The URL can be used to link to this page

1998-06-23AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL ~A¥: ~ 113, l~J~ 6:00 l~l NOIE 'l'lgt: eJIANGI~,, 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. SPI~CIAL ~ING - 6:00 P.M, OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PAGE 2. EXECUTIVE SESSION: WOODLAND POINT LITIGATION. RE~G~ M~ING B~GINS AT ?:~0 PAgl, 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. *A. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 9, 1998, REGULAR MEETING. ................................ 2146-2153 *B. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 16, 1998 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING. ............................... 2154-2155 *C. CASE 98-33: VARIANCE, FRONT, SIDE & LAKESHORE SETBACKS, LOT SIZE, HARDCOVER, PETER LIUPAKKA, 1920 LAKESIDE LANE, LOT 11, BLOCK 11, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID ]/18-117-23 23 0057... 2156-2181 *D. CASE 98-34: VARIANCE, LOT FRONTAGE, STEPHEN & ELIZABETH KAKOS, XXXX WALNUT ROAD, LOT 2 & ADJ VAC ST. BLOCK 4, MOUND TERRACE, PID #14-117-24 32 0025. 2182-2211 2143 CASE 98-35: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK, LOT SIZE, MARK & STACEY GOLDBERG, 4853 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 4, BLOCK 14, DEVON PID/t25-117-24 11 003'7 .......................... 2212-2237 (PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS WILL BE AT PLANNING COMMISSION ON 6/22/98 AND WILL BE TURNED AROUND FOR THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING). *F. CASE 98-36: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS, BRADLEY NORDGREN, 5661 BARTLETT BLVD, SECTION 23, PID #23-117-24 14 0004 ............................... 2238-2257 (PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS WILL BE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON 6/22/98 AND WILL BE TURNED AROUND FOR THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING). *G. CASE 98-37: VARIANCE, LAKESIDE SETBACK, AUDRI SCHWARZ, 5621 BARTLETT BLVD, SECTION 23, PID #23-117-24 14 0002 ...... 2258-2273 (PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS WILL BE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON 6/22/98 AND WILL BE TURNED AROUND FOR THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING). *H. APPROVAL OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONTRACT WITH HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP, INC ...................... 2274-2280 *I. APPROVAL OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN PROPOSAL FROM MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS & ASSOCIATES .............. 2281-2304 *J. APPROVAL OF TREE LICENSES AND CIGARETTE LICENSES ......... 2305 *K. PAYMENT OF BILLS .................................. 2306-2318 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. PUBLIC HEARING: CABLE TV FRANCHISE RENEWAL ........... 2319-2356 A. APPROVE CABLE FRANCHISE AND AUTHORIZE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE. ORDINANCE #98-1998 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17-A OF THE CITY CODE (APPENDIX G) ENTITLED CABLE TELEVISION REGULATORY ORDINANCE ............................ 2357-2386 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 98-26: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, MOTOR FUEL STATION LOCATED WITHIN THE B-2 ZONING DISTRICT, JAMES SMITH/JAMES KOVACH, 1730 COMMERCE BLVD., PART OF LOT 27, LAFAYETTE PARK, PID #13-117-24 22 0025. As CASE 98-27: VARIANCE, HARDCOVER, JAMES SMITH/JAMES KOVACH, 1730 COMMERCE BLVD., PART OF LOT 27, LAFAYETTE PARK, PID #13-117-24 22 0025 ................................ 2387-2449 2144 7. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 98-05: MAJOR SUBDIVISION, JAMES JOHNSON/DAVE MOORE, 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS 1-6, BLOCK SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, PID #13-117-24 44 0032. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 98-28: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW TWIN HOMES, JAMES JOHNSON/DAVE MOORE, 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, PID ]/13-117-24 44 0032. Ao CASE 98-07: VARIANCE, LOT AREA, HARDCOVER, JAMES JOHNSON/DAVE MOORE, 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, PID #13-117-24 44 0032 ........ 2450-2499 Bo INFORMATION/M ISCELLANEOUS: MAY 1998 FINANCIAL REPORT AS PREPARED BY GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR ...................................... 2500-2501 MCWD NOTICE OF RESIGNATION OF DIANE LYNCH, ADMINISTRATOR ..... 2502 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 1998 ................ 2503-2524 REMINDER: INTERVIEWS WITH ARCHITECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT FIRMS WILL BE HELD WITH THE WCCB ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24 AND THURSDAY, JUNE 25, RESPECTIVELY, MOUND CITY HALL, BEGINNING AT 6 P.M. REMINDER: NEXT REGULAR WCCB MEETING WILL BE TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 1998, 7 P.M. MOUND CITY HALL. 2145 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 9, 1998 The ~Ity t~ouneil of tha City of Mound, Hcnnepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, June 9, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andre~hrens, Mark Hanus, and · Also in attendance were: Leah Weycker. ~ City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorneys John Dean and Karen Cole, City Clerk Fran Clark, Building Official Jon Sutherland, City Engineer John Cameron and the following interested citizens: Michael & Kathy Meyer, Pam Amidon, Becky Glister, Jim Regan, Ray Salazar, Scott Holter, Gregg Knutson, Dave Osmek, Robert & Margaret Hanson, Mark Chatterton, Shale Nyberg, Vern Schwalbe, Lee Dorholt, and Lyle Loehrs. 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 Councihnember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1.0 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. No items were removed or added to the Agenda. *1.1 CONSENT AGENDA MOTION Weycker, Jensen, unanimously. 1.2 PROCLAMATION DECLARING JUNE 20, 1998 AS MOUND MASONIC LODGE DAY IN THE CITY OF MOUND. The Mayor presented the Proclamation to the following members of the Mound Masonic Lodge: Lee Dorholt and Vern Schwalbe. '1.3 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 26, 1998, REGULAR MEETING. MOTION Weycker, Jensen, unanimously. '1.4 SET PUBLIC HEARINGS: THREE (SUGGESTED DATE: JUNE 23, 1998, FOR ALL *1.5 *1.6 *1.7 MOTION CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 9. 1998 FOR CASE #98-05, MAJOR SUBDIVISION, JAMES JOHNSON/DAVE MOORE, 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE. FOR CASE//98-28, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW TWIN HOMES, JAMES JOHNSON/DAVE MOORE, 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE. FOR CASE //98-26, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, MOTOR FUEL STATION TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE B-2 ZONING DISTR/CT, JAMES SMITH/JAMES KOVACH, 1730 COMMERCE BLVD. Weycker, Jensen, unanimously. *1.8 RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF REGARDING AN ADDITION OF AN ABUTTING DOCK SITE AT 4586 DENBIGH ROAD. MOTION Weycker, Jensen, unanimously. *1.9 RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF REGARDING THE TRIMMING OF .'FREES, PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT, ADAM HAWKINSON, 1718 EAGI.g; LANE, WIOTA COMMON MOTION Weycker, Jensen, unanimously. *1.10 RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF REGARDING THE TRIMMING O1,' _TREES, PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT, DON SWENSON, 4857 ISLAND VIEW DR.~ DEVON COMMON. MOTION Weycker, Jensen, unanimously. *1.11 RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF TREE PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT, RAYMOND SALAZAR, 4559 ISLAND VIEW DR. DEVON COMMON - MOTION Weycker, Jensen, unanimously. 1, I ,ll , ,, ,, CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 9, 1998 MOTION Weycker, Jensen, unanhnously- '1.13 LICENSE RENEWALS: CLUB ON-SALE, SUNDAY SALES, ON-SALE WINE, ON-SALE BEER, OFF-SALE BEER, TREE REMOVAL LICENSE AND TRANSIENT MERCHANT LICENSE. The following licenses are up for renewal. The license period is July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998. Approval is contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being submitted. CLUB ON-SALE American Legion Post #398 VFW Post #5113 SUNDAY SALES_ American Legion Post #398 VFW Post #5113 ON-SALE WINE A1 & Alma's Supper Club House of Moy ON-SALE BEER Mound Lanes OFF-SALE BEER By the Way Snack Shop (Steve Bedell) Malnstreet Market PDQ Food Store SuperAmerica The following TREE REMOVAL LICENSE HAS BEEN APPLIED FOR: IT WILL EXPIRE MARCH 31, 1999. Approval is contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being submitted. Bear Tree Service TRANSIENT MERCHANT LICENSE.. UNTIEDT VEGETABLE FARM - Mainstreet Market & Scotty B's Parking Lot (comer of Lynwood Blvd. and County Road 110). MOTION Weycker, Jensen, unanimously. '1.14 PAYMENT OF BILLS: 3 MOTION CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JUNE 9, 1998 Weycker, Jensen, unanimously. ~MMENT AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. There were none. 1.15 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: STORM WATER UTILITY ORDINANCE. The City Manager explained the background of this item. The City Attorney reviewed the memo written by attorney Karen Cole, regarding the Council's question of what would happen if the City failed to prepare a Stormwater Management Plan. 1. Failure would give the (MCWD) Minnehaha Creek Watershed District the power to regulate the use and development of land in the City of Mound. 