baywood Shores Drive. Developable lots
in the R-1 district are required to have 60 feet of lot width at the 30 feet building setback line. The
lot was platted with the replat of Harrison Shores in order to maximize the number of lakeside
homes.
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):
Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result fi.om 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 fi.om the actions of the applicant.
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 applicant states that the shed was built in its location over twenty years ago. The easements on
the property preceded the shed construction. It does not appear that the shed presents a large
impediment to drainage along the lot lines. Much of the drainage probably drains southeast across
the property to the railroad tie retaining wall and onto the adjacent property. The City Engineer has
reviewed the case and did not uncover any other issues on the site.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
D. 3
Meyer Variance Request
May I I, 1998
In most cases where there is a structure place over an easement, it is an owner beware issue. At any
point in time access to the easement may be needed. Although there are no utilities within the
easement currently, the potential is always present that conditions could change. The burden is
placed on the property owner to move the shed if access to the easement is needed. The entity
accessing the easement would not be responsible for relocation or damage to the structure. A hold
harmless agreement would protect the City from any liabilities knowing the condition exists.
There is no clear answer to the issue. It is probably good planning practice to remove the shed from
the easement and meet code requirements. A conscious effort is usually made to correct these
situations if it is deemed necessary. On the other hand, there are other situations such as this in
Mound that have been allowed to continue. Again, the owners take the responsibility for any future
actions that may occur.
In making a decision on the shed the Planning Commission should consider the following issues:
2.
3.
4.
The impact of the shed's location on the adjacent parcel.
If there are drainage issues the applicant or adjacent property owners attribute to the shed.
Future utilities that could be located within the easement.
· Other circumstances that could constitute a hardship.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve conforming
modifications to the deck and the lot frontage variance as requested. The Commission should discuss
the alternatives presented for the shed and make a recommendation to Council with supportive
information.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 5540
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
Application Fee: --$100.00
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date: ~~ / /, ~3~) Case No.q~)-
City Council Date: ~('~ ~
'Distribution: d~..~l~.(;[ ~ City Planner L~.i:~cf ~ O~.~.,~-
~-~/:~ City Engineer q-.~li'-~ ~ Other
~ -..~1'~ .qv~ Public Works
SUBJECT ~(Address J"Tz~/~' ~.~Av'~.~O~ ~/lf)/'/-~,
!
PROPERTY ' Lot ,,~'
LEGAL Block 6
DESC. Subdivision ~L~E f)~4~ ~)/: /z~/~/~c~-3
~ PID# / ~'-//7-~/ ~ ~//~ Plat #
ZONING DISTRICT ~ R-lA R-2 R-3 8-1 a-2 B-3
.PROPERTY Name ~ lc~;l~zE/_. /4/x~D j~,~,'r/l~/ /~/~5,)//
OWNER Address /Tqm'
!
Phone (H) /7/ ~-.,2--..~--~q~' (W) ~ 7 ~- ~,,.~ / (~ (U)
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.
~' 2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
(Rev. 11/I 4/9 7)
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 nc), specify each non-conforming use (describe
reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.).'
SETBACKS:
REQUIRED
REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard:
Side Yard:
Side Yard:
Rear Yard:
Lakeside:
NSEW)
NSEW)
N. S(~/V )
NSEW)
NSEW)
: NSEW)
Street Frontage:
Lot Size:
Hardcover:
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. l~) ft. ~O ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
sq ft sq ft sq ft
sq ft sq ft sq ft
..
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes t~, 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:
(Rev. ll/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 ha, r.d~hip created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
Yes (), No ~j(~. If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property
described in this petition? Yes~l~), 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.
Date
~000 SHOR£S O~,,~x,
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR
MICHAEL MEYER
LOT .5, BLOCK 6, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
ub
-~-°-° A;{CiIUI( 5CiK~'l'll"l
NAMm:
ADDRESS:
.'.:.
EXISTING LOT AREA
EXISTING LOT AREJ~
HOUSE:
CITY OF MOUND
HARDC'OVER CALCULATIONS
LENGTH
GQ FT X 20%
· ' WIDTH
X = Z072_
x =
X = 3 ~ .5"
TOTAL HOUSE ****** **** ******** .
GARAGE: ..
X
DRIVEWAY:
· . X. ......... = ....
DECK: '" X ' '" "
.,' = 260
(if imperv, tous :.:.' X '..'
surface under ~. .. :
deck = 100~[) -" TOTAL DECK *********
.. . ,. '~.,.~ ,
TOTAL DECK @ 50%'*******~"******'*
OTHER: X : 17q
.TOTAL OTHER ***'************.****
'--' MEETS LOT COVERAGE------_.----..._------RI:::OlJlR~-MI~NT8 * * * ' * * * ' * * * * * *
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SItEET
SURVEY ON FILE?/~-'~ NO
LOT OF RECORI)? ~ NO
YARD ] DIREC'FION [ REQUIRED
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
"~i i~o,ooo/6o~ Bi v,soo/o
RiA e,ooo/4o B2 2o,ooo/8o
R: e,ooo/4o s~ io,ooo/~o
R2 14,000/80
R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100
EXISTING/PROPOSED
EX1STING LOT SIZE: ..~
LOT WIDIH:
LOT DEPTH:
VARIANCE
IlOUSE .........
FRONT
N S E W
FRONT N S E W
N S E W ~
SIDE
SIDE N S E W
REAR N S E W
LAKE N S E W
TOP OF BLUFF
GARAG E~SIIED .) .... DETACltED BUll.DINGS
FRONT N S E W
FRONF N S E W
10' OR 30'
SIDE N S E W
SIDE N S E W
REAR N S E W 4'
LAKE N S E W 50'
TOP OF IILUFF 10' OR 30'
IIARDCOVER 30% OR 40%
CONFORMING7 YES /~
4,
4' OR 6'
This Zoning lnlb~mation Sheet only summarizcs a portion of the ~cquircmeots outlined in fl~e City of Mouod Zoning ()rdinance. For furUmr information, contact the City of Mound
Planning Depmtment at 472-0600.
TL01
(69)
I
(56)
~t o
REED & POND, LI'D.
ATTORNFY$ AT LAW'
5424 SHORELINE DRIVE
P.O. BOX 9
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-0009
ROGER W. REED
I~eal Property Iow Specialist'
PAUL L. POND
Cerlified Civil Tdal Specialist'
· Certified by the Minne$olo State Bor Associotion
PHONE 612/472-9972
1-8(X)-876-7080 (MN Only)
FAX 612/472-2254
HUGH J. D. BISHOP
SARA K. IRVINE
i egol A.~istonl
May 21, 1998
To the Honorable Members of the
City Council of the City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Re: Application of Matthew Phillipi, 4519 Manchester Road, Mound
The above application comes for your consideration at the Council Meeting on May 26, 1998.
There are four alternative p~-oposals for your review. Each requests a measure that would con-
tribute fo the overall mission of the City.
Mr. Phillipi's roof needs replacement. When he re-roofs, he would like to eliminate a safety
hazard his properly has always had. At least once someone has taken a nasty fall down the
icy steps that adjoin the dwelling. This danger can be eliminated by raising and extending the
roofline slightly so that the soffit will cover the steps below. At the minimum, please accept this
portion of the application.
The City in its Mission Statement indicates a goal that ifs housing stock be safe, attractive, and
flourishing. This goal can be furthered even more if Mr. Phillipi's request for enclosing the
existing deck area is permitted. (But the safety issue of allowing the existing stair to be protect-
ed from the build-up of ice is the paramount issue.) Both alternatives would make this housing
unit less dysfunctional and more attractive. Covedng the existing outside stair makes it safer.
Neither plan would change the number of dwelling units (one).
When it is not feasible to make an existing properly comply with every aspect of the City's
comprehensive plan and building code (in this case the setback requirement), a permit can
still be given for selective improvements if they contribute to a safe, attractive, flourishing
community. At the meeting of the Planning Commission on May 11, the Chairman said he had
no problem with allowing some of the improvements Mr. Phillipi is willing to make. Unfor-
tunately, the rest of the commission did not favor the proposal.
We now look fo you. Mr. Phillipi cannot move his house. In 1991 the City gave him permission
to replace the foundation without moving the structure. This improved the City's housing stock
without greatly altering the use. Since then he has also replaced all of the windows. This did
the same thing. Now he would like to improve it still more, again without changing its overall
use. The requested changes include safety issues. Please grant the request.
Cordially yours,
REED & POND, LTD.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1998
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, MAY 11, 1998
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Jerry
Clapsaddle, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff Present:
Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist.
Public Present: Mark Mulvey, Hugh Bishop, Matt Phillippi, Delton Renspe, Curtis Berg, Michael
Meyer, Alan Nations, Steve Mayer, Vic Sacco, Quirin & Maria Matthys, Craig Goodrich
Meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 27, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
There were no corrections to the Minutes from April 27, 1998
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the
April 27, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 8-0.
Chair Michael explained how the Public Hearing would be conducted.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 98-12: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK,
REAR YARD SETBACK, MATT PHILIPPI, 4519 MANCHESTER ROAD, LOT 22 AND
PART OF LOTS 1,2,3, & 5, BLOCK 14, AVALON, PID # 19-117-23 31 0059
Jon Sutherland presented the case.
The applicant, Matt Philippi, is seeking approval to recognize of a number of variances
in order to construct one of the four options as noted in the attached illustrations. The
previous variance that was granted by resolution #91-135 and the history are attached.
The parcel contains two principal uses and the subject of the request is (the front
structure in the previous case) the building at 4519 Manchester Lane. The other home
(the rear structure) is identified in our address files as 4501 Tuxedo Blvd. The subject
dwelling is setback one foot from the front yard where a 30 foot setback is required, this
along with the other issues result in the recognition of the following variances:
1)
A 29 foot front yard setback variance to 4519 Manchester Road. The previous
resolution allowed the new foundation to be installed under this dwelling in its
present location.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1998
2) Two principal structures on one zoning lot. 4519 Manchester Road and 4501
Tuxedo Blvd.
3) A variance of approximately four feet to the required side yard setback of six feet
for lots of record for the rear dwelling noted as 4501 Tuxedo Blvd.
4)
The existing impervious surface coverage is 2,395+- square feet, the maximum
allowed without an approved drainage plan is 30% of the lot area which is
2,148+- square feet, and this results in a v. ariance request of 247+- square feet.
If the existing impervious surface was considered to be in conformance with the
40% that is allowable for lots of record with an approved drainage plan, the
parcel would be conforming as noted on the impervious surface calculation
sheet.
Comments and options for a recommendation:
Based on the comprehensive goals of our cities zoning regulations and
comprehensive plan, the front structure is a classic example of a structure that
should be removed. There is essentially no hardship identified by the applicant
or staff sufficient to allow the expansion as noted in any of the proposed options
and if the planning commission agrees with this viewpoint, a finding of lack of
hardship and a recommendation of denial should be made. It is not uncommon
for a dwelling to have a detached garage which is essentially the same as the
condition of the applicant.
/
B) The removal of the dwelling has not been accomplished to date (even with the
substantial nature of the previous variance case) and it is unlikely to happen in
the near future. The applicant or whoever is the occupant of the dwelling is
dealing with a very dysfunctional design, and if one of the options was
considered minimal enough that it does not essentially change the use,
character, or nonconformance it is possible a finding of practical difficulty could
be made. Allowing a minimal entryway or roof overhang improvement would be
an improvement to the function of the dwelling.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the,
history, comments, and options as stated above and after hearing any input of the
applicant, make a recommendation based on the consensus of the commission.
DISCUSSION:
From April 13, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting:
No discussion was made.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland to table this case until
further information is provided by the applicant, the applicant can be
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1998
present to address concerns, and to have a full Planning
Commission available to hear this case. Motion carried 5-0.
DISCUSSION from May 11, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting:
Hanus questioned the access to the house on the south on the lot. The applicant owns
the lots to the south of the parcel in question.
Mueller questioned the combination of the parcels. Sutherland stated that he discussed
it with the applicant. The lot to the south of the parcel in question is vacant. Mueller
commented that an easement should be made for the driveway to access the existing
house or have the lots combined.
The Applicant's Representative, Hugh Bishop, of Reed & Pond, Commerce Blvd;
presented the applicants view on the case. He commented that Phillippi fixed up the
home and replaced all the windows last year. Mr. Bishop referenced the City Mission
Statement and indicated Mr. Phillippi's proposal is consistant with the City's Mission
and a recommendation of approval can be made that would respond to their needs and
be safer for the community.
Mueller commented on the resolution 91-135 on the whereas statement" Section
23.404, Subdivision (8) provides that alterations may be made to a building containing a
lawful, nonconforming residential property when the alterations will improve the livability
thereof, but the alteration may not increase the number of units, and;" that by doing
this remodeling would be a direct conflict with this whereas statement.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Hasse to extend the Meeting past 11:00
p.m. to finish the agenda. Motion carried 8-0.
Bishop commented on the hazard of the stairs on the property in the wintertime with
ice.
Matt Phillippi, owner of property; would like to have the soffit extended to cover the
stairs.
Suthedand explained the diagram of the soffit area.
Weiland stated that gutters could also be used.
Mueller stated that the stairs could be moved over and out of the drip line.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss to recommend denial due to
no practical difficulty or hardship found. Motion carried 7-1. Michael
opposed.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1998
This case will go to the City Council on May 26, 1998
'75O
Mound Planning Commission - Minutes
April 13, 1998
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, APRIL 13, 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 Clapsaddle, Michael Mueller, Council Liaison Mark
Hanus.
Public Present: Craig Rose, Kyle Cosky, Ken Linquist, Jorj Ayaz, Bonnie Hannaman, Mark &
Velia Stone, Chuck Downey.
Meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 23, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
There were no corrections to the Minutes
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland to approve the Minutes of the March 23,
1998 Planning Commission Meeting, Motion carried 5-0.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 98-12: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK, REAR YARD
SETBACK, MATT PHILIPPI, 4519 MANCHESTER ROAD, LOT 22 AND PART OF LOTS
1,2,3, & 5, BLOCK 14, AVALON, PID # 19-117-23 31 0059
Jon Sutherland presented the case.
The applicant, Matt Philippi, is seeking approval to recognize of a number of variances in
order to construct one of the four options as noted in the attached illustrations. The
previous variance that was granted by resolution//91-135 and the history are attached.
The parcel contains two principal uses and the subject of the request is (the front structure
in the previous case) the building at 4519 Manchester Lane. The other home (the rear
structure) is identified in our address files as 4501 Tuxedo Blvd. The subject dwelling is
setback one foot from the front yard where a 30 foot setback is required, this along with
the other issues result in the recognition of the following variances:
1) A 29 foot front yard setback variance to 4519 Manchester Road. The previous
resolution allowed the new foundation to be installed under this dwelling in its present
location.
2) Two principal structures on one zoning lot. 4519 Manchester Road and 4501 Tuxedo
Blvd.
3) A variance of approximately four feet to the required side yard setback of six feet for
lots of record for the rear dwelling noted as 4501 Tuxedo Blvd.
Mound Planning Commission - Minutes
April 13, 1998
4) The existing impervious surface coverage is 2,395 +- square feet, the maximum
allowed without an approved drainage plan is 30% of the lot area which is 2,148+- square
feet, and this results in a variance request of 247 +- square feet. If the existing impervious
surface was considered to be in conformance with the 40% that is allowable for lots of
record with an approved drainage plan, the parcel would be conforming as noted on the
impervious surface calculation sheet.
Comments and options for a recommendation:
A) Based on the comprehensive goals of our cities zoning regulations and comprehensive
plan, the front structure is a classic example of a structure that should be removed.
There is essentially no hardship identified by the applicant or staff sufficient to allow the
expansion as noted in any of the proposed options and if the planning commission agrees
with this viewpoint, a finding of lack of hardship and a recommendation of denial should
be made. It is not uncommon for a dwelling to have a detached garage which is essentially
the same as the condition of the applicant.
B) The removal of the dwelling has not been accomplished to date (even with the
substantial nature of the previous variance case) and it is unlikely to happen in the near
future. The applicant or whoever is the occupant of the dwelling is dealing with a very
dysfunctional design, and if one of the options was considered minimal enough that it does
not essentially change the use, character, or nonconformance it is possible a finding of
practical difficulty could be made. Allowing a minimal entryway or roof overhang
improvement would be an improvement to the function of the dwelling.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the,
history, comments, and options as stated above and after hearing any input of the
applicant, make a recommendation based on the consensus of the commission.
DISCUSSION:
No discussion was made.
MOTION by Voss, seconded by Weiland to table this case until further
information is provided by the applicant, the applicant can be present to
address concerns, and to have a full Planning Commission available to hear
this case. Motion carried 5-0.
175
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
CASE NO.
LOCATION:
ZONING:
Planning Commission Agenda of April13, 1998
Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~_
Variance Request
Matt Phillippi
98-12
4519 Manchester
R-2 One and Two Family Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval to recognize of a number of variances in
order to construct one of the four options as noted in the attached illustrations. The
applicant's preferred option is #4. The previous variance that was granted by resolution #91-
1 35 and the history are attached. The parcel contains two principal uses and the subject of
the request is (the front structure in the previous case) the building at 4519 Manchester
Lane. The other home (the rear structure) is identified in our address files as 4501 Tuxedo
Blvd. The subject dwelling is is setback one foot from the front yard where a 30 foot
setback is required, this along with the other issues result in the recognition of the following
variances:
1) A 29 foot front yard setback variance to 4519 Manchester Road. The previous resolution
allowed the new foundation to be installed under this dwelling in its present location.
2) Two principal structures on one zoning lot. 4519 Manchester Road and 4501 Tuxedo
Blvd.
3) A variance of approximately four feet to the required side yard setback of six feet for lots
of record for the rear dwelling noted as 4501 Tuxedo Blvd.
pr~nted on recycled paper
Phillippi
4519 Manchester
98-12
page 2
4) The existing impervious surface coverage is 2,395 +- square feet, the maximum allowed
without an approved drainage plan is 30% of the lot area which is 2,148+- square feet, and
this results in a variance request of 247 +- square feet. If the existing impervious surface
was considered to be in conformance with the 40% that is allowable for lots of record with
an approved drainage plan, the parcel would be conforming as noted on the impervious
surface calculation sheet.
COMMENTS AND OPTIONS FOR A RECOMMENDATION.
A) Based on the comprehensive goals of our cities zoning regulations and comprehensive
plan, the front structure is a classic example of a structure that should be removed.
There is essentially no hardship identified by the applicant or staff sufficient to allow the
expansion as noted in any of the proposed options and if the planning commission agrees
with this viewpoint, a finding of lack of hardship and a recommendation of denial should be
made. It is not uncommon for a dwelling to have a detached garage which is essentially the
same as the condition of the applicant.
B) The removal of the dwelling has not been accomplished to date (even with the
substantial nature of the previous variance case) and it is unlikely to happen in the near
future. The applicant or whoever is the occupant of the dwelling is dealing with a very
dysfunctional design, and if one of the options was considered minimal enough that it does
not essentially change the use, character, or nonconformance it is possible a finding of
practical difficulty could be made. Allowing a minimal entryway or roof overhang
improvement would be an improvement to the function of the dwelling.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION- Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the,
history, comments, and options as stated above and after hearing any input of the applicant,
make a recommendation based on the consensus of the commission.
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
FEB 20 199B
A p pli(~:~i~ ~e~!OU~OO, O0
(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.
PROPERTY
OWNER
APPLICANT
(IF OTHER
THAN
OWNER)
Address ~t-~
Lot ~.'2., 'N' F)CLF~ 0'~'
¥
Block 14
Subdivision /~ ~_x'~
Iq' !!']' 2:5 Plat #
ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lA ~ B-1 B-2 B~3
Name I,q~Tt-I~-v,~ i2~ ~ u-~.-~ (~P' t , .~.~A*
Address 501~ "' 3ca ,'~. "~X~I,~'C~ ~ ~ ~~
Phone(H) ~ ~5 (W) ~~1~ (M)
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, ( ) 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.)'
i'-355 (Rev. ll/14/97)
Variance ApDlication, P. 2
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which Jt is located? Yes ( I, No ~ If no, specify each non-conforming use /describe
reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS:
Front Yard:
Side Yard:
Side Yard:
Rear Yard:
Lakeside:
:
REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existinc~)
,
) ~ ft. (o ft. . ft.
(NSEW) ,c~ ft. IQ ft. /VA ft.
(N SEW) I¢ ft. ~ '7 '/' ft. :~ ft.
( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Street Frontage: ft. ft. 0 ~r'~ i/f' ft.
Lot Size: ~sq ft ~J(~o o sq ft sq ft
Hardcover: ~ . sq ft I'~oo 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?
(4 too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
( 'd' too small (~ drainage ( ~' existing situation
("/'too shallow ('-)"shape ( ) other: specify
SETBACKS:
q 5 oi 7 c,-po
Front Yard:
Side Yard:
Side Yard:
Rear Yard:
Lakeside:
:
Street Frontage:
Lot Size:
Hardcover
REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existing)
(~S E W ) :Z~ 0 ft. <~ ~ 'y' ft. ~) ~1~/~ ft.
( U S E i~) (~ ft. I · ~ ft. 4/, ~ ft.
( N S E W ) ~ ft. -- ft. ~ ft.
( Ni~E W ) I~'-ft. I 0 ft. ,~ ft.
( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. <5 ~,~ ~' ft.
sqft sqft ' sqft
so ft s~ ft so ft
Variance Application, P. 3
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 _c~ated by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
Yes(),No ~. If(~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 ?
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 n~ices as may be rent, ired by law.
· ,¢//'
Owner's Signature //~f.'~, /~/~/~ '
Applicant's Signature
Date
i"-] 5'-~ (Rev. ll/14/97)
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME:
LOT AREA "7 I ~O ~'' SQ. FT. X 30%
LOT AREA ? i ~ O+- SQ. FT. X 4.0%
= (for all lots) ..............
= (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
' X --
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
- /~,,
X ~
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
/
/
\
\
Plat of Survey
for Foss Realty Co.
in bots l, 2, 3, 5, and 22, Block 14, Avalon
Hennepin County, Minnesota
I
Certificate of Survey:
I hereby certify that this
daries of (A) Lot 22, the North
Lots 1 and 2 lying WeSt of a line
19 feet East of the Northvest co~
and there ending, all in Block
West 40 feet thereof , and
point on the North line of
Lot 1, to the Southwest c¢
and of the location of
or on said land. ., ///
Scale: 1" = 30~ .-
Date : 6-4-71 ~ /
o : Iron marker)
0
true an correct representation of a z~n~vey of the boun-
of 5:~ the W~t 40 feet cJ' Lot 3, and that part of
a point, on tho North l~ne o;) said Let i distant
Lot l, to tho. Southwest eorn~.r of said Lot 2,
.on~ and (B) that part of Lot 3 lying East of the
of Dots i ~nd 2 lying East of a line dra~n from a
i distant 19 feet East of the Northwest corner of said
mid Lot 2, and there ending, all in P. lock 14, Avalon,
thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from
Gordon R. Coffin a~¥~. o~o~
Land Surveyor and Planner
Long Lake, Minnesota
24, 1991
RESOLUTION TO gRANT A VARIANCE TO RECONSTRUCT AN
EXISTING HAZARDOUS NONCONFORMINg STRUCTURE
FOR LOT 22 & PARTS OF LOTS Iv 2, 3, AND Sv BLOCK 14, AVALON
(4519 MA/qCHESTER ROAD)
P&Z CASE NO. 91-03S
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to
recognize an existing nonconforming front yard setback and a
nonconformance of two dwelling units consisting of two principal
uses on one parcel to allow major structural repairs including
replacement of the existing foundation which is in a hazardous
condition for the structure known as 4519 Manchester Road, and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-3
One and Two Family Zoning District which according to the City
Code requires for single family dwellings; a lot area of 6,000
square feet, a 30 foot front yard setback, a 15 foot rear yard
setback, and 6 foot side yard setbacks for "lots of record", and;
WHEREAB, parcels are limited to one principal use in
the R-3 zoning district per the Zoning Code, and;
WHEREAS, the subject parcel contains two principal uses
in the form of two existing single family dwellings known as 4519
Manchester Road and 4501 Tuxedo Blvd, and;
WHEREAS, the existing dwelling structure known as 4519
Manchester Road is setback I foot from the front property line
requiring recognition of a 29 foot front yard setback variance,
and;
WHEREAS, the existing dwelling structure known as 4501
Tuxedo Blvd. is setback 1.5 from the side property line and 10
feet from the rear property line requiring recognition of a 4.5
foot side yard setback variance and a 5 foot rear yard setback
variance, and;
WHEREAS, the existing lot area is approximately 7,160
square feet and all other setbacks are conforming, and;
WHEREAS, on May 20, 1991 a notice of condemnation was
posted on the dwelling known as 4519 Manchester Road according to
the violations listed in a letter dated April 30, 1991 to ~r.
Matthew Phillippi from the Building Official which includes
structural failure, unsafe conditions, a condemned plumbing
system, an unsafe electrical system, excavation and grading
hazards, and other unsafe conditions, and;
September 24, 1991
~BR~, Zoninq Code Section 23.404 ~o~-Conformimq Uses
(2) states "Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent restoring of a
structure to safe condition when said structure is declared
unsafe by the City, providing further that the necessary repairs
shall not constitute more than 50% of the fair market value of
such structure." and;
WHSREAS, an appraisal was submitted by the applicant
which was prepared by White Real Estate Appraisal Services, John
S. White, dated May 29, 1991. White's estimated market value
was submitted at $31,600. This value was clarified in a letter
from John S. White dated August 8, 1991 to exclude the value of
the land and appraised the value of the structure at $19,600,
and;
WHEREAS, there were discrepancies and questions in the
appraisal report received from John S. White dated May 29, 1991
and, therefore, a second appraisal was requested by the City
Council on July 23, 1991, and;
WHEREAS, an estimated cost of repairs was submitted by
the applicant and clarified by a letter from H. Kelsey Page of
Standke, Greene & Greenstein, Ltd. dated June 18, 1991 which
established the total cost of restoration at $7,860.76 as
required by the Building Officials letter dated April 30, 1991,
and;
WHEREAS, the estimated cost of repairs was further
clarified by a letter from H. Kelsey Page of Standke, Greene &
Greenstein, Ltd. dated September 5, 1991 which established the
total cost of restoration at $6,372.00 as required by the
Building Officials letter dated April 30, 1991, and;
WHEREAS, on July 23, 1991 the City Council directed
the Building Official to analyze the costs that have been
submitted by the applicant for the repairs to the building, and;
WHEREAS, the Building Official estimated the total
cost of restorations required by condemnation at $11,486 in his
memorandum to the Planning Commission dated August 12, 1991, and;
WHEREAS, the appraisal, as requested by the City
Council, was received from Howard Lawrence Appraisals Inc. dated
August 7, 1991. His market value of the property in an "as is"
condition including the impact of the condemnation order was
$25,100, and;
WHEREAS, the market value as submitted by Howard
Lawrence Appraisals Inc. dated August 7, 1991 was further
clarified by the City Hanager to include the value of the land at
$12,000, therefore, the market value of the structure only,
excluding the land, is $13,100, and;
September 24, 1991
WHEREAS, using the estimated cost of repairs as submitted by the
applicant per Kelsey Page's letter dated September 5, 1991 at
$6,372 and the market value as submitted by White Real Estate
Appraisal Services on August 8, 1991 at $19,600, the cost of
improvements is 32.5 percent of the value, and;
WHEREAS, using the estimated cost of repairs as
submitted by the Building Official in his memorandum dated August
8, 1991 at $11,486 and the market value as submitted by Howard
Lawrence Appraisals Inc. at $13,100, the cost of improvements is
87.7 percent of the value, and;
WHEREAS, using the estimated cost of repairs as
submitted by the applicant per Kelsey Page's letter dated
September 5, 1991 at $6,372 and the market value as submitted by
Howard Lawrence Appraisals Inc. at $13,100, the cost of
improvements is 48.6 percent of the value, and;
WHEREAS, using the estimated cost of repairs as
submitted by the Building Official in his memorandum dated August
12, 1991 at $11,486 and the market value as submitted by White
Real Estate Appraisal Services on August 8, 1991 at $19,600 the
cost of improvements is 58.6 percent of the value, and;
WHEREAS, Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) provides that
alterations may be made to a building containing a lawful,
nonconforming residential property when the alterations will
improve the livability thereof, but the alteration may not
increase the number of units, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the
request and unanimously recommend denial based upon the
information provided by Howard La. wrence Appraisals, Inc. and the
estimated cost of repairs as submitted by staff.
NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby recognize the nonconformity of two
principal uses on one parcel and the existing nonconforming
setbacks resulting in: a) a 29 foot front yard setback
variance for the structure known as 4519 Manchester Road, b)
a 4.5 foot side yard setback variance for the structure
known as 4501 Tuxedo Blvd., and c) a 5 foot rear yard
setback variance for the structure known as 4501 Tuxedo
Blvd. to allow for reconstruction at 4519 Manchester Road,
subject to the following conditions:
a®
Relating to excavation and grading hazard, compliance
of City Code Section 605:50 through 605:85 is required.
The existing grade conditions are found to be in a
deteriorating manner with rotted and falling down
September 24, 1991
Ce
d®
ge
retaining walls, exposed soils and the hillside in this
area is subject to erosion and lacks proper maintenance
and must be corrected to conform to City Code Section
1005, Uniform Building Code Appendix Chapter 70 Section
7004, and Zoning Code Sections 23.708 and 23.711.
Structures, stairways, and/or landings that may be
currently encroaching on the neighboring property must
be removed and the areas regraded with seed and mulch
or sod installed to prevent erosion. No further
encroachments shall be allowed and the proposed
stairway shall not encroach onto the neighboring
property.
The 8 inch hollow masonry block foundation is caving in
at several areas and the backfill height is in excess
of that allowed by code There are two types of
foundations systems, the slab on grade at the rear
kitchen area and partial frost footings under the rest
of the house which are incompatible. The basement
floor is in very bad condition with severe cracking and
shifting. A new foundation and basement floor is
required to be installed to code.
The exterior stairway is unsafe and must be replaced
per code with proper rise, run, landing, and handrail.
The furnace and water heater are located on the floor
within the garage, this installation is prohibited by
Uniform Mechanical Code Section 508 and must be
relocated per code.
The furnace and water heater are improperly vented. In
addition, the chimney does not have proper clearance to
combustibles and is not properly protected as it passes
up through the closet in the upper level. The existing
furnace and water heater must be corrected or a new
vent and chimney installed to each appliance to code.
Upon completion of proper venting, the roof is to be
repaired per Building Code and inspected by the
Building Official. The water heater and furnace are to
be tested for correct operation before a Certificate of
Occupancy is issued.
The kitchen sink is not vented and has unsafe and
improper connections of waste piping. The waste piping
on the bathtub is unsafe as no trap is installed. The
floor is water damaged and rotted around the water
closet.. The p}umbing system vent stack is undersized ,
a minimum 3 Inch vent stack is r~quired. Proper
venting of the bath sink must be verified. The water
supply piping is undersized out of the water heater. A
September 24, 1991
h®
licensed plumbing contractor must re-plumb these items
or any other items not in compliance with the minimum
health and safety requirements of the plumbing code as
required by the City Plumbing Inspector.
All electrical systems are to be brought up to State
Electrical Code as approved and required by the State
Electrical Inspector. All work to be performed by a
lciensed electrical contractor.
The undersized gas supply line to the kitchen range
must be corrected to code.
All gas valves must be an approved ball type. Each
valve must be plainly marked with a metal tag attached
by the installing contractor so that the gas piping
system supplied through it can be readily identified.
No smoke detectors existing. A smoke detector is
required on each level, detectors shall sound an alarm
audible in all sleeping areas, per Uniform Building
Code Section 1210.
All grading, excavation, retaining walls, and site work
must be completed to the satisfaction of the Building
Official and City Engineer prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy being issued.
m®
A Certificate of Occupancy must be issued by the
Building Official prior to any occupancy of the subject
dwelling. Conditions a. through 1. as listed above
must be completed prior to the issuance of the
Certificate of Occupancy to ensure that the subject
structure is brought up to code:
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below,
pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) with the clear
and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful,
nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and
restrictions of Section 23.404.
It is determined that the livability of the residential
property will be improved by the authorization of the
following alterations to a nonconforming use of the property
to afford the owners reasonable use of their land.
Reconstruction of the subject structure known as 4519
Manchester Road.
This variance is granted for the following legally described
property:
September 24, 1991
Lot 22, the North half of Lot 5, the West 40 feet of Lot 3,
and that part of Lots ! and 2 lying West of a line drawn
from a point on the North line of said Lot I distant 19 feet
East of the Northwest corner of said Lot 1, to the Southwest
corner of said Lot 2, and there ending, all in Block 14,
Avalon. PID ~19-117-23 31 0059.
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.
Se
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing
this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs
for such recording. The building permit shall not be issued
until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
Ahrens and seconded by Mayor Johnson.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
none.
.~/~ktn Jnhn.~nn
Mayor
A~test: City Clef[
17~
September 2~ 1991
MINUTES - HOUND CIT! COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 24, 1991
1.8
~1-0~5 MATTHEW PHILLIPPI~ ~51q MANCHESTER ROAD~ LO~
22~--~LOGE-/~L_AXALQN~__flD__Ll~:I1Z:2~ ~1 QQSg.~E~E~A
VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING CONDITION~
The Council discussed the proposed resolution. There were a
number of changes to be made in the draft resolution that was
presented. The items to be changed in the resolution are as
follows:
All references to "construct an 11.8' x 8' one story
addition with a basement" are to be removed from the
resolution. (The Planning Commission did not consider an
addition to the dwelling.)
Delete Item 1.a. on page three of the proposed resolution
relating to separate sewer and water connections to the two
dwellings on the property.
Item 1.g. ADD the following: "Upon completion of proper
venting, the roof is to be repaired per Building Code and
inspected by the Building Official. The water heater and
furnace are to be tested for correct operation before a
Certificate of Occupancy is issued."
Item 1.i. replace with the following: "All electical
sytems are to be brought up to the State Electrical Code as
approved and required by the State Electrical Inspector.
Ail work to be performed by a licensed electrical
contractor.
Michael Mueller, Planning Commissioner, spoke to the Council
regarding not receiving all the information that was presented to
the City Council· He also emphasized that the Planning
Commission recommended denial of this request unanimously.
The Council discussed requiring a bond supplied by the applicant
and putting a time limit on the reconstruction project. It was
decided that a Certificate of Occupancy would not be issued until
the project was completed, inspected and approved.
Smith moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
173
September 2q, 1991
MINUTES - HOUND ClT! COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 2q, 1991
RESOLUTION ~91-13q
RESOLUTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE A
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL FOR A VARIANCE TO
RECONSTRUCT AN EXISTING HAZARDOUS
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE FOR LOT 22 &
PARTS OF LOTS 1, 2, 3, & 5, BLOCK 1~,
AVALON (4519 MANCHESTER ROAD)
There was discussion on the actual cost of the proposed repairs
and the appraised value of the dwelling. The repair estimates
are very close to 50% of the value of the dwelling.
Mr. Kelsey Page, Attorney for Mr. Phillippi, was present and
spoke on his behalf.
The Council went into Executive Session at 9:20 P.M. to discuss
the possible litigation that could arise from the denial. They
returned at 9:50 P.M.
The City Attorney stated that the Council reviewed their options.
The entire Council would like to have the dwelling removed
completely, but the evidence the City could present in court is
marginal because of the percentage of repair is very close to 50%
of the value of the dwelling.
Smith withdrew is motion of denial and Jessen withdrew her
second.
Ahrens moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION 91-135
RESOLUTION TO GRANT A VARIANCE TO
RECONSTRUCT AN EXISTING HAZARDOUS
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE FOR LOT 22 &
PARTS OF LOTS 1, 2, 3, AND 5, BLOCK lq,
AVALON, (q519 MANCHESTER ROAD) P & Z
CASE 91-035, AS AMENDED
The Council voted unanimously in favor, reluctantly.
carried.
Motion
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PI-ANNING COMMISSION
JUEY 22, 1991
Those present were: Chalr, Bill Meyer; Vice Chair, GeofF
Mtchael; Commissioners Jerry Clapsaddle; Frank Wetland; Michael
Mueller; Bill Voss; and Mark Hanus; City Council Representative,
Liz Jensen; City Manager, Ed Shukle; City Planner Mark Koegler;
Building Offlclal, Jon Sutherland; and Secretary, Peggy James.
Absent and excused was Commissioner Brian Johnson.
The following citizens were also In attendance: Bart Wlnkler, H.
Kelsey Page, Matthew Joseph Phi111ppI, Phil & Eva Hasch, Mary
Cragg Hoaglund, Del Pfeifer, Jim Engle, and Bonnie Engle.
PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION TO BILL THAL
Chair, Bill Meyer, presented a CertlFlcate of Appreciation to
Bill Thal for his 5-]/2 years of service and dedication to the
Planning Commission.
MINUTES
The July 8, 1991 Planning Commission Mtnutes were presented For
changes and/or additions.
MOTION made by Welland, seconded by Hanu$, to approve
the July 8, 1991 Planning Commission Minutes as written.
Motion carried unanl=sly.
Case No. 91-034= Bart Nlnklert 5001 Nllshlre Blvd. t Block 40~
Lot 34~ Wych~ood= PID #24-117-24 13 0034. VARIANCE.
Bufldlng Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicant's
request to reconstruct a 12' x 20' deck on a parcel with a number
o6 nonconformities. The deck will be fully complying and would
enhance the applicant's use of the property as a sum~er cabin.
Staff recommended approval o6 the variance request for the
reconstruction o6 a fully complying deck to an exlsting noncon-
Forming dwelling.
HOTION made by Michael, seconded by Voss to recoamend
approval of the variance as rec~r,~ecl, l$otion carried
unanln~>usly.
This case will be heard by the City Council on July 23, 1991.
Case No. 91-035: Matthew Phtllippl, 4519 Manchester Road,
~!ock 14~ Lot 22, Avalon~ PlO #19-117-23 31 0059. VARIANCE.
City Planner, Mark Koegler, revlewed the variance request to al-
low repairs to an existing nonconforming residential structure.
The subject structure was recently condemned by the Building Of-
61cial due to poor structural conditlon. The following variances
would require recognition:
Planning Co~isslon Minutes
July Z2, 1991
Page Z
Two principal structures on one parcel (zoning lot).
A 29 Foot variance From the 30 foot required Front yard set-
back for the subject structure·
A variance of approximately 4 Feet From the required side
yard setback for the rear structure (the other structure lo-
cated on the same parcel as subject structure).
The nonconforming use provlstons of the Zoning Cc~Je allow Im-
provement of a structure providing that required In~rovements do
not exceed 50% of the Fair market value. The subject property
was appraised by John S. White on May 31, 1991 and determined to
have a value of $31,500. As part of the condemnation proceeding,
the Building Official con~leted an Inspection of the property and
noted all the required repair Items In a letter dated Aprtl 30,
1991. Based on the list of repairs, the applicant has su~
bids which total $7,860.76 which equates to approxlmately 25% of
this appraiser's Falr market value.
Despite the poor condition of the structure and the added~
hindrance of the poor site distance when exttlng onto the street
from the attached garage, the value of the Improvements has been
shown to be wlthln the tolerances established In the Mound Zonlng
Code. /
Staff recommended approval of the variances as Identified and al-
low the property located at 4519 Manchester Lane to be Improved,
conditioned upon the Following:
The applicant shall co~lete all Improvements Identified In
the letter From the Mound Bulldlng OFFicial dated April 30,
1991.
Any Further deficiencies Identified by the Building OFFtctal
during the course of remodeling shall also be required to be
corrected·
IF this variance Is approved,
10' x 12.4' addition also be
time.
it is suggested that the proposed
Included In the variance at this
The Planner referred to a copy of the estimated market value
received From Hennepln County on July 22, 1991, as Follows:
1st house $25,000
2nd house $10,000
(other structure - rear)
(subJec~c structure - front)
The assessor values the subject structure at $10,000, however an
appraisal has been received From an accredited appraiser who
shows the value at $31,500.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 22, 1991
Page 3
Meyer questioned IF the Appraisal submitted by White was for one
structure or both structures. Kelsey Page confirmed that the ap-
praisal refers to the subject property only. Koegler stated that
he has to assume there was some land Included In the appraised
value since White refers to slope conditions. How can you value
a structure with land when two structures on one parcel is not
allowed, how would tt be separated? Page stated that he assumes
the appraiser Included the property immediately behind the house,
the land where the house is, and the property oFF to the west
which was Forn~ally a parking lot.
Page stated that the applicant is seeking the approval oF a
variance simply because It was required by the Building OFFicial
and City Attorney, he believes that under the ordinance the
building permits should simply have been granted without a
variance. He emphasized that the estimated cost oF repairs does
not nearly approach the 50~ oF the Fair market value. He com-
mented that the Foundation repairs are required due to deteriora-
tion caused by the removal oF an apron by the City when the
street was Improved. He stated that Mr. Phlllippl certainly
agrees to abide by the conditions set Forth In the Planner's
report.
Mueller commented that Zoning Code Section 23.404 (4) states" .