2. The Metropolitan Council could bring suit in district court to enforce the statute requiring preparation of the plan. The City Attorney's recommendation was not to subject the City of Mound to either of the above sanctions. The Mayor stated the following: "The Stormwater Management Plan is something that has been mandated by the Legislature through the Metropolitan Planning Act and the Met Council is charged with carrying out the Comprehensive Plan Review. The Stormwater Management Plan is a part of that Comprehensive Plan Review. We have known for a number of years that we would be faced with completing a Stormwater Management Plan by the end of 1998. The Council has taken a strong position with the Legislature to curtail, unfunded mandates that the City needs to generate more tax revenue to implement. The Mayor stated that the Stormwater Management Plan preparation will cost approximately $50,000." The Mayor stated that the Council takes very seriously, the equitable spreading of cost. The sole reason the Council and Staff came up with this Stormwater Utility Ordinance is to set up the utility where the City can spread the cost among the users that is a more fair and equitable way of spreading the costs of treatment of stormwater and runoff and upkeep of the system. The City is hoping that the public will realize that as stormwater management becomes more complex and more regulations are generated, and more is required to be done, that the fairest way of spreading this cost and insuring that single family homeowners do not get caught up in paying a disproportionate share, is to have a user generated system in place. The Mayor opened the public hearing. The following persons spoke: Mark Chatterton, 5429 Bartlett Blvd. Para Amidon, 1909 Lakeside Lane Vince Forystek, 3131 Inverness Lane Bob Schmidt, 4708 Island View Drive CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 9, 1998 Beck~ Glister, 5008 Wren Road Peter Meyer, 5748 Sunset Road Bob Hanson, 5424 Bartlett Blvd. Dave Osmek, 2160 Basswood Lane Shale Nyberg, 2872 Highland Blvd. Scott Nagal, 4586 Denbigh Road The above people made the following comments: 1. Just tell whoever is requiring a Stormwater Management Plan no that we will not prepare one. 2. Would like to see a plan before setting up the Utility and charging fees. 3. They want to see the stormwater cleaned up before it gets to the Lake. The Council discussed #2 from the comments. They explained that fees would be worked on after the plan is prepared. Setting up the utility does not generate any fees. The fees would be set by resolution after the plan is completed. Even though a public hearing is not required to be held on fees, there will be a public hearing before fees are set to let the public know how much will be charged for all users of the system. The Council discussed the following: 1. Having to use money from the Capital Improvement Fund for the preparation of a Stormwater Management Plan and then paying it back when the fees are set. 2. Section 650:15 and requiring a public hearing before setting rates and adding this requirement to the proposed ordinance setting up the Stormwater Management Utility. 3. Section 650:25 which talks about adjustments that can be made to the basic charges including the classifications based on unique situations such as the differences in hardcover on residential lots. Polston moved to adopt the ordinance setting up the Stormwater Utility with the provision that the setting of rates would require a public hearing added to 650:15 and that Section 650:25 reflect the impetus of what was discussed on adjustments by establishing user fees based on the amount of hardcover and the amount of stormwater being generated. ORDINANCE//98-1998 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER VI OF THE CITY CODE, MUNICIPAL SERVICES AND PUBLIC UTILITIES, BY ADDING SECTION 650 RELATING TO STORM SEWER SYSTEM Councilmember Hanus seconded the motion for discussion. The City Attorney asked if the Council wants 650:25 to say that adjustments will be made reflecting extraordinary properties which have nonconforming and extraordinary hardcover ratios. Councilmember Hanus stated what he had in mind was listing them in the land uses as conforming and nonconforming. Councilmember Hanus felt that would be clearer for someone reading the ordinance. The City Attorney suggested that this can be done when the rates are set in Section 650:15. The Council agreed. 5 .llgO CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- JUNE 9, 1998 The Council discussed setting rates when the Stormwater Management Plan is completed and approved by the Metropolitan Council as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. They will then have more hard data to indicate what the rates should be. The Council asked that the following change be made to Section 650:15: Section 650:15. Establishing Basic Rate In determining charges, the Council shall, from time to time, by resolution _and after a public hearinet establish a basic system rate to be charged against one acre or land having and REF of one. The charge to be made against each parcel of land shall then be determined by multiplying the REF (Residential Equivalency Factor) for the parcel's land use classification times the parcel's acreage time the system rate. There was comment from the audience that what they want is a plan before anything is acted upon, including setting up the stormwater utility. The Council asked the City Engineer when he thought the Plan would be done and approved. He stated it could be March or April of next year, depending on the review process. Councilmember Weycker stated she does not understand why this has to be adopted now if it is likely we will not be setting rates and charging for another year. The Mayor stated that this, at least, establishes the utility and the fact it will be based on user fees and not property taxes to pay for and implement the plan and the operation of the stormwater utility. The vote was 4 in favor with Weycker voting nay. Motion carried. 1.16 ..CASE //98-25: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK, MICHAEL & KATHY .MEYER, 1748 BAYWOOD SHORES DRIVE, LOT 5, BLOCK 6, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, PID iq 13-117-24 24 0016, - The Mayor explained that Mr. & Mrs. Meyer have asked that their Case, which was approved at the May 26th meeting, be reconsidered because they do not want to remove their shed which was a condition of approval. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus to have Case//98-25 reconsidered at this time. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Building Official explained that the applicant applied for a sideyard and lot frontage variance to allow modifications to a deck. The deck is conforming. The shed is located on the side property line so it would require a variance of 6 feet. The Planning Commission recommended approval with the condition that the shed be removed or moved to a conforming location. The applicant was present to discuss the condition on the shed. The applicant submitted pictures of the shed. Mr. Meyer stated that the shed is structurally sound and because of the shape and topography of his lot it should not be moved to another location. June 9, 1998 After discussing alternative placement for the shed, the Council decided there was minimal impact where the shed is currently located and that due to the lot shape and topography, moving the shed would make it more visible. Therefore, they suggested the following revisions to the proposed resolution. Add the following: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby grant the following variances: A. A 16 foot lot frontage setback as recommended by the Planning Commission. B. A 6 foot side yard setback variance for the existing shed. ® The side yard setback variance is based upon the express finding that the existing shed is functional and sound and could not be relocated elsewhere on the property due to lot shape and topography. MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to rescind Resolution//98-57. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Jensen moved and Polston seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION//98-64 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE 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 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.17 EXECUTIVE SESSION: WOODLAND POINT LITIGATION. Councilmember Weycker excused herself from the Executive Session. The Council went into Executive Session at 9:55 P.M. They returned at 11:20 P. M. The City Attorney stated that they have just concluded an Executive Session to discuss providing direction to the City's Attorneys in connection with the continuing mediation on the Bailey Case involving Woodland Point Commons. The Session did result in direction being given to the attorneys and the attorneys now will take that information and direction into the continuation of the mediation sessions. 1.18 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: 7 De Ge June 9, 1998 Department Head Monthly Reports for May 1998. Draft of the 1999 Proposed LMCD Budget. Memorandum from Diane Lynch, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Executive Director, regarding the appointment of liaisons from the City of Mound to interface with the MCWD Board Liaison which is Tom Maple. Who should be the liaison? My recommendation would be to appoint the City Manager as the official liaison and then I can communicate between the MCWD Board liaison and the City Council. What do you think? The Council agreed that the City Manager will be the official liaison from the City of Mound. Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of May 14, 1998. Letter from Moody's Investors Service regarding the change in definitions of the ratings used by Moody's. Mound has been given a designation of an A2 rating. Information from West Hennepin City Managers/Administrators/City Clerks regarding focus groups on human services planning and coordination in the West Hennepin area and the announcement of some upcoming meetings. 1998 Salary Survey for Elected Officials as prepared by the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM). H. REMINDER: I. REMINDER: ANNUAL PARK TOUR, THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 1998, 7 P.M. MEET AT CITY HALL. This has been cancelled because the members of the Council cannot all attend. A later date will be set. COMMIT-FEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING, TUESDAY, JUNE 16, 1998, 7:30 P.M., CITY HALL. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens to adjourn at 11:30 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk · 8 MINUTES - COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE - JUNE 16, 1998 The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. Members Present: Mayor Polston; Councilmembers: Ahrens, Hanus and Weycker. Absent and Excused: Jensen. Also Present: Members of the Mound Fire Relief Association: Jeff Andersen, Kevin Grady, Mike Savage, Randy Engelhart and Gene Gervais; Gino Businaro, Finance Director; and Ed Shukle, City Manager. Review of 12/31/97 Actuarial of the Mound Fire Relief Association City Manager Ed Shukle introduced the subject. He indicated that the Association has been in existence for 75 years and has provided a pension benefit to volunteer firefighters on a monthly basis based upon a minimum of 20 years on the Fire Department. The purpose of discussing the actuarial at this time was to review the feasibility of providing a pension increase in the near future without increasing the unfunded accrued liability of providing the pension benefit. Shukle indicated that this matter has been under study for the past 3-4 years as the unfunded accrued liability amount continued to increase. Based upon the 1997 actuarial, the unfunded accrued liability has been reduced but any increases to the pension benefit will drive the unfunded accrued liability up and likewise pushes out the statutory date that the amount must be fully funded. Excellent investment practices have assisted in reducing the unfunded accrued liability amount as well as increases in the fire district's contributions and increases in state fire aid. City staff indicated that the unfunded accrued liability issue continues to be a concern and wanted the City Council to understand that as it looks at future pension increases. The Association defended the actuarial indicating that the pension benefit increase could be an additional $50 per month which puts the pension benefit at $510 per month from its present $460 per month. This could take place without any increases in the fire district's contributions. However, the Association indicated that they would like to see a 4% increase in the fire district's contribution as it has occurred in the past several years. City staff asked if the Association has looked at other ways of dealing with these pension issues. Their response was basically that with the revenues that they have received, the excellent return on investment, expected interest income and that the reduced unfunded accrued liability as estimated by the actuarial, they did not propose any other revenue alternatives other than what is presently in place. The Council consensus was to grant the increase of $50 in the form of a resolution to go into effect on September 1, 1998. This item will appear on the agenda at the August 11, 1998 regular City Council meeting. In addition, the 4% fire district contribution will be included in the 1999 Budget. Update on Minnetonka Boat Rental Committee of the Whole Minutes June 16, 1998 Page 2 Ed Shukle updated the City Council on the possible location of a public access at the Minnetonka Boat Rental location on Harrison's Bay. He indicated that appraisals would be conducted on the Lebra property, Maloney property and the Boat Rental property. More information will be available in August, 1998. Encroachment Ordinance on Commons Mark Hanus asked if this item ought to pass through the Planning Commission. The consensus was that the draft be given to the Planning Commission as an FYI where the Commission could make comments to the Dock and Commons Advisory Commission. Recognition Dinner for Curt Pearson Ed Shukle indicated that he would like the City of Mound to hold a recognition dinner for Curt Pearson, long time City Attorney. He indicated that Curt has been the City Attorney for 30+ years and he is now in semi-retirement as John Dean has taken over the City Attorney function. The Council was in agreement and the City Manager was directed to organize the event later this summer. Sorbo Sword Ed Shukle asked the Council where they would like this sword displayed. Consensus was to have it placed in a secure case and mounted behind the reception desk. The City Manager will pursue this. Other Business There being no other business it was noted that there will not be a committee of the whole meeting in July. The next committee of the whole meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, August 18, 1998, 7:30 p.m. Upon motion by Weycker, seconded by Hanus, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. R_e. spectfully submitted, ~ Shukle City Manager June 23, lgg8 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS, LOT SIZE, AND STREET FRONTAGE VARIANCES IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING DECK, AT 1920 LAKESIDE LANE, LOT 11, BLOCK 11, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 18-117-23 23 0057 P & Z CASE #98-33 WHEREAS, the applicant, Peter Liupakka, has applied for a front and side yard setbacks variances, lot size and street frontage variances to allow for replacement of an existing deck at 1920 Lakeside Lane; and, WHEREAS, the proposed deck would be located lakeside measuring 24 feet by 16 feet with a 96 feet setback from the lake; 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 49.83 feet in width requiring a 10.17 foot lot frontage variance; and, WHEREAS, the existing lot size is 8,377 square feet requiring a 1,623 square foot lot size variance; and, WHEREAS, the existing garage is 5.32 feet from the front and 1.4 feet from the side yard requiring a 14.68 feet and 4.6 feet variances respectively; and, WHEREAS, the existing house is 20.47 feet from the front and 4.63 feet from the side yard requiring a 9.53 feet and a 1.37 feet variances respectively; and, WHEREAS, the existing shed is 2.27 feet from the side yard requiring a 1.73 foot variance; and, June 23, 1998 Liupakka~ 1920 Lakeside Lane Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a 14.68ft front yard- garage, 4.6ft side yard - garage, 9.53ft front yard - house, 1.37ft side yard - house, and 1.73 ft side yard - shed setbacks, 10.17 ft street frontage and 1,623 square foot lot size variances 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: Replace the existing Deck This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: o LOT 11, BLOCK 11, SHADYWOOD POINT, 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)o 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. ^ 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 June 8, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orr Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff Present: Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Voss Public Present: Michaela Diercks, Don Loken, Glenna Loken, Robert Wroda, Stephen Kakos, Lisa Hanson, Dennis Leininger, Carolyn Leininger, Doug Birdie, Vic Sacco, Jim Smith, Karl Gruhn, Jared Smith, Jim Kovach, Jim Johnson, Dave Moore, Jennifer Garden, Martin Garden, Alan Nations Chris Meyer, Peter Liupakka Meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael Chair Michael readjusted the agenda to start with the variance cases first then proceed with the Public Hearings. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE MAY 11, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Weiland commented that Jerry Clapsaddle be Absent and Excused. Hanus stated on Case 98-24 under the discussion his comments should read," Hanus commented there are 4 accessory buildings and this would require an additional variance. So noted and will be corrected. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the May 11, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 7-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE #98-33: VARIANCE, FRONT, SIDE & LAKESHORE SETBACKS, LOT SIZE, HARDCOVER, PETER LlUPAKKA, 1920 LAKESIDE LANE, LOT 11, BLOCK 11, SHADYVVOOD POINT, PID # 18-117-23 23 0057 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Loren Gordon presented this case. The applicant has submitted a request to replace an existing deck and locate a fish house within the lakeside setback. The associated variance request is listed below. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Garage Front Yard 5.32' 20' 14.68' Side Yard 1.4' 6' 4.6' House Front Yard 20.47' 30' 9.53' Side Yard 4.63' 6' 1.37' Shed Side Yard 2.27' 4' 1.73' Fish House Lakeside 18' 50' 32' Lot Street Frontage 49.83' 60' 10.17' Lot Size 8377 sf 10,000 sf 1623 sf The property is located at 1920 Lakeside Lane on a nonconforming lakeside lot. All structures on the lot have nonconforming setbacks including the single story house; one stall detached garage and shed. The garage is setback just over 5 feet from the right- of-way, which doesn't accommodate vehicle parking. The front yard is paved with bituminous that provides for necessary parking. The applicant is proposing to replace an existing lakeside deck that is deteriorating. The new deck would be located in same location as the existing and would be one foot wider and deeper than the current. Due to the number of repairs needed to the existing deck the applicant has chosen to build new rather than replace the joists and decking boards. The proposed deck replacement will be built in a conforming location and will be an improvement to the property. Staff would recommend the Planning Commission recognize the existing nonconformities on the property to allow its replacement. The applicant recently built a fish house and has been storing it on the patio in the rear of the house. For convenience purposes of storing boating equipment during the summer months, the lakeside location is proposed. This is a nonconforming location under the shoreland management ordinance. 2 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 The proposed fish house is regulated as a recreational vehicle under the zoning code. The zoning code does not regulate the location of these uses. Although labeled a fish house, which it functions as for 3 months during the year, it is used as a storage shed most of the time. For this reason, it seems reasonable to apply shed setback standards. Because the fish house is portable, there is no guarantee it would remain in its proposed location. Sheds are required to be fastened to the ground/concrete base to insure their location is permanent. This raises a number of other issues regarding structure requirements. It may necessary to review this section of the code again to more specifically address fish houses. There may be some ways to regulate their placement and treat them more like a shed. The DNR has commented on this case and opposes the proposed fish house location as well. RECOMMENDATION' Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the request to rebuild the deck and deny the proposed location for the fish house. Its current location on the patio, the fish house meet all setback requirements. Discussion: Mueller questioned the shed setbacks. Mueller questioned the garage being to close the principle dwelling. Sutherland stated that according to the code a garage would need to have fire resistive material on the garage and the house, if less than three (3) feet. Weiland commented that on the wording on page 138 second paragraph. It should state one foot wider and one foot deeper. Hanus commented that on the side yard setback for the garage on a through lot has a four foot setback that would require a 2.6 foot. Hanus commented that according to the code a fish house is not regulated as an accessory structure by the current code and is considered a recreational vehicle. does not seem that the commission can take a vote on the fish house issue. It Chair Michael commented on the letter received by Ms. Amidon. Sutherland stated that he and the plannermeet with Ms. Amidon and the applicant on site and discussed some of the issues addressed in the letter. Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Hasse commented who would go and check the fishhouse to see if was used for something other than a fishhouse. Weiland commented that it should be verified that the fishhouse has current registration for the current year. Mueller questioned what constitutes a structure. Sutherland stated that anything anchored to the ground or built on top of a slab. He quoted the structure definition of the zoning code, Section 350:310, Subdivision 132. Mueller commented more on the fishhouse being a structure. There is not a regulation on fishhouse location on properties. He stated that is an 8x8 fishhouse. Sutherland commented on previous cases on Island View Drive where variances were granted for sheds less than 50 feet to the lake. MOTION by Michael, seconded by Hanus to recommend staff recommendation to approve the request to rebuild the deck. Striking any comments regarding the fishhouse. Weiland stated that he did not want to let the issue be dropped. Gordon stated that he was unclear what the use of the fishhouse would be for the 9 months that it wasn't being used for fishing. Although it is currently being used for storage of boating equipment and miscellaneous items which catagorizes the fishhouse as a shed from Staffs perspective. Chair Michael commented that if the fishhouse did not have current license that it would be an enforcement issue by the City. MOTION by Michael, seconded by Hanus to recommend staff recommendation to approve the request to rebuild the deck. Striking any comments regarding the fishhouse. Motion carried 5-2. Opposed: Weiland and Hasse. This case will go to City Council on June 23, 1998. Peter Liupakka asked if he could move the fishhouse down by the lake. Chair Michael informed the applicant he needed to wait for the City Council's decision. 4 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. [lli gill TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: June 8, 1998 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Peter Liupakka- 1920 Lakeside Lane CASE NUMBER: 98-33 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5aa LOCATION: 1920 Lakeside Lane ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to replace an existing deck and locate a fish house within the lakeside setback. The associated variance request is listed below. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Garage Front Yard 5.32' 20' 14.68' Side Yard 1.4' 6' 4.6' House Front Yard 20.47' 30' 9.53' Side Yard 4.63' 6' 1.37' Shed Side Yard 2.27' 4' 1.73' Fish House Lakeside 18' 50' 32' Lot Street Frontage 49.83' 60' 10.17' Lot Size 8377 sf 10,000 sf 1623 sf The property is located at 1920 Lakeside Lane on a nonconforming lakeside lot. All structures on the lot have nonconforming setbacks including the single story house; one stall detached garage 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Mmeapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 #98-33 - Liupakka Variance Request June 8, 1998 and shed. The garage is setback just over 5 feet from the right-of-way, which doesn't accommodate vehicle parking. The front yard is paved with bituminous that provides for necessary parking. The applicant is proposing to replace an existing lakeside deck that is deteriorating. The new deck would be located in same location as the existing and would be one foot wider and deeper than the current. Due to the number of repairs needed to the existing deck the applicant has chosen to build new rather than replace the joists and decking boards. The applicant recently built a fish house and has been storing it on the patio in the rear of the house. For convenience purposes of storing boating equipment during the summer months, the lakeside location is proposed. This is a nonconforming location under the shoreland management ordinance. 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. Do That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to property in the same zone. The proposed deck replacement will be built in a conforming location and will be an improvement to the property. Staff would recommend the Planning Commission recognize the 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 3 #98-33 - Liupakka Variance Request June 8, 1998 existing nonconformities on the property to allow its replacement. The proposed fish house is regulated as a recreational vehicle under the zoning code. The zoning code does not regulate the location of these uses. Although labeled a fish house, which it functions as for 3 months during the year, it is used as a storage shed most of the time. For this reason, it seems reasonable to apply shed setback standards. Because the fish house is portable, there is no guarantee it would remain in its proposed location. Sheds are required to be fastened to the ground/concrete base to insure their location is permanent. This raises a number of other issues regarding structure requirements. It may necessary to review this section of the code again to more specifically address fish houses. There may be some ways to regulate their placement and treat them more like a shed. The DNR has commented on this case and opposes the proposed fish house location as well. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the request to rebuild the deck and deny the proposed location for the fish house. I its current location on the patio, the fish house meet all setback requirements. 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 MAY' 2. 1 1998 Application Fee: S 100.00 !(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning CommissionDate: ~~ ~), I(~ Case No.q6-._..~' City CouncilDate: ~~ ~SI ~q~ Distribut on: ~ City Planner ~~B DNR City Engineer Other Public Works SUBJECT Address 1920 Lakeside Lane PROPERTY Lot 11 LEGAL Block 11 DESC. Subdivision Shadh~ood Point PID~ 18-117-23-23~057 Plat OWNER Address /~ Z O ~ 4~ ~ J/~e ~. ~ Phone(H) ~TZ- ~ (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, N~no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc,): Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. o Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (v~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. set. back, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE ~ i-~.~ (or existing) , Front Yard: ([1~ S E W ) ~ C_:~:L~. ~, '~-~, ~ ft.~' ~ ~q. ~ ft. Side Yard: (~ S~) ~, ~ ft. ~ ft. /,~ ft. Side Yard: ( N S E ~ ~ ~a~ ft. /, ¢~ ft. ~. ~ ft. Rear Yard: ( N ~ E W )~ U/ 1¢~- ft. ~, Z~ ft. ~~ ft. Lakeside: ( N~~ E W ) ~ ' ~ ft. t~' ft. ~ ft. : (N SEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ~ ft. ~.,~ ft. /O, Iq ft. Lot Size: _~,~ sq ft S~ sq ft ([p~ 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: o Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? (~'~oo narrow (vi'topography ( ) soil (vi'too small ( ) drainage (vf'existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify Please describe: v. 11/14/97) Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone ha. ving property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (~. If yes, explain: Was the har.d;,~ip created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (~. If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature Date Date -~-: 2 g) '-/~~::~ (Rev. 11/14/9 7) CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) IOW~E,'S NAME: ~C-~¢r- ~- .~ ~Z,~3 ~:~L. LOTAREA 377 SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. LOT AREA ~'~? 7 SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... LOT AREA ~"7 ~ 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) LENGTH WIDTH 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 SQ FT TOTAL HOUSE ......................... x = x = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS y X = X = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = X TOTAL DECK .......................... X = X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... PREPARED BY DATE DUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600 Fax: The applicant is: ~ner __contractor __tenant LEGAL Lot Pho., (H), ~* 7Z' ~[~ (W) (M) CONT~CTOR Company Name Contact Person Address Phone (H) (W), (M) ARCHITECT Name &/OR Address ENGINEER Phone (H) (W) (M)., CHANGE OF FROM: USE TO: DESCRIBE WORK: VALUATION OF WORK: VALUE APPROVED: SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. PERMIt'S 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 "£RiOD OF 1S0 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. TIM E LIMITS ON BUILDING COMPLETION. ALL WORK TO B E PERFORMED PURSUANT TO A BUILDING PERMIT OBTAIN ED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, REPAIRS, REMODELING, AND ALTERATIONS '~O THE EXTERIORS OF ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE IN 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 PROPERT'Y SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETION. A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE IS A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE. THE CITY COUNCIL MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION UPON WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE PERMITTEE, 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. THE EXTENSION SHALL BE REQUESTED NOT LESS THAN THIRTY {30J BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIO0. t HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ! HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF lAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR~ERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION. x PRIN T'S APPEICA'NT'S ~'N'ATb~ DATE ~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~/~//~ (OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS & COMMENTS: CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP/DIV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD · COPIED APPROVED I ZONING BLDG SIZE (SO FT} # STORIES FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED? I CITY ENGINEER · UNITS YES I NO I PUBLIC WORKS R~J~/ED BI/DATE; VI PLANS CHECKED BY: APPROVED BY/DATE: I ASSESSING The Home Depot #2808, 1705 Tue May 12 16:10:50 1998 The materials in this deck This Price does le saved as: View ANNAPOLIS LANE, PLYMOUTH, will cost $2279.88 not include any Special Order Items. c:%cqdesign\decks\0000000j-DEK 55441, Please S The Home Depot #2808, 1705 ANNAPOLIS LANE, PLYMOUTH, Tue May 12 16:10:50 1998 File saved as: c:~cqdesign\decks\0000000j.DEK Post Layout for Deck 1 55441, 21' 9 11' 6 BasePoint 21 18' 67! ~.n~ ~o~e Depot ~§0~, 1705 ANNAPOLIS LANE, PLYMOUTH, MN 55441, Tue May 12 16:10:50 1998 File saved as: c:~cqdesign~decks%0000000j.DEK Deck Dimensions for Deck 1 21' ' 3' - Deck 11 ...... 19' 5" 24' 4' 7" ~he Home Depot #2808, 1705 ANNAPOLIS LANE, PLYMOUTH, Tue May 12 16:10:50 1998 File saved as: c:\cqdesign\decks\0000000j.DEK Deck Layout 55441, The Home Depot //2808 1705 ANNAPOLIS LANE, PLYMOUTH, MN 55441 (612) 509-9590 Tue May 12 16:10:50 1998 Materials for Deck: Qty UOM SKU Use Description 165 EA 557285 Baluster 2x2x42" Railing Baluster 2 EA 162736 Beam 2x8x8 Pressure Treated Y/P //2 5 EA 796279 Beam 2xl 2xl 0 Pressure Treated Y/P //2 9 EA 589410 Beam 2xl 2x8 Pressure Treated Y/P #2 63 EA 326627 Decking 5/4x6x1 2 Prem. Thompsonized .40PT 8 EA 351792 Decking 5/4x6x10 Prem. Thompsonized .40PT 4 EA 365287 Decking 5/4x6xl 6 Prem. Thompsonized .40PT 4 EA 326626 Decking 5/4x6x8 Prem. Thompsonized .40PT 5 EA 831461 Decking 5/4x6x14 Prem. Thompsonized .40PT 14 EA 326626 H Top Rail 5/4x6x8 Prem. Thompsonized .40PT 7 EA Spec. Order 1 Joist 2x8x20 .40 Treated Southern Pine No. 2 5 EA 162752 Joist 2x8x12 Pressure Treated Y/P//2 17 EA 162779 Joist 2xSx16 Pressure Treated Y/P //2 16 EA 1 62825 Post 4x4x8 Pressure Treated Y/P //2 2 EA 162833 Post 4x4x10 Pressure Treated Y/P //2 17 EA 162825 Railing Post 4x4x8 Pressure Treated Y/P//2 1 EA 361178 Stair Stringer 2xl 2xl 2 Pressure Treated Y/P//2 1 EA 162817 Stair Stringer 2xl 2xl 6 Pressure Treated Y/P //2 3 EA 589410 Stair Stringer 2xl 2x8 Pressure Treated Y/P //2 8 EA 351792 Tread 5/4x6x10 Prem. Thompsonized .40PT 1 EA 326626 Tread 5/4x6x8 Prem. Thompsonized .40PT 14 EA 162612 V Top Rail 2x4x8 Pressure Treated Y/P //2 2 BX 487802 Baluster Screw 3" Galv. Deck Screw 3.818b,,Box 40 EA 544208 Beam Bolts Carridge Bolt Galv 1/2"x 40 EA 538892 Beam Nut Hex Nut Galv 1/2" 80 EA 538981 Beam Washers Flat Cut Washer Galv 1/2" 20 EA 929514 Concrete ( in-groun Quikrete 60lb Concrete Mix 4 BX 487802 Deck Screws 3" Galv. Deck Screw 3.81b Box 37 EA 864870 Hangers 2x8 2x8 Joist Hanger LUS28 8 EA 459336 Joist Nails 16d Gal Spiral PTL Nails lib box 68 EA 544208 Rail Post Bolts Carridge Bolt Galv 1/2"x 8" 68 EA 538892 Rail Post Nuts Hex Nut Galv 1/2" /2" 136 EA 538981 Rail Post Washers Flat Cut Washer Galv 1 3 BX 488780 Step Screws 3" Galv. Deck Screw lib Box Materials Cost of Deck: $2279.88, plus sales tax This Price does not include any Special Order Items. Please see Store Associate to adjust the design or to price and order items. Price Valid Today, 5/12/98 This Estimate Guaranteed