· . 50 percent or more oF its Fair market value as shown on the
assessor's records . . ." He questioned if= the Hennepln County
Assessor's valuation should not be considered verses the Indepen-
dent appraiser's valuation· Koegler referred to the wordage
"Falr market value," and comaented that we received an appralsal
From an accredited and certified appraiser which we have to take
as being true, the only alternatlve, per the City Attorney, is if=
the City doubts the appraisal, the City can undertake its own ap-
praisal and see how they compare.
Mueller commented on the obvtous discrepancy between Hennepfn
County's value and Whlte's appraised value. He belleves two
houses should have been noted on appraisal since one structure
could not be sold without the other structure and they are on one
property. In addition, White did not mention the amount of=
prc~erty Included on the appraisal or the disf=unctlonality oF the
garage location.
Voss commented on a discrepancy tn Whtte's appraisal relating to
the nu~er oF baths, it shows I.S baths at top oF appraisal Form,
and only ! bath later in the report~ how many are there? Suther-
land confirmed there Is only one b~throom upstairs.
Weiland commented that the other structures used For comparison
appear to have been chosen because of= the valuation only.
Weiland would like to see Hennepln County's valuation of= the
three properties used In the co~oarison.
Planning Commission Minutes
duly 2Z, 19~1
Page 4
Meyer referred to the approximate 1or size as shown on "White
Real Estate Appraisal Services~ stationary, what lot size did
White use?
Voss referred to the clwelllng sizes as referred to In three dif-
Ferent areas of the packet Information, as follows:
p. 13 - Butlding Sketch = 564 square Feet
p. 30 - White Appraisal = 492 square Feet
p. 44 - 4-30-91 Letter From = 548 square Feet
Bullding OFFicial 7.b)
Which one Is correct?
Jim Engle of 4531 Manchester Road a neighbor to the subject
property stated that the applicant has removed a very large tree
From his property and has removed property stakes during the con-
structlon of their new driveway. The prolapsed landscaping is on
his property, and he Feels bls property ts being taken over by
the appllcant. Page stated that Mr. Engle Is referring to a
driveway that ts over the hill on the other stde of the property
From the subject structure.
Another neighbor, Mary Cragg Hoaglund of 4515 Manchester Road
con~ented that 4519 Manchester is eroding onto her property and
they have had mud behind her house I Foot deep as a result.
Mueller co~3ared the letter From Kelsey Page dated June 18, 1991
which responds to the required repatrs per Jon Sutherland's Con-
damnation letter dated April 30, 199I. He questioned IF the
structural foundation wall will support the amount of backfill.
Sutherland commented that the applicant did submit plans From an
architect and the block wtll be reinforced providing structural
Integrity. Mueller questioned IF the Bowden Industries bid In-
cludes labor, Sutherland confirmed that he phoned Bowden and he
did state that labor was included In the bid.
Mueller pointed out that the Bowden bid does not Include a cost
For the required handrail.
Mueiler questioned Mlnnegasco's service order, con~enttng that
the it appears Mlnnegasco checked For C.O. discharge only, he
questioned the Building OFFicial IF thts was sufficient to deter-
mine IF the Furnace was rusted. 5utherland commented that he
would have to verify this.
Page commented that they have submitted these bids with a go<x~
Faith effort For compliance, and as the Job proceeds they will
comply with whatever the requirements are.
Plannlng Co~nisslon Minutes
July 22, 1991
Page 5
Mueller referred to Jlm Este's bid For plun~3tng repairs and com-
mented on the
1)
Z)
3)
The bid does not address the required trap ?or the bathtub
per Jon 5utherland's letter, Item 3.b).
is Jim Este a licensed plun~er?
Per item 3.?) of 5utherland's letter, what about the under-
sized water ptplng ?rom the water heater? This Is not
addressed on the estlmate.
Clapsaddle questioned If the proposed retaining wtll protect the
house ?rom physlcal damage or not? Will the house stand without
the retaining wall? 17 not, the cost o? the retaining wall
should be included with the costs o? rehabilitating the subject
structure tf the house cannot stand without the retaining wall.
Sutherland commented that the Excavation and Grading Hazards as
addressed In his letter, item 6. does de?lnttely a??ect the
house, however, a variance Is not required ?or this work. Joe
Manthei has submitted a btd to address this item.
The Site Plan on page Z8 of the plannlng packet showlng the
topography and proposed retaining walls was reviewed. Clapsaddle
questioned the accuracy of this topographical plan. Koegler com-
mented that he views this stte plan as a concept plan. When the
applicant applies ?or the actual permits, specific plans will be
required and reviewed by the Engineer at that time. Mueller com-
mented that he ?eels it is essential to the house to have the
site Issue dealt with when reconstructing the house and there?ore
the site costs should also be included In the cost o? repairs.
Koegler c~ented that they are only dealing with 1~3rovements to
the "structure." Clapsaddle added that if the retaining wall is
not constructed, will the walls tn the basement In the garage
require addltlonal reinforcement? He Feels the whole area should
be engineered.
Mueller Feels the accuracy of the bidding should be dealt with tn
respect to the actual cost to complete the requtred repairs.
What about the too? repairs whtch wtll be requtred as a result of
re-venting the plumbing ?lxtures? He referred to Item 7.c) on
Sutherland's letter which Indicates that the headroom in the
dwelling Is only 7'3"~ the required is 7'6". He asked IF the
Planning Commission can recommend approval o? a variance ?or a
structure which violates the Uniform Building Code.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 22, 1991
Page 6
Koegler commented that From a classtc zoning perspective, this
structure should not be allowed to re,~aln, however, the code has
provisions In It, and seemingly, until the City wants to provlde
Information that refutes the information the applicant has put
Forward, we have to accept what has been presented to us as ac-
credited Information.
Mueller commented that the appralsal by White ~es not consider
the I~r exlting c~itions From the garage. In addition the ap-
praisal uses a coe~rable, hUnt, er 3, that exceeds 20% differen-
tial From the value It was sold For which n~y be rejected by a
I~nk due to the dtscrepancles.
Voss summarized that there Is a large discrepancy In the ap-
praisals, and there are questions on the cost estimates. Mueller
suggested that we Find out IF the appraisal reflects the true
value of the structure.
Weiland commented that there are so many unpopular Items relating
to this structure that he does not believe approval should be
granted, even thou~ he understands the ordinance provisions.
MOTION made by ross, seconded by Welland, to recommend
denial of the variance request.
Voss c~ented that he believes the building should be removed.
Michael referred to the zontng ordinance and commented that tt
states In black and white the process In which thts request
should be processed. He does not ltke the discrepancy of $21,500
between the two appraisals. Michael would like the City to have
another independent appraiser submit his oplnfon on the value of
the structure.
Clapsaddle agrees with Michael and would like to make a Fair and
correct declslon on this request, however, does not Feel this
would be posstble using the Information provided.
Both Clapsaddle and Hanus requested that the motion For denial be
considered for withdrawal In order to request another opinion on
an appraisal.
MOTION FOR DENIAL WITHDRAWN BY VOSS. WEILAND ALSO WITHDREW
HIS SECOND.
MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Mueller to table the
applicants request for a varlance until the Following is
(~lcalnecl: 1) a new appraisal c~l:alnecl from m Indepen-
dent appraiser, and 2) new estimates From an Inde~ndent
contractor o~ the cost of repairs required by the Build-
ing Official. in addition, the new appraisal Is to
reflect the value of the structure only In an "as Is'
cc~adition.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 22, 199l
Page 7
Jensen suggested that, due to the cost Involved For a new ap-
praisal, a clarification oF the White Appraisal may be a
preferred approach. Clapsaddle commented that another appraisal
would be valuable.
The Commission had discussions relating to the cost estimates and
questioned If it is necessary to get new estimates. Voss did not
want to remove this requirement from his motion.
NOTION to t~ble the request carried unanimously.
NOTION made by Nueller, seconded by Clapsaddle, to
request approval from the City Council for the City of
~ to ~ for the cost oF a new ~ralsal for 4519
Nanchester Rk>ad. Notlon carried unanimously
The Planning Commission requested that the above motion be
presented to the City Council on July 23, 1991.
Zontn~ Code I~odific~lons
1~3TION ~ by Welland, seconded by Claps~dclle to dis-
cuss Zoning Code Modifications at the nex~ Planning Coa-
mission Needing on August 12, 1991. Notion carried un-
animously.
Review oF June 24~ 1991 public hearing rel~ln~j to rental houslm~.
maintenance
The Planning Commission agreed that this item should be placed on
the agenda oF the August 12, 1991 Planning Commlsslon Meeting,
and every subsequent meeting until tt Is reviewed.
The Ctty Manager, Ed Shukle, reviewed the status oF the proposed
purchase oF property from the Vandersteeg's.
MOTION ~sde by Voss, seconded by Hanus, to adjourn the
aeetlng at 10=42 p.m. Notion carried unanimously.
Chatr-, Bi I i- ~y~ '-'
Attest:
HINUTES OF A HEETING OF THE
HOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 12, 1991
C~se No. 91-035: Matthew Phlillppi~ 4519 Manchester Road,
Block 14~ Lot 22~ Avalon~ PID #I9-117-23 31 0059. VARIANCE.
This City Council reviewed this case on July 23, 1991 and made
the Following motion:
MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jensen to authorize
the City to pay For an Independent appraisal of the sub-
ject building to determine the true value of the con-
demned building. Also have the building OFFicial
analyze the costs that have been submitted by the ap-
plicant For the repairs to the bullding. The vote was
unanimously in Favor. Motton carried.
City Planner, Mark Koegler, briefly reviewed the new appraisal
From Howard Lawrence Appraisals Inc. dated August 7, 1991.
Lawrence appraised the subject property in an "as is" condition
at $25,100; this Figure represents the value of the structure
less the costs to complete restorations as submitted by the ap-
plicant (I.e. $33,000 less $?,900). The Bulldtng OFFlctal
analyzed the estimated cost oF restorations as directed by the
City Council, which resulted in an estimated cost oF $11,486.
Koegler recapped his Interpretation of the value, IF the Building
OFFlclal's estimated cost of repairs ts used, the cost of repairs
would be 53% of the value, as Follows:
$ 33,000
( 11,48~)
$ 21,514
53.4%
$ 21,514 :$ 11,486
Koegler commented, depending on what numbers are used, the cost
of repairs may or may not exceed 50% of the value.
Mueller questioned IF the new appraisal also includes the value
of land at $12,000. The appraised value is to be of the
"structure" only. On page 5 of the appraisal, under "VALUE CON-
CLUSION,'' it states, "We estimate the subject property when re-
stored to safe and habitable condition should to be marketable at
$33,000." ThereFore, ts not the value oF the land included
this Figure?
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Welland to deny the
variance requested based on his Interpretation that the
value of the land has been Included In the value. IF
the value did not Include the land value, the cost of
repairs would exceed 50% of the value of the structure.
Welland referred to the age of the structure as shown on Page 4
as IB3B, he questioned IF this ts a typo and should not be 1938.
AFter Further discussion, the Building OFFicial Informed the Com-
mission that they could telephone the appraiser Immediately and
obtain an answer to the question IF the land is Included In the
value.
Mueller called for the question. The vote on the ques-
tion Failed 4 to 5. Those in Favor were: Mueller,
Johnson, Wetland, and Voss. Those opposed were: Clap-
saddle, Meyer, Michael, Jansen and Hanus.
MOTION withdrawn by Mueller.
MOTION made by ltanus, seconded by Clapsacldle to table
the variance request until further clarification of
Lawrence's appraisal, relating to Inclusion of the value
of the land, has been received. Motion carried unanim-
ously.
This variance request will be reviewed later tn the meeting IF
the Information is obtained.
CONT ] NUED Case No.
chester Rc~; 'Block 14,
VAR ! ANCE.
91-035:
Lot
Natthew PhilltppI, 4519 Nan-
Avalon~ PlO ~19-117-23 31 0059.
The City Manager reported that he contacted Mr. Lawrence, and he
confirmed that the appraised value of $25,100 does Include the
value of the land at $12,000. Therefore, if Mr. Phllltppl's es-
timated cost of repairs Is used, the cost of repairs exceeds 50%
of the value.
$ 33,000
( 12,000) land
( 7~900) cost of repairs
$ 13,100 value of structure "as Is"
60.3%
13,1001 7,900
NOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Voss to recommend
denial of the variance request based upon the Informa-
tlon provided by Howard Lawrence Appraisals, Inc. and
the estimated cost of repairs as submitted by staff.
Hotlon carried unanimously.
This case will be reviewed by the City Council on August 27,
1991.
VanDoren
Hazard
Stallings, Inc.
Architects · ~=ngineere ® Planners
PLANNING REPORT
RECEIVED JUL.1 7 1991
TO: Mound Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner ~/
DATE: July 17, 1991
SUBJECT: Variance Request
APPLICANT: Matthew Phillippi
CASE NUMBER: 91-035
VHS FILE NUMBER: 91-310-All-ZO
Post-It" brand fax transmittal memo 7671 l# of pages · Z
Co. ' Co.
Dept. Phone # ~
LOCATION: 4519 Manchester Lane
EXISTING ZONING: Two-Family Residential (R-3)
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval of a number of
variances to reconstruct an existing residential structure. The
parcel contains two existing principal uses and the subject of the
request is the building that fronts on Manchester Lane which is
numbered 4519. Throughout the balance of this report, the house at
4519 Manchester will be referred to as the front structure and the
other home will be referred to as the rear structure.
The front structure is currently non-conforming due to a one foot
front yard setback which is 29 feet under the setback required by
the Code. The house was recently condemned by the Building
Official due to poor structural condition. As a result, the
applicant is proposing to effectuate repairs to the structure after
obtaining the required variances. Variances include recognition of
existing deficient setbacks for both of the houses as well as the
existence of two principal uses on one zoning lot.
The non-conforming use provisions of the Code allow improvement of
a structure providing that required improvements do not exceed 50%
of the fair market value. The front structure was appraised by
John S. White on May 31, 1991 and determined to have a value of
$31,500.00. As part of the condemnation proceeding, the Building
Official prepared a complete inspection of the property on April
30, 1991 and noted all required repair items. Based on the list of
repairs, the applicant has submitted bids which total $7,860.76
which equates to approximately 25% of the fair market value.
3030 Harbor Lane North, Bldg. II, Suite 104, Minneapolis Minnesota 55447-2175 (612) 553-1950
Phillippi Planning Report
July 17, 1991
Page Two
Approval of the proposed improvements for the front structure
involves a recognition of the following variances caused by
existing conditions:
1. Two principal structures on one zoning lot.
A 29 foot variance from the 30 foot required front yard
setback for the front structure.
A variance of approximately 4 feet from the required side
yard setback for the rear structure.
COMMEN~: The Planning Commission is aware that one of the purposes
of the Zoning Code is to see that non-conforming situations are
eventually either removed or brought into zoning code compliance.
Within the code, however, are certain thresholds to guarantee a
balance of the interests of the City with the rights of the
individual property owners. The front structure is a classic
zoning example of a structure that should be removed. It is in
poor condition and is located on top of the curb line of the
street. Furthermore, the attached garage exits directly onto the
street with literally no sight distance. Additionally, the lot
contains two principal structures without having sufficient area
for future subdivision.
Despite these conditions, the value of the improvements has been
shown to be within the tolerances established in the Mound Zoning
Code. Therefore, the City has little choice but to grant the
necessary variances conditioned upon the completion of all required
improvements.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the variances identified herein and allow the
property located at 4519 Manchester Lane to be improved conditioned
upon the following:
The applicant shall complete all improvements identified
in the letter from the Mound Building Official dated
April 30, 1991.
Any further deficiencies identified by the Building
Official during the course of remodeling shall also be
required to be corrected.
r%
May 26, 1998
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A ONE (1) YEAR EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE
ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY RESOLUTION #97-37
FOR 5900 CHESTNUT ROAD,
LOT 24, KOEHLER'S 2"D ADDITION TO MOUND,
PID# 14-117-24 43 0006
P & Z CASE #98-29 & 97-15
WHEREAS, the applicant, Mark Mulvey, has requested a one year extension
of the variance granted by Resolution #97-37 on April 22, 1997, and;
WHEREAS, Resolution # 97-37 approved a variance requesting a street
frontage variance of 45 feet to allow the construction of a new dwelling, and;
WHEREAS, the applicants have not yet removed built the single family
dwelling or completed the new according to the variance, and requested an extension in
order to proceed with this portion this Summer, 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 to request for the
extension and unanimously recommended approval.
n, _j .. ~j
r~ n 0 0
~ ~: ,.J N
0
Z
.o_
0
·
May 26, 199,9
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A ONE (1) YEAR EXTENSION OF A VARIANCE
ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY RESOLUTION #97-37
FOR 5900 CHESTNUT ROAD,
LOT 24, KOEHLER'S 2"D ADDITION TO MOUND,
PID# 14-117-24 43 0006
P & Z CASE #98-29 & 97-15
WHEREAS, the applicant, Mark Mulvey, has requested a one year extension
of the variance granted by Resolution #97-37 on April 22, 1997, and;
WHEREAS, Resolution # 97-37 approved a variance requesting a street
frontage variance of 45 feet to allow the construction of a new dwelling, and;
/} o WHEREAS, the applicants have not ~d~ single family
dwelling or~-----cnmnl~t"~----~--~--;-----th~ new_ ~acc°rding to the variance,~riance, an~T'eqoe'~e(an ted an extension in
order to proceed with this portion this Summer, 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 t~request for the
extension and unanimously recommended approval.
May 26, 1998
Mulvey - 5900 Chestnut Road
Page 2
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 # 97-37 on April 22, 1997 with the following condition.
1. This variance will expire on May 26, 1999.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Council
member
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
May 11, 1998
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, MAY 11, 1998
Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orr Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Jerry
Clapsaddle, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff Present:
Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist.
Public Present: Mark Mulvey, Hugh Bishop, Matt Phillippi, Delton Renspe, Curtis Berg, Michael
Meyer, Alan Nations, Steve Mayer, Vic Sacco, Quirin & Maria Matthys, Craig Goodrich
Meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael
MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE APRIL 27, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
There were no corrections to the Minutes from April 27, 1998
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the
April 27, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 8-0.
Chair Michael explained how the Public Hearing would be conducted.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 98-29: VARIANCE EXTENSION: FROM CASE 97-15, MARK MULVEY, 5900
CHESTNUT ROAD, LOT 24, KOEHLER'S 2"D ADDN TO MOUND,
PID# 14-117-24 43 0006
Jon Sutherland presented the case.
A request for a variance extension has been submitted according to the Zoning
Ordinance Section 350:530 SUBD. 2. E. as noted in the attached letter from the
Mulvey's. None of the conditions have changed. Staff recommends approval of the
extension for one year.
DISCUSSION:
There was no discussion on this case.
MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to recommend staff's
recommendation to grant an extension on Resolution 97-15. Motion
carried 8-0
This case will go to the City Council on May 26, 1998
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
May 5, 1998
Planning Commission Applicant and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
VARIANCE EXTENSION CASE #97-15, 5900 CHESTNUT ROAD
A request for a variance extension has been submitted according to the Zoning Ordinance Section
350:530 SUBD. 2. E. as noted in the attached letter from the Mulvey's. None of the conditions
have changed. Staff recommends approval of the extension for one year.
printed on recycled paper
COFI Cern.
~qo0
~r B OOOE~
W-LolZ.- 4~q-
ZOOO
*1.3
Minutes - Mound City Council - ,~tpHl 22, 1997
Weycker, Jensen, unanimously.
CASE//97-15: MARK MULVEY, 5900 CHESTNUT ROAD, LOT 24, KOEHLER'S
2ND ADDITION, PID//14-117-24 43 0006, VARIANCE FOR NEW DWELLING.
MOTION
Weycker, Jensen, unanimously.
RESOLUTION g97-37 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A STREET FRONTAGE
VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A
NEW DWELLING AT 5900 CHESTNUT ROAD, LOT
24, KOEHLER'S 2ND ADDITION, PID//14-117-24 43
0006, P & Z CASE//97-15
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 14, 1997
CASE 97-15: VARIANCE FOR NEW DWELLING
MARK MULVEY, 5900 CHESTNUT ROAD
LOT 24, KOEHLER'S 2ND ADDN, 14-117-24 43 0006
City Planner, Mark Koegler, referred to the memorandum from the City Engineer which refers to a
feasibility study that was done to improve the platted road in front of this property.
The variance being requested is a 45 foot street frontage variance. The development of this property
does not preclude the future road improvement from happening. Koegler referred to the conditions of
approval recommended by the Engineer and noted that staff recommends approval of the variance
subject to these conditions.
Mueller asked the applicant if he read the report and agreed with the conditions. Mark Mulvey,
applicant, stated that he agreed with the conditions.
MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the
variance with the conditions recommended by the City Engineer. Motion carried
unanimously.
This case will be heard by the City Council on April 22, 1997.
CERTIFICATE
City of Mound
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
)$S
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN)
I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and Clerk of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
hereby attest and certify that:
As such officer, I have the legal custody of the original record from which the
attached and foregoing extract was transcribed.
2. I have carefully compared said extract with said original record.
o
I find said extract to be a true, correct and complete transcript from the original
minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City held on the date indicated
in said extract, including any resolution adopted at such meeting, insofar as they
relate to:
RESOLUTION g97-37 - RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A STREET
FRONTAGE VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
DWELLING AT 5900 CHESTNUT ROAD, LOT 24, KOEHLER'S 2ND
ADDITION, PID t/14-117-24 43 0006, P & Z CASE g97-15
Said meeting was duly held, pursuant to call and notice thereof as required by law
on April 22, 1997.
WITNESS my hand officially as such Clerk, and the sale of said City, this th day of
CLERK
seal
TRAN~F'ER ENTERED
RESOLUTION//97-37
April 22, 1997
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A STREET FRONTAGE VARIANCE
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING
AT 5900 CHESTNUT ROAD
LOT 24, KOEHL~'S 2ND ADDITION, PID 14-117-24 43 0006
P&Z CASE//97-15
WHEREAS, the owner, Mark Mulvey, has applied for a street frontage variance in
order to allow construction of a new dwelling, and;
WltEREAS, 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, minimum frontage on an improved public street of 60 feet, a 30 foot front yard setback,
10 foot side yard setbacks, and a 15 foot rear yard setback, and;
WHEREAS, this property has only 15 feet of frontage on an improved public road,
resulting in a variance request of 45 feet, and;
WHEREAS, the development of this property does not preclude the future road
improvement from happening, and;
WHEREAS, the property will be conforming to all setbacks, lot area, and impervious
surface coverage, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously
recommended approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a 45 foot street frontage variance to allow construction of a
new conforming dwelling, subject to the following conditions:
ae
The applicant; Mark Mulvey dedicate to the City a permanent easement for utility
and street purposes over the southerly 25 feet of Lot 24 as shown on the survey.
bo
The proposed structure be built using this 25 foot easement line to measure for
the building setback as shown on the survey.
The proposed sewer and water services be installed in such a manner that they
could easily be reconnected if or when the City mains are extended.
The proposed grades for the house and driveway be designed to allow some
flexibility for future construction of Chestnut Road extension.
April 22, 1997
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:
A new single family dwelling.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lot 24, Koehler's Second Addition to Mound
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 Weycker and seconded
by Councilmember Jensen.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Hanus, Jensen, Polston and Weycker.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
none.
SS/BOB POLSTON
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
COPIED KOEGLER 4/4/97
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-4739
Telephone Engineers
612/476-6010 Planners
612/476-8532 FAX Surveyors
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning
FROM:
John Cameron, City Engineer
DATE: April 3, 1997
SUBJECT: Variance Request - Case #97-15
MFRA #11642/4909
As requested, we have reviewed the latest proposal to develop Lot 24, Koehler's 2nd Addition to
Mound which needs a variance to the street frontage requirement and have the following
comments and recommendations:
Our files on this particular lot and possible extension of Chestnut Road go back 26 years
to 1971 when the owner at that time requested he be allowed to build a home. Enclosed is
a letter from the City Engineer, William Mills, dated May 7, 1971 and a Council
Memorandum No. 71-112. Evidently, nothing happened at that time. Then in 1975 a new
owner became interested in building and requested permission to connect to the ends of
the existing watermain and sanitary sewer. Enclosed are copies of their letters, CoUncil
Memorandum No. 75-175 and 75-182 and Resolution No. 75-269. Again, nothing was
done.
In 1979, the City ordered a Preliminary Engineering Report for street and utility
improvements for the extension of Chestnut Road, a copy of which is attached. The
intention was to include this construction with the large street projects scheduled for that
year. The project did not proceed because the necessary easements could not be obtained.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Jon Sutherland
April 3, 1997
In 1985, another owner of Lot 24 came forward with a desire to build. See my letter dated
April 23, 1985. Again, nothing resulted from this request. The present owner, Mark
Mulvey entered the picture in 1988 and paid the deficient assessments for sewer lateral,
the in-place sewer service and the water area charge, the total of which was $898.63. The
owner of the property in 1965 when the sewer and water system was installed in chestnut
Road, had contested his assessment and it was removed from the assessment rolls.
Attached are copies of both documents.
Then in 1990, the owners of Lot 23, which is the next lot east of Lot 24, filed a variance
application requesting utility service and driveway access from Lynwood Boulevard in
order to build on his property. This resulted in the City ordering another feasibility study
to provide utilities and street access for the entire undeveloped area. A copy of this
Preliminary Engineering Report is enclosed. Neither the variance or the proposed project
were ever approved by the City Council. The Wilcox's who own and have a residence on
Parcel (46), Lots 25 through 28 have since purchased Lot 23.
Comments And Recommendations
Because of all the past history and the present ownership of the lots in this area, we are
recommending approval of the requested variance subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant; Mark Mulvey dedicate to the City a permanent easement for utility and
street purposes over the southerly 25 feet of Lot 24 as shown on the survey.
2. The proposed structure be built using this 25' easement line to measure for the
building setback as shown on the survey.
3. The proposed sewer and water services be installed in such a manner that they could
easily be reconnected if or when the City mains are extended.
4. The proposed grades for the house and driveway be designed to allow some flexibility
for future construction of Chestnut Road extension.
Enclosures
e:Xmain:\11642~suth4-3
mAR 2 0 1997
OffY OF MOUNI}
¥ AI~A~NLi~ At'I'LILAI l~
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
Application Fee:
$100.00
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
City Planner
City Engineer
Public Works
Case No.q"~""l~
DNR
Other
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
LEGAL
DESC.
PROPERTY
OWNER
Subdivision
PID#
ZONING DISTRICT R~-'~ R-lA
Name
Address ~"7~O
R-2 R-3 B-1
Block '"'
Plat # (~_ ~¢'"7.0
B-2 B-3
APPLICANT
(IF OTHER
THAN
OWNER)
Phone (H) 5 t./S- (off 13
(w) qlq- 20 (o{o
(M) '"/Z3-q~t/-}
Name
Address
Phone (H) (W). .(M).
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for ~his 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.):
ev. 1/14/97) '
'~, d. lldllJJ'd .Xi~j)~CLILII~I1, i'. ~
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS:
REQUIRED
REQUESTED
(or existing)
VARIANCE
Front Yard:
Side Yard:
Side Yard:
Rear Yard:
Lakeside:
(N S~>W)
(N S E(~)
(C~s E w )
(NSEW)
· (NSEW)
Street Frontage:
Lot Size:
Hardcover:
:gO ft. 3~., "1 ft. Iq~,e ft.
I 0 ft. I~, O ft. r~o0~ e ft.
10 ft. 3] O ¥ ft. ~o,~ e ft.
iS- ft. 5 1OO ft. tlone ft.
~Jl.~- ft. ft. ft.
ft. ft. ft.
bO ft. /5- ft. */~-' ft.
sq ft sq ft sq ft
sq ft sq ft sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes (), No ~. If no, specify each non-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
describe:
/
soil
existing situation
other: specify
(Rev. 1/14/97)
Variance Application, P. 3 Cast: 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 ~X~. If yes, explain:
o
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described
in this petition? Yes (), No'l~. 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
(Rev. 1/14/97)
Date
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
IIPROPERTY ADDRESS:
I OWNER'S NAME:
LOT AREA
LOT AREA
LOT AREA
SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) ..............
SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) .......
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,
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
X =
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
X =
X =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
x :
X =
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X =
X =
X =
TOTAL DECK ..........................
X =
X =
TOTAL OTHER .........................
ZoO
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
OVER (indicate difference) ...............................
~ooD $'TE?~' L
BEVELED LAe
SIDING
COLLT H E L £VA,'I' IOl'q
, ')o'J H D
,
~EE
LAP
WEc~T ELEVk'I"~O N
'k": I'-0"
h~ u, LX,/Eh'
~tOO,.NO
HFC H./S'~O~-
DURO WALL
~?~.-~'5~' CON~-
RU~J DRAT_~U
%"= I'-O"
LVF_¥
P.,ES~ DF_~C E_
,%
F UTU P..~ D E~:lc.
--1---- -I"
........ '7_,' 'C:'_'
/£05
~LVE¥ RLS/OLhlCL.
PIO'JHE) ,,"4 N.
MAIN LEV E L PL
'/,/= t'- 0"
3-~-R7
J, ,il,
~yp. FtooK CoUST~.
~,~ PARTiClE SD,
TYPICAL._ ~A L_L_. ~_Fc_ _CT I_O_ N
rs=. ILO..
3'~- ~17
/ILLLVE"f
f'"~ 0 0: J D
~RE.F_T
LONG LAKE. MINN. 55356
PI-lONE: 473-9883
May 7, 1971
Mr. Leonard Kopp
Village l;~nager
Mound, Minn.
Dear ~ir. Kopp,.
Re: Mr-. Duane Norber~
Sewer, water service
It is understood that Mr. Duane Norberg intends to construct a
residence on Lot 24, Koehler's Second Addition to F~ound. It is
also understood that Lot 24 was never assessed for sewer although
there is a stub out of a manhole at the east end of ~o~-v-
There is no sewer or water for lot 23. Lot 32 is served along
Lynwood ~lvd. only. It seems that the most logical way to serve
lot 23 and the central part of lot 32 which is considerably
lower than Lynwood Blvd., is by extending the sewer northeasterly
along the south side of lots 24 and 23. There would also be
some benefit in extending the water main and street to inter.~ect
with Langdon Lane.
Lots 26 through 31 are on low ground that would require substantial
fill to be buildable.
It may be expedient at this time to allow Mr. Norberg to connect
to the sewer and water as best he can~ charging the deferred
assessment. It is suggested that this act should not preclude
the possible future extension of the sewer, water and street as
described above. It is suggested that the necessary easements be
required of Mr. Norberg at this time.
It is my opinion that the most efficient method would be to construct
the sewer, water and street at this time, however this may not
correspond with the present needs of the other affected property
owners.
Mound, Minnesota
May 10, 1971
COJNC]~ MEMO~ NO. 71-112
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
The Honorable Mayor and Village Council
The Village Manager
Sewer & Water extension Chestnut Lane
Lot 24 Koehler's 2nd Add. to Mound
Y~r. Duane Norber9 has requested information as to procedures for build-
in9 on Lot 24 I{ochler's 2nd Addition to Mound. :
1. Engineer Mills was requested to make sug§estions. A copy of his
su§gestions are attached.
2. A copy of the "As Builts" show a stub to this lot for the sewer.
3. There is no street in front of the lot.
h. Water stops at the end of the street although Lot 25 has water.
5. Lots 25-26-27-28-29-30-31 have sewer available alon9 the rail-
road and were so assessed.
6. Lot 24was assessed for sewer (not water). The owner appealed
the assessment (see copy of appeal attaahed) and his appeal was
approved by the Council so it has not peid an assessment.
7. Future plans for water call for water to 9o from the end of
Shady Lane across to Langdon Place. All the right,of way has
been acquired except from Lots 24, 25 and 26.
8. Lots 30, 31 and 32 are tax forfeit.
The followir%q is rec~,~ended for water, sewer and stre~t~for Lot 24.
1. Sewer he furnished as originally planned and Lot 24 assume
the original assessment.
2. Lot 24 dedicate 25 feet for extension of Chest~6t Lane.
Inasmuch as not interesti~has:heen charged on sewer assessment
the land for street should be 9iven the Village'.
3. Water - Lot 24, at their own expense, extend the water main
to the:easterly edge of LOt 24. If Lots 25 and 26 have not in
the past paid a water assessment then the Village could assess
this extension. (Lots 25 and 26 should also dedicate 25 feet
of right of way)
COUNCTI. MEMORANDUM NO. 71-112
Page 2
4. After the Utilities are installed Lot 24 should improve the
road hy the installation of 4 inches of pit run gravel which
should De compacted and then cover the pitrun with two 3;' ~nch
lifts of class 5 gravel prior to the Village maintainin§ the
road.
5. Although the water main should he looped to Langdon Place it
is~. not recc~mended this be done at this time.
Respectfully s,~,bm ~tted,
Leonard L. Kopp
Retyped 6-20/75
· ,.. :'..,_*,: ,';.. ,;,*.'* .~.,. ... . .... . '. · , . /,. . -*
· .. '- ~" .. ;.'.",.f'. .. · . .....· .... ' ....':'.: , '~l . ~ ~..'.: ~,' .'.%; ..,, ~'.o.. , '
............. :.,~,~,...-..~... ...~ · ....; ;..,:"
........... ~. ...... .,. ,~,'.,~.,; .,-. ['~....
.' CONVEYANCE F~C~ TEE STATE OF CERTAIN LANDS
-'-' ',". (~ 34 feet of Lot '30, Koehler's '2nd ,
· ~N]~ ~4 feet of Lot }1, Koehler~e. 2nd
--. '": " (Part of Lot 31, Koehlerts 2nd Described)
.'-' ,":-.f,' .I~F~S, Lots~3,31, ]2, Koehler~e Second Addi'tion to Mouad are tax " ....
.... . the Zoo . .........
..., . ~ ..... u... .. .... _.--~ ..... ~..=~:, ., :. .. ~.--~' ~ .-.~ '.,~... ,...~,
N0~4 ~~ RE IT I~ESOLYED ;BY ~ t'ZLLAGE ¢017N¢I; OF MO0~, MO0~
'~; -' th ~E17 alon~ the $:LY l~ne ed Lot 23 ·extended
· :.:: %o the :pt o:f intersection with the W line o£ ....
'" Lot 32 Eoehler~e 2nd ~dctn - such :pt bein~ the ' ':' .
': aot~s:L :pt o£ be~, th l~Ely alon~ the $~7 line .:..
.:.-- o£ Lot 23 to s :pt in the E t~ne Lot 32 to a pt
'"' which is 7~ £t N of'the DW cot Lot lO Mack*s . ....
"~'~) Addn, th $ alon~' .the ~. line' Lot 52 Eoehler's
'i.": 2nd Addn 15 ft, th SWly alon~.~ line par with
the NEly desor line 95 ft, th S 35 ft, th SWly .:
~' to a pt in the W line of Lot 32 to a pt whioh ·
.. ~. ... is 50 ft S of the actual pt of' beg. th N to Beg.
· ~ . .,\ ..
Mound, Minn.
June 12, 1975
Leonard L. Kopp
Village Ms~ager
Village of Mound Office
Dear Mr. Kopp,
In regards to lot 24, Koehlers 2nd Addition to Mound,
please furnish us with the following_ information;
Confirmation that upon our granting the easement for the
roadway South of this property line, that the Village will
extmnd or make av~.ilable water and sewer to service this
property.
We ~11 grant this easement upon being guaranteed that
the assessment of $992.62 ,agreed upon per records we bo~;h h~ve,
will be the complete charge for water and sewer availability
to US.
Ju~e 20, 1975
CO0~0IL ~0R~DU~ -~0. 75-175
Lot 24, EoeKler,e 2md Additiom
At%ached is a copy of C~uc~_l Hemo~n~u~ ~co 71--l~L2, dm~ed ?~y 10, 19~, ~hich
1971 is ~t ~ Ci~ ~s aoqui~d the ~nd colored ~'eeu on ~he a%~c~ ~p as
~k ~.
~ long-_~an~e water ~?s~em plan shows that the ~atez~ai~ aho~.ld he "looped,~
connect the dea~ end at the end of 1or i, ~lc. ck 25 ~o L-~lon lane. ~his
ahould ~e looped as soon ms possible.
~o. 71~112. It i~ ~aggeste~ ~h~ ~he 0ouaoll oor. osider loopi~I the ~e~main ~o
If %he 0ou~oil agrees to %he ~ecommend~%iona of Counoil E~mo:~n~m 3o. 71-112, the
ownex~ would be ~s~ to ~ .
~ ~2B.~8. (~ ~ wo~ ~ %o ~tall a ~ice
to ~ ~ole.)
~, ~tex- - (a~ H' a ~:-~ch water, in ~re ~lled to ~on
~-~ %his ~ea would ~ ~me~d it~ ~, o~
~b) ~ th~ C~il ~-~i~ ra~her ~ee
~li~ where wares- is not
a fee of ~..~ per f:?om'~ foot plu~ iu'et~lli~
i~ e~ended to ~on
(oon~inu~d)
Page 2
like
"~e i~'galla%ion of 4 inches of pit ~ g~avel
%.:hioh shoulR be compmcSe~ ~ them corex
p~_~.~ ~,i'~h "..:::,o ~h~e~-i~h lifts o.e clas~
· f-;ca"7~l ~)~.~ o:-, .._ _ '-~o the Ci'~y mai~i~ 2he
%~is ~ill Be lis-~e~ £om discussiom on Jm,,e 24.
cc F~. Eugene
Pmblic
J~ 2, Z.9'75
~OT~. Lpg' .24~ ~Tehie~s 2~ A~i%iou
· A~e~ xr2~¢i~£. 'the 'P~-~i;ez'%~',~ ~he Cou~c:i.i i~dicm~e~ t~e £ollm¢i~g:
.... :. be ~llowod to co~_~ect to the se~ice
'":~ p=o.~id~d f~om ~r~b~le .A-l~.) "
wa. rem ·
build ~: the ProDe~
75 -269
7- -75
RESOLUTION NO. 75-269
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WATER AND SEWER SERVICE
TO LOT 24, KOEHLER'S 2ND ADDITION TO MOUND,
AND PROVIDING FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
Lot 24, Koehler's 2nd Addition to Moundhas neither water
nor sewer service and does have a road right-of-way past
the property, and
WHEREAS, the owner wishes to build on the property,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND,
MINNESOTA:
That the owner of Lot 24 be allowed to build providing
the following stipulations are met:
A 25-foot ri~ht-of-way for street and
utility purposes be dedicated to the
City of Mound. The right-of-way to be
the Southerly 25 feet of Lot 24.
e
Lot 24 pay a sewer lateral assessment of
8728.58 and be allowed to connect at
service from Manhole A-19. (An ascessN~ent
of $63.04 is to be made for the s~rvice if
it exists.)
Se
Lot 24 will be allowed to connect to the
watermain at the end of Chestnut Road
providing they install their own service,
pay all connection charges and an addi-
tional $4.00 per front foot. If the water-
main is extended easterly along Chestnut
Road at any future date, this property
shah be subject to a special assessment
under the formula used to assess that
project less a credit for the $4.00 per
foot previously paid.
Adopted by the council this 8th day of July, 1975.
PRELININARY ENGINEERING REPORT
For
City of Mound, Minnesota
Chestnut Road Improvements
Sewer, Water & Street Construction
May, 1979
I hereby certify that this Report was prepared by
me or under my direct supervision and that I am a
duly Registered Professional Engineer under the
laws of the State of Minnesota.
5/2/79 ~' · '~. · . · . Reg. No. 7411
May 2, 1979
Honorable Mayor
& Members of the City Council
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Subject'
Preliminary Engineering Report
Chestnut Road Improvements
Gentlemen:
As requested, we submit herewith a Preliminary Engineering
Report for a sewer and water extension and street improvements
on Chestnut Road, from the end of the existing road to
approximately 500 feet East.
If you have any questions on anything in this Report we
would be pleased to discuss this with you at your convenience.
Yours very truly,
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Lyle Swanson, P.E.
LS'jl
Enclosure
C
GEh~ERAL
The owner of Lot 24, Kohlers 2nd Addition to Mound
has requested a building permit. There are problems
regarding sewer and water availability and street access
to this property. The City Council authorized this
Preliminary Engineering Report to investigate these problems
and to study the feasibility of extending Chestnut Road to
Lot 32, the southerly portion of which is City owned land.
The City also owns Lots 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31.
SEWER
Map No. 1 shows the location of existing sewers in the
area. There is a sewer on the railroad right-of-way and at
the end of the existing road. The sewer along the railroad
right-of-way was laid on piling and the sewer as-built drawings
show up to 10 feet of peat under the pipe. This sewer is
at too high an elevation to be extended along the right-of-way
abutting Lots 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. The sewer at the end
of Chestnut is also at too high an elevation to be extended
along the existing right-of-way of Chestnut abutting Lots
27, 28, 29, 30, and 31.
-1-
There are three possible ways of serving the properties
involved with sewer. The first is to haul in large quantities
of fill to raise the grade of the street and the adjacent lots.
We do not believe this is feasible because the property to the
north is heavily wooded and a number of large trees would have
to be removed. It would also be virtually impossible to blend
Lot B2 into the new street grade.