for 3 day{s) Parameters from UBC.cod parameter file. Parameters used for Deck 1:60 psf live load, 48 inch footing depth. Parameters used for Deck 2:60 psf live load, 48 inch footing depth. Parameters used for Deck 3:60 psf live load, 48 inch footing depth. File saved as: c:\cqdesign\decks\000000Oj.DEK Warning: This is not a final design plan. Variations in building codes, specific architectural considerations, or site conditions may require changes to this design. You are responsible for the final structure, code verification, material usage, and structural safety "of this design. Be sure to check and verify the design with your local architect and building inspector. LOT 11, BLOCK 11, SHADYWOOD POINT CITY OF MOUND, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY m~ ~ m I~mlmmm mmmm. m mmm. mm City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Reference: Peter Liupakka request for building addition at 1920 Lakeside LA., Mound, MN THIS IS A PERSON WHO HAS NO RESPECT FOR OTHER PERSONS PROPERTY AS WHEN I MOVED BACK TO MY HOMESTEAD AT 1909 Lakeside LA. HE HAD HIS MAIL BOX ON MY POLE, HE REFUSED TO REMOVE IT WHEN I ASKED HIM TO SEVERAL TIMES ( I HAD TO PUT UP A FENCE TO KEEP HIM OFF MY PROPERTY AND THE ~EN REMOVED IT) HE ALSO LEVELED DOWN HIS YARD FILLING IN HIS LAKE SHORE HE ALSO WAS ON MY LAND LEVELING AND MOWING THE GRASS, I ASKED HIM TO KEEP OFF, I EVEN PUT UP NO TRESSPESING SIGNS HE TOOK THEM DOWN AND BURNED THEM IN HIS FIRE PIT WHEN I HAD MY PROPERTY SURVEYED HE ALSO TOOK OUT THEIR MARKINGS AND BURNED THEM IN HIS FIRE PIT ( HAVE PICTURES) HE CUT DOWN MY CLAMTIS PLANT '~, ~ CUT ON MY ~ , WILLOW TREE, AND MY LILAC BUSHES,THESE WERE NOT EVEN OVER HIS PROPERTY. SINGED MY TREES WHEN BURNING IN HIS OVER SIZED FIRE PIT WITH ILLEGAL WOOD WITH SMOKE COMMING RIGHT INTO MY HOME. NOT ONLY HE CUTS TREES AND LILACS PUT THROWS THE BRANCHES OVER TO MY PROPERTY ALONG WITH HIS CIGARETTES BUTS AND CIGAR BUTS. WHEN MY HOME WAS RENTED OUT HE PILED DEBRIS ALONG HIS GARAGE ON TO MY PROPERTY, MY RENTERS COMPLAINED, AND THE CITY OF MOUND SENT HIM A LETTER TO CLEAN IT UP (THANK YOU CITY OF MOUND). IN THE WINTER HE AND OTHER NEIGHBORS ON THAT SIDE RAN THEIR SNOWMOBLIES THRU MY LILAC BUSHES KILLING THEM, RUNNING DOWN MY BANK TO THE LAKE ERODING THE BANK, HE SHOVELED AND SNOW BLOWING SNOW ONTO MY PROPERTY WITH S~ND AND SALT DISTROYING MY GRASS AND MORE ERODING, HE BUILT A STORAGE SHED ALO~G SIDE MY PROPERTY AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IS IT SET BACK ENOUGH FROM MY PROPERTY LINE? Page 1 of 3 ~l~ AFTER I HAD MY FENCE PUT UP HE FILLED IN MORE DIRT ONTO LAKE SHORE AND ON TO MY FENCE SO NOW I WOULD HAVE TO HAVE MY FENCE RAISED UP TO LAND LEVEL AND NOT ONLY THAT MOVED OVER TO THE PROPERTY LINE AS WHEN THE FENCE WAS PUT UP THE MARKERS WERE NOT THERE AS HE PULLED THEM UP NOW HE HAS PILLED A WOOD PILE ON PROPERTY AND OTHER DEBR, THIS SPRING A SHEET OF PLYWOOD CAME FLOTING FROM HIS PROPERTY OUT IN TO THE LAKE ALONG WITH OTHER LUMBER HE PUTS DOWN THERE. LAST SUMMER A FLOTING BOG WAS PULLED WITH HIS BOAT AND LEFT RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY LAKESHORE, I ASKED HIM WHY HE DID THAT, HE SAID " IT KEEPT BRAKING OFF SO HE LEFT IT" THE BOG FLOTED INTO MY SHORE LINE AND I CLEANED IT UP, NOW THERE IS ANOTHER BOG WAITING FOR ME TO CLEAN UP. I HAVE ASKED HIM MENY TIMES TO REMOVE HIS WOOD PILE OFF MY PROPERTY AND HIS DEBR HE REFUSES. WHEN HIS GIRLFRIEND AND HER TEENAGE SON MOVERD IN WITH HIM MY MAIL BOX WAS OPENED AND MAIL RIPPED UP ( I REPORTED IT TO MAIL PERSON, SHE KIDS WILL DO THAT ) ALSO THE MAIL BOX WAS KNOCKED OVER. HALF OF DOZEN OR SO KIDS HANGING AROUND PARKING INFRONT OF MY HOUSE BLOCKING MY DRIVE WAY AND MAIL BOX WITH THEIR CARS AND ON THEIR DECK WITH RAP MUSICAND THEIR BAD LANGUAGE CALLING OVER REMARKS EVEN TO MY GUEST,A HEVEY PERSON,THEY YELLED "fat Ass" '~ ( I WOULD RATHER HEAR THE MUSIC THEN THE "F" WORD] THE KIDS, LIKE PETER LIUPAKKA THROWING CIGARETTS BUTTS POP AND BEER CANS OVER ON TO MY PROPERTY, ONE TIME I HAD MY BEDING HANGING OUT TO DRY AND THE KIDS WERE THROWING THEIR CIGARETTS BUTS ONTO MY CLEAN BEDING EVEN BURNED A HOLE IN MY MATTRESS PAD. THE KIDS THROW THEIR GARBAGE OUT OF THEIR CARS ON TO MY PROPERTY ALONG WITH BEER AND POP BOTTLES AND CANS, THEN GIRL FRIEND OR MAYBE NOW WIFE HAD A BABY AND THEIR BABY SITTER SAT OUT SMOKING ON THE DECK WITH FRIENDS AND ALSO THRU THEIR CIGARETTS BUTS ON TO MY PROPERTY, DQN~T ~H~S~ KIDS G9 TO SCHOOL? page 2 of 3 IF THEIR DECK IS BUILT ANY LARGER OR LONGER THEY WILL HAVE MORE SPACE TO THROW STUFF ONTO MY PROPERTY AND IN MY LILAC BUSHES. AS IT IS NOW SPOILS MY VIEW AS THEY LOOK RIGHT INTO MY LIVING ROOM AND HAVE NO PRIVACY NOT EVEN IN MY YARD, THERE WAS A SET BACK IN LINE OF MY HOME THAT NO ADDITION WAS TO BE ADDED BEYON THE FRONT OF MY HOME LINE FACING THE LAKE AS MY HOME WAS THE FIRST TO BE BUILT IN THIS SECTION. IFEEL MY LAND VALUE IS GOING DOWN WITH ALL OF THE MONSTROUS ADDITIONS GOING ON, THE ARCHITECTURE ALL JAMED IN ANY WHICH WAY. ALSO THE RESALE VALUE ON MY PROPERTY. PLEASE DON'T ALLOW THIS VARIANCE BUILDING ADDITION~ON THE PROPERTY AT 1920 LAKESIDE LN., MOUND. OR BUILDING PERMIT. SINCERELY, r PAM BEATRICE AMIDON 1909 Lakeside Ln. Mound, MN 55364 Phone 472-2641 CC: Conncil Members City Manager City Planner Building Inspector Code Enforcement Officer Officer Others page 3 of 3 Al)DR ESS: CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SIIEET ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: SURVEY ON FILE'? (~ NO ~ R1 10,000 Bi 7,500/0 '-~"A 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80 R2 6, 000/40 B3 10,000/60 LO'r OF RECORD? (~YE?) YARD IIOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BI.UFF GARAGE, SilED ..... _.RON'r (-:-~C~ FRONT .SIDE REAR 'FOP OF BI. UFF NO DIRECTION N N S E W SE w .(~E w N S E W N S E~ I)L:TACI lED BUILI)INGS N S~.,~W N S E W N N S E w S E W N S E W N S E R2 R3 REQUIREi) 14,000/80 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 IEXISTING/PROPOSED 15' 50' 10' OR 30' //3, .0 50' 10' OR 30' EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTIt: LOT DEPTH: VARIANCE 0 , 1"": I This Zoning hffornmtim~ Sheet only sunnnarizes a portion of d~e requirements outlined in fl~e Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For fnrfl~er information, conmcl ~e City of Mound I'lamting Depaumcnl at 472-O6~. ,' ' l, - /, q3 June 23, 1998 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A LOT FRONTAGE VARIANCE ON AN UNIMPROVED STREET, LOT 2, BLOCK 4, MOUND TERRACE, PID 14-117-24 32 0025, P & Z CASE #98-34 WHEREAS, the applicants, Stephen and Elizabeth Kakos, have applied for a lot frontage variance on an unimproved street located at the end of Walnut Road and vacated Forest Lane; and, WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 Single Family Residential Zoning District encompassing 21,500 sf meeting code; and, WHEREAS, the subject property has 0 feet of improved street frontage requiring a variance of 60 feet; and, WHEREAS, the west property line is on the Mound/Minnetrista border; and, WHEREAS, the improved section of Walnut Lane ends at approximately the southeastern corner of the property; and, WHEREAS, the property is wooded and a relatively steep slope from west to east. A ravine cuts across the southeastern and east portions of the lot in the vacated Forest Lane right-of-way draining the area north to Maple Road. There are no drainage easements in the vacated right-of-way; and, WHEREAS, currently the City has no plans for extending the street into the unimproved section of Walnut Lane; and, WHEREAS, the proposed driveway would continue from the improved portion of Walnut Lane through the ravine before curving north onto the property. Sizing of the culvert will need to be reviewed by the City Engineer; and, WHEREAS, sanitary sewer and water service is located in the Walnut Lane right-of-way and is available for service; and, June 23, 1998 Kako$- XXXX Walnut Rd Page £ WHEREAS, the owner would need to extend a private water line to the property; and, WHEREAS, if other adjacent lots were developed and required public street access, both properties would be required to pay street and utility assessments. The City would assume no responsibility for the removal of the private drive if a future street were required; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff with additional conditions, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant a lot frontage variance of 60 feet with the following conditions: f. g. h. The applicant be responsible for all driveway improvements as reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. The applicant be responsible for providing all private water and sewer utility connections to the property. The City Engineer reviews and approves a drainage plan for the property before building permit issuance. A drainage easement be provided for the gully. All street and utility assessments for the property be paid as determined by the City. The City Fire Marshall review the proposal and give his report to the Council. The applicant will enter into a driveway use and maintenance agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. The variance shall automatically terminate and be of no further force and effect if and when the City improves the portion of Walnut Lane abutting the applicants property. 