The second alternative would be to construct a lift station
and pump the sewage to the existing sewer. The small number of
lots which would be served by this lift station makes this
economically not feasible.
The third alternative and the one we recommend would be
to shift the alignment of Chestnut Road as shown on Map No. 2.
The new alignment would allow the extension of the existing
sewer on Chestnut as shown. This will require a replatting
of the properties involved, however, it will also provide
gravity sewer to all buildable properties in the area.
WETLANDS
Map No. 2 shows the approximate location of the land
below elevation 933 which is the 1965 high water level of
Lake Langdon.
We would recommend that this property be retained
by the City as wetlands.
WATER
Map No. 1 shows the proposed watermain construction.
The watermain should be a 6 inch line which would be looped
between Chestnut and Langdon Lane. The easement between
Lots 9 and 10, Macks Addition, has previously been acquired
by the City. Langdon Lane will not be disturbed by this
construction because the watermain was stubbed to behind the
curb with the 1978 Street Construction.
STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY
Right-of-way for the street, as proposed herein, will
have to be acquired across Lots 23, 24, 25, 26, and 32,
Kohlers 2nd Addition to Mound.
STREETS
Width - the proposed street will be 26 feet wide, plus
one foot on each side for surmountable curbing for a total of
28 feet which will be centered on the right-of-way.
-3-
Drainase - drainage of the street will be the wetlands
on the City owned property. Two (2) catch basins and a small
length of storm sewer will be required.
Typical Section - the attached drawing shows the
proposed typical street section. The street surfacing
will consist of 3-1/2 inches of bituminous base and l-l/2
inches of bituminous wearing course.
Concrete Curb and Gutter - a surmountable concrete
curb and gutter with driveway aprons will be constructed
at the edge of the street surfacing. A typical section of
curb and gutter and driveway aprons is attached to this
Report.
COST ESTIMATE
The estimated cost of the work is as follows:
Sanitary Sewer
Watermain
Street and Storm Sewer
$16,000
18,000
28,000
The estimated cost includes estimated 1979 construction
cost plus 20% for engineering, legal, fiscal and administrative
costs. The cost given do not include any costs for right-of-
way acquisition.
ASSESSMENTS
If the sewer and watermain were assessed on a front
foot basis to the buildable property the assessment per
foot for sewer would be $16,000 , 580 feet = $27.58/feet
and for water $18,000 + 680 feet = $26.47/feet.
If it is assumed that Lots 25 and 26 is one unit and
that Lots 27 and 28 are another and if Lot 23 were divided
into 3 units and Lot 32 into 2 units there would be 7 units,
156,600 S.F. and 1160 feet assessed for streets with this
construction. On the basis of 40% of the cost being assessed
on a unit basis, 30% on the area, and 30% on front footage -
the assessment for this project, if not combined with another
project, would be:
Unit $1,600
Front Footage $ 7.24
Square Footage $ 0.054
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
It is the opinion of the Engineer that the proposed
project is feasible and can best be accomplished as described
herein.
-5-
The proposed construction requires acquirinE right-of-
way £rom four property owners. We would recommend that if
this project does not go forward that the minimum requirements
for issuing a building permit on Lot 24 be - that the sewer
and watermain be constructed to the easterly edge of the lot
and that a SO foot right-of-way adjacent to Lot 24 and over-
lapping the existing 30 foot right-of-way on Chestnut be Eiven
to the City.
COST ESTIMATE
Chestnut Road
ITEM
Street and Storm Sewer
Tree Removal
Excavation
Bituminous Base
Bituminous Surfacing
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY
LUMP SUM
1900 CYD
340 TON
145 TON
Concrete Curb and Gutter 1200 L.F.
Driveway Aprons 100 L.F.
Catch Basins 2 EACH
Storm Sewer 130 L.F.
Contingencies
Estimated Construction Cost
Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrat'ive
Costs
ESTIMATED
UNIT PRICE
$ 2.00
15 O0
17.00
4 50
5 O0
6 O0
14 O0
Total Estimated Cost
TOTAL
$ 1,000
3,800
5,100
2,465
5,400
500
1,200
1,820
2,115
$23,400
4,600
$28,000
-7-
Item
6" Watermain
Fittings
Service Groups
Service Pipe
Gate Valve
Hydrants
Contingencies
Estimated
Quantity
Estimated
Unit Price
750 L.F. $ 12.00
500 LBS. 1.00
7 EACH 100.00
175 L.F. 7.00
4 EACH 200.00
2 EACH 700.00
Estimated Construction Cost
Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative
Costs
Total Estimated Cost
Sanitary Sewer
8" Sewer - 0 - 10' Deep
Manholes
Foundation Material
8 x 4 Wyes
4" Sewer Services
Contingencies
Total
$ 9, ooo
500
7O0
1,225
800
1,400
1,375
$15,000
3,000
$18,000
530 L.F. 16.00 8,480
2 EACH 750.00 1,500
50 TONS 7.00 350
7 EACH 50.00 350
200 L.F. 7.00 1,400
1,220
Estimated Construction Cost
Engineering Legal, Fiscal & Administrative
Costs
Total Estimated Cost
$13,300
2,700
$16,000
L
MOUN
EXISTING
SEWER
LYNWOOD
I
122
I
I
KOEHL
;ED
M Al 2~
BLVD.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Ri
I
(CO. RD. 15)
13
12
9
STI N G R.(
8
PROPOSE
SEWER
ON
I
r~4
~5
6
'1
TER
'~CALE
4909
MAP NO. I
PROPOSED SANITARYSEWER&WATERMAIN
CHESTNUT ROAD
- LYNWOOD BLVD. (CO. RD. 15)
-- I
I I ~ ~3 Z
I22I ~ <1:
~ ~2 --Iz2 I
I I
~ I ---4 Z i ~2;) ' I
K 0 E H L: 'R'S .... -:x:" o-- 3
.0~,.~:~ s~~~ '~.~' ,,
~~,~o ~',~-~k~0'~// ~
¢':2oo' MAP NO. 2 I
OMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CHESTNUT ~OAD
~~: -:~~.':::':]:;;.::: ~ MINNEAPOLIS and HUTCHINSON.MINNESOTA 4909
R'O-W
R'O'W
~ I '
4" CROWN
2H41 BITUMINOUS SURFACE
23HI BITUMINOUS SURFACE
SURMOUNTABLE CONCRETE CR, G
TYPICAL SECTION
'RESIDENTIAL STREET
PICAL CURB SE TION
, '~ . I........,.,...~_!1.j)-3/4"
~ ~ 8" MIN. --~
I, i.___.__._ _.._--..~T-
I
SLOPE VARIES
"~'~-6"X16"- I0 X I0 W.W.M.
TYPICAL APRON SECTI""-
MOUND , MINNESOTA
CONSULTING ENGINEERS · LANO SURVEYORS · PLANNERS
April 23, 1985
ReDly To:
12800 Industrial Park Boulevard
Plymouth0 Minnesota 55441
(612) 559-3700
Hr. Jori Elam
City Manager
City of Mound
534i Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Subject:
Chestnut Road - Street & Utility Improvements
Mound, Minnesota
#4909
Dear Jon:
I met with Dennis Danger on Monday April 15, 1985 at his lot on the end of
Chestnut Road. It was difficult to teii where the property lines where since
no property corners were visible. He did not like the proposed location of the
street extension because of the amount it cut into the buildabie portion of his
lot. I quess I would have to somewhat agree with him. He would not sign the
easement that was prepared back in 1979 for these improvements.
Re has furnished me with some topography of the area and I have redesigned
the road by using a flatter curve off the end of the existing street. This
will help his situation somewhat, but it will require a larger easement from
Mr. Willcox, the property owner to the south. Mr. Danger lives close to our
office so I will have him stop in to review my sketch and then meet at the site
if he is willing to go along with the new alignment.
I still see the sewer and water as a problem. I had Dee check for any past
assessments and the only one she could find was a sewer unit charge of $292.00,
which means this lot is deficient in a sewer lateral charge and water charge.
It appears these two would total approximately $1000.00. There are a number of
ways that this property can be served with sewer and water. The most ideal
from the Clty's standpoint would be to require that the malns, 8" sanitary
sewer and 6" water, be extended by the property owner across his property.
Enclosed is an estimate that we had previously prepared for this method. The
big problem with this alternate is that the City does not have either a street
or utility easement across Lots 25 and 26 which would be required for
construction of the utilities. The simple solution is to let Mr. Danger
connect a 4" sewer service and l" water service where the mains presently
terminate. If this is done he should be charged the deficiencies which exist
from past assessments.
~r~nte.q on recvc)e~ 3aDer
Don Elam
April 23, 1985
Page Two
Which ever method is used for serving this property with utilities we
should get a signed easement from Mr. Danger and let him build his driveway to
the end of the existing bituminous. If this street is ever extended with curb
and gutter then this property could be assessed for an equal share of the
street improvements at that time.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
US.
Sincerely,
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, Inc.
3ohn Cameron
Oc:j
LOT 24,
WATERMAI N
6" D.t.P. Watermain
6" Gate Valve
1" Service Group
l" Copper Service Pipe
Fittings
Contingencies
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST FOR WATERMAIN
COST ESTIMATE
UTILITIES IN C~ESTNUT ROAO
KOEh[ER'S 2N3 ADDITION TO MOU~
110 LF 8 12.00/LF =
1 EA 8 350.00/EA =
1 EA 8 iO0. O0/EA =
20 LF 8 9.00/LF =
150 LBS ® 2.00/L8 =
$132o. co
350. O0
100. O0
180.00
300. O0
250.00
$2,500. O0
SANITARY SEWER
8" Sewer - O'
Foundation Material
8x 4Wye
4" Sewer Service
Contingencies
- 10' depth - 110 LF~ 16.00/LF =
10 TN ~ 8.00/TN =
1EA ~ 80. O0/EA =
~0 LF ~ i2.00/LF =
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST FOR SANITARY SEWER
$ 1760.00
80. O0
80. O0
360. O0
220. O0
$2,500.00
FILE #4909
419185
I1-11
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
June 1, 1988
To whom it may concern:
Re: Lot 24 Koehlers Second Addition
Deficiency:
Sewer Service
Sewer Lateral
$9.04 x 60'
Water
4.87 x 60'
64.03
542.40
292.20
898.63
As
per John Cameron
Ao e=ual opportumty ~=mployer that 0oas not discriminate on tr~e basis of race. color, national origin, or handicaDDed status
i~ :i~e e~.'l~lsstcrl cr access to, or treatmem or employment in, its programs and activities.
.O
on
Lot 22
G, Cox
Lot 22
Lar~On
Lot 22
23
~ordstrom
KTaus e
Io Kurve~s
Foota e~~---_. Unit
;
108 o6
26
I o Kurvers
:~?$TATE LAN D
,elt ]1 o l~urvOrs
STATE LAND
29 STATE LAND
I o Kurvers
6~
Do Newel1
in E o Newell
of Lot 32
Andersen
Total
'Assessment
1
292 .OO
292000
292000
1
8T6~oo
292 · O0
1
Lot'
Soderlund
1972 5i/.36
1972 ~x. 36.
51.36
51 °36
z92
292 o00/
1
1
292000
1 292000
292000
292000
1
292000~.
of Lot 32
& Swedlund
:nt Corp.
of Lot 32
Co Anderson
,of Lot 3~
3o Er~okson
of Lot 3~
ar Ledin
of Lot 3h
Kepke Jr~
X89oX~
85
6 1 ,?~2. oo
876.00
0
100
loo I~57
The Village Council
¥illage of Mound
Mound, Minnesota
[ect: Report of Grievance
Date: ~[u'l_3r l_q.. 196S
I. I/we, the undersigned, am/are the fee owners of the following described property.
I/we have examined the proposed assessment roll for utility improvements on file in the village
office and feel aggrieved as hereinafter stated.
Plot 61870
2. The legal description of my/our property is:
L°t1630
Lot
Block Plot 61670
Lot 24 Plot 61670
Parcel No. 3220 Subdivision Koehler's 2nd Addltio~ to Mound
.Paroel No. 4200 . ~ . . ~ i . ~
Parcel No. 6200 , · , m , . . m
3. I/we respectfully request the Village Council to re-examine the assessment roll with
a view toward satisfying the grievance outlined below:
(State each fact that you claim shows the unfairness of the proposed assessment.)
Lot # 30 is a part of the original sized lot and only 129.68 feet wide by ~
100 feet deep. It is reduced to this size because of granting the Village
eermission to extend a roadway from Mound Shores into the Breokton area.
s leaves the square-footage at only 1296.80 or approximately 1300 square
t. 'l~is can be no more than ONE building site and should be charged with
only one connection charge. The proposed charge for this lot is $1300.37,
which includes TWO connection charges; this ough~ to be reduced by one
connection charge, (~65.00 less) to a figure of $123.$.37. There is provision
for only one oo~ection on tt~s lot.
a
Lot # 16 is, lot with a front footage of approximately 64 feet. According
to the charges proposed for this lot, the basis of 80 front feet, based, on
10,000 aquare-foot zoning, has been applied to make the charge $787.23 (which
includes the S6.5.00 connection charge). We believe this lot should be based
on the exact front footage of 64 feet and the price reduced approximately
Lot ~ 24 is a lot with no road platted or water or se~er lines lm it. This
!~nd should not be assessed a~ this time for any front footage rates. This
assessment should be deferred until the roadway is developed. ~he oharge of
9~2.62 should ~e held u~tll later.
McCombs Frank Roos A~_~ociates, Inc.
15050 23rd Avenue North. Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
Telephone
612/476-6010
612/476-8532 FAX
September 4, 1990
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
Mr. Jon Sutherland
Planning and Zoning
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT:
City of Mound, Minnesota
Variance Application
Case No. 90-931
MFRA #4909
Dear Jon:
As requested, we have reviewed the above referenced variance application
and have the following comments and recommendations:
Background
The more recent history on this lot and adjacent properties dates back to
'minar En ineering Report was prepared on the extension of
1979, when a Prell Y- g ........ ~ ~nclosed for your review. Evidently,
Chmstnut Road. A copy ox sala r~ ~ ~ ~ -~ ~- ~ Citv because they
~s and specifications for the prooect were oraerea u~ ~= ~,
were included with the bidding plans for the 1979 Street Improvement Project.
The project was never completed, because the necessary easements could not be
obtmined from the property owners. Enclosed are copies of these final plans.
In 1985, the project was again brought up by Mr. D~nger, who, at that time,
owned Lot 2~. Enclosed is a letter from our office to the City, with revised
cost estimates and sketches of the proposed street extension. Aaa/n, the
project did not get off the ground.
In February, 1990, I started receiving calls again from a number of people
and, soon afterward, found out that Lot 23 was up for auction on February 20,
1990. The present owners and the applicants for the subject variance purchased
the property at that auction. I have also had a number of discussions, dating
back to 1988, with Mr. Mark Mulvey, the present owner of Lot 24.
Comments
I would still like to see this property developed, with the access and
utilities from an extension of Chestnut Road. However, because of the past
history and the same problems, such as lack of easements and cooperation of
adjacent property owners, existing today, I do not see how this is possible.
It appears the only logical way for this property to be served with utilities
and access is by way of Boxwood Lane, as the applicants have suggested.
An EQual ODDortunity ErnDIoyer
Mr. Jon Sutherland
September 4, 1990
Page Two
Outside of Lot 24 and possibly Lots 27 and 28, the remainder of the property in
this area is unbuildable because of the large wetlands. /~nis is probably why
the City of Mound o~aus Lots 29, 30 and 31 south of Lot 23, and also parcels 18
and 19 east of Boxwood Lane. Enclosed are aerial photos with the plat map
overlaid, which gives a very good view of the area.
I have reviewed the proposed water and sewer services with Greg Skinner of
Public Works and both of us have a number of concerns. First of all, if the
sewer service is installed with a cleanout and only a wye at the main, the City
would not be responsible for any maintenance. For this line to become
City-owned and maints/ned, there must be a manhole built over the existing main
on Lynwood and also where the clean-out is shown on the survey. The situation
with the water would be pretty much the same, whereas it would need to be a 6"
DIP if the City is to maintain it or 1-1/2" copper if the line is to be
private. If the two lines are to be installed as close to each other as shown
on the survey, certain requirements of the State Health Department must be
met. Greg and myself would like to see at least the sanitary sewer installed
to City standards, but if the applicant insists on a private service that
would be acceptable. ,
The driveway would also be acceptable if approved by the Fire Department,
which I do not think will happen, unless some type of turnaround is provided.
They may also want an all-weather surface, such as blacktop.
Recommendations
We are recommending approval of the variance request, subject to the
following conditions:
US.
Fire Department approval of the driveway;
Utility constr~ction P~rmit-approval' from Hennepin County;
Approval by Mound Public Works for private utility services;
No further subdivision of property, unless public access and utilities
are extended from Chestnut Road.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS FRANK R00S ASSOCIATES, INC.
JC:jmj
Enclosures
John Cameron
Preliminary Engineering Report
For
Chestnut Road Extension
For
The City of Mound, Minnesota
November, 1990
November 20, 1990
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT:
City of Mound, Minnesota
Preliminary Engineering Report
Chestnut Road Extension
MFRA #4909
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
As requested, we submit herewith a Preliminary Engineering Report for the
extension of Chestnut Road, including sanitary sewer and watermain extensions
and street improvements from the end of the existing street easterly to provide
access for undeveloped property.
If you have any questions regarding the information enclosed in this
report, we would be pleased to discuss them at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
JC:jmj
Enclosures
McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC.
John Cameron
GENERAL
The owners of Lot 23, Kohlers 2nd Addition to Mound have requested a
building permit for a new home on their property. Because the property does
not have fronta§e on an improved City street as required by the City's zoning
ordinance, a variance application was submitted and hearings held by both the
Planning Commission and City Council. The City Council, at their meeting on
September 12, 1990, discussed the possible extension of Chestnut Road as being
the better solution to the applicsnt's immediate problem and also a possible
long-term solution. Therefore, the City Council authorized this Preliminary
Engineering Report to study the feasibility of extending Chestnut Road to the
east.
The ownership of the properties affected by the street extension are as
follows:
Lot 23 (14-117-24 43 0005) Tom & Stacy Hintz
Lot 24 (14-117-24 43 0006) Mark Mulvey
Lots 25 - 28 (14-117-24 43 0007-10) Dave and Julie Wilcox
Lots 29 - 43 ~ (14-117-24 43 0012, 0013, 0018 & 0019) City of Mound
Parcels ** (14-117-24 43 0011, 0014 & 0017) City of Mound
~ Tax forfeited property taken for park purposes
** Tax forfeited property taken for road purposes
Attached to this report are three (3) alternates for the extension of
Chestnut Road. Alternate No. 1 would make it possible to subdivide Lot 23 into
3 lots and, at the same time, provide the Owner of Lot 24 an option to
subdivide his property into 2 building sitesl Alternate No. 2 shows the
minimum extension of Chestnut Road to serve Lot 23, with the possible
subdivision into 2 lots.
Alternate No. 3 would extend Chestnut Road to the City owned property, Lot
32. This alternate was addressed in a Preliminary Engineering Report prepared
in May, 1979, from which final plans were prepared and bid as part of the 1980
Street Improvement Project. This street extension was eliminated from the
project when the necessary easements could not be obtained. The two advantages
this alternate has over the others are that it would provide access to City
- 1 -
property and allow for a short loop to connect two watermains and eliminate
deadend mains on both Chestnut Road and Langdon Lane. This alternate would
also allow for the subdivision of Lot 23 into a minimum of 3 lots.
Any division of the existing lots as they are presently platted must meet
the City's Platting and Subdivision Regulations as spelled out in Section
330.00 of the City of Mound Ordinance Code.
UTILITIES (Sanitary Sewer and Watermain)
As indicated on the attached drawings, all three alternates would require
extension of both sanitary sewer and watermain from the existing mains at the
present termination of Chestnut Road. It would still be possible, but more
expensive, to loop the 6" watermain to Langdon Lane under either Alternate 1 or
Alternate 2. An easement between Lots 9 and 10, Mark's Addition, was
previously acquired by the City and the watermain stubbed to approximately 10
feet behind the curb during the 1978 Street Construction. This would allow for
a connection with minimal disruption to the area.
STREETS
Right-of-way for the street extension would be required from Lots 23, 24,
25 and 26 in all three alternates proposed in this report. We are suggesting a
deviation from the City's requirements of a 50' right-of-way and 100' diameter
cul-de-sac to a 40' right-of-way and 80' diameter cul-de-sac. This would still
allow for the standard 28' wide improved street measured from back to back on
the concrete curb. The improved portion of the cul-de-sac would be reduced to
70' diameter which would still be sufficient.
This reduction in right-of-way width is recommended to help minimize the
amount of private property required for this project. The street construction
would consist of 1-1/2" bituminous wear course, 2" bituminous base course and a
6" gravel base. A 4" high surmountable concrete curb and gutter would be
constructed at both edges of the street surfacing.
-2-
Alternates 1 and 2 would not require any storm sewer because the proposed
street grade would allow for drainage in the gutters westerly to the existing
catch basins. Alternate No. 3 would require the construction of storm sewer
consisting of one catch basin and an outlet to the City's wetlands to the
south.
COST ESTIMATES
Included with this report are estimated costs for each of the three
alternates. These estimates are based on projected 1991 prices and include 10%
contingencies and 35% for engineering, legal, fiscal and administrative costs.
The estimated project costs do not include any costs for right-of-way
acquisition. The cost to extend a 6" watermain to Langdon Lane has not been
included but will need to be addressed if this project should proceed. The
total cost for each alternate is shown as follows, with a complete breakdown
included in the exhibits at the end of this report.
Alternate 1
Alternate 2
Alternate 3
$ 73,o00.o0
$ 49,7oo.oo
$ 82,100.00
ASSESSMENTS
For the purposes of this report, it is assumed that Lots 25 and 26 are one
unit and Lots 27 and 28 are another unit. Lots 27 and 28 have not been
included in the calculations for the proposed assessments, as there may be a
question whether topography restricts this parcel from being a viable building
site. If this project should proceed, then additional investigation will need
to be done to determine whether the parcel formed by Lots 27 and 28 is
buildable. If said parcel is declared buildable, it should then share in the
cost for the watermain and street improvements, but not the sanitary sewer.
Under Alternate No. 1, Lot 24 would be considered to have 2 units; Lots 25 and
26, 1 unit; and Lot 23, 3 units. In Alternte 2, Lot 24 would be 1 unit; Lots
25 and 26, 1 unit; and Lot 23, 2 units. For Alternate 3, Lot 24 would be 1
unit; Lots 25 and 25, 1 unit; Lot 23, 3 units; and the City property, Lot 32, 1
unit.
Lot 24 and the parcel comprised of Lots 25 and 26 have paid previous
assessments for sanitary sewer and watermain; therefore, we c8~nnot recommend
they be assessed for utilities as part of this project. The one exception
would be for Alternate No. 1, which shows Lot 24 divided into 2 building
sites. If this should occur, then Lot 24 would be assessed 1/4, or $7,925.00
of the cost For utilities. Because these Lots 23, 24, 25 and 26 have never
been assessed for any type of street improvements, they will be treated the
same as any other parcels using the City's street improvement assessment policy
adopted under Resolution No. 76-77. That assessment criteria is as follows:
ao
30 percent of the total cost to be assessed shall be based on front
footage.
b. 30 percent of the total cost to be assessed shall be based on the
square footage oF the property to be assessed.
c. 40 percent of the total cost to be assessed shall be on a unit charge.
Using the previously mentioned criteria, the enclosed proposed assessment
for street improvements were calculated for each alternate. Lot 23 would be
responsible for the total cost of utilities, except for Alternate No. 1, as
previously mentioned, where Lot 24 would pay a share of the utility extension.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Any one of the three alternates presented in this report would accomplish
the main objective of providing utilities for Lot 23 and an improved street for
the entire area. Alternate No. 3, which provides access to City owned Lot 32
appears to be the most advantageous to the City of Mound, but is also the most
expensive, particularily to the Owners of Lot 23.
It is the opinion of the Engineer that the proposed project is feasible and
can be accomplished as described herein.
-4-
COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATE NO. 1
Description
Est. Qty.
Unit Price
STREETS
Clearing & Grubbing
Grading
Erosion Fence
Seeding
Concrete Curb & Gutter
Class 5 Gravel
Bit. Base 2331
Bit. Wear 2341
Contingencies (10%)
LUMP SUM
1,600 c.Y. $ 4.00/cY
500 L.F. $ 1.50/LF
1/3 ACRE $ 1,500.O0/AC
730 L.F. $ 6.00/LF
500 TON $ 9.00/TN
160 TON $ 27.00/TN
115 TON $ 30.O0/TN
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - STREETS
Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Costs (35%)
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS - STREETS
Est. Amount
3,5oo.o0
6,400.00
750.00
500.00
4,380.00
4,500.00
4,320.00
3,450.00
2,8O0.O0
3o,60o.oo
10,700.00
$ 41,300.00
SANITARY SEWER
8" PVC Sewer 10 - 12'
Manholes
Manholes, Extra Depth
8" x 4" Wyes
4" Sewer Service
Granular Foundation Material
Contingencies (10%)
300 L.F.
2 EACH
5L.F.
5 EACH
200 L.F.
80 TON
$ 18.00/LF
$ 1,OO0.O0/EA
$ $O.O0/LF
$ 80.O0/EA
$ 8.00/LF
$ 8.00/TN
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - SANITARY SEWER
5,4o0.00
2,000.00
400.00
400.00
1,600.00
640.00
1,060.00
$ 11,500.00
WATERMAIN
6" DIP Watermain
Fittings
Hydrants
6" Gate Valve
1" Service Groups
1" Copper Service Pipe
Contingencies (10%)
330 L.F. $ 20.00/LF
200 LBS $ 2.00/LB
1 EACH $ 1,O00.00/EA
2 EACH $ 400.00/SA
5 EACH $ iO0.00/EA
200 L.F. $ 8.00/LF
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - WATERMAIN
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - UTILITIES
Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Costs (35%)
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS - UTILITIES
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST - ALTERNATE NO. 1
6,600.00
4OO.OO
1,000.00
800.O0
500.00
1,6o0.00
1,100.00
$ 12,000.00
$ 23,500.00
$ 8,200.00
$ 31,700.00
$ 73,000.00
-5-
COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATE NO. 2
Description
STREETS
Est. Qty.
Unit Price
Clearing and Grubbing
Grading
Erosion Fence
Seeding
Concrete Curb & Gutter
Class 5 Gravel
Bit. Base 2331
Bit. Wear 2341
Contingencies (10%)
LUMP SUM
1,200 C.Y.
250 L.F.
1/4 ACRE
480 L.F.
300 TON
100 TON
70 TON
$ 4.5o/cY
$ 1.50/LF
$ 1,500.00/AC
$ 7.00/LF
$ IO.O0/TN
$ 29.00/TN
$ 32.00/TN
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - STREETS
Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Costs (35%)
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS - STREETS
SANITARY SEWER
8" PVC Sewer 10 - 12'
Manholes
Manholes, Extra Depth
8" x 4" Wyes
4" Sewer Service
Granular Foundation Material
Contingencies (10%)
165 L.F. $ 20.00/LF
1 EACH $ 1,O00.00/EA
2.5 L.F. $ 100.00/LF
3 EACH $ 90.00/EA
100 L.F. $ 9.00/LF
30 TON $ 9.00/TN
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - SANITARY SEWER
WATERMAIN
6" DIP Watermain
Fittings
Hydrants
6" Gate Valve
1" Service Groups
1" Copper Service Pipe
Contingencies (10%)
19o L.F.
100 LBS
1 EACH
2 EACH
3 EACH
70 L.F.
$ 22.00/LF
$ 2.00/LB
$ 1,O00.00/EA
$ 400.00/EA
$ 120.00/EA
$ 9.00/LF
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - WATERMAIN
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - UTILITIES
Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Costs (35%)
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS - UTILITIES
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST - ALTERNATE NO. 2
-6-
Est. Amount
2,500.00
5,400.00
375.00
375.00
3,360.00
3,ooo.oo
2,9oo.oo
2,240.00
2,150.00
$ 22,300.00
7,800.00
$ 3o,ioo.oo
$ 3,3o0.0o
$ 1,000.00
$ 250.00
$ 270.00
$ 900.00
$ 270.00
$ 6i0.00
$ 6,600.00
4,18o.oo
200.00
1,000.00
8OO.OO
360.00
630.00
730.00
$ 7,900.00
$ 14,500.00
$ 5,100.00
$ 19,600.00
$ 49,700.00
COST ESTIMATE
ALTERNATE NO. 3
Description
Est. Qty. Unit Price Est. Amount
STREETS
Clearing and Grubbing
Grading
Erosion Fence
Seeding
Concrete Curb & Gutter
Class 5 Gravel
Bit. Base 2331
Bit. Wear 2341
Catch Basin
Storm Sewer 12" RCP
12" Concrete Apron
Rip Rap
Contingencies (10%)
LUMP SUM
1,90o c.Y. $ 4.00/cY
500 L.F. $ 1.50/LF
1/2 ACRE $ 1,500.OO/AC
910 L.F. $ 6.00/LF
585 TON $ 9.00/TN
177 TON $ 27.00/TN
125 TON $ 30.00/TN
1 EACH $ 800.00/EA
25 L.F. $ 30.O0/LF
1 EACH $ 350.O0/EA
2 C.Y. $ 50.O0/CY
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - STREETS
Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Costs (35%)
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS - STREETS
2,500.00
7,6OO.0O
750.00
75O.0O
5,460.00
5,265.00
4,779.OO
3,750.00
800.00
750.00
350.00
100.00
3,286.00
36,140.00
12,660.00
$ 48,800.00
SANITARY SEWER
8" PVC Sewer 10 - 12'
Manholes
8" x 4" Wyes
4" Sewer Service
Granular Foundation Material
Contingencies (10%)
380 L.F. $ 16.00/LF
1 EACH $ 1,O00.00/EA
6 EACH $ 80.O0/EA
200 L.F. $ 8.00/LF
100 TON $ 8.00/TN
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - SANITARY SEWER
$ 6,080.00
$ 1,000.00
$ 480.00
$ 1,600.00
$ 80O.00
$ 1,000.00
$ 10,96o.oo
WATERMAIN
6" DIP Watermain
Fittings
Hydrants
6" Gate Valve
1" Service Groups
1" Copper Service Pipe
Contingencies (10%)
410 L.F. $ 20.00/LF
300 LBS $ 2.00/LB
1 EACH $ 1,O00.00/EA
2 EACH $ 400.00/EA
6 EACH $ iO0.00/EA
160 L.F. $ 8.00/LF
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - WATERMAIN
$ 8,200.00
$ 60O.0O
$ 1,000.00
$ 800.00
$ 6OO.O0
$ 1,280.00
$ 1,220.00
$ 13,7oo.oo
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - UTILITIES
Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Costs
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS - UTILITIES
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST - ALTERNATE NO. 3
- 7 -
$ 24,660.00
$ 8,640.00
33,300.00
$ 82,100.00
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT SPREAD
Alternate No. 1
STREETS
$ 41,300.00 TO BE ASSESSED
40% of 41,300 = $ 16,520.00
30% of 41,300 = $ 12,390.00
30% of 41,300 = $ 12,390.00
Unit Charge
Frontage
Area
$ 16,520 - 6 units = $2,753.00/unit
$ 12,390 - 680 L.F. = $ 18.22/L.F.
$ 12,390 - 104,200 S.F. = $ O.119/S.F.
LOT 23
3 Units @ $ 2,753.00/unit
285 L.F. @ $ 18.22/L.F.
48,200 S.F. @ $ O.119/S.F.
TOTAL PROPOSED STREET ASSESSMENT - LOT 23
LOT 24
8,259.00
5,193.oo
5,736.00
$ 19,188.oo
2 Units @ $ 2,753.00/unit
295 L.F. @ $ 18.22/L.F.
29,000 S.F. @ $ 0.119/S.F.
TOTAL PROPOSED STREET ASSESSMENT - LOT 24
LOTS 25 AND 26
$ 5,5O6.00
$ 5,375.00
$ 3,451.00
$ 14,332.00
1 Units @ $ 2,753.00/unit
100 L.F. @ $ 18.22/L.F.
27,000 S.F. @ $ 0.1tg/S.F.
TOTAL PROPOSED STREET ASSESSMENT - LOT 25 & 26
TOTAL ASSESSMENT - STREETS
$ 2,753.00
$ 1,822.00
$ 3,213.o0
7,788.00
$ 41,3o8.oo
UTILITIES $ 31,700.00 TO BE ASSESSED
LOT 23
3 Units @ $ 7,925.00/unit
LOTS 24
1 Unit @ $ 7,925.00/unit
TOTAL ASSESSMENT - UTILITIES
23,775.00
7,925.0O
31,70o.00
-8-
J /
/
?
/
I
I
i
/
/
/
/ I ,I
/~?1 / ?
'.//
/ / / /
/
/ / /
/ /
J
~- J J
J J
/
/
/ /
/ / /
/ /
J/ /
/ /
./
J /
/ J J
/ J
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
15050 23rd Ave. N. Engineem
Ptymouth, MN 55447 Ptanners
612/476-6010 Surveyors
:ILE NO.
J
'- C2
.J
J
/ J
J
J
J
J
J l
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
15050 23roi Ave. N. Engineera
P~ymo~.th, MN 5S447 Planner,.
612/476-6010 Surveyors
SCALE
McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc.
15050 23rd Avenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447
Telephone
612/476-6010
6127476-8532 FAX
November 26, 1990
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT:
City of Mound, Minnesota
Chestnut Road Extension
Addendum to Preliminary Engineering Report
MFRA #4909
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Additional information regarding the above referenced project has been
furnished to our office, which has a bearing on how some of the assessments
should be spread: in particular, the watermain extension. Enclosed is a copy
of Resolution NO. 75-269, dated July 8, 1975, which addresses water service for
Lot 24. The present owner of Lot 24 has paid an amount as suggested under Item
No. 3 of the resolution: therefore, if the watermain is extended as proposed in
our report, Lot 24 should be assessed part of the cost, less a credit for what
has already been paid.
Enclosed is a suggested method of spreading the cost of the watermain
between Lots 23 and 24. We have also enclosed, as additional information,
estimated costs for each alternate to loop the 6" watermain from the proposed
cul-de-sacs to Langdon Lane.
us. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
JC:jmj
Enclosures
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC.
John Cameron
An EQual Opportunity Employer
I I
I I I
{ I I
I i~ /I
I
I I I
~ I
/ I
ADDENDUM TO UTILITY ASSESSMENTS
ALTERNATE NO. !
Lot 23 = 3 units
Lot 24 = 2 units
Because Lot 24 has 2 units under this alternate, some of the cost for
sanitary sewer must be charged as well as the wate~main.
Sanitary Sewer
Total Cost $15,500.00 - 4 units = $3,875.00/unit
Watermain
Total Cost $16,200.00 - 5 units = $3,240.00/unit
Lot 23
Sanitary Sewer = 3 units @ $3,875.00/unit = $11,625.00
Watermain = 3 units @ $3,240.00/unit = $ 9,720.00
TOTAL UTILITY ASSESSMENT ALTERNATE 1 * = $21,345.00
Lot 24
Sanitary Sewer = 1 unit @ $3,875.00/unit = $ 3,875.00
Watermain = 2 units @ $3,240.00/unit = $ 6,480.00
SUBTOTAL $10,355.00
Credit for Amount Previously Paid $ 292.20
TOTAL UTILITY ASSESSMENT ALTERNATE 1 ' = $~0,062.80
These proposed utility assessments should be used in lieu of those shown in
the bound report.
ADDENDUM T0 UTILITY ASSESSMENTS
Lot 23 = 2 units
Lot 24 = 1 unit
ALTERNATE NO. 2
Lot 24 would not be assessed for any of the sanitary sewer cost under this
alternate ....... ~'.
Wstermain
Total Cost $10,665.00 - 3 units = $3,555.00/unit
Lot 23
Sanitary Sewer = Total Cost = $ 8,935.00
Watermain = 2 units @ $3,555.00/unit = $ 7,110.00
TOTAL UTILITY ASSESSMENT ALTERNATE 2 * = $16,045.0~
Lot 24
Sanitary Sewer = $ 0.00
Watermain = 1 unit @ $3,555.00/unit = $ 3,555.00
SUBTOTAL $ 3,555.00
Credit for Amount Previously Paid $ 292.20
TOTAL UTILITY ASSESSMENT ALTERNATE 2 * = $ 3,262.80
These proposed utility assessments should be used in lieu of those shown in
the bound report.
ADDENDUM TO UTILITY ASSESSMENTS
ALTERNATE NO. 3
Lot 2] = ] units
Lot 24 = 1 unit
Lot 24 would not be assessed for any of the sanitary sewer coat under this
alternate.
Watermain
Total Cost $18,500.00 - 4 units = $4,625.00/unit
Lot 23
Sanitary Sewer = Total Cost = $14,800.00
Watermain = 3 units @ $4,625.00/unit = $13,875.00
TOTAL UTILITY ASSESSMENT ALTERNATE 3 * = $~8,675.00
Lot 24
Sanitary Sewer = $ 0.00
Watermain = 1 unit @ $4,625.00/unit = $ 4,625.00
SUBTOTAL $"'4,625.00
Credit for Amount Previously Paid $ 292.20
TOTAL UTILITY ASSESSMENT .ALTERNATE 3 ~ = $ 4,332.80
These proposed utility assessments should be used in lieu of those shown in
the bound report.
ESTIMATED COSTS TO LOOP WATERMAIN
FROM PROPOSED CUL-DE-SAC TO LANGDON LANE
Alternate No. 1
Clearing and Grubbing
6" Watermain
Fittings
Restoration
Sod
Seed
Contingencies
Lump Sum
620 L.F. ~ $ 20.O0/LF
400 LBS ~ $ 2.00/h~
300 S.Y. ~ $ 2.50/SY
1/4 AC ~ $2.000.00/AC
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Cost
TOTAL ESTIMATED C0ST
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,200.00
12,400.00
800.00
750.00
500.00
1,550.00
17,200.00
6,OO0.0O
23,200.00
Alternate No. 2
Clearing and Grubbing
6" Watermain
Fittings
Restoration
Sod
Seed
Contingencies
Lump Sum
560 L.F. @ $ 20.00/LF
400 kBS @ $ 2.00/LB
300 S.Y. @ $ 2.50/SY
1/q AC @ $2,400.00/AC
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Cost
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
$
$
$
$
$
$
1,200.00
11,200.00
800.00
750.00
5oo.oo
1,qSO.OO
15,9o0.oo
5,600.00
21,500.00
Alternate No. 3
Clearing and Grubbing
6" Watermain
Fittings
Restoration
Sod
Seed
Contingencies
Lump Sum
340 L.F. @ $ 20.O0/LF
300 LBS @ $ 2.00/LB
300 S.Y. @ $ 2.50/SY
1/8 AC @ $2,400.00/AC
TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST
Engineering. Legal. Fiscal & Administrative Cost
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
700.00
6,8OO.O0
8OO.OO
750'.00
300.00
950.00
10,100.00
3,500.00
13,600.00
7.-8-7~ {
RESOLUTION NO. 7S-269
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WATER AND SEWER SERVICE
TO IDT 25, KOEHLER, S 2ND ADDITION TO MOUND~
AND PROVIDING FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAy
Lot 24, Koehler's 2nd Addition to Mound has neither water
nor sewer service and does have a road right-of-way past
the property, and
WHEREAS, the owner wishes to build on the property,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY ~HE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND,
MINNESOTA:
That the owner of Lot 24 be allowed to build providing
the following stipulations are met:
me
e
A 25-foot ri6ht-of-way for street and
utility purposes be dedicated to the
City of Mound. The riEht-of-Way to be
the Southerly 25 feet of Lot 24.
Lot 24 pay a sewer lateral assessment of
$728.58 and be allowed to connect at
service from Manhole A-19. (An assessment
of $63.04 is to be made for the s~rvice if
it exists. )
Se
Lot 24 will be allowed to connect to the
watermain at the end of Chestnut Road
providing they ins%all their own service,
pay all connection charges and an addi-
tional $4.00 per front foot. If the water-
main is extended easterly along Chestnut
Road at any future date, this property
shall be subject to a special assessment
under the formula used to assess that
project less a credit for the $4.00 per
foot previously paid.
Adopted by the councLl this 8th day of July, 19~5.
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SHEET
~ l~ .1 -~, soo/oLOT WIDTH:
-~0/40 B2 20,000/80 ~L-
SURVEY ON FILE? 6,000/40 B3 '~0,000/60 1 00 --
~4,000/80 LOT DEPTH:
LOT OF RECORD? -
FRO~ N S E W
REAR
LAKE N S E W 50'
TOP OF BLUFF ~R 30'
FRO~ ~ ~ S E W
SIDE W 4' OR 6'
;IDE N S E 4'OR6'
REAR E W
TOP OF BLUFF R 30'
This Zoniag lnform~tlon S v ~mm~i~s · portion of ~e ~equbeme~B outlined in ~e City of Mouad ~ag Ordia~e. For ~er i~form~tio~, co~t ~e City of ~ound
(ZZ) ' (~) ' -
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 28, 1998
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on
Tuesday, April 28, 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, Mark Hanus, Liz
Jensen and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City
Attorney John Dean, Insurance Attorney Karen Cole, City Clerk Fran Clark, Building Official Jon
Sutherland and the following interested citizens: Rollie Herbst, Greg Knutson, Becky Cherne, Jori
Ayaz, Gene & Gretchen Smith, Barb Casey, Gina Anderson, Kyle Cosky, and Craig Rose.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance
was recited.
*~: 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 Ahrens asked to have P & Z Case #98-16 removed.
Councilmember Hanus asked to have P & Z Case #98-18 removed.
The City Clerk asked that the following be added to the Consent Agenda:
1) RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
AGREEMENT.
RECYCLING
GRANT
2)
3)
SET PUBLIC HEARINGS:
a. ZONING AMENDMENT (REZONING)
CASE #98-06 - 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE - May 12, 1998.
b. MAJOR SUBDIVISION
CASE #98-05 - 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE - May 26, 1998.
c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW TWIN HOMES
CASE #98-28 - 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE - May 26, 1998.
d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MOTOR FUEL STATION
LOCATED WITHIN THE B-2 ZONING DISTRICT
CASE #98-26 - 1730 COMMERCE BLVD. - May 26, 1998
Staff is asking that item 4. regarding the Wilshire Blvd. fishing area be removed from
the Agenda because the costs have not come in yet.
Mound City Council Minutes - April 28, 1998
The City Manager stated there will be an Executive Session tonight following the Agenda items to
discuss pending litigation on Woodland Point.
1.0
*CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION made by Weycker, seconded by Jensen to approve the Consent Agenda as
amended above. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
*1.01
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF TI-W~ APRIL 14, 1998, REGULAR MEETING.
MOTION
Weycker, Jensen, unanimously.
'1.02
CASE 98-15: VARIANCE FRONT YARD SETBACK HARDCOVER JORJ AYAZ
4844 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE LOTS 1 & 2 BLOCK 15 DEVON PIDS #25-
117-24 11 0046 & 25-117-24 11 0047.
RESOLUTION//98-43
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK
AND REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCES IN ORDER TO
ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION TO CONVERT A 1 1/z
STORY DWELLING INTO A 2 STORY AND ADD AN
ADDITION WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE, AT 4844
ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 1 & 2, BLOCK 5, DEVON,
PIDS 25-117-24 11 0047 & 25-117-24 11 0046, P & Z CASE
#98-15
Weycker, Jensen, unanimously.
'1.03
CASE 98-04: MINOR SUBDIVISION MARK & VAL STONE 6380 BAYRIDGE ROAD
PART OF GOVT LOT 5 AND PART OF ROLLING SHORES, PID#23-117-
24 32 0037.
RESOLUTION #98-44 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION AT
6380 BAY RIDGE ROAD, THAT PART OF GOVERNMENT
LOT 5, SECTION 23, PID 23-117-24 32 0037, P & Z CASE
#98-04
Weycker, Jensen, unanimously.
Mound City Council Minutes- April 28, 1998
'1.04 PROCLAMATION - MUNICIPAL CLERKS WEEK - MAY 3 - MAY 9, 1998_.
RESOLUTION//98-45 PROCLAMATION - MUNICIPAL CLERKS WEEK - MAY
3 - MAY 9, 1998.
Weycker, Jensen, unanimously.
'1.05
.pUBLIC GATHERING PERMIT - USE OF MOUND BAY PARK- MINNETONK3
CLASSIC BASS CLUB, 11:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M., WEIGH-IN ONLY, JUNE 6, 1998.
MOTION
Weycker, Jensen, unanimously.
'1.06 MISCELLANEOUS PERMITS: 1395
MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT - JUNE 6 1998 FISH FRY
MOUND CITY DAYS - JUNE 19-21, 1998
AMERICAN LEGION/VFW - PARADE PERMIT - MAY 25 1998.
ONE DAY OFF SITE GAMBLING PERMIT - AMERICAN LEGION FOR
MOUND CITY DAYS BINGO.
MOTION
Weycker, Jensen, unanimously.
_RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE DAY
.AMERICAN LEGION FOR MOUND CITY
OFF SITE GAMBLING PERMIT
DAYS BINGO.
RESOLUTION//98 -46
RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE DAY OFF-SITE
LAWFUL GAMBLING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR
AMERICAN LEGION POST #398
Weycker, Jensen, unanimously.
*1.07
RESOLUTION 98 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR THE
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
RESOLUTION NO. 98-47 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR THE
LIVABLE COMMUNITIES DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
Weycker, Jensen, unanimously.
· 1.08
Mound City Council Minutes - April 28, 1998
RESOLUTION AUTttOR~ZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
998 MUNICIPAL RECYCLING GRANT AGRlZ. EMENT WITfl HENNEPIN
COUNTY.
RESOLUTION NO. 98-48
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE 1998 MUNICIPAL
RECYCLING GRANT AGREEMENT
Weycker, Jensen, unanimously.
'1.09
SET PUBLIC I-[EARINGS:
A. REZONING - P & Z CASE #98-06, JAMES JOHNSON/DAVE MOORE, 4901
SHORELINE DRIVE, PID #13-117-24 44 0032 - SUGGESTED DATE - MAY 12,
1998.
B. MAJOR SUBDIVISION - CASE #98-05 - 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE - May 26, 1998.
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW TWIN HOMES CASE #98-28 - 4901
SHORELINE DRIVE - May 26, 1998.
D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MOTOR FUEL STATION LOCATED WITHIN
THE B-2 ZONING DISTRICT CASE #98-26 - 1730 COMMERCE BLVD. - May 26,
1998.
MOTION
Weycker, Jensen, unanimously.
*1.10
PAYMENT OF BILLS:
MOTION
Weycker, Jensen, unanimously.
*1.11 CASE 98-16: VARIANCE LAKESIDE SETBACK KYLE COSKY 1932 SHOREWOOD
.LANE LOT 9 AND PART OF LOT 8 BLOCK 2 SHADYWOOD POINT
PID #18-117-23 23 0069.
Councilmember Ahrens explained that the reason she asked to have this item removed from the Consent
Agenda is that the Planning Commission has recommended that the Council deny a minimally
encroaching lakeside deck to this property which was built prior to the Zoning Code being adopted.
She stated that in many cases the Council has granted variances for a 10 foot maximum lakeside deck.
Councilmember Hanus agreed.
The Building Official proposed the following language be added to #3 in the Now, Therefore, Be it
Resolved: "Construct an addition to the existing dwelling and a maximum 10 foot width deck on th~
Mound City Council Minutes - April 28, 1998
lakeside as shown on the applicant's survey (Exhibit A)."
Councilmember Jensen stated that the previous resolution required that the boathouse be removed and
it never did happen. She suggested that Building Permits not be issued until the agreement on the
boathouse is signed. The Council agreed.
Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution with the amendments as stated above:
RESOLUTION #98-49
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LAKESIDE AND FRONT
YARD SETBACK VARIANCES IN ORDER TO ALLOW
FOR CONSTRUCTION TO ADD A BREEZE WAY
BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND GARAGE, AT 1932
SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 9 AND PART OF LOT 8,
BLOCK 2, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 18-117-23 23 0069,
P & Z CASE #98-16
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
'1.12 .CASE 98-18: VARIANCE FRONT YARD SETBACK SIDE YARD SETBACK CRAIG
A. ROSE 5100 EDGEWATER DRIVE LOT 6 BLOCK 1 LP CREVIERS
SUB LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PARK, PID # 13-117-24 42 0006.
Council member Hanus stated he believes there are some errors in the numbers in the proposed
resolution that need to be corrected. He e~plained that this is a through lakeshore lot which have
different sideyard requirements, or abilities for the detached garage in the front yard than the regular
code allows.
The survey shows the garage is 2.6 feet away from the sideyard, but the code, for this type of lot,
allows that structure to be 4 feet from the sideyard making it actually a 1.4 foot variance, rather than
the 3.4 that is in the proposed resolution.
The 2nd Whereas would read as follows: "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, front yard setback of 20 feet, and side yard setbacks are
6 feet for lot of record, and 4 feet side ard for accessor structures on throu h and lakeshore lots
.and 10 feet to the street side; and"
The next Whereas would read as follows: "WHEREAS, the existing dwelling is setback 3.9 feet from
unimproved Chateau Lane requiring a 2. t 6.1 foot side yard setback variance. The existing garage is
4.5 feet from the front yard setback and 2.'6 feet from the side yard setback requiring a 3.5 foot front
yard setback and 3.4 1.4 feet side yard setback variances, and;"
The same changes to be made under #1 of the Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved:
"1. The City does hereby grant a 3.5 foot front yard setback, -3v4 1.4 foot side yard setback variance
for the Garage and a 2.1 6.._!1 foot side yard setback variance for the existing dwelling as
Mound City Council Minutes - April 28, 1998
recommended by the Planning Commission."
Hanus moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution with the above changes:
RESOLUTION/]98-50 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD AND TWO
SIDE YARD VARIANCES IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR
CONSTRUCTION TO ADD A SECOND STORY TO TIlE
EXISTING NON CONFORMING DWELLING, AT 5100
EDGEWATER DRIVE, LOT 6, BLOCK 1, L P CREVIERS
SUB LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PARK, PID 13-117-24 42 0006,
P & Z CASE//98-18
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.13 COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
There were none.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
The Council adjourned into Executive Session to consider pending litigation on the Woodland Point
issue at 7:50 P.M. Councilmember Weycker removed herself for the Executive Session.
The Council returned at 8:40 P.M. stating that the session was to gather input from the City Council
regarding the court ordered mediation on the Woodland Point issue.
1.14
A.
B.
C.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
Financial Report for March 1998, as prepared by Gino Businaro.
Planning Commission Minutes - April 13, 1998.
Notice of Annual League of Minnesota Cities Conference - June 16-19, 1998, Duluth, MN.
Please let Jodi know if you plan to attend, ASAP.
Notice from Hennepin County of a Public Hearing on Amendments to Ordinance Number Seven
- Hazardous Waste Management Ordinance for Hennepin County. This will be held on May 19,
1998.
Minutes of the Quarterly Meeting of the Suburban Rate Authority.
LMCD mailings.
Go
Ho
Mound City Council Minutes - April 28, 1998
The results of the Open Book Meeting that was held on April 20, 1998, and a handout done by
the Hennepin County Assessor's Office
Park & Open Space Commission Minutes - April 9, 1998.
Invitation from the Lake Minnetonka Environmental School to participate in the March for
Park's event - April 26, 1998.
Thank you letter from John Gabos.
Reply from Westonka Schools regarding a leaf compost site. Looks like we are back to looking
for another spot.
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Weycker to adjourn at 8:45 P.M. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Attest: City Clerk
May 26, 1998
RESOLUTION NO. 98-
RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING AUTHORIZING CITY SPONSORSHIP OF STATE
GRANT-IN-AID SNOWMOBILE TRAIL FUNDS
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota did on February
12, 1991, adopted Resolution No. 91-30 entitled, "Resolution Authorizing City Sponsorship in
State Grant-In-Aid Snowmobile Trail Funds"; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Natural Resources is requesting that the City
again reaffirm its sponsorship of the State grant-in-aid snowmobile trail funds; and
WHEREAS, the Southwest Trails Association have requested the City of Mound
sponsor grant-in-aid snowmobile trails through the Minnesota Trails Assistance Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, is willing to act as a sponsoring unit of government in applying to the State
of Minnesota for the grant-in-aid funds for snowmobile trails that will be maintained by the
Southwest Trails Association.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager is authorized to apply
to the Department of Natural Resources for the Minnesota Trail Assistance Program on behalf
of the Southwest Trails Association; and
The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute and approve
contractual agreements for this grant.
Bills
May 26, 1998
BATCH 8052
Total Bills
$191,181.57
$191,181.57
m
~J
ZZ m z3,.
z
0'o
-.r-
Z
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
MEMORANDUM
May 21, 1998
DEVON COMMON.
I have been directed by the council to look at the
non-abutting dock site ~41956 on Devon Common that is
currently being used by Barb Casey in relationship to
designating the access point along the shoreline to allow
for the safest transition to the dock.
I have placed phone calls to Barb Casey over the past two
weeks in attempt to meet with her on the site to have her
input. My calls were not returned and it has been expressed
to the council that Ms. Casey has been out of town and not
available.
On May 20, 1998 I visited the site along with the Dock
Inspector, Tom McCaffery. Our evaluation of the ability to
traverse the shoreline is that currently none of the City of
Mounds dock site locations have improved walkways and this
site as do many other sites have accesses that could be
improved to allow for better traversing.
Before a dock site is issued we have the prospective renter
visit the site and determine if it is a acceptable site for.
their use. We feel that the person takes into consideration
a variety of factors such as location from their home, dock
design limitations and accessibility along public lands to
determine if they want the site.
prJnted on recycled paper
Staff does work with each site holder to determine a number
of variables such as dock access point, dock design and
boat size limitations. '
In ~elationship specifically to the dock site #41956
assigned to Ms. Casey, she has not requested a change in her
access point to her dock location in over ten years. Staff
has not had a concern to date about her access location
along the shoreline during this time other then a request
from staff to install a stairway from Island View Drive down
the hill to the shoreline.
Staff does recognize that a better transition can be made to
the dock site, but the access point in any location along
dock site shoreline could use anything from steps, ground
cover, tree removal or a pathway to provide a safer access.
To utilize the current access to the dock that is on the
easterly portion of this dock location and to provide a
safer traversable way staff would recommend that two wood
timber stairs be installed next to retaining wall, that
limited trees be trimmed or removed and grass ground cover
be restored. To move the dock access to the center of the
site location would require the removal of a large tree and
this not recommended by staff. To move the access to just
west of the center of the dock site area the installation of
two to three timber steps could be used. To move the access
to the far westerly portion of the dock site area one timber
step could be used but this would cause congestion in front
of the abutting property.
Staffs recommendation which ever access point is agreed upon
determination can be made on how to improve safety. And that
any change to the shoreline come back in front of the City
Council in the form of a Public Lands Permit.
cc: Ed Shukle, City Manager
Tom McCaffery, Dock Inspector
THE CITY OF MOUND~ MINNESOTA
CABLE TELEVISIONI~'
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
MAY 5, 1998
Prepared by:
BRIAN T. GROGAN, ESQ.
Moss & Barnett
A Professional Association
4800 Norwest Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4129
(612) 347-0340
SECTION 1.
1.1)
1.2)
SECTION 2.
2.1)
2.2)
2.3)
2.4)
2.5)
2.6)
SECTION 3.
3.1)
3.2)
3.3)
3.4)
3.5)
3.6)
3.7)
3.8)
3.9)
3.10)
3.11)
3.12)
SECTION 4.
4.1)
4.2)
4.3)
4.4)
4.5)
4.6)
4.7)
4.8)
4.9)
4.10)
SECTION 5.
5.1)
5.2)
5.3)
SECTION 6.
6.1)
6.2)
SECTION 7.
7.1)
.TABLE OF CONTENTS
GENERAL PROVISIONS .............................................................................. 1
Definitions .................................................................................................. 1
Written Notice ................................. 1
RENEWAL OF FRANCHISE ..............
Grant .................................................................................................... 2
Right of Grantor to Issue and Renew Franchise ............................................ 2
Effective Date of Renewal ............................................................................ 2
Term ........................................................................................................... 3
Franchise Not Exclusive ............................................................................... 3
Ownership of Grantee ................................................................................. 3
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................... 3
Governing Requirements ............................................... 3
Franchise Fee ............................................................................................. 3
Not Franchise Fees .....................................................................................
Recovery of Processing Costs ..................................................................... 4
Liability Insurance ..........
Indemnification ............................................................................. 5
Grantees Insur~r~'///////////// ........................................................................ 6
orkers Compensation Insurance ................ '77
Security Fund ..........................................
Procedure for Enforcing Franchise Agree~'~'~' .............................................. ~7
Reservation of Rights. ' .............................................
Annual Report ............................................................................................. 8
DESIGN PROVISION .................................................................................. 9
Minimum Channel Capacity .................................................. 9
System Design ............................................................................................. 9
Operation and Maintenance of System ...................................................... 10
Special Testing .......................................................................................... 10
FCC Reports ..............................................................
Emergency Alert Capability .................................... [.i.iiiii.i[ii.[[i[iiiiiiiiiiiiii[ii 10
10
Parental Control Lock ................................................................................ 1
Technical Standards ................................................................................... 10
Right of Inspection .................................................. 1 1
Periodic Evaluation, Review and Modification ......
SERVICES AND PROGRAMMING ............................................................. 12
Services and Programming ......................................................................... 12
Leased Channel Service ............................................................................. 12
Periodic Subscriber Survey ........................................................................ 12
PUBLIC ACCESS PROVISIONS ........................................................... - ...... 12
Public, Educational and Government Access .............................................. 12
Grantee Support for PEG Usage ................................................................. 13
REGULATION ........................................................................................... 13
Amendment of Franchise Agreement ......................................................... 13
7.2)
7.3)
7.4)
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D
EXHIBIT E
EXHIBIT E1
EXHIBIT E2
EXHIBIT F
Conflict Between Ordinance and Agreement ............................................. 13
Force Majeure ............. , ............................................................................. 14
Rate Regulation ......................................................................................... 14
GRANTEE'S OWNERSHIP INFORMATION
FRANCHISE FEE PAYMENT WORKSHEET
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW CHECKLIST
CHANNEL LINE-UP
GRANTEE COMMITMENT TO PEG ACCESS FACILITIES AND
EQUIPMENT
SERVICE TO PUBLIC FACILITIES
PUBLIC BUILDINGS TO BE PROVIDED WITH TWO-WAY
CABLE
DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM UPGRADE
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
THIS FRANCHISE AGREEMENT (hereinafter the "Agreement"), made and entered
into this day of ,1998, by and between the City of Mound, a
municipal corporation of the State of Minnesota (hereinafter the "City" or "Grantor"), and
Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. (hereinafter the "G "
rantee ).
WITN ESSETH
WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. (the "Or
c~mance ;, the City is
authorized to grant and renew one or more nonexclusive revocable Franchises to operate,
construct, maintain and reconstruct a cable television system within the City; and
WHEREAS, the City, after due evaluation of the Grantee's technical ability, financial
condition and legal qualifications, ~~~~]~, has determined that it is in the
best interest of the City and its residents to renew the Franchise held by the Grantee.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and for other good
and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,
the parties hereto agree as follows:
SECTION 1.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.1) Definitions.
Capitalized terms used in this Agreement shall be defined as set forth in the
Ordinance unless (i) otherwise defined herein, or (ii) the context otherwise requires.
1.2) Written Notice.
All notices, reports or demands required or permitted to be given under.this
Agreement and/or the Ordinance shall be in writing and shall be deemed to be given when
delivered personally to the party designated below, or when five (5) days have elapsed
after it has been deposited in the United States mail in a sealed envelope, with registered or
certified mail, postage prepaid thereon, or on the next business day if sent by express mail
or nationally recognized overnight air courier addressed to the party to which notice,
report or demand is being given, as follows:
If to City:
City Clerk
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364-1687
If to Grantee:
Regional Manager
Triax Cablevision
212 - 15th Avenue NE
Suite 2010
Waseca, MN 56093
Such addresses may be changed by either party upon notice to the other party given as
provided in this Section.
SECTION 2.
RENEWAL OF FRANCHISE
2.1) Grant.
Upon acceptance of this Franchise by Grantee, the Franchise granted pursuant to
Ordinance No. , passed and adopted on the ~ day of ,
19 to, Triax Midwest Associated, L.P., is hereby replaced and superseded by the
provisions of the Ordinance, subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. This
Franchise hereby provides Grantee with the authority, right and privilege to construct,
reconstruct, operate and maintain a Cable Television System to provide Cable Services
within the Franchise Area.
2.2) Right of Grantor to Issue and Renew Franchise.
Grantee acknowledges and accepts the right of Grantor to issue and/or renew the
Franchise under the law as it existed on the Effective Date hereof and Grantee agrees that it
shall not now or at any time hereafter challenge any lawful exercise of this right by Grantor
in any local, State or Federal court.
2.3) Effective Date of Renewal.
The renewal of the Franchise provided for in this Agreement shall be effective on
the date that both parties have executed this Agreement (the "Effective Date"), provided
that said date is no. later than thirty (30) days after the date the City Council, by Resolution,
approves this Agreement (the "Approval Date"). The renewal of the Franchise provided for
in this Agreement is further contingent upon the filing by Grantee with the City Clerk of the
City, of this Agreement duly executed by Grantee together with the security fund and
insurance certificates provided for in this Agreement and the Ordinance, except that if such
filing does not occur within sixty (60) days after the Approval Date, the Grantor may, in its
sole discretion, declare the renewal of the Franchise provided for herein to be null and
void.
2.4) Term.
The term of the Franchise renewed pursuant to this Agreement shall be for the
period of fifteen (15) years commencing on the Effective Date, at which time it shall expire
and be of no force or effect unless the Franchise is then renewed in accordance with the
Ordinance and Applicable Laws.
2.5) Franchise Not Exclusive.
The Franchise renewed pursuant to this Agreement shall not be construed as
limiting the right of Grantor, through its proper offices, and in accordance with the
Ordinance and Applicable Law, to grant other Franchises containing terms and conditions
that are no more favorable or less burdensome than those imposed on Grantee in the same
Franchise Area the Grantee is entitled to occupy by this Agreement, permit or otherwise;
provided, however, that such additional grants shall not operate to materially modify,
revoke or terminate any rights granted to Grantee herein and shall be in accord with the
provisions of the Ordinance.
2.6) Ownership of Grantee.
Grantee represents and warrants to Grantor that the names of the shareholders,
partners, members or other equity owners of the Grantee and of any of the shareholders,
partners, members and/or other equity owners of Grantee are as set forth in Exhibit A
hereto.
SECTION 3.
3.1)
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Governing Requirements.
Grantee shall comply with all lawful requirements of this Agreement, the Ordinance
and Applicable Laws.
3.2) Franchise Fee.
(a) In consideration of the renewal of the Franchise provided for herein, the
Grantee shall, at all times during the term of this Agreement, pay to Grantor a Franchise
Fee of five percent (5%) of Grantee's Gross Revenues as defined in the Ordinance but
excluding any Access Operating Fee funds collected. The Franchisee Fee shall be payable
quarterly within thirty (30) days of the expiration of the preceding calendar quarter. Each
payment shall be certified by Grantee's controller or chief financial officer and shall be
accompanied by a report in such form as the City may reasonably request showing the
computation of the Franchise Fee as it relates specifically to the Mound franchise area
(CUID # MN0569) for the preceding calendar quarter and such other relevant facts as may
be required by the City, including the completion of a Franchise Fee Payment Worksheet
in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B.
3.3) Not Franchise Fees.
(a) Grantee acknowledges and agrees that the Franchise Fees payable by
Grantee to the City pursuant to Section 3.2 hereof shall take precedence over all other
payments, contributions, Services, equipment, facilities, support, resources or other
activities to be provided or performed by the Grantee pursuant to this Agreement and/or
the Ordinance and that the Franchise Fees provided for in Section 3.2 of this Agreement
shall not be deemed to be in the nature of a tax, and shall be in addition to any and all
taxes of general applicability and other fees and charges which the Grantee shall be
required to pay to the City and/or to any other Governmental Authority, all of which shall
be separate and distinct obligations of Grantee.
(b) Grantee shall not apply or seek to apply or make any claim that all or any
part of the Franchise Fees or other payments or contributions to be made by Grantee to
Grantor pursuant to this Agreement and/or the Ordinance shall be deducted from or
credited or offset against any taxes, fees or assessments of general applicability levied or
imposed by the City or any other Governmental Authority, including any such tax, fee or
assessment imposed on both utilities and cable operators or their services.
(c) Grantee shall not apply or seek to apply all or any part of any taxes, fees or
assessments of general applicability levied or imposed by the City or any other
Governmental Authority (including any such tax, fee or assessment imposed on both
utilities and cable operators or their services) as a deduction or other credit from or against
any of the Franchise Fees or other payments or contributions to be paid or made pursuant
by Grantee to Grantor to this Agreement and/or the Ordinance, each of which shall be
deemed to be separate and distinct obligations of the Grantee.
3.4) Recovery of Processing Costs.
(a) During the term of this Agreement, if the Grantee initiates a request for
approval regarding the transfer of this Franchise or a change in control of the Grantee, the
Grantee shall, to the extent permitted by Applicable Laws, reimburse the Grantor for all
reasonable out-of-pocket costs, including attorneys' and consultants' fees and costs,
incurred by the Grantor in connection with Grantor's review and processing of Grantee's
request up to a mutually agreed upon reasonable cap.
(b) To aid in the analysis and resolution of any future disputed matters relative to
this Agreement, the Grantor and Grantee may, by mutual written agreement (both as to
whether to hire and whom to hire), employ the services of technical, financial and/or legal
consultants, as mediators. All reasonable fees of the consultants incurred by the Grantor
and/or the Grantee in this regard shall, unless the parties otherwise agree, be borne equally
by Grantor and Grantee.
3.5) Liability Insurance.
('a) Upon the Effective Date, the Grantee shall, at its sole expense and in
addition to all required insurance under Section 1.27 of the Ordinance, take out and
maintain during the term of this Agreement public liability insurance with a company
licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota with a rating by A.M. Best & Co. of not
less than "A" that shall protect the Grantee, the Grantor and their officials, officers,
directors, employees and agents from claims which may arise from operations under this
Agreement, whether such operations be by the Grantee, its officials, officers, directors,
employees and agents or any subcontractors of Grantee. This liability insurance shall
include, but shall not be limited to, protection against claims arising from bodily and
personal injury and damage to property, resulting from Grantee's vehicles, products and
operations. The amount of insurance for single limit coverage applying to bodily and
personal injury and property damage shall not be less than Two Million Dollars
($2,000,000.00). The following endorsements shall attached to the liability policy:
(1) The policy shall provide coverage on an "occurrence" basis.
(2) The policy shall cover personal injury as well as bodily injury.
(3) The policy shall cover blanket contractual liability subject to the
standard universal exclusions of contractual liability included in the
carrier's standard endorsement as to bodily injuries, personal injuries
and property damage.
(4)
(5)
(6)
Broad form property damage liability shall be afforded.
The Grantor shall be named as an additional insured on the policy.
An endorsement shall be provided which states that the coverage is
primary insurance and that no other insurance maintained by the
Grantor will be called upon to contribute to a loss under this
coverage.
(7)
(8)
Standard form of cross-liability shall be afforded.
An endorsement stating that the policy shall not be canceled without
thirty (30) days notice of such cancellation given to the Grantor.
(b) Grantor reserves the right to adjust the insurance limit coverage requirements
of this Agreement no more often than once every three (3) years. Any such adjustment by
the Grantor will be no greater than the increase in the State of Minnesota Consumer Price
Index (all consumers) for such three (3) year period.
(c) Grantee shall submit to Grantor documentation of the required insurance,
including a certificate of insurance signed by the insurance agent and companies named, as
well as all properly executed endorsements.
3.6) Indemnification.
(a) In addition to Grantee's indemnification obligations under Section 1.26 of
the Ordinance, Grantee shall indemnify, defend and hold Grantor, its officers, boards,
commissions, agents and employees (collectively the "Indemnified Parties") harmless from
and against any and all lawsuits, claims, causes of action, actions, liabilities, demands,
damages, judgments, settlements, disability, losses, expenses (including attorney's fees and
disbursements of counsel) and costs of any nature that any of the Indemnified Parties may
at any time suffer, sustain or incur arising out of, based upon or in any way connected with
the Grantee's operations, the exercise of the Franchise renewed pursuant to this
Agreement, the breach by Grantee of its obligations under this Agreement or the
Ordinance and/or the activities of Grantee, its subcontractor, employees and agents
hereunder. Grantee shall be solely responsible for and shall indemnify, defend and hold
the Indemnified Parties harmless from and against any and all matters relative to payment
of Grantee's employees, including compliance with Social Security and withholdings.
(b) The indemnification obligations of Grantee set forth in this Agreement are
not limited in any way by the amount or type of damages or compensation payable by or
for Grantee under Workers' Compensation, disability or other employee benefit acts,
acceptance of insurance certificates required under this Agreement, or the terms,
applicability or limitations of any insurance held by Grantee.
(c) Grantor does not, and shall not, waive any rights against Grantee which it
may have by reason of the indemnification provided for in this Agreement, because of the
acceptance by Grantor, or the deposit with Grantor by Grantee, of any of the insurance
policies described in this Agreement.
(d) The indemnification of Grantor by Grantee provided for in this Agreement
shall apply to all damages and claims for damages of any kind suffered by reason of any of
the Grantee's operations referred to in this Agreement, regardless of whether or not such
insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any such damages or
claims for damages.
(e) Grantee shall not be required to indemnify Grantor for negligence or
misconduct on the part of Grantor or its officials, boards, commissions, agents, or
employees. Grantor shall hold Grantee harmless, subject to the limitations in Minnesota
Statutes Chapter 466, for any damage resulting from the negligence or misconduct of the
Grantor or its officials, boards, commissions, agents, or employees in utilizing any PEG
access channels, equipment, or facilities and for any such negligence or misconduct by
Grantor in connection with work performed by Grantor and permitted by this Agreement,
on or adjacent to the Cable '~,ystem.
3.7') Grantee's Insurance.
Grantee shall not commence any Cable System reconstruction work or permit any
subcontractor to commence work until all insurance required under this Agreement and
the Ordinance has been obtained. Said insurance shall be maintained in full force and
effect until the expiration of this Agreement.
3.8) W '
orkers Compensation Insurance.
Grantee shall obtain and maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance for all of
Grantee's employees, and in case any work is sublet, Grantee shall require any
subcontractor similarly to provide Workers' Compensation Insurance for all of their
employees, all in compliance with State laws, and to fully indemnify the Grantor from and
against any and all claims arising out of occurrences on the work. Grantee hereby
indemnifies Grantor for any and all costs, expenses (including attorneys' fees and
disbursements of counsel), damages and liabilities incurred by Grantor as a result of any
failure of either Grantee or any subcontractor to take out and maintain such insurance.
Grantee shall provide the Grantor with a certificate of insurance indicating Workers'
Compensation coverage on the Effective Date.
3.9) Security Fund.
(a) Within sixty (60) days of the Approval Date, Grantee shall establish and
provide to Grantor a security fund, as security for the full and timely payment and
performance by Grantee of all of its obligations under this Agreement and the Ordinance.
The security fund shall consist of two (2) parts. The first part shall be in the amount of One
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000) and shall be in the form of a performance bond,
which shall be in a form acceptable to Grantor's City Attorney. The second part shall be in
the amount of at least Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000) and shall be in the form of an
irrevocable letter of credit, established in a local bank.
(b) The first part of the security fund shall be maintained at the One Hundred
Thousand Dollar ($100,000) level until the System upgrade and/or rebuild provided for in
Section 4.1 hereof is completed, at which time that part of the fund shall be released,
provided there are then no outstanding material violations or breaches of this Agreement or
the Ordinance by Grantee. The second part of the security fund shall be maintained at the
Five Thousand Dollar ($5,000) level throughout the term of this Franchise Agreement. If, at
any time during the term of this Franchise, Grantee seeks consent to a transfer or
assignment of its rights hereunder, Grantor may unilaterally increase the security fund up to
Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) if it so chooses.
(c) The security fund may be drawn upon by Grantor for those purposes
specified in Section 3.10 hereof, in accordance with the procedures of Section 3.10 and
the Ordinance. Grantee's recourse, in the event Grantee believes that Grantor's actions in
taking any security funds is improper, shall be through legal action after the security has
been drawn upon. Actions brought by Grantee hereunder may be subject to 47 U.S.C.
§555A - Limitations of Franchising Authority Liability - which is hereby incorporated by
reference as if fully set forth herein.
(d) Nothing herein shall be deemed a waiver of the normal permit requirements
made of all contractors working within the City's rights-of-way.
3.10) Procedure for Enforcing Franchise Agreement.
(a) The procedures for enforcing violations or breaches of this Franchise
Agreement and/or the Ordinance shall be consistent with the procedures set forth in the
Ordinance.
(b) In the event the Council finds that a material violation or breach exists and
that Grantee has not cured the same in a satisfactory manner, has not diligently
commenced correction of such violation or breach or has not diligently proceeded to fully
remedy such violation or breach, the Council may impose liquidated damages, assessable
from the security fund, of up to Three Hundred Dollars ($300) per day or per incident, for
unexcused violations or breaches of the System upgrade and/or rebuild completion
schedule provided in Section 4.1 herein, and up to One Hundred and Seventy-Five Dollars
($175) per day or per incident for all other violations or breaches of this Agreement and/or
the Ordinance, provided that all violations or breaches of a similar nature occurring at the
same time shall be considered one (1) incident.
3.11) Reservation of Rights.
Grantor and Grantee reserve all rights that they may possess under Applicable Laws
unless expressly waived herein.
3.12) Annual Report.
In addition to the requirements of Section 1.20 and 1.29 of the Ordinance, Grantee
shall submit a written end of the year report to Grantor utilizing the format outlined in the
Annual Performance Review Checklist attached hereto as Exhibit C. In addition, Grantee
and Grantor agree that the Annual Performance Review Checklist may be modified from
time to time by mutual agreement of Grantee and Grantor. In accordance with Section
1.18 of the Ordinance, Grantee shall also provide City with a quarterly customer service
compliance report utilizing the format outlined in Exhibit F attached hereto.
SECTION 4.
DESIGN PROVISION
4.1) Minimum Channel Capacity.
(a) On or before December 31, 1998, Grantee shall develop, construct and
operate within the City a 750 MHz fiber/coaxial hybrid cable system which shall be
capable of delivering a minimum of eighty (80) video program channels and which shall
initially deliver to all subscribers capable of receiving said channels a minimum of sixty
(60) video program channels.
(b) All programming decisions remain the sole discretion of Grantee provided
that Grantee complies with federal law regarding notice to City and Subscribers prior to
any channel additions, deletions, or realignments, and further subject to Grantee's signal
carriage obligations pursuant to 47 U.S.C. §§ 531-536, and subject to City's rights pursuant
to 47 U.S.C. § 545. Grantee shall conduct programming surveys from time to time to
obtain input on programming decisions from Subscribers.
4.2) System Design.
(a) The System required herein will be engineered and built to provide a
minimum of eighty (80) channels using a 750 MHz bandwidth technology. Grantee shall
meet with City to review its system design and construction plans prior to the
commencement of construction and shall, at the request of City, participate in a public
meeting designed to inform residents of City of said design and construction plans. In
those residential areas where fiber optic cable will be deployed, the system shall
incorporate multiple strands of fiber and serve an average of five hundred (500) homes per
fiber node. The System shall at all times meet the technical standards established by the
FCC as they may be amended from time to time and shall be operated so as to minimize
disruption of signal to Subscribers. The precise System specifications are outlined in
Exhibit F, which is incorporated herein by reference.
(b) Grantee shall only be authorized to construct a cable system with eight fiber-
optic pairs to each node and a total of 154 fibers throughout the system.
(c) On or about thirty (30) days prior to construction of the upgraded system,
affected subscribers will receive a letter notifying them of same. Approximately forty-eight
(48) hours before construction, all affected houses will receive door tags notifying them of
Grantee's construction schedule. Upon completion of system construction, Grantee shall
comply with the cable industry's on-time guaranty as endorsed by the National Cable
Television Association. This on-time guaranty generally provides that if installation is not
accomplished within the time frame specified by the operator, installation shall be free for
the subscriber and operator shall provide said subscriber with a Twenty Dollar ($20) credit.
4.3) Operation and Maintenance of System.
The Grantee shall render effective service, make repairs promptly, and interrupt
service only for good cause and for the shortest time possible. Such interruption, to the
extent feasible, shall be preceded by notice in accordance with Section 1.2 herein and all
applicable provisions of the Ordinance, and shall occur during periods of minimum use of
the System.
4.4) Special Testing.
City may require special testing of a location or locations within the System if there
is a particular matter of controversy or unresolved complaints pertaining to such location(s).
Demand for such special tests may be made on the basis of complaints received or other
evidence indicating an unresolved controversy or noncompliance. Such tests shall be
limited to the particular matter in controversy or unresolved complaints. The City shall
endeavor to so arrange its request for such special testing so as to minimize hardship or
inconvenience to Grantee or to the Subscribers caused by such testing. Before ordering
such tests, Grantee shall be afforded thirty (30) days to correct problems or complaints
upon which tests were ordered. The City shall meet with Grantee prior to requiring special
tests to discuss the need for such and, if possible, visually inspect those locations which are
the focus of concern. If, after such meetings and inspections, City wishes to commence
special tests and the thirty (30) days have elapsed without correction of the matter in
controversy or unresolved complaints, the tests shall be conducted by a qualified engineer
selected by City. In the event that special testing is required by City to determine the
source of technical difficulties, the cost of said testing shall be borne by the Grantee if the
testing reveals the source of the technical difficulty to be within Grantee's reasonable
control. If the testing reveals the difficulties to be caused by factors which are beyond
Grantee's reasonable control then the cost of said test shall be borne by City.
4.5)
FCC Reports.
The results of tests required to be filed by Grantee with the FCC shall also be copied
to City.
4.6) Emergency Alert Capability.
Grantee shall at all times comply with all Applicable Laws regarding the provision
of emergency alert services. At a minimum, Grantee shall at all times have the capability
for an emergency override alert.
4.7) Parental Control Lock.
Grantee shall provide, for sale or lease, to Subscribers, upon request, a parental
control locking device or digital code that permits inhibiting the video and audio portions
of any Channels offered by Grantee.
4.8) Technical Standards.
Grantee shall, at a minimum, comply at all times with all applicable Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) Rules and Regulations, including but not limited to,
Part 76, Subpart K (Technical Standards), as may be amended from time to time.
4.9) Right of Inspection.
Grantor shall have the right to inspect all construction, reconstruction or installation
work performed by Grantee under the provisions of this Agreement and Applicable Laws,
to ensure Grantee's compliance and to protect the health, safety and welfare of Grantor's
citizens.
4.10) Periodic Evaluation, Review and Modification.
Grantor and Grantee acknowledge and agree that the field of cable television is a
relatively new and rapidly changing one which may see many regulatory, technical,
financial, marketing and legal changes during the term of this Agreement. Therefore, in
order to provide for the maximum degree of flexibility in this Agreement, and to help
achieve a continued, advanced and modern Cable System, the following evaluation
provisions will apply:
(a) The City reserves the right to adopt rules and regulations controlling the
procedures as set forth below and the subjects for evaluation sessions. In the absence of
any City action taken to exercise these rights, Grantee shall be subject to the procedures
and the subjects described in this Section 4.10.
(b) The City may require, in its sole discretion, that the Grantee participate in
evaluation sessions with the City at any time and from time to time during the term of this
Agreement; provided, however, there shall not be more than one (1) evaluation session
during any calendar year.
(c) Topics which may be discussed at any evaluation session include, but are not
limited to, rates, channel capacity, the System performance, programming, PEG access,
municipal uses of the System, Subscriber complaints, judicial rulings, FCC rulings and any
other topics the City or Grantee may deem relevant.
(d) During an evaluation session, Grantee shall fully cooperate with the City and
shall provide without cost and in a timely manner such information and documents as the
City may request to perform the evaluation.
(e) As a result of an evaluation session, the City or Grantee may determine that
an amendment in the terms of this Agreement may be required, that the requirements of
the System or this Agreement should be updated, changed or revised, and/or that
additional services should be provided by Grantee (collectively a "Proposed
Modification"). If the Proposed Modification is consistent with the terms of this Agreement,
the Ordinance, the needs of the City and existing state-of-the-art technology, including
what is provided by Grantee in other Systems owned, operated or managed by it, its parent
company or any affiliated company, Grantee and the City will, in good faith, review the
terms of the Proposed Modification and consider amending this Agreement accordingly.
SECTION 5.
SERVICES AND PROGRAMMING
5.1) Services and Programming.
Grantee shall provide Grantor with a list of programming services and other services
offered, which list shall be attached hereto as Exhibit D (the "Channel Line-up"). The
Channel Line-up shall include all applicable charges and pricing schedules. The Channel
Line-up shall be updated each time a change is made by Grantee. Grantee shall not alter
the number of program services or other services without thirty (30) days prior written
notification to the Grantor and System Subscribers.
5.2) Leased Channel Service.
Grantee shall offer leased channel service on reasonable terms and conditions and
in accordance with Applicable Laws.
5.3) Periodic Subscriber Survey.
(a) To the extent Grantee conducts customer surveys with respect to all or a
portion of the system serving the City, it shall provide the City with all non-confidential
information and findings from such surveys.
(b) As a part of each annual report, Grantee shall provide the City with the
results of any survey conducted and shall report in writing what steps Grantee is taking to
implement the findings of the survey, such as correcting problems and expanding services.
SECTION 6.
PUBLIC ACCESS PROVISIONS
6.1) Public, Educational and Government Access.
(a) City or its designee is hereby designated to operate, administer, promote, and
manage access (public, education, and government programming) (hereinafter "PEG
access") to the cable system established pursuant to this Section 6. Grantee shall have no
responsibility whatsoever for PEG access except as expressly stated in this Section 6.