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. June 23, 1998 Kakos- XXXX Walnut Rd Page 2 3. It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following alteration to the nonconforming lot area of the property to afford the owners reasonable use of their land: Private drive access to a lot not meeting improved street frontage requirements. o This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: LOT 2, BLOCK 4, MOUND TERRACE, 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 and seconded by The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Manager Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff Present: Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Voss Public Present: Michaela Diercks, Don Loken, Glenna Loken, Robert Wroda, Stephen Kakos, Lisa Hanson, Dennis Leininger, Carolyn Leininger, Doug Birdie, Vic Sacco, Jim Smith, Karl Gruhn, Jared Smith, Jim Kovach, Jim Johnson, Dave Moore, Jennifer Garden, Martin Garden, Alan Nations Chris Meyer, Peter Liupakka Meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael Chair Michael readjusted the agenda to start with the variance cases first then proceed with the Public Hearings. MINUTES -APPROVAL OF THE MAY 11, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Weiland commented that Jerry Clapsaddle be Absent and Excused. Hanus stated on Case 98-24 under the discussion his comments should read, "Hanus commented there are 4 accessory buildings and this would require an additional variance. So noted and will be corrected. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the May 11, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 7-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 98-34: VARIANCE, LOT FRONTAGE, STEPHEN & ELIZABETH KAKOS, XXXX WALNUT RD, LOT 2 & ADJACENT VACATED STREET, BLOCK 4, MOUND TERRACE, PID # 14-117.24 32 0025 Loren Gordon presented this case. Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 potential water pressure concerns. Looping the water lines was not part of the discussion with the engineer. Any discussions about looping water lines are better addressed by the City Engineer. Steve Kakos, 6381 Maple Road, commented that the looping was denied when a larger housing development was proposed. Hanus commented on a lot on Three Points on Glen Elyn Road that was brought to the Planning Commission for review to affirm that it was a buildable lot. Gordon stated that the recent Downey subdivision case was also similar to this case. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Burma to recommend staff recommendation with the following additional conditions: The City Fire Marshall shall review the proposal and give his report to the Council. The City Engineer address the city water looping for future use. The City Attorney draft language to attached to the resolution that would require this resolution be addressed for future sale of the property that it would disclose to prospective purchasers. Hanus recommended the City Attorney address the access issue. Motion carries 7-0. This case goes to City Council on June 23, 1998 4 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: June 8, 1998 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Stephen and Elizabeth Kakos - 6381 Maple Road CASE NUMBER: 98-34 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5bb LOCATION: 6381 Maple Road ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has a request to allow a buildable lot designation on an unimproved street. Code requires the lot to have a minimum of 40 feet of frontage on an improved street. The property is located at the comer of Walnut Lane and vacated Forest Lane. The west property line is on the Mound/Minnetrista border. As lot 2 of the Mound Terrace subdivision, the lot is platted and also includes half of the vacated Forest Lane. The lot encompasses approximately 21,500 sf which exceeds the R-1 district standard. The improved section of Walnut Lane ends at approximately the southeastern comer of the property. The property is wooded and a relatively steep slope from west to east. The lot, like the surrounding area, has a number of large trees and ground vegetation. A ravine cuts across the southeastern and east portions of the lot in the vacated Forest Lane right-of-way draining the area north to Maple Road. There are no drainage easements in the vacated right-of-way. Currently the City has no plans for extending street into the improved section of Walnut Lane. The City of Minnetrista also has no immediate plans to make a connection but would like to keep future options open if development proposals are submitted for the vacant adjacent land. At this time, building plans have not been submitted and the proposed house location shown on the survey is tentative. The proposed driveway would continue from the improved portion of Walnut Lane through the ravine before curving north onto the property. A culvert would carry water under the driveway to the north. The amount of water that drains through here is uncertain. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 #98-34 - Kakos Variance Request dune 8, 1998 Sizing of the culvert will need to be based on further review by the City Engineer. A sanitary sewer line is located in the Walnut Lane right-of-way and is available for service. The nearest water service would come from the hydrant on the south side of improved street. The owner would need to extend a private water line to the property. COMMENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or practical difficulty. Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the following circumstances exist (Section 350:530): A. 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. In order for the lot to be built on, access needs to be provided in the form of a city street or a private drive. There have been similar past cases where single lots have been granted variances for private driveways that serve a single property. The undeveloped lot 59 on the south side of Walnut Road creates a variable in this discussion. This property could be developed and require access from Walnut Road. A public street would then be more appropriate in this case rather than a second private driveway. It seems reasonable to allow the private driveway to serve the property as proposed. Development of lot 59 may require a public street be installed to serve both properties. The property owner of lot 25 should be on notice of this possibility. Both properties would be required to pay typical street and utility assessments. The City would assume no responsibility for the removal of the private drive if a future street were required. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 3 #98-34 - Kakos Variance Request June 8, 1998 The City engineers report details the engineering related issues associated with the proposal. Any conditions for approval should reflect these comments. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the request with the following conditions. 1. The applicant be responsible for all driveway improvements as reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 2. The applicant be responsible for providing all private water and sewer utility connections to the property. 3. The City Engineer reviews and approves a drainage plan for the property before building permit issuance. 4. A drainage easement be provided for the gully. 5. All street and utility assessments for the property be paid as determined by the City. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 Engineering ° Planning · Surveying MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CASE NO.: FILE NO.: Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning John Cameron, City Engineer June 1, 1998 City of Mound Variance Request - Lot 2, Block 4, Mound Terrace 98-34 12070 As requested, we have reviewed the information submitted with the request to allow a private driveway and recognize said parcel as a buildable lot without the required 40-foot frontage on an improved street. There are other issues that need to be addressed when reviewing this request which are also contained in the following comments and recommendations: It is possible that the private driveway as requested could serve Lot 24, but the problem of drainage in this area would need to be addressed. The drainage from the low area to the south of this lot flows in a gully which is located in the general vicinity of unimproved Pine Lane (platted as Forest Lane) to a storm sewer inlet at Maple Road. When this right-of-way was vacated in 1954 there were no provisions made to retain a drainage easement for the gully. Such an easement would need to be obtained as a condition of any approvals. 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth. Minnesota . 