6.2) Grantee Support for PEG Usage.
In accordance with the provisions of the Cable Act and Minn. Stat. § 238.084,
Grantee shall provide and make available for public, educational and governmental (PEG)
access usage within the Service Area the following:
(a) Provision and use of the grant funds and Channels designated in Exhibit E of
this Agreement for local educationa~ and governmental programming and access use at no
charge in accordance with the requirements of Exhibit E.
(b) Maintenance of the Access Facilities and Channels, and support of
educational and governmental programming to the extent specified in Exhibit E of this
Agreement.
(c) Provision of free public building Installation and cable service as more
clearly specified in Exhibit E, and provision of two-way capability to the locations specified
in Exhibit E.
(d)
Access Facilities shall be operated by the City.
SECTION 7.
REGULATION
7.1) Amendment of Franchise Agreement.
Grantee and City may agree, from time to time, to amend this Franchise. Such
written amendments may be made subsequent to a review session pursuant to Section 4.10
or at any other time if City and Grantee agree that such an amendment will be in the public
interest or if such an amendment is required due to changes in federal, state or local laws.
City shall act pursuant to local law pertaining to the ordinance amendment process.
7.2) Conflict Between Ordinance and Agreement.
In the event of any conflict between the terms and conditions of this Franchise
Agreement and the provisions of the Ordinance, the provisions of this Franchise Agreement
shall control. Grantee expressly acknowledges and agrees that the City hereby retains all
of its police powers and the City may unilaterally amend the Ordinance in the exercise of
its police powers and Grantee shall comply with said Ordinance as may be amended;
provided, however that City hereby agrees to use reasonable efforts to address public
health, welfare and safety needs without resorting to amending the Ordinance. By
executing this Franchise Agreement both City and Grantee acknowledge and agree that
neither is aware of any conflicts between this Franchise Agreement and the Ordinance.
7.3) Force Majeure.
In accordance with Section 1.31 of the Ordinance, in the event Grantee's
performance of any of the terms, conditions, obligations or requirements of this Agreement
or the Ordinance is prevented or impaired due to any cause beyond its reasonable control,
such inability to perform shall be deemed to be excused for the period of such inability and
no penalties or sanctions shall be imposed as a result thereof, provided Grantee has
notified Grantor in writing within ten (10) days of its discovery of the occurrence of such an
event. Such causes beyond Grantee's reasonable control shall include, but shall not be
limited to, acts of God, civil emer§encies and labor unrest or strikes, untimely delivery of
equipment, inability of Grantee to obtain access to an individual's property and inability of
Grantee to secure all necessary permits to utilize utility poles and conduit so Ion§ as
Grantee utilizes due dili§ence to timely obtain said permits.
7.4) Rate Regulation.
Nothin§ in this A§reement shall in any way prevent Grantor from regulating any
rates charged by Grantee. If Grantor elects to so regulate, Grantor shall follow the
procedures outlined in Section 1.1 9 of the Ordinance or Applicable Laws.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor and Grantee have executed this A§reement the
day, month and year first above written.
CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA
Dated: By:
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
By:
Its:
TRIAX MIDWEST ASSOCIATES, L.P.
Dated:
(CORPORATE SEAL)
By:
Its:
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF )
City.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on
_, the of the City of
,19__, by
, on behalf of the
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF )
Notary Public
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on
_ ,19 ,by
Company. , the of Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. on beha-~'-0f the
Notary Public
179769/1
15
EXHIBIT A
OWNERSHIP
TRIAX MIDWEST ASSOCIATES, L.P.
is a [wholly owned subsidiary of parent name].
179769/1
A-1
EXHIBIT B
FRANCHISE FEE PAYMENT WORKSHEET
Triax Midwest Associates, L.P.
(Mound) Subs
Franchise Fee: 5% Gross
Date ,1998
Revenue Source
Basic
Pay
Tier
Advertising and Pay-Per-View
Other
Total $
179769/1
B-1
LLP
· r --o u~c~ ~ cash ! , and
thereon da~ed A~ ' ¢ ,~ ~o~ ~or ~e ~ ~_~ _ _ ~at~
~n co~on ~ o~ ~ no~ ~e ' · .
~ ~ r . . ~ d~ m ~e . g ~m~ non~m ·
~P~s, m ~aaon to ~ - _ _ ~~ ~ '
~ r~ ~ mrcnd~ ~lHy for ~e ;~--~ . - ~ ~ drove.
zhe Ci~ of C~s~ ~~ ~d ~o~d n~ ~ ~ ~r ~ o~ p~.
Denver, Colorado,
April 9, 1996.
City of Mound, Minnesota
EXHIBr~ I
Basic Revenues
Tier Revenues
A/O Revenues
Late Charge
Guides
Equipment
Install
HBO
Showtime
TMC
Cinemax
Disney
DCR
PPV '
-Encore
Home W'xing
Starz
Sega
Advertising
HSN Commission
$ 359,794
398,790
1,793
25,652
335
8,089
13,257
59,238
21,925
8,129
18,270
10,904
1,830
4,317
26,232
521 ·
3,263
934
15,352
! .808
Gross P. evenues
$ 980,433
Franchise Fee Rate
Payments Made Within 90 Days of
December 31, 1995
EXHIBIT C
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REVIEW CHECKLIST
RATES AND CHARGES
No change
Changed
Notices sent to City and subscriber
Changes in rates and costs identified by attachment
Change "reasonable" and consistent with the standards prescribed by
the FCC
Other (describe in attachment)
PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
No change in programs and services
New programs and services added
Identify new programs and services and decision for
introduction
Check
Where
o
The programs and service changes meet demand expressed in
customer satisfaction surveys
Other (describe in attachment)
PUBLIC, GOVERNMENTAL AND EDUCATIONAL ACCESS
179769/1
C-1
Check
Where
Applicable
CUSTOMER SERVICE
Customer service requirements complied with
Summary of complaints (attached)
System outages summary (attached)
Description of new customer services, promotions (attached
FILINGS WITH FCC
Summary of all filings with FCC described in attachment
PERFORMANCE TEST IN FRANCHISE COMPLETED
Summary of performance test results (attached)
FRANCHISE FEE PAYMENTS MADE (A'I-i'ACH COMPLETED
FRANCHISE FEE PAYMENT WORKSHEETS - EXHIBIT B TO
FRANCHISE AGREEMENT)
COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION ·
Upgrade/rebuild (summary attached)
179769/1
C-2
10.
11.
New technologies incorporated into System
Channel capacity increased
Service extended to new areas
Other
NEW SERVICES
No Changes
Services other than programming made available in the subscriber
network (summary attached)
TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT HAVE
BEEN COMPLIED WITH
Check
Where
Company participated in planning studied and Cable Advisory
Committee activities (summary attached
12.
All insurance, bonds and deposits are updated and filed with City
OTHER PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS OR PLANS TO BE
INTRODUCED WITHIN THE NEXT TWELVE (12) MONTHS
(SUMMARY ATTACHED)
Dated this day of 19 by
Officer of ~ -' --'
, a duly authorized
City of
, Minnesota Verification:
The above Annual Performance Review has been filed by Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. as
required. The Office of for the City of has reviewed the
information and finds that the filing is complete /is not complete . The
following matters are deemed incomplete and r~quire further information and/or
compliance by _, 19
179769/1
C-3
THE CITY OF
, MINNESOTA
Dated:
By:
Its:
179769/1
C-4
EXHIBIT D
CHANNEL LINE-UP
Service
Description
Rate/
Charge
179769/1
D-1
EXHIBIT E
GRANTEE COMMITMENT TO
PEG ACCESS FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
1. PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL AND GOVERNMENT (PEG) ACCESS CHANNELS
Grantee shall provide to each of its subscribers who receive some or all of the
services offered on the Cable System, reception on at least one (1) specially designated
noncommercial public access channel available for use by the general public on a first-
come, first-served, nondiscriminatory basis; at least one (1) specially designated access
channel for use by local educational authorities; at least one (1) specially designated access
channel available for government use (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "PEG
Channels"); and at least one (1) specially designated access channel available for lease on a
first-come, first-served, nondiscriminatory basis by commercial and noncommercial users.
The VHF spectrum must be used for at least one (1) of the PEG Channels required in this
paragraph. No charges may be made for channel time or playback of prerecorded
programming on the specially designated noncommercial access channels. Personnel,
equipment and production costs may be assessed, however, for live studio presentations
exceeding five (5) minutes in length. Charges for those production costs and fees for use of
other public access channels must be consistent with the goal of affording the public a Iow-
cost means of television access.
Whenever the PEG Channels are in use during eighty percent (80%) of the
weekdays, Monday to Friday, for eighty percent (80%) of the time for any consecutive
three (3) hour period for six (6) weeks running, and there is demand for use of an additional
channel for the same purpose, the Grantee shall then have six (6) months in which to
provide a new PEG Channel for the same purpose, provided that provision of the
additional channel or channels must not require the Cable System to install converters.
The PEG Channels shall be dedicated for PEG use for the term of the Franchise
Agreement, provided that Grantee may, utilize any portions of the PEG Channels not
scheduled for PEG use. Grantor shall establish rules and procedures for such scheduling in
accordance with Section 611 of the Cable Act (47 U.S.C. § 531).
Grantee shall also designate the standard VHF channel 6 for uniform regional
channel usage currently provided by "Metro Channel 6" as required by Minn. Stat.
§ 238.43. Programming on this regional channel shall include a broad range of
informational, educational, and public service programs and materials to cable television
subscribers throughout the Twin Cities metropolitan area.
179769/1 E-1
2. PEG OPERATIONS
Grantor may in its sole discretion, negotiate agreements with neighboring
jurisdictions served by the same Cable System, educational institutions or others to share
the operating expenses of the PEG Channels. Grantor and Grantee may negotiate an
agreement for management of PEG facilities, if so desired by both parties.
3. TITLE TO PEG EQ)UIPMENT
Grantor shall retain title to all PEG equipment and facilities purchased or otherwise
acquired pursuant to the previous Mound franchise Ordinance No.
4. _PROMOTION OF PEG ACCESS
Grantee shall allow the Grantor to place bill stuffers in Grantee's Subscriber
statements at a cost to the Grantor not to exceed Grantee's cost, no less frequently than
twice per year upon the written request of the Grantor and at such times that the placement
of such materials would not materially and adversely effect Grantee's cost for the
production and mailing of such statements. The Grantor agrees to pay Grantee in advance
for the actual cost of such bill stuffers. Grantee shall also make available access
information provided by Grantor in Subscriber packets at the time of Installation and at the
counter in the System's business office within the Service Area. Grantee shall also
distribute, at no charge to Grantor, through advertising insertion equipment, 28 weekly
promotional and awareness commercial spots at randomly selected times in unpurchased
advertising space on a "run of schedule basis" produced at the Grantor's cost and
submitted by the Grantor in a format compatible with such advertising insertion equipment
once Grantee has acquired and activated such capability. Grantee shall also include a
listing of the known programming to be cablecast on PEG access Channels in or on any
program guide of services for the Cable System.
5. S_ERVICE TO PUBLIC BUILDINGS
(a) One (1) cable drop connection and the highest level of cable service
excluding pay-per-view and pay-per-channel programming shall be provided free of charge
to each public building listed in Exhibit E-1 with no Installation charges or monthly service
charges. Said drop connection and service provision shall be concurrent with the
construction schedule required by Section 4.1 of the Agreement. Grantee shall, in any
public building hereinafter built, provide all materials, design specifications and technical
advice for any one cable outlet to be installed during the construction of such building,
without cost to the Grantor and Grantee shall provide the same service to such new public
building as required in this paragraph (a).
E-2o
(b)
Two-way capability shall be provided to the public buildings listed in Exhibit
179769/1
E-2
6. PEG ACCESS OPERATING SUPPORT.
Grantee shall also collect on behalf of City a per Subscriber fee of eighty-four cents
($.84) per month solely to fund public, educational and governmental access-related
expenditures (hereinafter "Access Operating Fee"). The Access Operating Fee may be
adjusted by the City during the term of this Franchise on or about the fifth and tenth
anniversary dates upon ninety (90) days advance written notice to Grantee in an amount
equal to the cumulative increase in the consumer price index (CPI) during the preceding
years. In the event Grantee becomes subject to "effective competition" as defined by
Applicable Law, from another Multi-Channel Video Programming Distributor, the Access
Operating Fee shall, following ninety (90) days written notice to City, be reduced to the
level of expenditure at which the multi-channel video Programming Distributor, is
obligated or fifty cents ($.50) per subscriber per month, whichever is greater.
179769/1 E-3
EXHIBIT E1
SERVICE TO PUBLIC FACILITIES
1. PUBLIC BUILDINGS:
CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA BUILDINGS;
City Council Chambers & Conf.
Room #301
Poi ice Station
Fire Station
Westonka Library
Westonka Comm un ity Center
Shirley Hills Elementary School
Grandview Middle School
Bethel United Methodist Church
Mound Evangelical Free Church
Mount Olive Lutheran Church
Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church
Our Lady of the Lake School
St. John's Lutheran Church
5341 Maywood Road
5341 Maywood Road
2415 Wilshire Boulevard
2079 Commerce Boulevard
5600 Lynwood Boulevard
2450 Wilshire Boulevard
1881 Commerce Boulevard
2116 Commerce Boulevard
2117 Commerce Boulevard
5218 Bartlett Boulevard
2385 Commerce Boulevard
2411 Commerce Boulevard
2451 Fairview Lane
179769/1
E1-1
EXHIBIT E2
PUBLIC BUILDINGS TO BE PROVIDED WITH TWO-WAY CAPABILITY:
CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA BUILDINGS;
City Council Chambers & Conf.
Room #301 5341
Police Station 5341
Fire Station 2415
Westonka Library 2079
Westonka Community Center 5600
Shirley Hills Elementary School 2450
Grandview Middle School 1881
Bethel United Methodist Church 2116
Mound Evangelical Free Church 2117
Mount Olive Lutheran Church 5218
Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church 2385
Our Lady of the Lake School 2411
St. John's Lutheran Church 2451
Maywood Road
Maywood Road
Wilshire Boulevard
Commerce Boulevard
Lynwood Boulevard
Wilshire Boulevard
Commerce Boulevard
Commerce Boulevard
Commerce Boulevard
Bartlett Boulevard
Commerce Boulevard
Commerce Boulevard
Fairview Lane
179769/1
E2-1
EXHIBIT F
DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM UPGRADE
[REMAINS OPEN--SUBJECT TO CHANGES
PROPOSED BY CITY'S ENGINEER]
TRIAX MIDWEST ASSOCIATES, L.P.
Mound
The need for an enhanced network
Triax Midwest Associates, L.P.'s (Triax) currently services the area, while still
functional, is operating near its designed channel capacity. In order to respond to requests
for additional services from our customers, it is necessary to increase the available capacity
of the system.
Beyond traditional cable television video service, there are a host of other services
that can be supported by an upgraded network. High speed data, Internet access, cost-
effective telecommunications across the network, and even telephony can be implemented
according to the needs of the communities served.
Along with the potential for increasing the number of services supported by the
network, increased reliability and picture quality will be major priorities. Individual
communities can be isolated on the network so that unexpected outages in one area do not
affect several other areas, as is the case in many conventional coaxial cable television
systems.
The same techniques that allow additional signals to be carried, and keep service
interruptions to a minimum, provide an added benefit of improving the quality of pictures
seen by our customers. In every coaxial cable television system, picture quality is
degraded as the signal moves further out into the system, passing through amplifier after
amplifier. In an upgraded network, there are significantly less amplifiers between the
origination site and the customer, resulting in better picture quality regardless of where the
customer may be in the system.
What the new network will look like
The proposed upgraded HFC (hybrid fiber/coax) network will be designed to
operate with a bandwidth of 5 MHz to 750 MHz, with 50 MHz to 550 MHz being
allocated for 77 conventional analog channels. The remaining upper 200 MHz of
179769/1
F-1
bandwidth will be reserved for future use. Through the use of digital compression, many
channels can be carried in the same space as one analog channel. The result is a large
number of available channels, with plenty of additional capacity for future needs.
The network will be capable of not only sending signals out to customers, but
returning signals back to the origination site from anywhere in the system, as well. This
"return" capability utilizes spectrum from 5 MHz to 40 MHz, and will be activated on both
the coaxial and optical systems. The return system can be used to transmit data and video,
and may be used for insertion of locally-originated programming, monitoring of certain key
components in the network, and transmission of data from set-top terminals used for pay-
per-view and other customer services.
Fiber optic transmitters, cable, and optical receivers will be used to transport the
signals from the origination site, to at least one receiving location, or "node," in each
community. There will be a maximum of 500 homes served from each node, which is an
accepted industry standard used when considering implementation of future services. This
separation of communities on the optical network allows for "narrowcasting" or the
distribution of certain specialized kinds of programming to communities that have an
interest. For example, one community would not have to receive the local programs
originated by a distant community.
After each node, the number of active electronics, or amplifiers, would be reduced
to the minimum required to reach the limits of the community, while still maintaining
measurable picture quality better than current FCC requirements. "Standby" power
supplies will automatically provide battery power to the coaxial system for several hours in
the event of a commercial power interruption. The batteries are automatically recharged
after power is restored.
Each customer will have the option to use an "addressable" set-top terminal to
access programming carried on the network. Special programming, such as "impulse pay-
per-view" will be available simply by pressing a button to authorize the purchase.
Fiber optics and coaxial plan in the network
The optical transmission system will be the backbone of the new network, providing
the primary means of moving signals from the origination site out to each community. At
the origination site, all the programming to be carried on the system will be converted to
optical signals, and transmitted out into the system by a network of fiber optic cables.
The combination of optical transmitters and cables allow more reliable, higher-
quality pictures to be received in each community. Earlier means of transmission,
involving many miles of metal-sheathed coaxial cable, and cascades of amplifiers, created
the potential for service interruptions anywhere along the transmission route. A problem
appearing at one point mid-way into the system affected all customers beyond that point.
Power outages, lightning storms, isolated outages, vandalism, and isolated equipment
179769/1 F-2
failure will have much less of an effect on the new network than on the coaxial system in
the past.
In each community, at least one optical node will be placed, to convert the optical
signal back into the normal signals used in the coaxial system. Each node will serve a
maximum of 500 homes via coaxial cable. This limitation on node size insures that the
more reliable optical plant is as large as possible, and that coaxial electronics are kept to
the minimum required to deliver a good-quality picture to all customers.
The optical network will provide 6 individual fibers to each node location.
Although it currently requires only one of these fibers to provide all the programming
required by the network, extra fibers are included for return transmission, and any special
or future requirements, on an as needed basis.
The coaxial portion of the plant will begin at the node itself, where signals will be
distributed over a short coax network, consisting of modern, high-quality network
amplifiers. These amplifiers are specifically designed for use in HFC networks, and
incorporate return-transmission capability, surge protection, and remove monitoring
capability.
Since most of the currently existing coaxial cable is still serviceable and electrically
sound, it will be reused along most of the coaxial portion of the network. Reuse of the
cable will, in many cases, eliminate the need for construction in residential areas, causing
fewer upgrade construction issues.
All of the electronic components in the existing coaxial system will be replaced with
new 750 MHz devices. This insures a complete 750 MHz network, and provides a simpler
construction solution should any future upgrade work be required.
The upgrade process
There will be a considerable amount of work required to upgrade the entire existing
system to the new network. Since the upgrade work will be performed on an already-
active system, care must be taken to keep customers and communities well-informed, and
service interruptions to a minimum.
The first step will be to install the fiber optic network alongside the existing coaxial
system. Normally, this work does not affect the operation of the existing system. In areas
where the cables are already carried on utility poles, the new fiber will be attached to the
existing cables were possible. In areas where existing cables are underground, additional
construction will be required to install the new fiber optic cables. Any new coaxial cable
required by the network design, in the path of the fiber optic cable, will be installed at the
same time.
179769/1
F-3
Once the fiber "backbone" is in place, the optical receivers are installed. The
optical system is then activated and tested. When testing of the optical network is
complete, then the upgrading of the coaxial plant in each community can begin.
When the coaxial plant is upgraded, each existing amplifier and distribution device
are removed, and replaced with a newer, 750 MHz device. The new equipment is
activated, and any customers served from that equipment are switched to the new
equipment. This process begins at the node, branching out through each leg of the coaxial
plant. It is this portion of the upgrade that causes several brief interruptions in service. As
the upgrade crews move further out into the coaxial system, fewer and fewer customers
experience the interruptions in service. When the upgrade of a node is finally complete,
all customers served from that node are now receiving service from the new network. '
During the primary upgrade of each node, installation upgrade crews sweep
through the same area, inspecting each of the service lines that connect customers' homes
to the distribution system. Connections are checked, updated splitting equipment is
installed if necessary, and in some cases, the entire line is replaced. At this point, the
upgrade of that node is complete, and work moves on to the next node area.
Community access and use of the network
The upgraded network will allow for individual communities to produce their own
legal programming, and place it on an available channel on the system. Normally, one site
in a community is designated as a "studio" where local programs are taped for later
broadcast, or transmitted "live" over the system. It is also possible for the community to
originate informational services, such as public service messaging, school information, or
other items of community interest.
The video feed from the community would be inserted on the network on a special
channel, and transmitted via the return system - through the coaxial network back to the
node, and transmitted optically from the node back to the origination site. From there, the
signal would be reprocessed and retransmitted back through the normal network, available
to customers.
Since each of the nodes are community-based, it is possible to allow communities
to transmit their own programming to only the residents of that community, if they desire.
The addressable converter system
The "addressable set-top terminals" used in the network are computer-controlled
"smart" converters. To the customers, they function very much the same as the normal
converters they are accustomed to. In reality, they are very sophisticated computer
terminals that allow for the processing of programming information both to and from the
customer.
179769/1 F-4
The converter system is controlled by a master computer connected to Triax's
billin§ system. The master computer is then connected to the network, by either a direct
connection or a satellite link. Information regarding the operation of each one of the
converters is continually transmitted over the network, and received by the conveners.
If a customer calls one of our service centers, and orders HBO, the information
regarding the change in services is keyed into the billing system. Since the billing system
and master computer are connected, information about that transaction is immediately
transmitted to the network, and the customer's converter receives immediate authorization
to receive HBO. The entire process takes just a few seconds, and the customer has
immediate access to the programming that as ordered, without the need to wait for a visit
from a service technician. Services can be added, changed, or removed in the same
manner.
Additionally, customers will have access to multiple channels of "impulse pay-per-
view." This is one of the most popular features of the converter. The "impulse" feature
takes advantage of the return system on the network, allowing a request for a pay-per-view
event to be processed immediately. The customer simply tunes to the channel desired, and
presses a button to purchase the program. There is no need to make a phone call, and no
order to place in advance.
The addressable converters are equipped with several self-diagnostic and security
features. If the converter is not functioning properly, it will display a diagnostic code for
troubleshooting. The master computer communicates with each converter at regular
intervals, and can alert service personnel if a problem is found. There are signal security
safeguards built into each converter, to prevent unauthorized tampering. The converter
recognizes its "home" network, and will not function properly if removed without
authorization.
Potential for future expansion
The upgraded network is completely expandable, due to its fiber optic backbone.
The optical system incorporates extra fibers that run to each node, along with additional
extra fibers along main routes. As communities grow, there will be capacity available to
serve their residents.
179769/1
F-5
THE CITY OF MOUND~ MINNESOTA
CABLE TELEVISION
REGULATORY ORDINANCE
MAY 5, 1998
Prepared by:
BRIAN T. GROGAN, ESQ.
Moss & Barnett
A Professional Association
4800. Norwest Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4129
(612) 347-0340
179781/1
ABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1.1.
SECTION 1.2.
SECTION 1.3.
SECTION 1.4.
SECTION 1.5.
SECTION 1.6.
SECTION 1.7.
SECTION 1.8.
SECTION 1.9.
SECTION 1.10.
SECTION 1.11.
SECTION 1.12.
SECTION 1.13.
SECTION 1.14.
SECTION 1.15.
SECTION 1.16.
SECTION 1.17.
SECTION 1.18.
SECTION 1.19.
SECTION 1.20.
SECTION 1.21.
SECTION 1.22.
SECTION 1.23.
SECTION 1.24.
SECTION 1.25.
SECTION 1.26.
SECTION 1.27.
SECTION 1.28.
SECTION 1.29.
SECTION 1.30.
SECTION 1.31.
SECTION 1.32.
SECTION 1.33.
SECTION 1.34.
SECTION 1.35.
SECTION 1.36.
SECTION 1.37.
INTENT ........................................................................................... 1
DEFINITIONS ............................................................................. . ..... 1
FRANCHISE TO INSTALL AND OPERATE ................................ i..i.iiiiiiiii 5
FRANCHISE REQUIRED ......................................................................... 5
TERM OF THE FRANCHISE .................. .................................................. 5
FRANCHISE TERRITORY ........................................................................ 6
FEDERAL, STATE AND CITY JURISDICTION .......................................... 6
FRANCHISE NON-TRANSFERABLE ........................................................ 6
CITY'S RIGHT TO PURCHASE SYSTEM ................................................. 8
PURCHASE BY CITY UPON EXPIRATION OR REVOCATION ............... 8
EMERGENCY USE .................................................................................. 9
GEOGRAPHICAL COVERAGE ............................................................... 9
NONEXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE ................................................................ 9
MULTIPLE FRANCHISES ...................................................................... 10
FRANCHISE APPLICATIONS ................................................................ 11
CONSIDERATION OF INITIAL APPLICATIONS ................................... 12
FRANCHISE RENEWAL ....................................................................... ' 12
CONSUMER PROTECTION AND SERVICE STANDARDS .................... 12
RATE REGULATION ............................................................................ 15
FRANCHISE FEE ................................................................................... 15
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS .............................. 16
TECHNICAL STANDARDS ................................................................... 19
TRIMMING OF TREES ......................................................................... 20
USE OF GRANTEE FACILITIES ............................................................. 20
PROGRAMMING DECISIONS ............................................................. 20
INDEMNIFICATION.
INSURANCE. 'i ........ i ................................................................ 20
· · 21
RECORDS RE~I~i'I~'I~'i~ ~'1~1'1~ ~'1~'1~:~ ~i~'~l'~"~8"l'l~lg~='l~'i iiiiii;[i] 22
ANNUAL REPORTS ............................................................................. 23
FRANCHISE VIOLATION ...... , ............................................................... 23
FORCE MAJEURE; GRANTEE S INABILITY TO PERFORM .................... 24
ABANDONMENT OR REMOVAL OF FRANCHISE PROPERTY ............ 24
EXTENDED OPERATION AND CONTINUITY OF SERVICES ................ 25
RECEIVERSHIP AND FORECLOSURE ................................................... 26
RIGHTS RESERVED TO GRANTOR ...................................................... 26
RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS.
SEVERAB ILITY ....... ' ................................................................ 26
179781/1
ORDINANCE NO.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA DOES
HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
The followin§ Chapter is added to the City of Mound, MN Municipal Code:
CHAPTER CABLE TELEVISION REGULATORY ORDINANCE
SECTION 1.1. INTENT.
a. The City of Mound, Minnesota, pursuant to Applicable Laws, is authorized to
grant one or more nonexclusive Franchises to construct, operate, maintain and reconstruct
Cable Television Systems within the City limits.
b. The City Council finds that the development of Cable Television Systems has
the potential of having great benefit and impact upon the residents of the City. Because of
the complex and rapidly changing technology associated with cable television, the City
Council further finds that the public convenience, safety and general welfare can best be
served by establishing regulatory powers which should be vested in the City or such
Persons as the City shall designate. It is the intent of this Ordinance and subsequent
amendments to provide for and specify the means to attain the best possible cable
television service to the public and any Franchises issued pursuant to this Ordinance shall
be deemed to include this finding as an integral part thereof.
SECTION 1.2. DEFINITIONS.
For the purpose of this Ordinance, the following terms, phrases, words and their
derivations shall have the meaning given herein. Words used in the present tense include
the future, words in the plural number include the singular number, and words in the
singular number include the plural number. All capitalized terms used in the definition of
any other term shall have their meaning as otherwise defined in this Section. The words
"shall" and "will" are mandatory and "may" is permissive. Words not defined shall be
given their common and ordinary meaning.
a. "Applicable Laws" means any law, statute, charter, ordinance, rule,
regulation, code, license, certificate, franchise, permit, writ, ruling, award, executive order,
directive, requirement, injunction (whether temporary, preliminary or permanent),
judgment, decree or other order issued, executed, entered or deemed applicable by any
Governmental Authority.
b. "Basic Cable Service" means any service tier which includes the
retransmission of local television broadcast signals. Basic Cable Service as defined herein
shall not be inconsistent with 47 U.S.C. § 543(b)(7)(1993).
179781/1 1
c. "Cable Act" means the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, Pub. L.
No. 98-549, 98 Stat. 277~) (1984) (codified at 47 U.S.C. §§ 521-611 (1982 & Supp. V
1987)) as amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of
1992, Pub. L. No. 102-385 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-458
and as the same may, from time to time, be amended.
d. . Cable Television System~ '_'System" or .Cable System means a facility,
consisting of a set of closed transmission paths an~ associated signal generation, reception
and control equipment that is designed to provide Cable Service which includes video
programming and which is provided to multiple Subscribers within a community, but such
term does not include:
1. A facility that serves only to retransmit the television signals of one (1)
or more television broadcast stations;
way;
A facility that serves subscribers without using any public rights-of-
3. A facility of a common carrier which is subject, in whole or in part, to
the provisions of 47 U.S.C. §§ 201-226, except that such facility shall be considered
a Cable System (other than for purposes of 47 U.S.C. § 541) to the extent such
facility is used in the transmission of video programming directly to subscribers;
unless the extent of such use is solely to provide interactive on-demand services;
Act; or4' An open video system that complies with Section 653 of the Cable
5. Any facilities of any electric utility used solely for operating its electric
utility system.
e. "Cable Se- ' "
- rv~ce means:
1. The one-way transmission to Subscribers of (i) video programming, or
(ii) other programming service; and
2. Subscriber interaction, if any, which is required for the selection or
use of such video programming or other programming service.
f. "Ch '"
~nanne~" or "~Cable Channel" means a portion of the electromagnetic
frequency spectrum which is used in a Cabl~ System and which is capable of delivering a
television Channel as defined by the Federal Communications Commission.
g. "Council" means the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota.
h. "Franchise" means an initial authorization, or renewal thereof, issued by the
City, whether such authorization is designated as a Franchise, permit, license, resolution,
179781/1
contract, certificate, agreement or otherwise, which authorizes the construction or
operation of a Cable System over publicly owned rights-of-way.
i. "Franchise Agreement" means a Franchise granted pursuant to this
Ordinance containing the specific provisions of the Franchise granted, including
references, specifications, requirements and other related matters.
j. "Franchise Fee" means any tax, fee or assessment of any kind imposed by the
City or any other Governmental Authority on a Grantee or cable Subscriber, or both, solely
because of their status as such. The term "Franchise Fee" does not include: (i) any tax, fee
or assessment of general applicability (including any such tax, fee or assessment imposed
on both utilities and cable operators or their services but not including a tax, fee, or
assessment which is unduly discriminatory against cable operators or cable subscribers); (ii)
capital costs which are required by the Franchise Agreement to be incurred by the Grantee
for PEG Access Facilities; (iii) requirements or charges incidental to the awarding or
enforcing of the Franchise, including payments for bonds, security funds, letters of credit,
insurance, indemnification, penalties or liquidated damages; or (iv) any fee imposed under
Title 17 of the United States Code.
k. "Governmental Authority" means any Court or other federal, state, county,
municipal or other governmental department, commission, board, agency or
instrumentality.
I. "Grantee" means any Person receiving a Franchise pursuant to this
Ordinance and its agents, employees, officers, designees, or any lawful successor,
transferee or assignee.
m. "Grantor" or "City" means the City of Mound, Minnesota as represented by
the Council or any delegate acting within the scope of its jurisdiction. The City
Administrator shall be responsible for the continuing administration of the franchise.
n. "Gross Revenues" means all revenue received directly or indirectly by the
Grantee, its affiliates, subsidiaries, parents, or any Person in which Grantee has a financial
interest of five percent (5%) or more arising from or attributable, to the provision of Cable
Service by the Grantee within the City including, but not limited to, monthly fees charged
to Subscribers for Basic Cable Service; monthly fees charged to Subscribers for any optional
service; monthly fees charged to Subscribers for any tier of service other than Basic Cable
Service; Installation, disconnection and reconnection fees; leased Channel fees; converter
and remote revenues; advertising revenues; and revenues from home shopping Channels.
Gross Revenues shall be the basis for computing the Franchise Fees imposed pursuant to
Section 1.20 hereof. Grantee shall not be required to pay a franchise fee on gross revenues
derived from any Person receiving free Cable Service pursuant to a Franchise Agreement.
Gross Revenues shall include franchise fees collected by Grantee on behalf of the City.
o. "Initial Service Area" means the area of the City which will receive Cable
Service initially, as set forth in any Franchise Agreement.
179781/1
P. "Installation" means the connection of the System to a Subscriber and the
provision of Cable Service.
q. '.'.Normal Business Hours" means those hours during which most similar
businesses in the City are open to serve customers. In all cases, "Normal Business Hours"
must include some evening hours at least one night per week and/or some weekend hours.
r. "Normal Operating Conditions': means those service conditions which are
within the control of the Grantee. Those conditions which are not within the control of the
Grantee include, but are not limited to, natural disasters, civil disturbances, power outages,
telephone network outages, and severe or unusual weather conditions. Those conditions
which are ordinarily within the control of the Grantee include, but are not limited to,
special promotions, pay-per-view events, rate increases, regular peak or seasonal demand
periods, and maintenance or upgrade of the System.
s. :.'.Person" means any individual or any association, firm, general partnership,
limited partnership, joint stock company, joint venture, trust, corporation, limited liability
company or other legally recognized entity, private or public, whether for-profit or not-for-
profit.
t. "Public Educational or Government Access Facilities"
· · · ,, or "PEG Access
Facilities" means:
use; and
Channel capacity designated for public, educational or governmental
2. Facilities and equipment for the use of such Channel capacity.
u. "Section" means any Section, subsection or provision of this Ordinance.
v. "Service Area" or "Franchise Area'_' means the entire geographic area within
the City as it is now constituted or may in the future be constituted, unless otherwise
specified in the Franchise Agreement.
w. erv~ce Interruption'; means the loss of picture or sound on one or more
Cable Channels.
x. "_State'_' means the State of Minnesota.
Y. "Street"_ or "publicly owned right of way' means each of the following which
have been dedicated to the public or are hereafter dedicated to the public and maintained
under public authority or by others and located within the City limits: streets, roadways,
highways, avenues, lanes, alleys, sidewalks, easements, rights-of-way and similar public
property and areas that the Grantor shall permit to be included within the definition of
Street from time to time.
179781/1
z. "Subscriber" means any Person who or which lawfully elects to subscribe to,
for any purpose, a service provided by the Grantee by means of or in connection with the
Cable System whether or not a fee is paid for such service.
SECTION 1.3. FRANCHISE TO INSTALL AND OPERATE.
a. A Franchise granted by the City under the provisions of this Ordinance shall
encompass the following purposes:
1. To engage in the business of providing Cable Service, and such other
lawful services as may be permitted by the City, to Subscribers within the Service
Area.
2. To erect, install, construct, repair, rebuild, reconstruct, replace,
maintain and retain cables, lines, related electronic equipment, supporting
structures, appurtenances and other property in connection with the operation of a
Cable System in, on, over, under, upon, along and across Streets within the Service
Area.
3. To maintain and operate said Franchise properties for the origination,
reception, transmission, amplification and distribution of television and radio signals
for the delivery of Cable Services.
4. To set forth the obligations of a Grantee under the Franchise
Agreement.
b. Nothing contained in this Ordinance relieves a Person from liability arising
out of failure to exercise reasonable care to avoid injuring Grantee's facilities while
performing work connected with grading, regarding or changing the line of a Street or
public place or with the construction or reconstruction of a sewer or water system.
SECTION 1.4. FRANCHISE REQUIRED.
It shall be unlawful for any Person, other than the City unless specifically required
by Applicable Laws, to construct, install or operate a Cable Television System in the City
in, on, over, under, upon, along or across any Street or publicly owned right of way
without a Franchise properly granted pursuant to the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 1.5. TERM OF THE FRANCHISE.
a. A Franchise granted hereunder shall be for the term established in the
Franchise Agreement and shall not exceed fifteen (15) years.
b. A Franchise granted hereunder may be renewed upon application by the
Grantee pursuant to the provisions of this Ordinance and Applicable Laws.
179781/1 5
SECTION 1.6. FRANCHISE TERRITORY.
Area. Any Franchise granted pursuant to this Ordinance shall be valid within the Service
SECTION 1.7. FEDERAL, STATE AND CITY JURISDICTION.
Laws. a. This Ordinance shall be construed in a manner consistent with Applicable
b. This Ordinance shall apply to all Franchises granted or renewed after the
effective date of this Ordinance. This Ordinance shall further apply to the extent permitted
by Applicable Laws to all existing Franchises granted prior to the effective date of this
Ordinance.
c. The rights of all Grantees are subject to the policing powers of the City to
adopt and enforce ordinances necessary to the health, safety and welfare of the public. All
Grantees shall comply with all Applicable Laws enacted by the City pursuant to that power.
d. No Grantee shall be relieved of its obligation to comply with any of the
provisions of this Ordinance or any Franchise granted pursuant to this Ordinance by reason
of any failure of the City to enforce prompt compliance.
e. This Ordinance and any Franchise granted pursuant to this Ordinance shall
be construed and enforced in accordance with the substantive laws of the City, State of
Minnesota and applicable federal laws, including the Cable Act.
f. This Ordinance together with any Franchise granted hereunder shall comply
with the Minnesota franchise standards contained in Minnesota Statutes Section 238.084.
g. Grantee and the City shall conform to state laws and rules regarding cable
communications not later than one year after they become effective, unless otherwise
stated, and shall conform to federal laws and regulations regarding cable communications
as they become effective.
SECTION 1.8. FRANCHISE NON-TRANSFERABLE.
a. Grantee shall not voluntarily or involuntarily, by operation of law or
otherwise, sell, assign, transfer, lease, sublet or otherwise dispose of, in whole or in part,
the Franchise and/or Cable System or any of the rights or privileges granted by the
Franchise, without the prior written consent of the Council and then only upon such terms
and conditions as may be prescribed by the Council with regard to the proposed
transferee's legal, technical and financial qualifications, which consent shall not be
unreasonably denied or delayed. Any attempt to sell, assign, transfer, lease, sublet or
otherwise dispose of all or any part of the Franchise and/or Cable System or Grantee's
rights therein without the prior written consent of the Council shall be null and void and
179781/1
shall be grounds for termination of the Franchise pursuant to Section 1.30 hereof and the
applicable provisions of any Franchise Agreement.
b. Without limiting the nature of the events requiring the Council's approval
under this Section, the following events shall be deemed to be a sale, assignment or other
transfer of the Franchise and/or Cable System requiring compliance with this Section: (i) the
sale, assignment or other transfer of all or a majority of Grantee's assets or the assets
comprising the Cable System to any Person; (ii) the merger of the Grantee or any of its
parents with or into another Person (including the merger of Grantee or any parent with or
into any parent or subsidiary corporation or other Person); (iii) the consolidation of the
Grantee or any of its parents with any other Person; (iv) the creation of a subsidiary
corporation or other entity; (v) the sale, assignment or other transfer of capital stock or
partnership, membership or other equity interests in Grantee or any of its parents by one or
more of its existing shareholders, partners, members or other equity owners so as to create
a new Controlling Interest in Grantee; (vi) the issuance of additional capital stock or
partnership, membership or other equity interest by Grantee or any of its parents so as to
create a new Controlling Interest in Grantee; and (vii) the entry by the Grantee into an
agreement with respect to the management or operation of the Grantee, any of Grantee's
parents and/or the System or the subsequent amendment thereof. The term "Controlling
Interest" as used herein is not limited to majority equity ownership of the Grantee, but also
includes actual working control over the Grantee, any parent of Grantee and/or the System
in whatever manner exercised.
c. Grantee shall notify Grantor in writing of any foreclosure or any other
judicial sale of all or a substantial part of the property and assets comprising the Cable
System of the Grantee or upon the termination of any lease or interest covering all or a
substantial part of said property and assets. Such notification shall be considered by
Grantor as notice that a change in control or ownership of the Franchise has taken place
and the provisions under this Section governing the consent of Grantor to such change in
control or ownership shall apply.
d. For the purpose of determining whether it shall consent to such change,
transfer or acquisition of control, Grantor may inquire into the qualifications of the
prospective transferee or controlling party, and Grantee shall assist Grantor in any such
inquiry. In seeking Grantor's consent to any change of ownership or control, Grantee shall
have the responsibility of insuring that the transferee completes an application in form and
substance reasonably satisfactory to Grantor, which application shall include the
information required under this Ordinance and Applicable Laws. The transferee shall be
required to establish to the satisfaction of the City that it possesses the legal, technical and
financial qualifications to operate and maintain the System and comply with all Franchise
requirements for the remainder of the term of the Franchise. If, after considering the legal,
financial, character and technical qualities of the transferee and determining that they are
satisfactory, the Grantor finds that such transfer is acceptable, the Grantor shall permit such
transfer and assignment of the rights and obligations of such Franchise as may be in the
179781/1 7
public interest. The consent of the Grantor to such transfer shall not be unreasonably
denied.
e. Any financial institution having a security interest in any and all of the
property and assets of Grantee as security for any loan made to Grantee or any of its
affiliates for the construction and/or operation of the Cable System must notify the Grantor
that it or its designee satisfactory to the Grantor shall take control of and operate the Cable
Television System, in the event of a default in the payment or performance of the debts,
liabilities or obligations of Grantee or its affiliates to such financial institution. Further, said
financial institution shall also submit a plan for such operation of the System within thirty
(30) days of assuming such control that will insure continued service and compliance with
all Franchise requirements during the term the financial institution or its designee exercises
control over the System. The financial institution or its designee shall not exercise control
over the System for a period exceeding one (1) year unless extended by the Grantor in its
discretion and during said period of time it shall have the right to petition the Grantor to
transfer the Franchise to another Grantee.
f. In addition to the aforementioned requirements in this Section 1.8, the City
and Grantee shall, at all times, comply with the requirements of Minnesota Statutes Section
238.083 regarding the sale or transfer of a franchise and with all other Applicable Laws.
SECTION 1.9. CITY'S RIGHT TO PURCHASE SYSTEM.
The City shall have a right of first refusal to purchase the Cable System in the event
the Grantee receives a bona fide offer to purchase the Cable System from any Person.
Bona fide offer as used in this Section means a written offer which has been accepted by
Grantee, subject to the City's rights under this Ordinance and any Franchise Agreement.
The price to be paid by the City shall be the amount provided for in the bona fide offer,
including the same terms and conditions as the bona fide offer. The City shall notify
Grantee of its decision to purchase within sixty (60) days of the City's receipt from Grantee
of a copy of the written bona fide offer and such other relevant and pertinent information
as the City shall deem appropriate.
SECTION 1.10. PURCHASE BY CITY UPON EXPIRATION OR
REVOCATION.
Consistent with Section 627 of the Cable Act and all other Applicable Laws, at the
expiration, cancellation, revocation or termination of any Franchise Agreement, the City
shall have the option to purchase, condemn or otherwise acquire and hold the Cable
System.
179781/1
SECTION 1.11. EMERGENCY USE.
In the case of any emergency or disaster, Grantee shall, upon request of the City or
emergency management personnel, make its Cable System and related facilities available
to the City for emergency use.
SECTION 1.12. GEOGRAPHICAL COVERAGE.
a. Grantee shall design, construct and maintain the Cable Television System to
have the capability to pass every dwelling unit in the Service Area, subject to any Service
Area line extension requirements of the Franchise Agreement.
b. After service has been established by activating trunk and/or distribution
cables for any Service Area, Grantee shall provide Cable Service to any requesting
Subscriber within that Service Area within thirty (30) days from the date of request,
provided that the Grantee is able to secure all rights-of-way necessary to extend service to
such Subscriber within such thirty (30) day period on reasonable terms and conditions.
c. No Subscriber shall be refused service arbitrarily. However, for unusual
circumstances such as the existence of more than 150 feet of distance from distribution
cable to connection of service to Subscribers, or a density equivalent of less than 40 homes
per mile, service may be made available on the basis of a capital contribution in aid of
construction, including cost of material, labor and easements. For the purpose of
determining the amount of capital contribution in aid of construction to be borne by the
Grantee and Subscribers in the area in which service may be expanded, the Grantee will
contribute an amount equal to the construction and other costs per mile, multiplied by a
fraction whose numerator equals the actual number of residences per mile, and whose
denominator equals 40 residences. Subscribers who request service hereunder, will bear
the remainder of the construction and other costs on a pro rata basis. The Grantee may
require that the payment of the capital contribution in aid of construction borne by such
potential subscribers be paid in advance.
d. Grantee shall immediately bury all drops to subscribers dwellings when
required by local construction standards. In the event the ground is frozen or otherwise
unsuitable to permit immediate burial, Grantee shall be permitted to delay such burial until
the ground becomes suitable for burial and shall complete said burial no later than June 1st
of each year.
SECTION 1.13. NONEXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE.
Any Franchise granted under this Ordinance shall be nonexclusive. The Grantor
specifically reserves the right to grant, at any time, such additional Franchises for a Cable
Television System as it deems appropriate on terms and conditions no more favorable nor
less burdensome than those imposed in previously granted Franchises, subject to
179781/1 9
Applicable Laws. The Grantor also specifically reserves the right to operate a municipal
Cable Television System pursuant to Applicable Laws.
SECTION 1.14. MULTIPLE FRANCHISES.
a. Grantor may grant one or more Franchises for a Service Area. Grantor may,
in its sole discretion, limit the number of Franchises granted, based upon, but not
necessarily limited to, the requirements of Applicable Laws and specific local
considerations; such as:
1. The capacity of the public rights-of-way to accommodate multiple
coaxial cables in addition to the cables, conduits and pipes of the utility systems,
such as electrical power, telephone, gas and sewage.
2. The impact on the City of having multiple Franchises.
3. The disadvantages that may result from Cable System competition,
such as the requirement for multiple pedestals on residents' property, and the
disruption arising from numerous excavations of the rights-of-way.
4. The financial capabilities of the applicant and its guaranteed
commitment to make necessary investment to erect, maintain and operate the
proposed System for the duration of the Franchise term.
b. Each Grantee awarded a Franchise to serve the entire City shall offer service
to all residences in the City, in accordance with construction and service schedules
mutually agreed upon between Grantor and Grantee, and consistent with Applicable Laws.
c. The City may, in its sole discretion, require developers of new residential
housing with underground utilities to provide conduit to accommodate cables for a
minimum of two (2) Cable Systems in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.21 (d).
d. Grantor may require that any new Grantee be responsible for its own
underground trenching and the costs associated therewith, if, in Grantor's opinion, the
rights-of-way in any particular area cannot feasibly and reasonably accommodate
additional cables.
e. Any additional Franchise granted by the City to provide Cable Service in a
part of the City in which a Franchise has already been granted and where an existing
Grantee is providing service shall require the new Grantee to provide service throughout
its Service Area within a reasonable time and in a sequence which does not discriminate
against lower income residents.
179781/1
10
SECTION 1.15. FRANCHISE APPLICATIONS.
Any Person, other than the City unless specifically required by Applicable Laws,
desiring an initial Franchise for a Cable Television System shall file an application with the
City. A reasonable nonrefundable application fee in an amount established by the City
shall accompany the initial application. Such application fee shall not be deemed to be
"franchise fees" within the meaning of Section 622 of the Cable Act (47 U.S.C. § 542), and
such payments shall not be deemed to be (i) "payments in kind" or any involuntary
payments chargeable against the Franchise Fees to be paid to the City by Grantee pursuant
to Section 1.20 hereof and applicable provisions of a Franchise Agreement, or (ii) part of
the Franchise Fees to be paid to the City by Grantee pursuant to Section 1.20 hereof and
applicable provisions of a Franchise Agreement.
An application for an initial Franchise for a Cable Television System shall be in a
form reasonably acceptable to Grantor and shall contain, where applicable:
a. A statement as to the proposed Service Area.
b. A resume of prior history of applicant, including the legal, technical and
financial expertise of applicant in the cable television field.
c. A list of the general and limited partners of the applicant, if a partnership, or
the shareholders, if a corporation.
d. The percentage ownership of the applicant of each of its partners,
shareholders or other equity owners;
e. A list of officers, directors and managing employees of applicant or its
general partner, as applicable, together with a description of the background of each such
Person;
f. The names and addresses of any parent or subsidiary of applicant or any
other business entity owning or controlling applicant in whole or in part, or owned or
controlled in whole or in part by applicant;
g. A current financial statement of applicant verified by an audit or otherwise
certified to be true, complete and correct to the reasonable satisfaction of the City;
h. Proposed construction and service schedule.
i. Any additional information that the City deems applicable.
179781/1
11
SECTION 1.16. CONSIDERATION OF INITIAL APPLICATIONS.
a. Upon receipt of any application for an initial Franchise, the City
Administrator shall prepare a report and make his or her recommendations respecting such
application to the City Council.
b. A public hearing shall be set prior to any initial Franchise grant, at a time and
date approved by the Council. Within thirty (30) days after the close of the hearing, the
Council shall make a decision based upon the evidence received at the hearing as to
whether or not the Franchise(s) should be granted, and, if granted subject to what
conditions. The Council may grant one (1) or more initial Franchises, or may decline to
grant any Franchise.
SECTION 1.17. FRANCHISE RENEWAL.
Franchise renewals shall be in accordance with Applicable Laws. Grantor and
Grantee, by mutual consent, may enter into renewal negotiations at any time during the
term of the Franchise. To the extent consistent with Applicable Laws, a reasonable non-
refundable renewal application fee in an amount established by the City may be required
to accompany any renewal application. Such application fee shall not be deemed to be
rancmse fees" within the meaning of Section 622 of the Cable Act (47 U.S.C. § 542), and
such payments shall not be deemed to be (i) "payments in kind" or any involuntary
payments chargeable against the Franchise Fees to be paid to the City by Grantee pursuant
to Section 1.20 hereof and applicable provisions of a Franchise Agreement, or (ii) part of
the Franchise Fees to be paid to the City by Grantee pursuant to Section 1.20 hereof and
applicable provisions of a Franchise Agreement.
SECTION 1.18. CONSUMER PROTECTION AND SERVICE STANDARDS.
Grantee shall maintain a convenient local customer service or bill payment location
'for receiving Subscriber payments. Grantee shall also maintain or arrange for a location
where equipment can be dropped-off or exchanged as is necessary or, in the alternative,
establish a system for having Subscriber equipment picked-up at the Subscriber residence
free-of-charge. Grantee shall also provide the necessary facilities, equipment and
personnel to comply with the following consumer protection standards under Normal
Operating Conditions:
a. Cable S stem office hours and tele hone availabilit:
1. Grantee will maintain a local, toll-free or collect call telephone access
line which will be available to its Subscribers 24 hours a day, seven (7) days a week.
(i) Trained Grantee representatives will be available to respond to
customer telephone inquiries during Normal Business Hours.
179781/1
12
(ii) After Normal Business Hours, the access line may be answered
by a service or an automated response system, including an answering
machine. Inquiries received after Normal Business Hours must be responded
to by a trained Grantee representative on the next business day.
2. Under Normal Operating Conditions, telephone answer time by a
customer representative, including wait time, shall not exceed thirty (30) seconds
when the connection is made. If the call needs to be transferred, transfer time shall
not exceed thirty (30) seconds. These standards shall be met no less then ninety
(90%) percent of the time under Normal Operating Conditions, measured on a
quarterly basis.
3. The Grantee will not be required to acquire equipment or perform
surveys to measure compliance with the telephone answering standards above
unless an historical record of complaints indicates a clear failure to comply.
4. Under Normal Operating Conditions, the customer will receive a
busy signal less than three percent (3%) of the time.
5. Customer service center and bill payment locations will be open at
least during Normal Business Hours.
b. Installations, outages and service calls. Under Normal Operating Conditions,
each of the following four standards will be met no less than ninety-five percent (95%) of
the time measured on a quarterly basis:
1. Standard Installations will be performed within seven (7) business
days after an order has been placed. "Standard" Installations are those that are
located up to 125 feet from the existing distribution system.
2. Excluding conditions beyond the control of Grantee, Grantee will
begin working on "service interruptions" promptly and in no event later than 24
hours after the interruption becomes known. The Grantee must begin actions to
correct other service problems the next business day after notification of the service
problem.
3. The "appointment window" alternatives for Installations, service calls,
and other Installation activities will be either a specific time or, at maximum, a four-
hour time block during Normal Business Hours. (The Grantee may schedule service
calls and other Installation activities outside of Normal Business Hours for the
express convenience of the customer.)
4. Grantee may not cancel an appointment with a customer after the
close of business on the business day prior to the scheduled appointment.
1 79781/1
13
179781/1
5. If Grantee's representative is running late for an appointment with a
customer and will not be able to keep the appointment as scheduled, the customer
will be contacted prior to the time of the scheduled appointment. The appointment
will be rescheduled, as necessary, at a time which is convenient for the customer.
c. Communications between Grantee and Subscribers:
1. Notifications to Subscribers:
(i) The Grantee shall provide written information on each of the
following areas at the time of Installation of service, at least annually to all
Subscribers, and at any time upon request:
(A) Products and services offered;
(B) Prices and options for programming services and
conditions of subscription to programming and other services;
(C)
(D)
(E)
System; and
Installation and service maintenance policies;
Instructions on how to use the Cable Service;
Channel positions of the programming carried on the
(F) Billing and complaint procedures, including the address
and telephone number of the Grantee's office within the Service Area.
(ii) Customers will be notified of any changes in rates,
programming services or channel positions as soon as possible in writing.
Notice must be given to Subscribers a minimum of thirty (30) days in
advance of such changes if the changes are within the control of the Grantee.
In addition, the Grantee shall notify subscribers thirty (30) days in advance of
any significant changes in the other information required by this Section
1.18(c)(1)(i). Grantee shall not be required to provide prior notice of any rate
changes as a result of a regulatory fee, franchise fee, or other fees, tax,
assessment or charge of any kind imposed by any federal agency, state or
franchising authority on the transaction between the operator and the
subscriber.
2. Billing:
(i) Bills will be clear, concise and understandable. Bills must be
fully itemized, with itemizations including, but not limited to, basic and
premium service charges and equipment charges. Bills will also clearly
delineate all activity during the billing period, including optional charges,
rebates and credits.
14
(ii) In case of a billing dispute, the Grantee must respond to a
written complaint from a Subscriber within thirty (30) days.
o
either:
Refunds: Refund checks will be issued promptly, but no later than
(i) The customer's next billing cycle following resolution of the
request or thirty (30) days, whichever is earlier, or
(ii) The return of the equipment supplied by the Grantee if service
is terminated.
4. Credits: Credits for service will be issued no later than the customer's
next billing cycle following the determination that a credit is warranted.
Grantee shall provide City with a quarterly customer service compliance report
specific to the system serving the City of Mound in a form mutually agreed to, which report
shall, at a minimum, describe in detail Grantee's compliance with each and every term and
provision of this Section 1.18 and any additional customer service requirements contained
in Grantee's Franchise and shall outline and summarize all subscriber complaints received
by Grantee during the preceding calendar quarter.
SECTION 1.19. RATE REGULATION.
The City reserves the right to regulate rates for Basic Cable Service and any other
services offered over the Cable System, to the extent not prohibited by Applicable Laws.
The Grantee shall be subject to the rate regulation provisions provided for herein, and
those of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) at 47 C.F.R., Part 76, Subpart N,
as the same may be amended from time to time. The City shall follow the rules relating to
cable rate regulation promulgated by the FCC at 47 C.F.R., Part 76, Subpart N, as the same
may be amended from time to time.
SECTION 1.20. FRANCHISE FEE.
a. Following the issuance and acceptance of a Franchise, the Grantee shall pay
to the Grantor a Franchise Fee in the amount set forth in the Franchise Agreement.
b. The Grantor, on an annual basis, shall be furnished a statement within ninety
(90) days of the close of the calendar year, certified by the Company controller or chief
financial officer, reflecting the total amounts of Gross Revenues and all payments, and
computations of the Franchise Fee for the previous calendar year. Upon ten (10) days prior
written notice, Grantor shall have the right to conduct an independent audit of Grantee's
records. If such audit indicates a Franchise Fee underpayment of five percent (5%) or
more, the Grantee shall assume all of City's out-of-pocket costs associated with the conduct
of such an audit and shall remit to Grantor all applicable Franchise Fees due and payable
179781/1
15
together with interest thereon at the lesser of the maximum rate permitted by Applicable
Laws or 18% per annum.
c. Except as otherwise provided by law, no acceptance of any payment by the
Grantor shall be construed as a release or as an accord and satisfaction of any claim the
Grantor may have for further or additional sums payable as a Franchise Fee under this
Ordinance or any Franchise Agreement or for the performance of any other obligation of
the Grantee.
d. In the event that any Franchise Fee payment or recomputed amount is not
made on or before the dates specified in the Franchise Agreement, Grantee shall pay as
additional compensation an interest charge, computed from such due date, at an annual
rate equal to the lesser of the maximum rate permitted by Applicable Laws or 18% per
annum during the period for which payment was due.
e. Franchise Fee payments shall be made in accordance with the schedule
indicated in the Franchise Agreement.
SECTION 1.21. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS.
a. Grantee shall not construct any Cable System facilities until Grantee has
secured the necessary permits from Grantor, or other applicable Governmental Authorities.
b. In those areas of the City where transmission or distribution facilities of all
the public utilities providing telephone and electric power service are underground, the
Grantee likewise shall construct, operate and maintain its transmission and distribution
facilities therein underground.
c. In those areas of the City where Grantee's cables are located on the above-
ground transmission or distribution facilities of the public utility providing telephone or
electric power service, and in the event that the facilities of both such public utilities
subsequently are placed underground, then the Grantee likewise shall construct, operate
and maintain its transmission and distribution facilities underground, at Grantee's cost.
Certain of Grantee's equipment, such as pedestals, amplifiers and power supplies, which
normally are placed above ground, may continue to remain in above-ground closures,
however, the City specifically reserves all of its rights to approve above-ground or
underground locations for pedestals subject to Applicable Laws.
d. In new residential developments in which all the electric power and
telephone utilities are underground, the City may, in its sole discretion, require that the
following procedure apply with respect to access to and utilization of underground
easements:
1. The developer shall be responsible for contacting and surveying all
Grantees to ascertain which Grantees desire (or, pursuant to the terms and
provisions of this Ordinance and any Franchise Agreement, may be required) to
179781/1
16
provide Cable Service to that development. The developer may establish a
reasonable deadline to receive responses from Grantees. The final development
map shall indicate the Grantees which have agreed to serve the development.
2. If one (1) or more Grantees wish to provide service within all or part
of the development, they shall be accommodated in the joint utilities trench on a
nondiscriminatory shared basis. If fewer than two (2) Grantees indicate interest, the
developer shall provide conduit to accommodate a minimum of two (2) sets of cable
television cables and dedicate to the City any initially unoccupied conduit. The
developer shall be entitled to recover the cost of such initially unoccupied conduit
in the event that Grantor subsequently leases or sells occupancy or use rights to any
Grantee.
3. The developer shall provide at least ten (10) business days notice of
the date that utility trenches will be open to the Grantees that have agreed to serve
the development. When the trenches are open, such Grantees shall have two (2)
business days to begin the Installation of their cables, and five (5) business days after
beginning Installation to complete Installation.
4. The final development map shall not be approved until the developer
submits evidence that:
A. It has notified each Grantee that underground utility trenches
are to open as of an estimated date, and that each Grantee will be allowed
access to such trenches, including trenches from proposed Streets to
individual homes or home sites, on specified nondiscriminatory terms and
conditions; and
B. It has received a written notification from each Grantee that the
Grantee intends to install its facilities during the open trench period on the
specified terms and conditions, or such other terms and conditions as are
mutually agreeable to the developer and Grantee, or has received no reply
from a Grantee within ten (10) days after its notification to such Grantee, in
which case the Grantee will be deemed to have waived its opportunity to
install its facilities during the open trench period.
5. Sharing the joint utilities trench shall be subject to compliance with
State regulatory agency and utility standards. If such compliance is not possible, the
developer shall provide a separate trench for the cable television cables, with the
entire cost shared among the participating Grantee(s). With the concurrence of the
developer, the affected utilities and the Grantees, alternative Installation procedures,
such as the use of deeper trenches, may be utilized, subject to the requirements of
Applicable Laws.
179781/1
17
6. Any Grantee wishing to serve an area where the trenches have been
closed shall be responsible for its own trenching and associated costs and shall
repair all property to the condition which existed prior to such trenching.
e. C__onstruction Codes and Permit:~.
1. Grantee shall obtain all necessary permits from City before
commencing any construction upgrade or extension of the System, including the
opening or disturbance of any Street, or private or public property within City.
Grantee shall strictly adhere to all state and local laws and building and zoning
codes currently or hereafter applicable to construction, operation or maintenance of
the System in City and give due consideration at all times to the aesthetics of the
property.
2. The City shall have the right to inspect all construction or installation
work performed pursuant to the provisions of the Franchise and to make such tests
at its own expense as it shall find necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of
the Franchise and applicable provisions of local, state and federal law.
f. _Repair of Streets and Property. Any and all Streets or public property or
private property, which are disturbed or damaged during the construction, repair,
replacement, relocation, operation, maintenance or reconstruction of the System shall be
promptly and fully restored by Grantee, at its expense, to a condition as good as that
prevailing prior to Grantee's work, as approved by City in the case of Streets and other
public property. If Grantee shall fail to promptly perform the restoration required herein,
City shall have the right to put the streets, public, or private property back into good
condition. City reserves its rights to pursue reimbursement for such restoration from
Grantee.
g. _Conditions on Street UsG
1. Nothing in this Franchise shall be construed to prevent City from
constructing, maintaining, repairing or relocating sewers; grading, paving,
maintaining, repairing, relocating and/or altering any Street; constructing, laying
down, repairing, maintaining or relocating any water mains; or constructing,
maintaining, relocating, or repairing any sidewalk or other public work.
2. All System transmission and distribution structures, lines and
equipment erected by the Grantee within City shall be located so as not to obstruct
or interfere with the proper use of Streets, alleys and other public ways and places,
and to cause minimum interference with the rights of property owners who abut any
of the said Streets, alleys and other public ways and places, and not to interfere with
existing public utility installations. The Grantee shall furnish to and file with City
Administrator the maps, plats, and permanent records of the location and character
of all facilities constructed, including underground facilities, and Grantee shall file
179781/1
18
with City updates of such maps, plats and permanent records annually if changes
have been made in the System.
3. If at any time during the period of this Franchise City shall elect to
alter, or change the grade or location of any Street, alley or other public way, the
Grantee shall, at its own expense, upon reasonable notice by City, remove and
relocate its poles, wires, cables, conduits, manholes and other fixtures of the
System, and in each instance comply with the standards and specifications of City.
If City reimburses other occupants of the Street, Grantee shall be likewise
reimbursed.
4. The Grantee shall not place poles, conduits, or other fixtures of
System above or below ground where the same will interfere with any gas, electric,
telephone, water or other utility fixtures and all such poles, conduits, or other
fixtures placed in any Street shall be so placed as to comply with all requirements of
City.
5. The Grantee shall, on request of any Person holding a moving permit
issued by City, temporarily move its wires or fixtures to permit the moving of
buildings with the expense of such temporary removal to be paid by the Person
requesting the same, and the Grantee shall be given not less than ten (10) days
advance notice to arrange for such temporary changes.
SECTION 1.22. TECHNICAL STANDARDS.
a. The Grantee shall construct, install, operate and maintain its System in a
manner consistent with all Applicable Laws and the Federal Communications Commission
technical standards, and any standards set forth in its Franchise Agreement. In addition, the
Grantee shall provide to the Grantor, upon request, a copy of the results of the Grantee's
periodic proof of performance tests conducted pursuant to Federal Communications
Commission standards and guidelines.
b. Failure to comply with the FCC's technical standards shall entitle the City to
utilize the procedures of Section 1.30 hereof.
c. All construction practices shall be in accordance with all applicable sections
of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, as amended, as well as all other
Applicable Laws.
d. All Installation of electronic equipment at the time of installation shall be of a
permanent nature, durable and installed in accordance with the provisions of the National
Electrical and Safety Code and National Electrical Code, as amended, and as said code may
from time to time be amended.
179781/1
19
e. Antennae and their supporting structures (towers) shall be painted, lighted,
erected and maintained in accordance with all applicaSle rules and regulations of the
Federal Aviation Administration and all other Applicable Laws.
f. All of Grantee's plant and equipment, including, but not limited to, the
antenna site, headend and distribution system, towers, house connections, structures,
poles, wire, coaxial cable, fixtures and appurtenances shall be installed, located, erected,
constructed, reconstructed, replaced, removed, repaired, maintained and operated in
accordance with good engineering practices, performed by experienced maintenance and
construction personnel so as not to endanger or interfere with improvements the City may
deem appropriate to make or to interfere in any manner with the rights of any property
owner, or to unnecessarily hinder or obstruct pedestrian or vehicular traffic.
g- Grantee shall at all times employ ordinary care and shall install and maintain
in use commonly accepted methods and devices preventing failures and accidents which
are likely to cause damage, injury or nuisance to the public.
SECTION 1.23. TRIMMING OF TREES.
Grantee shall have the authority to trim trees, in accordance with all applicable
utility restrictions, ordinance and easement restrictions, upon and hanging over Streets and
public places of the City so as to prevent the branches of such trees from coming in contact
with the wires and cables of Grantee. City representatives shall have authority to supervise
and approve all trimming of trees conducted by Grantee.
SECTION 1.24. USE OF GRANTEE FACILITIES.
The City shall, at its own expense, have the right to install and maintain upon the
poles and within the underground pipes and conduits of Grantee, any wires and fixtures
desired by the City to the extent that such installation and maintenance does not interfere
with existing operations of Grantee.
SECTION 1.25. PROGRAMMING DECISIONS.
All programming decisions shall be at the sole discretion of Grantee; provided,
however, that any change in the mix, quality or level of service pursuant to 47 U.S.C.
§ 545(a) shall require the prior approval of the City. Such approval by the City shall not be
unreasonably withheld.
SECTION 1.26. INDEMNIFICATION.
Grantee shall indemnify, defend and hold the City, its officers, boards, commissions,
agents and employees (collectively the nc~emn~fied Parties") harmless from and against
any and all lawsuits, claims, causes of action, actions, liability, demands, damages,
judgments, settlements, losses, expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees) and costs of
any nature that any of the Indemnified Parties may at any time, directly or indirectly, suffer,
179781/1
20
sustain or incur arising out of, based upon or in any way connected with the grant of a
Franchise to Grantee, the operation of Grantee's System and/or the acts and/or omissions of
Grantee or its agents or employees, whether or not pursuant to the Franchise. This
indemnity shall apply, without limitation, to any action or cause of action for invasion of
privacy, defamation, antitrust, errors and omissions, theft, fire, violation or infringement of
any copyright, trademark, trade names, service mark, patent, or any other right of any
Person, whether or not any act or omission complained of is authorized, allowed or
prohibited by this Ordinance or any Franchise Agreement, but shall exclude any claim or
action arising out of the acts or omissions of the Indemnified Parties or related to any City
programming or other access programming for which the Grantee is not legally
responsible.
SECTION 1.27. INSURANCE.
Within sixty (60) days following the grant of a Franchise, the Grantee shall obtain,
pay all premiums for and make available to the City at its request copies of the following
insurance policies:
a. A general comprehensive liability insurance policy insuring, indemnifying,
defending and saving harmless the Indemnified Parties from any and all claims by any
Person whatsoever on account of injury to or death of a Person or Persons occasioned by
the operations of the Grantee under any Franchise granted hereunder, or alleged to have
been so caused or occurred with a minimum coverage of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000)
for personal injury or death of one Person, and Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000) for
personal injury or death of any two (2) or more Persons in any one occurrence. The policy
limits provided for in this Section 1.27(a) shall be reviewed and adjusted by the city as
necessary not more than once every three (3) years.
b. Property damage insurance for property damage occasioned by the operation
of Grantee under any Franchise granted pursuant to this Ordinance, or alleged to have
been so caused or occurred, with minimum coverage of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000)
for property damage to the property of any one Person and Three Million Dollars
($3,000,000) for property damage to the property of two or more Persons in any one
occurrence. The policy limits provided for in this Section 1.27(b) shall be reviewed and
adjusted by the city as necessary not more than once every three (3) years.
c. Workers Compensation Insurance as provided by Applicable Laws.
d. All insurance policies called for herein shall be in a form satisfactory to the
City with a company licensed to do business in the State of Minnesota with a rating by
A.M. Best & Co. of not less than "A," and shall require thirty (30) days written notice of any
cancellation to both the City and the Grantee. The Grantee shall, in the event of any such
cancellation notice, obtain, pay all premiums for, and file with the City, written evidence of
the issuance of replacement policies within thirty (30) days following receipt by the City or
the Grantee of any notice of cancellation.
179781/1
21
e. If Grantee sells or transfers the Cable System, or in the event of expiration,
termination or revocation of a Franchise, insurance tail COverage shall be purchased and
filed with the City for the then applicable amounts, providing coverage for the time periods
according to applicable statutes of limitation, insurance for any issues attributable to the
period Grantee held its Franchise.
f. It shall be the obligation of Grantee to promptly notify the City of any
pending or threatened litigation that would be likely to affect the Indemnified Parties.
SECTION 1.28. RECORDS REQUIRED AND GRANTOR,S RIGHT TO
INSPECT.
a. Grantee shall at all times maintain the following records and information
relating specifically to the Cable System serving the City as identified by the FCC
Community Unit Identifier ("CUID") as opposed to a regional cable system or other
operating unit of Grantee:
1. A full and complete set of plans, records and "as-built" drawings
and/or maps in an electronic form agreed to by City and Grantee which shall be
updated annually showing the location of the Cable Television System installed or
in use in the City, exclusive of Subscriber service drops and equipment provided in
Subscribers' homes.
2. If requested by Grantor, a summary of service calls, identifying the
number, general nature and disposition of such calls, on a monthly basis. A
summary of such service calls shall be submitted to the Grantor within thirty (30)
days following its request in a form reasonably acceptable to the Grantor.
b. Upon reasonable notice, and during Normal Business Hours, Grantee shall
permit examination by any duly authorized representative of the Grantor, of all Franchise
property and facilities, together with any appurtenant property and facilities of Grantee
situated within or without the City, and all records relating to the Franchise, provided they
are necessary to enable the Grantor to carry out its regulatory responsibilities under
Applicable Laws, this Ordinance and the Franchise Agreement. Grantee shall have the
right to be present at any such examination.
c. The City shall also have the right to inspect, upon twenty-four (24) hours
written notice, at any time during Normal Business Hours at Grantee's office, all books,
records, maps, plans, financial statements, service complaint logs, Performance test results,
records of request for service, and other like materials of Grantee.
d. Copies of all petitions, applications, communications and reports submitted
by Grantee or on behalf of or relating to Grantee to the Federal Communications
Commission, Securities and Exchange Commission, or any other Governmental Authority
having jurisdiction with respect to any matters affecting the Cable System authorized
pursuant to this Ordinance and any Franchise shall, upon request, be submitted, upon
179781/1
22
request to the City. Copies of responses from the Governmental Authority to Grantee shall
likewise be furnished to the City.
SECTION 1.29. ANNUAL REPORTS.
a. Grantee shall, upon request, within ninety (90) days of each calendar year
end, submit a written end of the year report to Grantor with respect to the preceding
calendar year containing the following information:
1. A Summary of the previous year's (or in the case of the initial
reporting year, the initial year's) activities in development of the Cable System,
including but not limited to, services commenced or discontinued during the
reporting year;
2. A list of Grantee's officers, members of its board of directors, and
other principals of Grantee;
3. A list of stockholders or other equity investors holding five percent
(5%) or more of the voting interest in Grantee; and
4. Information as to the number of Subscribers, additional television
outlets, and the number of basic and pay service Subscribers.
b. All reports required under this Ordinance, except those required by law to be
kept confidential, shall be available for public inspection in the Grantee's offices during
Normal Business Hours.
c. All reports and records required under this Ordinance shall be furnished at
the sole expense of Grantee, except as otherwise provided in this Ordinance or the
Franchise agreement.
SECTION 1.30. FRANCHISE VIOLATION.
a. In the event Grantor believes that Grantee has breached or violated any
material provision of this Ordinance or a Franchise granted hereunder, Grantor may act in
accordance with the following procedures:
b. Grantor may notify Grantee of the alleged violation or breach and demand
that Grantee cure the same within a reasonable time, which shall not be less than ten (10)
days in the case of an alleged failure of the Grantee to pay any sum or other amount due
the Grantor under this Ordinance or the Grantee's Franchise and thirty (30) days in all
other cases. If Grantee fails either to cure the alleged violation or breach within the time
prescribed or to commence correction of the violation or breach within the time prescribed
and thereafter diligently pursue correction of such alleged violation or breach, the Grantor
shall then give written notice of not less than fourteen (14) days of a public hearing to be
held before the Council. Said notice shall specify the violations or breaches alleged to
179781/1
23
have occurred. At the public hearing, the Council shall hear and consider relevant
evidence and thereafter render findings and its decision. In the event the Council finds that
a material violation or breach exists and that Grantee has not cured the same in a
satisfactory manner or has not diligently commenced to cure of such violation or breach
after notice thereof from Grantor and is not diligently proceeding to fully cure such
violation or breach, the Council may impose penalties from any security fund required in a
Franchise Agreement or may terminate Grantee's Franchise and all rights and privileges of
the Frar~chise. If the City chooses to terminate Grantee's Franchise, the following
additional procedure shall be followed:
1. The City shall provide Grantee with written notice of the City's intention to
terminate the Franchise and specify in detail the reason or cause for the
proposed termination. The City shall allow grantee a minimum of fifteen
(15) days subsequent to receipt of the notice in which to cure the default.
2. Grantee shall be provided with an opportunity to be heard at a regular or
special meeting of City prior to any final decision of City to terminate
Grantee's Franchise.
3. In the event that City determines to terminate Grantee's franchise, the
Grantee shall have an opportunity to appeal said decision in accordance with
al/Applicable Laws.
4. If a valid appeal is filed, the Franchise shall remain in full force and affect
while said appeal is pending, unless the term of the Franchise SOoner expires.
SECTION 1.31. FORCE MAJEURE; GRANTEE'S INABILITY TO PERFORM.
In the event Grantee's performance of any of the terms, conditions or obligations
required by this Ordinance or a Franchise granted hereunder is prevented by a cause or
· event not within Grantee's control, such inability to perform shall be deemed excused for
the period of such inability and no penalties or sanctions shall be imposed as a result
thereof. For the purpose of this Section, causes or events not within the control of Grantee
shall include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, sabotage, riots or civil disturbances,
restraints imposed by order of a governmental agency or court, failure or loss of utilities,
explosions, acts of public enemies, and natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes,
landslides and fires.
SECTION 1.32. ABANDONMENT OR REMOVAL OF FRANCHISE
PROPERTY.
a. In the event that the use of any property of Grantee within the Franchise Area
or a portion thereof is discontinued for a continuous period of twelve (12) months, Grantee
shall be deemed to have abandoned that property.
179781/1
24
b. Grantor, upon such terms as Grantor may impose, may give Grantee
permission to abandon, without removing, any System facility or equipment laid, directly
constructed, operated or maintained in, on, under or over the Franchise Area. Unless such
permission is granted or unless otherwise provided in this Ordinance, the Grantee shall
remove all abandoned facilities and equipment upon receipt of written notice from Grantor
and shall restore any affected Street to its former state at the time such facilities and
equipment were installed, so as not to impair its usefulness. In removing its plant,
structures and equipment, Grantee shall refill, at its own expense, any excavation made by
or on behalf of Grantee and shall leave all streets and other public ways and places in as
good condition as that prevailing prior to such removal without materially interfering with
any electrical or telephone cable or other utility wires, poles or attachments. Grantor shall
have the right to inspect and approve the condition of the streets, public ways, public
places, cables, wires, attachments and poles prior to and after removal. The liability,
indemnity and insurance provisions of this Ordinance and any security fund provided for in
the Franchise Agreement shall continue in full force and effect during the period of removal
and until full compliance by Grantee with the terms and conditions of this Section.
c. Upon abandonment of any Franchise property in place, the Grantee, if
required by the Grantor, shall submit to Grantor a bill of sale and/or other an instrument,
satisfactory in form and content to the Grantor, transferring to the Grantor the ownership of
the Franchise property abandoned.
d. At the expiration of the term for which the Franchise is granted, or upon its
earlier revocation or termination, as provided for herein and/or in the Franchise
Agreement, in any such case without renewal, extension or transfer, the Grantor shall have
the right to require Grantee to remove, at its own expense, all above-ground portions of the
Cable Television System from all Streets and public ways within the City within a
reasonable period of time, which shall not be less than one hundred eighty (180) days.
e. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in this Ordinance, the
Grantee may, with the consent of the Grantor, abandon any underground Franchise
property in place so long as it does not materially interfere with the use of the Street or
public rights-of-way in which such property is located or with the use thereof by any public
utility or other cable Grantee.
SECTION 1.33. EXTENDED OPERATION AND CONTINUITY OF
SERVICES.
Upon termination or forfeiture of a Franchise, the Grantee shall remove its cable,
wires, and appliances from the streets, alleys, or other public places within the Service
Area if the City so requests. Failure by the Grantee to remove its cable, wires, and
appliances as referenced herein shall be subject to the requirements of Section 1.32 of this
Ordinance.
179781/1
25
SECTION 1.34. RECEIVERSHIP AND FORECLOSURE.
a. A Franchise granted hereunder shall, at the option of Grantor, cease and
terminate one hundred twenty (120) days after appointment of a receiver or receivers, or
trustee or trustees, to take over and conduct the business of Grantee, whether in a
receivership, reorganization, bankruptcy or other action or proceeding, unless such
receivership or trusteeship shall have been vacated prior to the expiration of said one
hundred twenty (120) days, or unless: (1) such receivers or trustees shall have, within one
hundred twenty (120) days after their election or appointment, fully complied with all the
terms and provisions of this Ordinance and the Franchise granted pursuant hereto, and the
receivers or trustees within said one hundred twenty (120) days shall have remedied all the
defaults and violations under the Franchise and/or this Ordinance or provided a plan for
the remedy of such defaults and violations which is satisfactory to the Grantor; and (2) such
receivers or trustees shall, within said one hundred twenty (120) days, execute an
agreement duly approved by the court having jurisdiction in the premises, whereby such
receivers or trustees assume and agree to be bound by each and every term, provision and
limitation of the Franchise and this Ordinance.
b. In the case of a foreclosure or other judicial sale of the Franchise property, or
any material part thereof, Grantor may give notice of termination of any Franchise granted
pursuant to this Ordinance upon Grantee and the successful bidder at such sale, in which
the event the Franchise granted and all rights and privileges of the Grantee hereunder shall
cease and terminate thirty (30) days after such notice has been given, unless (1) Grantor
shall have approved the transfer of the Franchise in accordance with the provisions of the
Franchise and this Ordinance; and (2) such successful bidder shall have covenanted and
agreed with Grantor to assume and be bound by all terms and conditions of the Franchise.
SECTION 1.35. RIGHTS RESERVED TO GRANTOR.
In addition to any rights specifically reserved to the Grantor by this Ordinance, the
Grantor reserves to itself every right and power which is required to be reserved by a
provision of any ordinance or under the Franchise.
SECTION 1.36. RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS.
a. Grantee shall not deny service, deny access, or otherwise discriminate
against Subscribers, Channel users, or general citizens on the basis of race, color, religion,
disability, national origin, age, gender or sexual preference. Grantee shall Comply at all
times with all other Applicable Laws, relating to nondiscrimination.
b. Grantee shall adhere to the applicable equal employment opportunity
requirements of Applicable Laws, as now written or as amended from time to time
including 47 U.S.C. Section 551, Protection of Subscriber Privacy.
179781/1
26
c. Neither Grantee, nor any Person, agency, or entity shall, without the
Subscriber's consent, tap or arrange for the tapping, of any cable, line, signal input device,
or Subscriber outlet or receiver for any purpose except routine maintenance of the System,
detection of unauthorized service, polling with audience participating, or audience viewing
surveys to support advertising research regarding viewers where individual viewing
behavior cannot be identified.
d. In the conduct of providing its services or in pursuit of any collateral
commercial enterprise resulting therefrom, Grantee shall take reasonable steps to prevent
the invasion of a Subscriber's or general citizen's right of privacy or other personal rights
through the use of the System as such rights are delineated or defined by Applicable Laws.
Grantee shall not, without lawful court order or other applicable valid legal authority,
utilize the System's interactive two-way equipment or capability for unauthorized personal
surveillance of any Subscriber or general citizen.
e. No cable line, wire, amplifier, converter, or other piece of equipment owned
by Grantee shall be installed by Grantee in the Subscriber's premises, other than in
appropriate easements, without first securing any required consent. If a Subscriber requests
service, permission to install upon Subscriber's property shall be presumed. Where a
property owner or his or her predecessor was granted an easement including a public
utility easement or a servitude to another and the servitude by its terms contemplates a use
such as Grantee's intended use, Grantee shall not be required to service the written
permission of the owner for the Installation of cable television equipment.
f. No signals of a class IV cable communications channel may be transmitted
from a Subscriber terminal for purposes of monitoring individual viewing patterns or
practices without the express written permission of a Subscriber. The request for
permission must be contained in a separate document with a prominent statement that the
Subscriber is authorizing the permission in full knowledge of its provisions. The written
permission must be for a limited period of time not to exceed one year which is renewal at
the option of the Subscriber. No penalty may be invoked for a Subscribers failure to
provide or renew the authorization. The authorization is revocable at any time by the
Subscriber without penalty of any kind. The permission must be required for each type or
classification or class IV cable communications activity planned.
1. No information or data obtained by monitoring transmission of a
signal from a Subscriber terminal, including but not limited to the lists of the names
and addresses of the Subscribers or lists that identify the viewing habits of
Subscribers may be sold or otherwise made available to any Person other than to
Grantee and its employees for internal business use, or to the Subscriber who is the
subject of that information, unless the Grantee has received specific written
authorization from the Subscriber to make the data available.
2. Written permission from the Subscriber must not be required for the
systems conducting system wide or individually addressed electronic sweeps for the
179781/1
27
purpose of verifying system integrity or monitoring for the purpose of billing.
Confidentiality of this information is subject to paragraph 1 above.
3. For purposes of this Section 136, a "class IV cable communications
channel" means a signaling path provided by a System to transmit signals of any
type from a Subscriber terminal to another point in the System.
SECTION 1.37. SEVERABILITY'.
If any provision of this Ordinance is held by any Governmental Authority of
competent jurisdiction, to be invalid as conflicting with any Applicable Laws now or
hereafter in effect, or is held by such Governmental Authority to be modified in any way in
order to conform to the requirements of any such Applicable Laws, such provision shall be
considered a separate, distinct, and independent part of this Ordinance, and such holding
shall not affect the validity and enforceability of all other provisions hereof In the ev
that such Applicable Laws are subse uentl
changed, so that the r~ I,-~^~ L_ q, ,. y repealed, rescinded · . ent
· ,-rov,~,,.,,, ~ereor winch had b . ,..amended. or otherwise
een held ~nvahd or modified is no longer
~n conflict with such laws, said provision shall thereupon return to full force and effect and
shall thereafter be binding on Grantor and Grantee, provided that Grantor shall give
Grantee thirty (30) days written notice of such change before requiring compliance with
said provision or such longer period of time as may be reasonably required for Grantee to
Comply with such provision.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this___.__ day of~, 1998.
THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA
ATTEST:
By:.
Its:
By:
Its: City Administrator
179781/1
28
Iq5o
May20,1998
Dear License Holder:
Fran Clark, City Clerk, sent you a letter dated February 26, 1998 regarding the City Council' s action
relative to tobacco licensing and a proposed ordinance that the City Council was considering. In her
letter, she indicated that your cigarette license which was due to expire on February 28, 1998, had
been extended 90 days, until May 31, 1998. The City Council wanted to have additional time to
consider the ordinance and whether or not they should continue to license you or mm this function
over to Hennepin County.
The City Council is seriously considering transferring this function to Hennepin County. There will
be a discussion about this topic at the next regular meeting of the City Council which will held on
Tuesday, May 26, 1998, 7:30 p.m. There are a number of items that will precede this item on the
agenda so I cannot predict what time this matter will be discussed. I wanted to advise you of this
issue being on the City Council agenda since Fran indicated in her previous letter that she would
keep you informed on this matter. She is out of town this week but will return Tuesday, May 26,
should you have any questions regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Edward J. Shukle, Jr.
City Manager
. ........ I/J, I J, ll
Mound City Council May 26,I991~
I'm sorry I could not be at the council meeting this evening, I had to be at
an Orono meeting about my subdivision. I am requesting that this matter be
tabled until the next council meeting so that I might attend. This mat~
affects me and my business greatly and I would like to be part of any'
discussions about it. Thank you, Christine Valerius
MAY-~6-199@ 1S: ~1
6122~487548 P.01/0S
Hennepin County
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL
DATE:
NUMBER OF PAGES:
3
PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGE(S) TO:
ATTENTION:
COMPANY:
FAX:
PHONE:
DOCUMENT
DESCRIPTION:
SENT BY:
PHONE:
FAX: /612} 348-7548
COMMENTS:
Hennepin County Community Health Department
Health Promotion Division
525 Portland Avenue
Mail Code 968
Minncapo[i,. MN 554l 5-1569
(6tz) 348.5618
~ . £.~'d
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
February 26, 1998
Dear License Holder:
In action taken by the City Council at its February 24, 1998 City Council Meeting, (excerpt
from the meeting enclosed,) your current Cigarette License which was due to expire on February
28, 1998, has been extended 90 days, until May 31, 1998.
This additional time will enable the City Council to review and compare several ordinances and
the State Statute.
I will be in contact with you as things progress.
Sincerely,
Fran Clark,CMC
City Clerk
enc.
prmted on recycled paper
~vu ~.,~ - ~UU~VLa (.11 ~ (.'OUNC'IL - FEBRUARY 24, 1998
1.12
CONTINUF~D DISCUSSION: PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION
449:00 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,
POSSF$SION 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 canons open and out in
stores where minors can enter. Under the proposed ordinance from the 12.ague,
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 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 pan 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
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, 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
MINUTES- MOUND CITY COUNC1L - FEBRUARY 24, 1998
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 Poiston, 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 Legislator
objecting to the compliance provisions of the statute and asking him 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 CYPRKqS LANE
The City Manager reviewed the letter from Hennepin County relating to the study that was done
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.
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT
April 1998
33.33%
April 1998 YTD PERCENT
BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED
GENERAL FUND
Council 71,610 8,026 28,149 43,461 39.31%
Promotions 4,000 0 0 4,000 0.00%
Cable TV 3,000 663 922 2,078 30.73%
City Manager/Clerk 210,970 15,945 78,109 132,861 37.02%
Elections 13,200 0 1,773 11,427 13.43%
Assessing 62,450 13 171 62,279 0.27%
Finance 172,710 13,959 50,990 121,720 29.52%
Computer 18,550 684 10,485 8,065 56.52%
Legal 86,460 8,726 27,818 58,642 32.17%
Police 990,170 93,602 347,625 642,545 35.11%
Civil Defense 4,250 48 750 3,500 17.65%
Planning/Inspections 173,280 12,708 46,672 126,608 26.93%
Streets 420,820 26,568 141,058 279,762 33.52%
City Property 103,380 30,210 46,835 56,545 45.30%
Parks 192,380 16,583 80,917 111,463 42.06%
Summer Recreation 37,290 0 0 37,290 0.00%
Contingencies 45,000 3,243 5,899 39,101 13.11%
Transfers 167.430 13.952 55.809 111.621 33.33%
GENERAL FUND TOTAL ~ ~ ~ ~ 33.27%
Area Fire
Service Fund 360,220 25,169 90,919 269,301 25.24%
Recycling Fund 126,830 9,890 47,941 78,889 37.80%
Liquor Fund 215,200 20,034 70,549 144,651 32.78%
Water Fund 445,400 22,559 102,668 342,732 23.05%
Sewer Fund 981,020 22,849 385,793 595,227 39.33%
Cemetery Fund 6,710 156 216 6,494 3.22%
Dock Fund 76,660 10,641 17,581 59,079 22.93%
Exp-97
05/13/98
G.B.
CITY OF MOUND
BUDGET REVENUE REPORT
April 1998
33.33%
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
April 1998 YTD PERCENT
BUDGET ~ .REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVE______~D
1,271,520 0 0
4,780 405 1,455
105,300 10,803 27,430
950,850 1,174 40,914
50,650 1,603 4,838
85,000 10,535 24,676
71,000 13,653 20,062
43,500 0 0
194.350 1,364 4,073
(1,271,520) 0.00%
(3,325) 30.44%
(77,870) 26.05%
(909,936) 4.30%
(45,812) 9.55%
(60,324) 29.03%
(50,938) 28.26%
(43,500) 0.00%
(190,277) 2.10%
TOTAL REVENUE
39.537
4.45%
FIRE FUND
RECYCLING FUND
LIQUOR FUND
WATER FUND
SEWER FUND
CEMETERY FUND
DOCK FUND
360,220 44,002 162,801 (197,419) 45.19%
118,920 6,118 24,288 (94,632) 20.42%
1,530,000 129,660 446,960 (1,083,040) 29.21%
451,000 31,440 128,258 (322,742) 28.44%
924,000 79,227 330,452 (593,548) 35.76%
5,100 1,020 2,570 (2,530) 50.39%
77,300 (3,799) 70,007 (7,293) 90.57%
05113~98
rev97
G.B.
/95g
RECEIVED 1 3 ]g(:J8
Steve Smith
State Representative
District 34A
Hennepin and Wright Counties
Minnesota
House of
Representatives
Committees: Judiciary; Capital Investment; Civil and Family Law Division - Judiciary
Representing: Mound, Minnetrista, St. Bonifacius, Spring Park, Independence, Greenfield,
Mayor Bob Polston Hanover, Rockford, Delano, Rockford Township, Franklin Township May 12, 1998
City of Mound
$341 Maywood Rd.
Mound, MN 55364-1687
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your opposition to the extension of levy limits as was
contained in the House DFL Tax Bill. I agree with you, and would like to update you on this
issue now that the session has ended.
I know how the state legislature would feel if the federal government told us that they were
placing limits upon our state budget, and I certainly understand how cities and counties feel
about the legislature doing the same thing to them. Some of you may remember I was a Mound
Councilman for two years and Mound Mayor for four years.
I opposed the idea in 1997, and I opposed expanding levy limits this year. Unfortunately, the
DFL controlled Tax Committee and specifically Representative Dee Long (DFL- Minneapolis), '
the Tax Chair, strongly supported levy 'limits. As you know, the House Tax Bill extended the
limits until 2001.
What emerged from conference committee was no change at all in existing law. Levy limits will
remain in place until 1999 as a compromise between the House extension and the Senate repeal
of the limits.
On a related issue, the House failed to pass an amendment by Representative Ron Kraus (R-
Albert Lea) that would have exempted local governments from the state sales tax. Unfortunately
it was treated as a partisan issue and the DFL majority killed on an almost straight party line
vote. I think eliminating the sales tax cities and counties pay could prove a great savings to the
property tax payers of Minnesota.
Again, Bob and Council members, thank you for contacting me. Always feel free to contact me
at any time.
~State Representative
/
2710 Clare Lane, Mound, Minnesota 55364
State Office Building, 100 Constitution Ave., St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-1298
(612) 472-7664
(612) 296-9188
FaX (612) 296-8803
JOSEPH F. SANZONE
Director
METROPOLITAN MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT
METRO COUNTIES GOVERNMENT CENTER
2099 UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST · ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA 55104-3431
612-645-9149 · FAX 612-645-3246 TDD use Minnesota Relay Service
w.J. CAESAR
Business Admin.
Date: 5/12/98
To: City Manager
From: Metropolitan Mosquito Control District
Re: Adult mosquito control notification procedures
We are sending this letter to inform you that Metropolitan Mosquito Control District (MMCD)
provides a variety of services, including adult mosquito control, in and around your community.
In 1998 the District enters its 40th year of protecting public health, preventing insect-borne illness
and enhancing the quality of life for metro citizens. Mosquito control techniques have evolved
throughout the years to include a number of tools. Most of the District's efforts are directed,at
mosquito larvae (when they are still in the water). To supplement larval control we provide adult
mosquito control using two control materials, resmethrin or permethrin. Permethrin is applied as
a barrier treatment to heavy vegetation using a backpack sprayer. Resmethrin is applied as a
space spray using a truck mounted machine with applications made usually between 8:00 - 10:30
p.m.
Adult mosquito control will take place from time to time within your jurisdiction when samples
show an increase in adult mosquitoes that can transmit human disease. MMCD will also provide
adult control when samples and public input identify levels of mosquitoes that interfere with
public events or private enjoyment of the outdoors.
You can call MMCD's pre-recorded hotline at 643-8383 for daily lists of adult mosquito control
being conducted in your community. This information is also available through MMCD's website:
www.mmcd.org.
If you would like more information on our procedures, the products we use, or would like to
review other notification options, call Jim Stark or Mike McLean at (612) 645-9149.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
(~ Printed on recycled paper containing at least 15% post-consumer paper fibers
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
350 South 5th Street - Room 331
Minneapolis MN 55415-1393
Office (612) 673-2100
Fax 673-2305
TDD 673-2157
Sharon Sayles Belton
Mayor
RECEIVED 1 g lg08
May 18, 1998
Mayor Bob Polston
City ofMound
5341Maywood Rd
Mound, MN 55364-1687
Dear Mayor Polston:
Because of time constrants, it was necessary to cancel the May 18 luncheon. At this time I am making
arrangements for a second meeting, and look forward to a productive discussion about the challenges
facing our communities.
With the demographics of our populations changing rapidly, the demand for health and human service
organizations to forge partnerships and leverage limited financial resources is increasing. At our April
meeting we discussed ways that all cities can work together with the United Way to respond to the needs
of our children, youth, families and individuals.
I would like to continue this discussion with you and hear about the issues facing your constituents.
Please join me at the second luncheon on Thursday, June 11 from Noon - 1:30 P.M. at the Minneapolis
Club, 729 Second Avenue South in Downtown Minneapolis. (Parking is available in the attached ramp;
enter on Eighth Street between Second and Third Avenues.)
I hope you will join this effort to build bridges that connect our cities. As the Chair of the Government
Division of the 1998 United Way of Minneapolis campaign, I am looking forward to meeting with you.
This luncheon is the last of the luncheon series designed to receive input for the West Metro mayors and
I really hope this new date fits within your schedule. Please RSVP for the luncheon to Shawntale
Robinson at 340-7634 by June 5.
Respectfully,
Sharon Sayles Belton
Mayor
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Recycled paper 30% post consumer waste
The City of Mound is considering the use of a new technique to pay for
the costs of managing storm water runoff--a Storm Water Utility. A
public hearing is scheduled on May 26 to discuss the proposed storm
water utility. Everyone is invited. Below are some frequently asked
questions about storm water utilities.
What do you mean by storm water?
Why does it need to be managed?.
Very simply, storm water is another name for rain.
Before people settled in Mound, rainwater that fell
was absorbed into the ground or flowed naturally to
Lake Minnetonka or other water sources. When people
moved to Mound they built roads, driveways, stores,
churches and parking lots. Consequently, the ground
cannot absorb the water as easily, and more water
runs off when it rains. The storm sewers, the grates in
the curbs on the streets, collect the water that falls
and directs it into the sewer system.
What is a storm water utility?
A storm water utility is a service similar to the water
and sanitary sewer utilities. Like the sanitary sewer
utility fee, the fee is based on the amount of water
that is discharged into the system. For instance, a
parking tot creates more runoff than a similar-sized
grassy area so it pays a higher rate. Similarly, a large
parcel creates more runoff than a small parcel, so it
too pays a higher amount. In this way, the citizens of
Mound will pay for the management of storm water in
proportion to the amount of water they "contribute,"
not on the value of their property.
Why is a utility needed?
Federal and state regulations require Mound to take
greater and costlier actions than ever before to
protect water quality in our community. These actions
include forming new water management organizations
and developing regional and local plans to identif~
problems.
These new costs, when combined with the money spent
for ongoing storm drainage maintenance each year,
represents a major expenditure. Today, most storm
water costs are paid for using property taxes and
sanitary sewer fees. Mound must find a way to meet
these rising costs in a fair and equitable manner,
without adding to the tax rolls.
How much will it cost me?
Fees will not be set at the May 26 meeting. The
ordinance that will be considered on May 26 simply
creates the utility and allows, by resolution, to estab-
lish a fee schedule based on the needs of the city. The
fees would likely be set later after the issue has been
studied in greater detail.
What would the money funds collected be
used for?
The money collected would be used for the operation
and maintenance of the city storm water collection
system. Some examples include
· Maintaining existing storm facilities so they will
operate properly for a longer period of time.
· Enhancing wetlands to clean storm water.
· Replacing existing storm facilities that no longer
are usable.
· Sweeping streets and picking-up leaves so they
don't get into the system.
A more specific example would be the Mound Visions
program. As Mound Visions is put in place downtown,
there are requirements that must be met relating to
ponding to handle the downtown area's drainage
system. Specifically, the City will need special ponds in
the downtown area to collect and handle the drainage
of the developed area. Ponds will also be needed to
account for other drainage issues in the community.
Costs associated with the redevelopment of downtown
under Mound Visions would certainly be eligible for
payment out of a storm water utility.
Where con 3: get more information?
The Mound City Council will hold a public hearing on the
Storm Water Utility on Tuesday, May 26 at 7 p.m. at
Mound City Hall. Everyone is invited to attend. You
can also call City Hall at 472-0600 for more
information.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
CITY COUNCIL
Notice is hereby given that the Mound City Council will hold a public hearing on Tuesday,
May 26, 1998, in the City Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound MN at 7:30
P.M. The purpose of this hearing will be to discuss amending Chapter VI of the City Code,
municipal services and public utilities, by adding Section 650 relating to storm sewer system
and to impose just and reasonable charges for the use and availability of storm sewer
facilities. The public is invited to attend.
Francene C. Clark, CMC
City Clerk
Publish in The Laker May 16, 1998.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1667
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
MEMORANDUM
April 10, 1998
TO:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER~I ~-
SUBJECT: ESTABLISHMENT OF A STORM WATER UTILITY
As you know, we have been discussing, for about one year, the idea of creating a storm water utility.
The purpose of such a utility provides the City with a fair method of financing needed operations
and maintenance to the overall drainage system of the City. The utility also provides funding for
improvements such as the possible acquisition of property for regional storm water ponds and/or the
maintenance of such ponding areas.
As you know, federal and state laws, as well as watershed district regulations mandating stormwater
management, are currently in place. For example, as the Mound Visions program is implemented
in the downtown area, there are requirements that have to be met relating to ponding to handle the
downtown area's drainage system. Specifically, the City will be required to have regional ponds in
its downtown area to handle the drainage of the redeveloped area as well as to account for other
drainage issues in the community. Costs associated with the redevelopment of the downtown under
Mound Visions would certainly be eligible for payment out of a storm water utility.
The City will be required to complete a stormwater management plan as a part of its Comprehensive
Plan Update that is due into the Metropolitan Council by the end of 1998. A possible source of
funding for the stormwater management plan would be the storm water utility fund.
Other costs, such as street sweeping, which are now paid for out of the general fund, could be paid
for out of the storm water utility fund. As you can see, there are many advantages to having such
a utility available.
Attached is a proposed ordinance creating a storm water utility. This ordinance is based upon the
printed on recycled paper
Memorandum to Mayor and City Council
April 10, 1998
Page 2
City of Richfield's ordinance which was passed in 1985. The ordinance does not spell out the fees
to be charged within the utility. The ordinance simply creates the utility and allows, by resolution
to establish a fee schedule based upon the needs of our City. The fees could be established later
after we have had the opportunity to study the issues in more detail.
Although this ordinance does not require a public heating, you may want to consider having one so
that when you actually establish a fee schedule, the public would have had some background on the
utility. I have also attached some information that Richfield used to educate the public on the
purpose of the utility. Although they used a public hearing process, they were also very careful to
provide adequate education to their residents so that everyone became informed about the utility and
why it was being created. I share this idea with you only to avoid public relations problems that
could occur after the ordinance is established. We can talk more about this Tuesday evening.
I believe we are proceeding in the right direction by establishing a storm water utility. It will
provide another source for financing necessary improvements to our overall drainage system in the
City of Mound.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
;ity of .u~ ~
U.S. Postage
PAID
Permit NO. 22'56
ichfield .,.,~ea.o,,.. ,..
'00 Portland Avenue South
~chfietd, Mlnne,.ota 55423-2598
.!
ORDINANCE NO. 97-1998
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER VI OF THE CITY CODE,
MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND PUBLIC UTILITIES, BY ADDING
SECTION 650 RELATING TO STORM SEWER SYSTEM
The City of Mound Does Ordain:
Section 650 is hereby added to the City Code to read as follows:
.Section 650 - Storm Sewer System
Section 650:00. Storm Sewer System; Statutory_ Authority. Minnesota Statutes, section
444.075, authorizes cities to impose just and reasonable charges for the use and availability of
storm sewer facilities ("charges"). By this Section, the City elects to exercise such authority.
Section 650:05. Findines and Determinations. In providing for such charges, the findings and
determinations set out in this Section are made.
Subd. 1. In the exercise of its governmental authority and in order to promote the
public health, safety, convenience and general welfare, the City has constructed, operated
and maintained a storm sewer system (the "system"). This Section is adopted in the
further exercise of such authority and for the same purposes.
Subd. 2. The system, as constructed, heretofore has been financed and paid for through
the imposition of special assessments and ad valorem taxes. Such financing methods
were appropriate to the circumstances at the time they were used. It is now necessary
and desirable to provide an alternative method of recovering some or ail of the future
costs of improving, maintaining and operating the system through the imposition of
charges as provided in this Section.
Subd. 3. In imposing charges, it is necessary to establish a methodology that undertakes
to make them just and equitable. Taking into account the status of completion of the
system, past methods of recovering system costs, the topography of the City and other
relevant factors, it is determined that it would be just and equitable to assign
responsibility for some or all of the future costs of operating, maintaining and improving
the system on the basis of the expected storm water runoff from the various parcels of
land within the City during a standard one-year rainfall event.
Subd. 4. Assigning costs and making charges based upon expected typical storm water
runoff cannot be done with mathematical precision but can only be accomplished within
reasonable and practical limits. The provisions of this Section undertake to establish a
reasonable and practical methodology for making such charges.
Section 650:10. Rates and Char_ecs.
Subd. 1. Residential Equivalent Factor.. Rates and charges for the use and availability
of the system shall be determined through the use of a "Residential Equivalent Factor"
CREF"). For the purposes of this Section, one REF is defined as the ratio of the
average volume of surface water runoff coming from one acre of land and subjected to
a particular use, to the average volume of runoff coming from one acre of land subjected
to typical single-family residential use within the City during a standard one-year rainfall
event.
Subd. 2. Determination of REF's for Land Uses. The REF's for the following land
uses within the City and the billing classifications for such land uses are as follows:
Land Uses REF
Cemeteries .25
Parks and Railroads .75
Two-family Residential 1.00
Single-family Residential 1.00
Public and Private Schools and 1.25
Institutional Use
Multiple-family Residential Uses and 3.00
Churches
Commercial, Industrial and Warehouse 5.00
Uses
Classification
1
2
3
4
5
6
Subd. 3. Other Land Uses.. Other land uses not listed in the foregoing table shall be
classified by the City Manager by assigning them to the classes nearly like the listed
uses, from the standpoint of probable hydrologic response. Appeals from the City
Manager's determination of the proper classifications may be made to the City Council
in the same manner as other appeals from administrative determinations under Section
350:510.
Section 650:15. Es~_~bli~hing Basic Rate. In determining charges, the Council shall, from time
to time, by resolution establish a basic system rate to be charged against one acre of land having
an REF of one. The charge to be made against each parcel of land shall then be determined by
multiplying the REF for the parcel's land use classification times the parcel's acreage times the
basic system rate.
Section 650:20. Standardized Acreaee. For the purpose of simplifying and equalizing charges
against property used for single-family and two-family residential purposes, each of such
properties shall be considered to have an acreage of one-fifth acre.
Section 650:25. Adjustments of Chargeq. The City Council may by resolution, from time to
time, adopt policies providing for the adjustment of charges for parcels or groups of parcels,
based upon hydrologic data supplied by affected property owners, demonstrating an actual
hydrologic response substantially different from the REF being used for the parcel or parcels.
Such adjustment shall be made only after receiving the recommendation of the City Manager and
shall not be made effective retroactively. If the adjustment would have the effect of changing
the REF for all or substantially all of the land uses in a particular classification, however, such
adjustment shall be accomplished by amending the lIEF table in Section 650:10, Subd. 2.
Section 650:30. Excluded Lands. No charge for system availability or service shall be made
against land which is either (i) public street right-of-way or (ii) vacant and unimproved with
substantially all of its surface having vegetation as ground cover.
Section 650:35. Suoplying Information. The owner, occupant or person in charge of any
premises shall supply the City with such information as the City may reasonably request related
to the use, development and area of the premises. Willful failure to provide such information
or to falsify it is a violation of this Section.
Section 650:40. Estimated Charge~. If the owner, occupant or person in charge of any
premises fails or refuses to provide the information requested, as provided in Section 650:35,
the charge for such premises shall be estimated and billed in accordance with such estimate,
based upon information then available to the City.
Section 650:45. Drainaee and Erosion Control.
Subd. 1. Dra~. In the development, improvement or alteration of land, the
direction, quantity or qualify of drainage shall not be changed unless plans for the
development are submitted to the City Engineer. Run-off shall be properly channeled
into a storm drain, watercourse, ponding area or other public facility.
Subd. 2. Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, Prior to the issuance of a building or
grading permit for any development, improvement or alteration of land, a plan for
erosion and sedimentation control shall be presented with the site plan. The erosion and
sedimentation control plan shall specify the measures to be used before, during and after
construction until the soil and slope are stabilized by permanent cover. These control
measures shall be maintained in good working order until site stabilization occurs.
Subd. 3. Plan Apuroval. In areas which are susceptible to erosion hazard or
sedimentation damage, the City may require the erosion and sedimentation control plan
to be approved by the appropriate water management organization prior to the issuance
of a permit.
Subd. 4. Approval. Plans and provisions required for compliance with this Section
must be submitted to the City Engineer for approval.
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
Adopted by the City Council
Publish in the Official Newspaper, The Laker,
~ 0
1~70
SENT BY: DNR METRO; 5-21-98 10:39; 6127727573 => #2/2
May 20, 1998
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
DNR Waters- Metro Region, 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, M'N 55106-6793
Telephone: (612) 772-7910 Fax: (612) 772-7977
M'r. Jim Fackler
Ci~ of Mound
5341.Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
RE: Cutting Trccs in Shore Impact Zone nn City Commons, CiD' of Mound, Henncpin County
Dear Mr. Fackler:
I am writing ms a result of a site inspection I made? on 5/19/98, at City Commons adjacent to 4673 Island View
Drive. Area residents h~d asked me to mcct vdth them and discuss thc applicability of thc Shoreland
Management Regulations in relation to the trimming and cutting of trees ~t this site. I'm ~ware that the City is
currently examining some broader issues related to thc docks on th;; City Commons, and that the issue l was
asked about is oaly one piece of the total picture being discussed.
At the site in question, thcrc is a line of 5 young maple trees in a 5-6 foot line r,nning perpendiculm- to Lake
Minnetonka at the south end of where the lot line for 4673 Isled Vie,.~' Drive would go, il'extended to the lake.
In regards to discussion about t~aversability of the commons at this location, the question was raised ~bout
whether some of these trees in this linc could be cut in order to allow for easier aec, ess. It is my understanding
that a statement was made at a City Council meeting that because of the City's Shoreland Management
regulations, it would be "illegal" to cut any ofthe trees. If you refer to thc City's ordinance. Section 350:1225.
Subd.4., A., 2. b. (page 116), il specifies that in shore impact zones (i.e., within 25 feet el'Lake Mimtetonka)
limited clem'ins of trees and shrubs and cutting, prtming, and trinurting of trees is allowed for a variety of
purposes, including access paths, provided the ~crc;:ning of structures from the water is not substantially
reduced. Clearcutting and intensive vegetation removal is not allowed. As I told you on the telephone, the DNR
would advise that leaving the I or 2 trees closest to the lake and removing the other 3 to 4 trees xvouid bc
consistent with the ordinance language referenced above.
As I undcrstemd, no one has actually applied to the city for a pcnmt to remove these trees in the Ci~: Commons.
but if' such an application was received, the DNK would support City approval of this selective cic,'u-ing. In tact,
in this case the trees are planted so close together that it would be beneficial for the health of the tree clump, as a
whole, to do some thinning. ( Staff from DNR Forestry could get into more detail on this topic, if the city' would
like more direction.) An additional benefit of removing the tipper 3-4 trees would be that more sun would reach
the portion of the path that doesn't have vegetation, and an attempt to vegetate would be more likely to succeed.
Sincerely,
Ceil Strauss
Area Hydrologist
c: Ores Kalutson. 4701 Island View Drive. Mmmd
Lake Mmnctonk-', Con~r'.'alion Disu'iet. Grog Nyhcck
Gene Smith. 4705 Island View Drive.
CITY OF MOUND
MEMORANDUM
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
May 22, 1998
TO: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER ~~/
A question has been raised on how the dock site #02665 came
to be assigned to Phillip Klein that was once held by
Cynthia Cornetet.
As you can note from the enclosed notes that the dock
inspector took during this time it outlines what happen.
To generalize what happen Phillip Klein had been a dock site
holder prior to 1996 as you can see from his enclosed 1995
dock application. Also note his 1996 dock application that
renewed his 1995 site was in and paid for on 2/9/1996. The
dead line for applications is the last day of March with a
late fee. At the time of his 1996 application he had made
contact with the dock inspector requesting a location closer
to his home, which he also did in 1995. These requests are
shown in the dock inspector notes along with other requests
from site holders for changes, see enclosures.
Ms. Cornetet did not have her application in on time and
staff went through a very long process of discussions with
her in determining that. The question was that the postage
machine used to date the application by the applicant had a
date in March but the US Post Office cancellation stamp
showed a date in April. Upon Ms. Cornetets request that the
date of her postage machine was the recognized mail date by
the US Postal Service we contacted the Post Master. The Post
Master said the only recognized date is the cancellation
mark the Post Office uses when the letter is received by the
Post Office.
printed on recycled paper
Had Ms. Cornetet application had the US Postal Service
cancellation stamped in March we would have renewed her
application.
On the other hand Mr. Klein had paid his fees on time and
his request was in for relocation.
You will also note that Mr. Klein offered to allow Ms.
Cornetet to share the dock site with him which she did in
1996. From 1996 Mr. Klein has paid his dock fees on time and
at some point Ms. Cornetet did not apply as a share.
I can assure you that Ms. Cornetet was handled fairly by
staff and we allowed additional time verify all concerns she
had before issuing the site to Mr. Klein.
cc: Tom McCaffery, Dock Inspector
1996 DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION
c'rTY OF' ~OUND, 534], ),~T'e/OOD ROJ~D, MOUND, MN 55364
Pho,',e 4*72-0600, Pax 4?2-0620
DUE DATE: FEBRUARY 29, 1996. L~Tg FEE wx*.~. APPLY ZF Sb'm4X~D At'~R Dtm DA~E.
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF HOUND IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR A DOCK LICENSE.
APpLT~
SHARED
APPLICANT
Phone: Home
L.M.C.D. FEES AND WATERCRAFT INFORMATION: List ALL watercraft to be stored at your dock,
including boats of shared dock holder. List L.M.C.D. (Lake Minnetonka Conservation District)
fee for each boat. A PHOTOCOPY OF ALL WATERCRAFT LICENSES MUST ACCOMPANY THIS APPLICATION.
NO PERMI~ WILL BE ISSUED WITHOUT THIS INFORMATION.
BOAT OWNER'S NAME MN LICENSE # MAKE OF BOAT LENGTH IA'lCD FEE
., , , . ? , --.
1 '~J :7' ' ' ',~[>~,'~ / / : ..-r'
4~ct s~
L.M.C.D. BOAT FEES:
Boats up to 20' long ....... $ 7.50 over 32' and up to 40' long .... $18.75
over 20' and up to 24' long .... $11.25 over 40' and up to 48' long .... $22.50
over 24' and up to 32' long .... $15.00 over 48' long ........... $30.00
Straiqht Dock 'L' Dock 'T' Dock 'U' or 'H' Dock
Base Fee: $150.00 $200.00 $200.00 $235.00
Senior Rate: $75.00 $100.00 $100.00 $117.50
SHARED DOCK $30.00 $ ..... 81-3260
L.M.C.D. BOAT FEES $ /~c ~ 81-3200
LIGHT FEE (ifappllcablc) $ ~e~-~--~~ -- 81-3260
LATE PENALTIES $ /~JJ- '.-~"~:. c: 81-3260
TOT~ DUE $ /7 :? XX-~X
~MAKE CHECY~ PAYABLE TO: C~Y OF MOUND)
LIABILITY DISCLAIMER: I (We) acknowledge that the City of Mound is not responsible for any injury occurring on this dock
which is private property. According to the City of Mound Code of Ordinances Sections 437 Subd. 5 and 437:05, Subd~ 2 f., if this
license is not renewed at expiration (February 29, 1996), the licensee must completely remove the licensed dock and appurtenance
from the water and public land. If the dock is not removed, the City is authorized to have the dock removed and the applicant agrees
to pay to the City any and all costs incurred by the City in removing the dock. Also, if the City removes the dock, the City is
to dispose of any materials or parts which are left on public lands or in public waters and the applicant shall forfeit any
or claim to the materials left on the dock site.
Applicant's Signature ~~ ~~-~_~
Shared Applicant's Signature
Date
d IAI~'J.S EI¥1~.LSI93E!
AJ. Cld3O HJ. IAA
A'INO C]I"I~A
[ I×l I~l I
NOI.L¥1AII-IO-INI ~BNAAO snoIA3LId
'3nssi -lO 31vo IAIOUJ SXYQ 09 /dl'~OB~l
SBWIdX3 .Ld1333~l SIHJ. 'G3SSBDO~Id DNI38 SI NOIl¥Ol'lddV =!SN331'1
3HJL C]N~' 3::]:13SNaOI'I (31Vd SVH NOS~Bd QBI~VN :IAO~¥ ,K~lOcllAJ:lJ,:~'.
q~JOJ~N91S S.~IqNAAO ' ' ~
J JJ /
~ uo~o~ ~.o~ -' · - i~ _. ~_ :5 't! ~ ':"',
klBAAOd:]'~'dOH ~/BA (V'JnSNVU L JO :tCll$Ii'lO NC))ON q I 'lnnH 'lgC$O~N JVC)il J¢) -i'~;qAI
(SUN 9NI~JOAA ~'8 9NlrA(I) 3N014dI BGOD dlZ ~., - 3 LVIS ~ >,lID
.,, ,-,, ' ~ ...'( //.7/¢ :':4/
, / ?
~. ' ( ~ ," 3V~VN
NOII~V~UOJNI U]NMO
HIHI~] JO ~IV(] ~ ' · "' / ' ~ ~
· · - '~'~ L~-
NOI.L¥:Dl'ldd¥ NOIJ.~I:IJ.SI9 3 H
35n ~DIJJO
:'ON NOU.¥~II$I93U
A-INO :~sn 3DI::IJO ~NG ~O::J
sii~arlos]tl lYanlVN ~
Jo .I, NaWJ. avdaa ~
90-6~ZOO-'~'N
I MAKE 1 YE AR I LENGTH / MODEL
riON NO ::.,AYL t N F-- P. l71' :FT 2~ IN~.
O--155--20189-BN°' 8~3 5A lO 7~ ~~FIRSTSAtE ~NFW~tFt}F~'~E~---~ [~RAL ~E ONLY
SSUED TYPE
7723/93 CRUISER (HARD'TO ~ FIBERGLASS
' ASSIGNMENT BY SELLER (TRANSFEROR)
L ~ECURITY fNTER~STS. WARR
X
~ELLER'S SIG~AT~ ~RE
I~T SECLfflED pAH/7 (mr .
~Y
)OITIONAL
ENS
CORNETET~ £YNTH[A ~A¥
2120 I~TH ST NW .~3
NE~ BRIGHTON MN 55082
TRATION NUMBER
~3OO FR'
rIoN FEE PAID TO
.... ~nY¥'S INTEREST REi EASED FiR.~,r SFC, UREt~ ~m.. o
AUTHORIZED ............... ;,"~
-...;. .......... ;~;:,.,,, ~ ..... e~: ~g~,, ~T~ ,, ~ ~,~,
CiTY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
April 10, 1996
Ms. Ruth M. Miller
2930 Norwest Center
90 S. 7th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Certified Mail
Dear Ms. Miller:
Enclosed is your uncashed check #5329 that was received as renewal payment for Cynthia
Cometet's dock site g02665. This payment was not received in a timely manner as required by
Mound City Code.
Sincerely,
Jim Fackler
Parks Director
JF:pj
Enclosures
CC:
Ed Shulde, City Manager
Tom McCaffrey, Dock Inspector
Cynthia Cometet
File
prtnted on recycled ;30er
HULL IDENTIFICATION NO.
FGBJ!
TITLE NO.
E-Z65--IO03 t
rED
HULL TYPE
RUNABOUT.
ASSIGNMENT. BY. SELLER (TRANSFEROR).. ., :
IF NEW, DATE OF~.:i:. FOR' CENTRA{~ OFFICE USE ONLY- . .
HULL MATERIAL: .... . IREGIBTRATION NUMBER
FIBERGLASS t 43~8 EU
NAME
6070 PAINTER. ROAD ' "":: "::':"::: .: :;::::~:i:!iiii ::':i
ROUND PIN 55 36~1' .... :-.-.-.
· .W~.RP~NT TITLE & ASS (3~ THE WATERCRAFT & REGISTRATION FEE PAID
' ' ~'~ :~::: ':~:::'i~i :,.-:. ..... ' '::: '..::". '.~' .'. '.-:
~ELI~ERtS'SI~NATURE -:ii::.: ~!:.i' :.' "':... .: .' -. ' IRED PARTY IIF NONE. O-WNERS1
iST' NATL BANK OF THE LAKES
Z~5 SHADYHOOD ROAD
NAVARRE HN 5539Z
LOAN
A~~ ~'C~R"T'~-E~Y OWNER
t( APPLICATION FOR TITLE BY BUYER ~TRAN,SF'"'~EE) ~ ' PLEASE PR,
' COMPLE~ REVERSE SIDE _ ~ I DRIVER LICENSE NO. ,. DATE OF BIRTH
~PRi~B~yER'SFULLNAME(S)~ST, FRST~NDMI 4 ,I J , . ' '~ .::~ ' ., ~'. · ,
I , ' '~ ~ / t / IC~ / ,., iCOU~'{~i,t; ,,i[t~{IS~ ZIPCODE
~ISWATERCRA. SUBJECTTOSECUR~ AGREEM~(S) ; 0 ~ ~ ~~~0~
' I'
DEPUT't'~ VALIDATION STAMP
1996 DOCK LICENSE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND,- 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD, MOUND, MN 55364
Phone 472-0600, Fax 472-0620
DUE DATE: FEBRUARY 29, 1996. LATE FEE WILL APPLY IF SUBMITTED AFTER DUE DATE.
YOU MUST BE A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF MOUND IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR A DOCK LICENSE.
SHARED
APPLICANT
Name
Phone: 5010
Mound
Address ]~'~
Phone: Home
t
Work
L.M.C.D. FEES AND WATERCRAFT INFORMATION: List ALL watercraft to be stored at your dock,
including boats of shared dock holder. List L.M.C.D. (Lake Minnetonka Conservation District)
fee for each boat. A PHOTOCOPY OF ALL WATERCRAFT LICENSES MUST ACCOMPANY THIS APPLICATION.
NO PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED WITHOUT THIS INFORMATION.
BOAT OWNER'S NAME MN L~ENSE # MAKE OF BOAT LENGTH LMCD FEE
- iP/,,Y .4'o'70 ?..z.. Zo c,c,J
46et s~
~.M.C.D. BOAT FEES:
Boats up to 20' long ....... $ 7.50 over 32' and up to 40' long .... $18.75
over 20' and up to 24' long .... $11.25 over 40' and up to 48' long .... $22.50
over 24' and up to 32' long .... $15.00 over 48' long ........... $30.00
Straiqht Dock 'L' Dock 'T' Dock 'U' or-'H' Dock
Base Fee: $150.00 $200.00 $200.00 $235.00
Senior Rate: $75.00 $100.00
- sn7.50
BASE FEE. ' / ~O,dO 81-3260
o.oo'
~ I S~7 SHARED DOCK $3 lCD,DO 81-3260
,~ L.M.C.D. BOAT FEES $ 7,,~ 81-3200
~ 7 fO L._J'~ : LIGHT FEE 6fapplicabl~ $ 81-3260
LATE PENALTIES $ 81-3260
TOTAL DUE $ / % 7' ~O XX-XXXX
~ CH~CKS PAY~L~ TO: C~Y O~ MOUN~
LIABILITY DISCLAIMER: I (We) acknowledge that the City of Mound is not responsible for any injury occurring on this dock
which is private property. According to the CiO, of Mound Code of Ordinances Sections 437 Subd. 5 and 437:05, Suba~ 2 f., if this
licer~se is not renewed at expiration (February 29, 1996), the licensee must completely remove the licensed dock and appurtenance
from the water and public land. If the dock is not removed, the City is authorized to have the dock removed and the applicant agrees
to pay to the City any and all costs incurred by the City in removing the dock. Also, if the Cio' removes the dock, the City is
to dispose of any materials or parts which are left on public lands or in public waters and the applicant shall forfeit any
to the materials left on the dock site.
Shared Applicant' s Signature
Date F¢ ~.~ ~/,
Date FC ~ T
-DAVZD ALLEN EHERY
.LYNN HARIE EMERY
167.2 AVOCET LN
NOUND,*'NN*'5556~-1102
~ LAR$/Z~29H192
~ ' CH~GE OF ADDRESS (COMPLETE OULY
STREET ADDRESS
!
CITY STATE ZIPCOOE
_UNTIL CONTROL NO. VALIDATION STRIP APPLIED
t
F~ALEV-~ ~
RECEiVE
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENDA
7:00 PM, Wednesday, May 27, 1998
Tonka Bay City Hall
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock
· Board of Directors Lake Inspection Tour, Saturday, 6/6/98
· Cancellation of 6/3/98 Workshop/Planning Session
READING OF MINUTES - 5/13/98 Regular Board Meeting
5~20~98 LMCD/MCWD Joint Meeting (handout);
PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.)
CONSENT AGENDA- Consent Agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one
motion unless a Board member request a discussion on any item, in which case the item will
be removed from the Consent Agenda.
1. LAKE USE & RECREATION
A) Jim Zimmerman, Consideration of request for no-wake buoy;
B) Update on LCMR Application;
C)(*) Staff recommends full refund of $3,000 Liquor Deposit for the charter boat
Sea Breeze;
D)Additional Business;
2. WATER STRUCTURES
A) Ordinance Amendment, Second reading of an ordinance relating to the length
of watercraft stored at reconfigured multiple docks, amending LMCD Code by
adding Subd. 9 to Section 2.015 and Subd. 4 to Section 2.01;
B) Additional Business;
3. FINANCIAL
A) (*) Audit of vouchers for payment (5/1/98 - 5/15/98) and (5/16/98 - 5/31/98);
B) April financial summary and balance sheet;
C) Update on timetable for review of draft 1999 LMCD Budget;
D) Additional Business;
8.
9.
10.
EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE
A) Consideration of compensation adjustment request from Marsh Gabriel, EWM
Diesel/Hydraulic Mechanic;
B) Additional Business;
SAVE THE LAKE
A) Review of Lake Minnetonka Association LCMR Application;
B) Additional Business;
ADMINISTRATION
A) Consideration of staff recommendation for compensation adjustment for
Administrative Assistant, Diane Samis;
B) ' Consideration of staff recommendation for compensation adjustment for
Administrative Technician, Nancy Randall;
C) Discussion with Steve Tallen regarding increase in prosecuting fees in 1998;
D) Additional Business;
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
CALL TO ORDER
DRAFT
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
7:00 PM, Wednesday, May 13, 1998
Tonka Bay City Hall
Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM.
ROLL CALL
Members present: Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Douglas Babcock Tonka Bay; Craig Eggers, Victoria;
Tom Gilman, Excelsior, Greg Kitchak, Minnetonka, Lili McMillan, 'Orono; Craig Nelson, Spring
Park; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; BOb Rascop, Shorewood; Herb
Suerth, Woodland; Sheldon Weft, Greenwood. Also present Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel;
Gregory Nybeck, Executive Director; Nancy Randall, Administrative Technician, Diane Samis,
Administrative Assistant.
Members Absent.: Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Bert Foster, Deephaven.
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS
Chair Babcock reminded the Board of the joint Workshop/Planning session with MCWD on
Wednesday, 6/20/98 at 6 P.M to discuss the Environmental Protection and Management section of
the Management Plan. Nybeck noted the meeting would be held at the Grays Freshwater Center due
to a scheduling change.
McMillan reminded the Board of the Cleanwater Festival being held at the. Grays Freshwater Center
on Saturday, 5/16/98 from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.
READING OF MINUTES - 4/22/98 Regular Board Meeting
MOTION: Nelson moved, McMillan seconded to approve the minutes of the 4/22/98
Regular Board meeting as submitted.
VOTE: Ayes (9), Abstained (2; Kitchak and Gilman); Motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.)
Rascop arrived at 7:25 p.m.
Fred Bame, owner of Aahhhz of Excelsior Park Catering and Charters, expressed his concern'
regarding compliance with liquor laws on charter boats on Lake Minnetonka. He noted he has
liquor licenses on all his charter boats and that he believes other charter boats on the lake are serving
liquor on their boats without proper licenses. He recommended the Board consider authorizing one
liquor license on Lake Minnetonka and require all charter boats to have it.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 1998 Page 2
An Orono resident asked for interpretation of LMCD Code regarding boat storage at his residence.
He stated he owns a house with 100' of shoreline and has three roommates that are renting from
him. He added he would like to ensure that each renter has the ability to park a boat at his
residence. He asked for clarification from LMCD staff on how many boats could be legally stored
and he was informed that only two boats could be stored because all the boats would not be owned
and registered to him. He stated he did not agree with this interpretation and asked the Board to
reconsider LMCD Code.
Babcock stated this request would be further discussed under New Business.
Suerth stated Groveland HOA has requested the Board to reopen discussion on the new multiple
dock license approved at the 4/22/98 meeting. He asked the Board to move this up on the agenda
because they have residents in the audience in attendance for that agenda item.
Nybeck recommended the Board not move this agenda item up before the draft boat overhang
Ordinance Amendment and the draft policy regarding dimensions at tie-on BSU's because the Board
should discuss these two agenda items prior to discussing Groveland HOA.
Babcock entertained a motion from the Board to grant Suerth's request. There was no motion made
which ment the Groveland HOA agenda item would remain under Additional Business under Water
Structure.
CONSENT AGENDA- Gilman moved, Nelson seconded to approve the consent agenda as
submitted. Motion carried unanimously. Items so approved include: lA Hennepin County Sheriff's
Water Patrol Significant Activity Report; 2D Staff recommends full refund of $250 deposit for City
of Wayzata/Boat Works Development variance application; 3A Minutes of the 5/8/98 EWM/Exotics
Task Force meeting; 3C Evaluation of Truck Hauling Bids for the 1998 EWM Harvesting Program,
staff recommendation to award bid to Minnetonka Portable Dredging Co.; and 3D Evaluation of
RFP for chemical control of EWM on three public accesses, staff recommendation to award contract
to Lake Management, Inc.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1) Aahhhz of Excelsior Park, Consideration of new on-sale Intoxicating Liquor License
application for the charter boat Sunboat II.
Chair Babcock opened the public hearing at 7:27pm. He asked the applicant if they had any
comments or would like to provide background at this time.
A resident from Orono asked why liquor licenses are not issued for the company rather than
specific boats using a hotel as an example.
?LeFevere stated State law requires liquor licenses be granted for contiguous locations. He added
-~harter boats separate and disperse to different locations. He noted this is the big difference
between a charter boat and a hotel.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 1998
Page 3
There being no further comments Babcock closed the public hearing at 7:28 PM.
MOTION: Gilman moved, Wert seconded to approve the new on-sale Intoxicating Liquor
License for the charter boat Sunboat II.
Babcock stated staff has recommended a condition that staff receive a municipal zoning
certificate from Excelsior prior to authorizing the Aahhhz of Excelsior Park as a port of call.
Gilman and Wert agreed to this condition.
Randall stated LMCD Code requires the cities to authorize a port Of call by signing a municipal
zoning certificate to verify that there are no zoning conflicts. Sh~ added the City of Excelsior
has a concern with the applicants conditional use permit and she believed they are in the
processing of resolving it.
2)
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously
Chartered Leasing, Inc., Consideration of new on-sale Intoxicating Liqtior License application
for the charter boat Sea Breeze.
Chair Babcock opened the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. He asked the applicant if they had any
comments or would like to provide background at this time.
There being no comments, Babcock closed the public heating at 7:30 PM.
MOTION: Gilman moved, Nelson seconded to approve the new on-sale Intoxicating Liquor
License for the charter boat Sea Breeze.
3)
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously
Seanote Cruises, Inc., Consideration of new on-sale Beer and Wine License applications for the
charter boat Halfnote.
Chair Babcock opened the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. He asked the applicant if they had any
comments or would like to provide background at this time.
Fred Bame, owner of Aahhhz of Excelsior Park, stated his recommendation stands that the Board
should not approve a license unless it is a full liquor license.
Gilman asked for clarification on when customers can bring their own liquor on a charter boat.
LeFevere stated the Liquor Control Division, part of the MN Department of Public Safety, has
identified a charter boat as a public place and has determined that the consumption and display of
liquor cannot be done unless the charter boat has a consumption and display permit. He noted
staff has sent out a letter explaining the rules and what needs to be done to get a consumption
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 1998 Page 4
and display permit. He added the Water Patrol is the enforcement arm on Lake Minnetonka and
that violations do not comply with either State law or LMCD Code. He concluded that he is
working with staff on follow-up letters.
Randall stated the Water Patrol has requested a list of charter boats and their status with regm'ds
to liquor, wine, and beer licenses. She noted there are four charter boats currently that do not
have any license and should not either serve or allow for any liquor, wine or beer on their boats.
She added there are five charter boats that have beer and wine licenses but do not have
consumption and display permits. She noted this restricts the type of liquor that they can serve
and allow on their boats. She concluded the follow-up letters that staff is working with LeFevere
on will explain what they can and cannot do and that this correspondence will be forwarded to
the Water Patrol.
Sgt. Ken Schilling from the Water Patrol stated they would not stop or board a charter boat
without probable cause. He noted they could board a charter boat if a complaint were made
while a cruise is going on and there is probable cause. He added if it were a complaint after a
cruise has taken place, they would investigate it and take action from there.
LeFevere stated he believed the District is moving in the right direction. He noted 10 years ago,
the Liquor Control Division was issuing these permits and the cities, Water Patrol, and the
LMCD were unaware of it. He added the Liquor Control Division co-sponsored a bill with the
District to give licensing authority on charter boats on Lake Minnetonka to the LMCD because it
seemed the most logical body.
John Kietzer, owner of Seanote Cruises, stated he endorsed Fred Bame's recommendation that
all licensed charter boats be required to secure liquor, wine, and beer licenses. He added 18
years ago, customers generally brought their own liquor on the boats because charter boat
owners could not generate the revenue to pay for a license. He expressed confusion with the
additional license application being discussed, noting he has applied for a beer and wine license
to generate some revenue and to have better control on the boat. He concluded he was unaware
he would need to secure a consumption and display permit for customers that bring their own
liquor on the boat.
LeFevere stated when a charter boat is selling set-ups or allowing the consumption of liquor in a
public place, the State requires a consumption and display permit so that they know what is
taking place.
Kietzer stated he did not understand that and stated he would work with staff to get the proper
permits. He restated he believed for control purposes, it makes most sense to secure some form
of liquor, wine, or a beer permit.
Babcock asked LeFevere if requiring licenses for all charter boats is a reasonable request?
-t:.eFevere stated there might be some charter boats that would not require any of these licenses.
He added he had not heard of a city doing this but supposed the Board could decide to issue only
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting Page 5
May 13, 1998
one type of a license, a liquor license. He stated he would not be surprised if liability insurance
was more expensive for a liquor license rather than beer and wine licenses.
Karen Amato, owner of the charter boat Sea Breeze, stated her insurance agent noted the
premium for liability insurance for intoxicating liquor was not more than for beer and wine.
Kietzer stated premiums for liability insurance are based on amount of sales and not the type of
liquor you are selling.
Amato added that charter boats that do not have a liquor, wine, or beer license are not covered
with liability insurance for those customers that bring some form of liquor on the boat.
LeFevere stated if only one license was issued by the District, that might be encouraging the sale
of intoxicating that might not otherwise occur.
Suerth suggested having various types of licenses based on the size of the charter boat, noting
this would address the economic considerations. He questioned who set the fee?
Nybeck stated he believed the $1,150 fee for intoxicating liquor licenses is set by the State.
LeFevere stated he did not recall that but added if this is true, it would take a legislative action to
change the fees.
Weft stated based on the limited discussion, it appears as though some charter boat operators are
securing cheaper permits but selling intoxicating liquor. He added he believed that is not fair to
those that secure the full liquor license.
Gilman stated that can always be true and is a case of enforcement.
Kitchak stated he believed this discussion has a great deal of merit but added nothing can be
accomplished at this time of year. He recommended this be placed on an agenda next fall, with
a public hearing, to see if it makes sense to change the Districts ordinances for 1999. He
suggested in the future, any one issued a permit in the future should be required to attend a work
session with representative from the Water Patrol and the LMCD to let them know what the law
says. He added if they do not show up, their license should not be issued.
Babcock stated he believed this discussion has raised his awareness of requirements from the
Liquor Control Division relating to liquor, wine, and beer licenses issued by the District.
McMillan stated she believed there needs to be clarification from the Liquor Control Division
regarding fees.
Bame stated the four-hour work session that outlines the rules recommended by Kitchak is
already being done for his employees.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 1998
Page 6
Babcock asked the applicant to address the letter received from the City of Minnetonka Beach
regarding noise complaints they have received for Seanote Cruises, Inc. He added Vice-Chair
Foster has concerns with what precautions being taken by the applicant to keep noise down.
Kietzer stated he contacted Minnetonka Beach and noted they had not gotten back to him with
regards to the complaints. He added two complaints were received last year with one time being
talking and music and the other time being another charter boat.
LeFevere stated there appears to be some need to get information out to charter operators with
liquor licenses that Code does not require them to violate EPA standards with regards to decibel
levels before they are violating LMCD Code. He added the Code requires them to conduct their
activities so as not to interfere to the peaceful enjoyment of the lake and surrounding properties.
He noted the Code prohibits the playing of live or amplified music unless it is tully contained in
the charter boat.
Babcock stated a few years ago, a public hearing was held to address noise and other related
issues. He added the charter operators then stated they would self-police themselves but added
he has received some complaints and has witnessed live music that does comply with Code. He
concluded the message he believed the Board should forward the operators is no bands or live
music this year unless it is fully contained.
A resident from Orono disagreed with the intent of the Code. He stated he believed passengers
are being paid to have a good time and that the Code might be too restrictive.
Babcock stated a charter boat is a commercial activity that frequently goes to residential areas of
the lake because it is a mobile enterprise. He added that is a use that is incompatible·
Nybeck asked Sgt. Schilling how frequently they receive noise complaints for charter boats?
Sgt. Schilling stated they do not receive that many complaints for noise on charter boats· He
added those that are received are based more on geographical areas of the lake such as Carsons
and Robinsons bays.
Randall stated she had contacted the Water Patrol and reported they had nothing on file for last
year regarding noise complaints for the applicant.
Bame recommended that charter boats be restricted to hours of operation for serving similar to
requirements on land. He added he believed the problems generally occur
at late night and early morning.
LeFevere stated LMCD Code already covers that noting that charter boats must return and be
tied to their home port by the closing time established by State law. He added that Code requires
Passengers to be disembarked within 30 minutes after such closing times.
· Bame stated he believed charter boat operators are unaware of the rules.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 1998
Page 7
4)
Babcock stated that staff would send out a mailing(s) informing them of the rules.
'l'here being no further comments l~abeock eloged the public hearing at 8:03 PM.
MOTION: Gilman moved, Eggers seconded to approve the new on-sale Intoxicating Liquor
License for the charter boat Halfnote.
Dahlen asked what procedure residents should use if they have a concern with noise on
charter boats.
Sgt. Schilling recommended the Water Patrol be contacted if the cruise is going on. He added if
it is after the fact, either the LMCD or the Water Patrol could be contacted.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously
Hennepin County Environmental Services, Spring Park Bay, Consideration of a new Multiple
Dock license application to accommodate 72 Boat Storage Units (BSU), a Variance application to
extend a dock to 108', and a Special Density License application to increase BSU's
from 65 to 72.
Chair Babcock opened the public hearing at 8:05 p.m. He asked the applicant if they had any
comments or would like to provide background at this time.
Denis Bailey, speaking on behalf of the applicant, stated the Water Patrol dock has been included
in the proposed application, thus the increase from 65 to 72 BSU's. He noted a dock length
variance has been applied for because of the Water Patrol dock.
Babcock reviewed the applications stating the applicant proposes to convert six transient BSU's
to overnight storage and to include the Water Patrol docks in their multiple dock license.
Nelson expressed his and the City of Spring Park's concern regarding the reduction of transient
slips. He asked if they were offering any new public amenities, such as a second make-ready
dock, to make up for this reduction.
Bailey stated he believed that Hennepin County provides more than enough public amenities for
the proposed application to be approved. He added they have considered a second make-ready
dock at the public access, but stated there are financial concerns in putting the dock in and taking
it out each year.
Nelson recommended they consider installing a second make-ready dock because both parking
and launching at this ramp is difficult at times.
Mike Mason, 3950 Del Otero Ave., suggested making the existing make-ready dock longer
rather than adding another dock.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 1998
Page 8
McMillan questioned why the six transient slips cannot be kept in addition to adding six slips for
overnight storage.
Bailey stated they had considered that but would prefer not to do that. He noted they have
enough public amenities and reported that 12 of the transient slips had not been rented out the
last two years with Hennepin County absorbing these costs.
Nelson questioned as the re-development occurs with the conversion of single family homes to
multiple dwellings in the area in question in Spring Park, will these residents be ensured docking
rights on this property?
Bailey stated Hennepin County would prefer to keep this number down, but noted these residents
are guaranteed lakeshore rights on this property through the deed.
Babcock stated the problem with the deed is as density of housing increases across Shoreline
Drive, there is an inherent risk of forcing the Water Patrol out because there is not enough room.
He added he believed the applicant needs to come to a conclusion of what the upper limit is for
the deeded access and plan accordingly.
LeFevere stated he believed there would be some self-limiting effect on this property because
they are a conforming facility because they have a special density license. He added it is in the
best interest of the homeowners to have Hennepin County be the licensee because they would not
qualify for a special density license without the County.
Mike Brandt, Conservation District Manager for Hennepin County, stated they have discussed
this extensively and it is a problem they have. He noted they are working on the premise that
they need to provide private dockage based on a previous case where they initially denied
approval for dockage at an 11 unit multiple dwelling, but changed their decision based on
possible litigation.
Kitchak stated he understood the deed issue, but would like to see a court rule on it because he
did not believe they would provide for unlimited dockage rights. He added he believed the deed
agreement Hennepin County has with these property owners does not regulate the LMCD. He
concluded he believed the City of Spring Park needs to address this in their zoning.
Mason questioned why the multiple dock facility cannot be grandfathered to further control
development in that area.
LeFevere stated the legal rights between Hennepin County and the homeowners with the deed
access can only be resolved by the courts, not the District. He added the District only looks at
the property with regards to limiting the number of boats on it with a maximum number of one
boat for every ten feet of shoreline.
Babcock reviewed the 1: 10' rule noting a special density license needs to be secured, that public
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting Page 9
May 13, 1998
amenities need to be provided, and that the facility needs to be available the public.
Mason recommended Hennepin County, the City of Spring Park, and the LMCD should get
together to put some resolve this situation now rather than later.
Brandt stated he had discussed with the City of Spring Park regarding future development and
dockage rights. He reported they would continue to be in contact with them and that he believed
the city would not ensure dockage rights for any new development.
A resident who lives in the development stated she believed most of the lots are not large enough
for multiple dwellings.
Brandt requested the LMCD waive the additional fees to consider the proposed changes as a
basic courtesy for working relationship between the two organizations.
Babcock stated that request is noted.
Partyka suggested the applicant either put in a second make-ready dock or make the existing
dock longer. He added if that cannot be done this year, he recommended the applicant budget
for this next year.
Brandt stated they are looking into this for next year. He added a second make-ready dock could
assist in the fragmented milfoil problem by allowing them to place fences on both docks.
Steve Osborne stated he lived in a townhome across Shoreline Drive and he would like to be
invited to discussions that Hennepin County, the City of Spring Park, and the LMCD may have.
Partyka questioned the request for the eight-foot dock length variance at the Water Patrol dock.
Sgt. Ken Schilling of the Water Patrol stated the proposed configuration, with the eight feet dock
length variance, facilitates their operation including fueling, response, and emergencies.
Partyka questioned how eight feet would make such a big difference.
Schilling stated the eight feet make a great difference in their operations.
There being no further comments, Babcock closed the public heating at 8:35 p.m.
Wert questioned why the Board is considering an application with an increase in BSU's from 65
to 72.
Babcock stated the applicant could apply for a maximum of 116 BSU's but has decided to apply
for 72 to include the Water Patrol docks. He added the applicant needs to meet both public
amenities and subjective criteria of the special density license section of the Code.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 1998
Page 10
LeFevere stated the Board needs to consider the proposed applications in the same light you
would consider new license applications. He added the County should not be limited on rights
just because they are proposing something fewer desirable such as less transient docks.
Babcock questioned whether a hybrid application could be considered where the parcel in
question might be reviewed as two separate sites.
Wert questioned what is the difference between this application and the Minnetonka Yacht Club
application where the Board denied the conversion of "service" slips to "other" slips.
Babcock stated Minnetonka Yacht Club is grandfathered while this proposed facility conforms to
LMCD Code.
Nelson stated the applicant could propose an increase in BSU's in the future if the applicant has
an increased demand for transient slips.
LeFevere reviewed a section of the Code that does not allow for special density for any facilities
which include watercraft storage facilities which are available only to persons having an interest
in specified riparian or non-riparian real property. He added this could cause a problem with the
proposed changes.
Nybeck stated this section of the Code might have been adopted after the applicant was approved
for their original special density license. He noted he believed the Water Patrol and Sheriff
would like to get their docks permitted provided they get they eight additional feet in dock length
and they do not have to pay fees. He questioned whether it is feasible to amend the Water Patrol
docks from the applications being proposed because that would allow for the applicant to
withdraw the special density license application on the 650' of the easterly section of the parcel.
He added in the meantime, could the Board consider the seven BSU's at the Water Patrol dock
on the remaining 510' of lakeshore frontage with the Board considering waiving fees. He
concluded he is trying to find a solution for all parties involved that does not jeopardize Code.
LeFevere stated he was unsure how this parcel became two sites. He did not think the Board has
ever allowed an owner to divide one parcel up into two. He added in order for this to work, the
Code might need to be amended.
McMillan questioned if it is practical for this property to be split up into two uses.
LeFevere stated from a practical standpoint, it is possible for the applicant to separate the two
uses of the property.
Babcock stated he believed the current 65 BSU's are either conforming or are grandfathered. He
added the question is whether the proposed conversion of six BSU's from transient to overnight
storage should be allowed. He recommended the Board table the proposed application to allow
sfi-ff to sort out the issues that relate to the pending applications.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 1998
Nelson asked if the two uses of this property could be divived up.
Page 11
Babcock stated he believed that is the recommendation of staff.
MOTION: Gilman moved, Rascop seconded to table further discussion on the applications to the
5/27/98 Board meeting.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
1. LAKE USE & RECREATION
B. Jim Zimmerman, Consideration of request for no-wake buoy.
Mr. Jim Zimmerman reviewed a memo submitted which outlined why they believe a no-
wake buoy should be approved by the Board. He noted the area in question is a lagoon area
west of the Narrows Bridge just off of Carmans Bay in the Pheasant Lawn neighborhood.
He stated it is relatively narrow and is quite heavily fished which generates a high amount of
traffic. He added boat wakes from the fishing boats pose problems including erosion of
shoreline and safety issues. He concluded his goal is to either have a navigational aid placed
in the area or have a no-wake buoy approved.
Babcock suggested no-wake signs be placed in the area prior to coming into the channel on
the shoreline.
Zimmerman stated he had already done this had limited impact because boaters do not see
them until they are right up on top of the sign. He noted he had discussed with Nybeck the
idea of purchasing a buoy if the Board would approve the placement of it.
Nybeck stated he believed this proposal might have some similarities with the no-wake buoys
approved by the Board for Pelican Point HOA and Crane Island because the area in question
is already covered by minimum wake restrictions because it is within 150' from shore.
Babcock stated one difference is that those two cases are different because they are channels
between islands and the mainland. He expressed concern in approving a buoy because of
potential precedent.
Kitchak asked if it is possible for the neighbors in that area to put the no-wake buoy in
themselves.
Rascop reviewed costs of buoys noting he believed the purchase of the buoy is approximately
$1,000 and that it costs $600 to put it in and to take it out.
Babcock stated that could cause problems because unauthorized buoys might be placed in
unauthorized locations. He added that Hennepin County and Denis Bailey are responsible for
the placement of buoys annually.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 1998
Page 12
McMillan suggested that Nybeck follow-up with Bailey on costs involved in purchasing
buoys and costs involved in putting them in and taking them out.
Babcock stated the District and Hennepin County share a responsibility of placing
navigational aids in the lake. He added he believed there are a lot of instances where
shoreland ordinances are not being complied with but expressed concern about the costs of
approving buoys.
· Partyka stated he believed no-wake buoys should be considered because of limited
enforcement and the fact that shoreline erosion is taking place.
Babcock proposed this request be tabled until the next Board meeting to allow Bailey to
discuss realistic costs of the buoys being place on the lake.
MOTION: McMillan moved, Wert seconded to table the no-wake buoy request to the
5/27/98 Board meeting.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
C. Staff recommending Board approval of renewal Liquor/Wine/Beer License applications as · outlined in 5/6/98 memo.
Babcock stated staff has recommended the Board rescind previous Board approval for beer
and wine licenses for the charter boat Triple Crown because the City of Orono has not
issued a municipal zoning certificate for Lakeside Marina.
MOTION:
Gilman moved, McMillan seconded to rescind previous Board approval for
Beer and Wine licenses for the charter boat Triple Crown at the 4/22/98
meeting.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Gilman moved, McMillan seconded to approve Beer and Wine licenses for the
charter boat Triple Crown, with the Wayzata Depot being approved as a port
of call.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Gilman moved, Wert seconded to approve the renewal Liquor License
applications for the charter boats Sunboat I and Seanote, subject to the LMCD
receiving a municipal zoning certificate approved by the City of Excelsior.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
D. Additional Business.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 1998
Page 13
There was no additional business.
WATER STRUCTURES
A. Meadowbrook Boat Club, Inc:, Consideration of 1998 renewal without change application.
Babcock asked for interpretation from LeFevere on this agenda item.
LeFevere stated the applicant has expressed an objection to signing the renewal without
change application for 1998 because they do not appear to be willing to pay legal fees if the
District has a concern with their facility. He noted staff believed the Board is looking for
Board direction on the application they have submitted that has been amended. He stated
there appears to be some merit to their objection and the Board needs to decide whether the
applicant should agree to pay fees if the District pursues an issue related to their facility in
court.
Babcock questioned whether the applicant objects to paying legal fees during the approval
process or during enforcement. He recalled that fees collected were to be used to pay legal
fees during processing of an application and not during enforcement.
Rascop stated that legal fees that the applicant agrees to are up to the point of approval or
denial with any legal fees incurred after are not their responsibility.
Nelson questioned whether the District should be responsible if an application is denied and
they challenge it in court.
Nybeck provided background on the applicant noting they have not been in compliance for
several years and they have been put on record to fix it or the District would be prosecuting.
LeFevere stated he believed the language should be reviewed and clarified because it goes
beyond what the Board intended. He noted if the language is acceptable to the applicant,
they could send in a renewal without change application and have it considered in two weeks.
MOTION:
Gilman moved, Wert seconded to table the 1998 renewal without change
application for Meadowbrook Boat Club, Inc., to allow staff to make the proper
language changes outlined by the Board for renewal without change
applications.
VOTE: Motion carried unanimously.
B. Ordinance Amendment, First reading of an ordinance relating to boat overhang.
Nelson asked what groups the proposed ordinance amendment would effect.
LeFevere stated the ordinance amendment would apply to reconfiguration of nonconforming
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 1998
docks under the envelope concept.
Page 14
Suerth stated he believed the proposed 4' overhang is a reasonable control from the
standpoint of use of the boat.
Eggers left at 9:44 p.m.
Babcock stated he recalled discussion at the 4/25/98 meeting was to require all
' reconfigurations to conform to the proposed ordinance amendment.
Racop and Wert left at 9:46 p.m.
Babcock recommended two amendments to the draft ordinance. They were: 1) to identify in
paragraph one under Subd. 9, "length overall" should be two words and should be
'-abbreviated as "LOA", and 2) that "LOA' should include "all equipment in normal
operating position".
LeFevere stated this change might make it difficult for staff to enforce.
MOTION: McMillan moved, Dahlen seconded to approve 1'~ reading of the draft ordinance
amendment relating to boat overhang, with the amendments proposed by
Babcock.
VOTE: Ayes (8), Abstained (1, Suerth); Motion carried.
C. Review of draft policy regarding dimensions at tie-on BSU's.
Babcock stated there were a couple of issues he needed to work with staff about one-sided
and two-sided BSU's. He recommended the Board table this agenda item to allow him to
work with staff.
Suerth stated he had concerns with the draft policy and he recommended Board members
forward their comments to staff.
MOTION: Dahlen moved, Nelson seconded to table the draft policy regarding dimensions
at tie-on BSU's.
VOTE: Ayes (8), Abstained (1, Suerth); Motion carried.
D. Additional Business.
Groveland HOA
Suerth requested the Board reopen discussion on the Groveland HOA multiple dock license
'that was approved at the 4/22/98 meeting because the Association has some concerns with
..::~_)hat approval. He added he would be stepping down as a Board member on this agenda item
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 1998
Page 15
and would not be voting.
Babcock questioned how to do this procedurally and asked LeFevere if the Board needs to
rescind the decision at the 4/22/98 before they discuss the amended application.
LeFevere stated in most cases, Roberts Rule of Order requires a motion on the floor prior to
discussion. He stated in this case, he did not necessarily see a need for a motion if the Board
just wants to talk about the amended application.
The consensus of the Board was to re-open discussion without rescinding the previous Board
approval.
Suerth stated the Association evaluated the Board decision from the 4/22/98 meeting and has
proposed the following amendments:
· Reduce the 12, 24' long slips back to 20' in length.
· Slips 1-22 will be 10' x 20', slip 23 will be 10' x 18', slips 24-28 and 30 will be 9' x
18', slips 31 and 32 will be 9' x 20' and slip 29 will be 9' x 17.3'.
· The Association has reduced the length of boats allowed from 25' to 24'.
· Boat lifts cannot be wider than 118".
· Total square footage of the 32 slips is 6,067.7.
He stated he envisioned no problems with the application and encouraged questions from the
Board.
Babcock asked Suerth if the Association is willing to agree to a 4' LOA overhang condition
at all the slips.
Suerth stated he believed the Association could live with that condition.
Babcock clarified that this condition would not allow for 24' long boats at all 32 slips. He
recommended the length at slip 29 be amended to 18'.
MOTION: Nelson moved, Dahlen seconded to rescind the previous Board approval for
Groveland HOA from the 4/22/98 meeting.
Sarah Colville, Dock Director for Groveland HOA, asked for clarification on the 4'
overhang condition. She questioned how a resident is to purchase a 24' long boat if this
includes length overall and equipment at normal operating position. She noted they currently
have one boat that is 23' long that might exceed this condition.
Babcock stated length overall is typically published by the manufacturer but does not include
add-ons. He noted residents would need to be aware of this when they purchase a boat.
Kitchak suggested the Association put together an informal packet to their residents
explaining this.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 1998
VOTE: Ayes (7), Abstained (2, Suerth and Gilman); Motion carried.
Page 16
MOTION: Nelson moved, Dahlen seconded to approve the revised application from
Groveland HOA to reconfigure the non-conforming multiple dock license facility,
with the provision that no watercraft can exceed a 4' overhang length overall with
all equipment in normal operating position.
VOTE: Ayes (8), Abstained (1, Suerth); Motion carried.
Orono Resident
Babcock continued discussion on the inquiry that was received from the resident from Orono
under Public Comments.
McMillan asked the resident if he had contacted the City of Orono.
The resident indicated he had not.
McMillan stated there might be some land issues that need clarification.
Babcock stated the intent of the Code in question is to put some limitations on the number of
active boats than can originate from a single family homeowners site.
The resident questioned the interpretation of single family homeowner.
McMillan questioned the distinction between a resident and a renter in this situation.
Partyka questioned whether the ordinance is clear enough on the intent of the Board.
;_ The resident stated he would like clarification on the ordinance now because it is possible for
a neighbor to file a complaint and he would like to know what would happen.
LeFevere stated he did not know the intent of the Board on what is a single family. He noted
cities generally struggle with this definition from a zoning standpoint.
Ambrose and Dahlen left at 10:50 p.m.
The consensus of the Board was for McMillan to contact staff at the City of Orono to see if
they have any land zoning concerns.
3. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE
B. 5/8/98 meeting report.
Suerth reported on the following:
· Distribution of the zebra mussel pamphlet was discussed with a suggestion that it be
.. distributed using the LMA database. He noted Don Germanson has stated a mailing
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting Page 17
May 13, 1998
could be done for approximately 8,000 residents if the District was willing to pay for
mailing costs.
Germanson stated it is possible to piggyback distribution of the pamphlet on a mailing in
the near future.
Suerth stated he would like to forward copies of the pamphlet to homeowners
association around the lake.
Staff was directed to check on printing and other additional costs.
· There was discussion on water quality and what authority the LMCD has. He
recommended the Board follow-up on water quality related issues with the MCWD.
Babcock suggested some of this conversation could take place at the 5/20/98 joint
meeting with the MCWD.
There was discussion regarding Hennepin Parks submitting a grant to the EPA for the
National Resources Research Institute (NRRI) for Remote Underwater Sampling
Stations (RUSS). He noted Hennepin Parks is considering the request and that he
would keep the Board informed.
There will be discussion regarding the use of phosphorous-free fertilizer at a mayor's
meeting in the near future.
There was discussion on triclophyr research on Lake Minnetonka this summer. He
noted Task Force members were hesitant with funding this research because it needs to
be applied annually and is very expensive. He noted the MN DNR has agreed to help
the Army Corps of Engineers in the logistics of site set-up.
Babcock stated he believed there are upsides to the proposal from the Army Corps of
Engineers because they propose using different dosages at different sites to see what
works.
Nybeck reported that Chip Welling, MN DNR, stated he believed there are merits to
the research but that the manufacturers should be financing the research.
te
Germanson stated the DNR supports the research but has stated they have higher
priorities this year.
Consideration of compensation adjustment request from Marsh Gabriel, EWM
Diesel/Hydraulic Mechanic.
Babcock stated this would be discussed at the 5/27/98 Board meeting due to the lack of a
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 1998
Page 18
F. Additional Business.
There was no additional business
4. SAVE THE LAKE
Babcock stated he had discussed with McMillan the idea of assuming the Chair position on the
Advisory Committee.
5. FINANCIAL
A. Audit of vouchers for payment (5/1/98 - 5/15/98).
Nelson reviewed the audit of vouchers for payment but noted they could not be approved due
to the lack of a quorum. He noted the bills need to be paid and that they would be sent out.
Staff was directed to place this further up on the 'agenda in the future and to investigate
whether it can be placed on Consent Agenda.
B. Additional Business.
There was no additional business.
ADMINISTRATION
A. Consideration of staff recommendation for compensation adjustment for Administrative
Assistant, Diane Samis.
Nybeck stated he and Randall had recently conducted a performance appraisal for Samis.
He noted staff has recommended an annual compensation adjustment from $21,000 to
$22,000.
Babcock stated this request would be tabled to the 5/27/98 Board meeting.
B. Additional Business.
There was no additional business
7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
Nybeck discussed the following:
· Lake level as of 5/II/98 was 929.56'.
· 11 special event permits have been issued to date. He noted a calendar would be established
in the near future for the Boards convenience.
The Board of Directors Lake Inspection Tour is scheduled for Saturday, 6/6/98.
There is a need for Board Officers to meet and review the Draft 1999 Budget prior to the
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
May 13, 1998
Page 19
5/27/98 meeting. He added there is a need to establish a date in early June to meet with city
officials and review the draft budget.
8. OLD BUSINF_3S
There was no Old Business.
9. NEW BUSINESS
There was no New Business.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 11:14 p.m.
Douglas Babcock, Chair
Eugene A. Partyka, Secretary
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MAY 26, 1998
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, May 26, 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, Mark Hanus, and
Leah Weycker. Councilmember Liz Jensen was absent and excused. Also in attendance were:
City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, ity Clerk Fran Clark and the
following interested 'citizens:
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.
*CONSENT AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998
*1.0 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 12, 1998, REGULAR MEETING.
1638-1645
*1.1 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 19, 1998. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MEETLNG____~.
1646-1648
'1.2 CASE # 98-19: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK,
DELTON & EVELYN RENSPE, 3003 BLUI?FS LANE, LOT1, BLOCK 1, THE BLUFFS,
pID# 22-117-24 44 0001.
1649-1664
RESOLUTION g98-55
'1.3 CASE # 98-20: VARIANCE, LAKESIDE & SIDE YARD SETBACK, HARDCOVER,
ORVAL FENSTAD, 4366 WILSHIRE BLVD, LOT 82, PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1~'
DIVISION, PID # 19-117-23 13 0015
1665-1686
RESOLUTION//98-56
'1.4 CASE # 98-21: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, ALLAN C WIGAND, 475~!
HAMPTON ROAD, LOTS 28-29-30, BLOCK 10, PEMBROKE, PID # 19-117-23 33 0106
1687-1706
RESOLUTION//98-57
2
MOUND CI~ COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998
'1.5 CASE # 98-24: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK, THOMAS
BARTLETT BLVD, P/SECTION 23, PID # 23-117-24 14 0003
1707-1729
RESOLUTION #98-58
REFSE, 5641
'1.6 CASE//98-25: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK, MICHAEL & KATHY MEYERi
!748 BAYWOOD SHORES DRIVE, LOT 5, BLOCK 6, REPLAT OF HARRISON
SHORES, PID # 13-117-24 24 0016.
1730-1745
RESOLUTION $98-59
· 1.7 CASE # 98-12: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK, REAR
YARD SETBACK, MATT PHII.L1PPI, 4519 MANCHESTER ROAD, LOT 22 AN13
PART OF LOTS 1,2,3, & 5, BLOCK 14, AVALON, PID # 19-117-23 31 0059
1746-1784
· 1.8 CASE # 98-29: VARIANCE EXTENSION:FROMCASE 97-15, MARKMULVEY, 590o
CHESTNUT ROAD, LOT 24, KOEHLER'S 2ND ADDN TO MOUND, PID# 14-117-24 4~
0006.
1785-1868
RESOLUTION g98-60
'1.9
1869
RESOLUTION 98 - RESOLUTION REAFFIRMING AUTHORIZING
SPONSORSHIP OF STATE GRANT-IN-AID SNOWMOBILE TRAILFUND,~;.
CITY
RESOLUTION g98-61
3
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998
*1.10 PAYMENT OF BILLS
1870-1880
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
1.11
PUBLIC HEARING: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER VI OF THE CiTY
CODE, BY ADDING SECTION 650 RELATING TO STORM SEWER SYSTEM AND
TO IMPOSE JUST AND REASONABLE CHARGES FOR THE USE AND
AVAILABILITY OF STORM SEWER FACILITIES
1.12 _.REPORT FROM STAFF REGARDING FACTS ASSOCIATED WITH DOCK#4212;,
(BARB CASEY).
1881-1882
4
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998
1.13
1~99_7 ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT - STEVE MCDONALD ABDO ABDO.
& MEYERS. EICK
1.14 CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE RENEWAl,
1883-1950
CONTenD DISCUSSION; ~ROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING SE~ION
440:00 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO
TOBACCO SALE POSSESSION AND USE OF
TOBACCO TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND TOBACCO
RELATED DEVICES ~ THE CITY OF MOUND AND
TO REDUCE THE ~LEGAL SALE POSSESSION
AND USE OF SUCH ITEM TO ANY MINORS AND
1951-1954
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998
AMENDING SECTION 510:00, SUBD.2, OF THE CITY
CODE RELATING TO FEES FOR CIGARETTE
LICENSES.
1.16
EXECUTIVE SESSION: WOODLAND POINT LITIGATION.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
A. Monthly Financial Report for April 1998 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director.
1955-1956
Bo
1957
Letter from State Representative Steve Smith regarding our letter opposing levy limits and the
state sales tax.
1958
Memorandum from the Metropolitan Mosquito Control District regarding Adult mosquito
control notification procedures.
D. Letter from Mayor Sharon Sayles Belton, Minneapolis, regarding an upcoming luncheon
inviting Mayors from surrounding communities to discuss future challenges. The luncheon is
scheduled for Thursday, Jule 11, 1998, Noon - 1:30 p.m., Minneapolis Club, downtown Minneapolis,
RSVP'S must be received by June 5.
1959
Eo
Annual Park Tour with Park and Open Space Commission will be held Thursday, June 11, 7
p.m. Meet at City Hall if you are interested in attending.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 26, 1998
F. REMINDER:
City offices will be closed on Monday, May 25, 1998 in Observance of
Memorial Day.
G. Insert in City Newsletter regarding Storm Sever Utility Ordinance public hearing had
typographical error on the time of the hearing on Tuesday, May 26. It should be 7:30 p.m. and
not 7 p.m. We will put an notice on the front door in case person are coming for a 7 p.m.
hearing.
1960-1969
H. Information received from Keith Rennerfeldt, Hennepin County Assessor's Office regarding the
results of the Open Book meeting held earlier this Spring. Also included is some information
from the Assessor on the County Property types, classes and class rates.
1970-1972
1973
Letter dated May 20, 1998 from Ceil Strauss, Area Hydrologist, DNR, regarding a request to
her office to visit the Roanoke Commons area and a report on her visit and her comments
regarding the trimming of trees and tree removal along the commons area. Apparently,
residents in this area called her office to have her view the area.
J. Memoramdum from Jim Fackler, Park Director, regarding the issue of a dock site on Paradise
Lane raised at Tuesday's Committee of the Whole meeting. I think the memo is clear that the
fee paid by Mr. Klein was paid on time. Ms. Cometet has no valid claim.
1974-1987
MOTION made by , seconded by
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
to adjourn at P.M.
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Attest: City Clerk