55447 plTone 612/'476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-rnail: mfra@mfra, com Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning June 1, 1998 Page 2 Development of Lot 2, parcel (25) would leave one vacant parcel (59) on the south side of unimproved Walnut Road. It is presently owned by the same individual that has a home on parcel (3) located in Minnetrista. In fact, we believe this house may actually set on the municipal boundary line. Potentially parcel (59) could be subdivided since it is approximately 34,000 square feet. If this were to happen, access would be required from Walnut Road. This could cause a problem if the private driveway to Lot 24 is already in-place, unless some type of condition is tied to the variance requiring a street extension if more than one, possibly two private driveways are required to serve new building sites. The ideal solution is to extend the City street with a cul-de-sac at the end. The property to the west in Minnetrista has been platted and built on, so there should be no reason to extend the street past the Mound border. o o The sanitary sewer is in-place; therefore all that is needed is to install the actual services. Water service is a problem, since the City main terminates at a hydrant located on the lot line between Lots 4 and 5..Ideally, the main should be extended for much the same reasons as the street. However, if only one service or possibly two are required, they could be run from the end of the main. If the distance from the main to the home is too far, the size of the service should be increased from 1-inch to possibly 1-1/2-inch. Water pressure in this area has been a problem for many years. The question of assessments will need to be addressed, dependent upon what happens with street and utility extension. Neither Lot 24 nor Parcel 59 has paid for any street improvements. We are in the process of verifying what these parcels have paid towards sanitary sewer and watermain. Enclosed are copies of the half section map and aerial photos, both with and without the lots shown. Enclosure CC: Loren Gordon, Hoisington Koegler Group Greg Skinner, Public Works, City of Mound e:~nain:\12070\sutherland5-29 '&~' ! l,, VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: '"-!~L"~ ~-~' J(~- ~istribution: City Planner . ~-~D~ ~NR . ~-~5 City Engineer ~ Ot~er ~~ Public Works SUBJECT Address_ ~ ~L~~ P.OPE.TY Lot ~ ~ ~& ¥,~ ~ ~E~.~ .,o~ 4 DESC. Subdivision ~0 0 ~ ~'~ f~Z. r'~%- .-1. .-3 .-1 PROPERTY Name ~q~ ~~ ~ ~t ~ ~T~ ~ OWNER Address ~ ~ 1 i~ v-,~l )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, J~o. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): (Rev. l]/14/97) Variance Application, P. 2 Do the existing structures___comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district~ it is located? Yes ~ No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.)' ., SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) (N~W) ~."~ ft. 4~), ~-- ft. , ...... ~ ~' ('"~ ft. ( N S~ ) ~C_~ ft. ~' 7 ft. SEW) ft. ,.ft. ( N S E W ) --- ft. ~. ft. : (N SEW) ft. ft. Street Frontage: ~ ft. ~ ft. Lot Size: sq ft ~(r%OO sq ft /~¢,,, ~..sq ft Hardcover: ~~ sq ft ~ / Front Yard: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. 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: ~L I ~7 (Rev. Ill14197) CaseNo. q~' ,_~q 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~k, If yes, explain' Yes ~, No (). If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? 8. Are the conditions of hardship for which/you request a variance peculiar only to the properw described in this petition? Yes (), No ,~). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: u~- LC,.>T 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. · O wner'sSignature , ? Applicant's Signature ~- 1/14197) CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS_ (II~PERVIOUS SURFACE COVERA~JE) LOT AREA ~( J~(~(~ SQ. FT. X 30% LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% (for all lots) .............. (for Lots of Record*) ....... (for detached buildings only) . . *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE ~- ~-~ X ~_ ~.~ = I ~ ~ ~- X = DETACHED BLDGS (GARAGE/SHED) DRIVEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC.-i- X - TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. [~ x ~A-~ = X = $ x ~4 = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OTHER X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE I O~ OVER (indicate difference) ..... .~ ........... ~F_~/. E~ .... I ~ MOUND PLANNING & INSP. September 6, 1983 NOTE: RESOLUTION #83-148 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST TO USETHE UNIMPROVED FOREST LANE AS A DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO LOT 1, BLOCK 4, MOUND TERRACE & AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE A DOCUMENT TO PROTECT THE CITY WHICH WILL BE FILED ON THE PROPERTY The above resolution did not have to be prepared because in checking at the courthouse an easement was already on file and the street was already vacated. SEE PROPERTY JACKET ON PID #14-117-24 32 0024 , Stephen A. Kakos Mayor Att'est.: City ~lerk Stephen A. Kakos Zlizabe~h A. ?[akos 1412 18th Ave. ;~orth Minneapolis, Minn. &uzust 28, 1983 ~mty of :.:ound 5341 !.;aywood Road Mound, l.linnesota c/o l. lound City Council RE: Proposed use of public ri.iht of way '.ie, Stephen and Elizabeth ~' ' ~ aaoly for -oermission - :e.r~ce and for to build m home on ~ot l, Block 4 Mound ~ ..... permission to use the unit. proved ~orest Lane as access to the proposed driveway on Lot l, Zlock 4. We agree not to hold the ~ ~ ~y of Mound responsible for maintainin~ the driveway, providing city plowin~ sera, ice nor will we hold the city responsible for any damaze incurred by water run off or to m~.intain ~he storms. The city shall, however, co..~..ae . drainage s;;-~.tem previously installed under a ~:ortion of Forest Lane. Forest Lane, remaining a city ri]bt of way, shall always be available, as it has in the past, for driveway access to the residents of Lot 2, Block 5, ~[ound '~errace and the the residents of Lots 1 and 2 Block 4, i-iound Terrace, each purty respectinE the thorofare of the other. COMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGtNEERS ~ LANO SURVEYORS · PLANNERS Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 December 15, 1983 Ms. Jan Bertrand Building Official City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 5~364 Subject: Pine Lane and Lots i & 2 Block 4, Mound Terrace Kakos Rroperty File #2113 Dear Jan: Enclosed are copies of everything we found at the courthouse on the above properties. The easement attached is for a hydrant at the end of Maple Road. The other two documents are the Quit Claim Deed passing ownership of Lots 1 and 2, Block 4, Mound Terrace to the Kakos and the recorded resolution vacating Forest Lane (Pine Lane). As you will note the City did not retain easements of. any type over the portion of street vacated. The northerly 30 feet was not vacated. I assume the reason for this was because of the driveway serving the house on Lot 2, Block 5. See the attached drawing from the 1980 Street Im- provements which shows Maple Road. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. joh~nCamero~n~ JC:bb Enclosure 55. Village of Mound Council (Seal) to Whom it Concerns Doc. No. 3h13067 Certified Copy Resolution Adopted Oct. ll, 195~ Filed June 20, 1963 Book 9~8 of Misc., page 281 Whereas, the owners of the property abutting that part of Forest Lane which runs-northerly from Elm Street to Maple Lane in Mound Terrace except the northerly thirty (30) feet, according to the plat thereof in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota, has requested the Council of the Village of Mound in a petition dated September 13, 195h to vacate said street according to law, and Whereas, a public hearing was held on October ll, 195~ before the Village Council in the Village Hall on such petition after due published and posted notice had been given by the clerk on September 30, 195h and all persons interested were given an opportunity to be heard, and Whereas, it appears that it will be for the best interest of the Village to approve such petition. Now, Therefore be it Resolved that such petition is hereby granted and the said street above described is vacated as a public street. Abstractor's Note: See attached photos for Forest Lane as recited in Document Number 3~13067 and Pine ~ane as recited on 1/2 Section (South 1/2 of Section lb, Township llT, Range 2~). ~tveen ...... . ~le R. FarleY, h~ ~ part~ of the first ~rt~ co~oration under ~he 1~ of ~ $tat~ o~ ~n~'~ ~ ' the s~cond part, '' ~ ' , ....... t in ~nsid~ration of the s~ o~ ONE b sai4 ~r~ of ~e second ~, ~e ~ipt said party oi the s=~ ~ ~ ... . A perpetual easement ~d a ~]~'~c~8 ~ rolls,nv utility and strut descried pro~rtY: said ~tual east ~l~ ~ ~ S.~ ~t O~ ~ east 10.00 feet Said t~ora~ ~nst~tion ~t ~i~ ~ W~ 15.00 fat of said Said 4 This instrument LeFevere, Lefler, 1100 First National Ninnea~lis, Hinneso~ XN TESTIF~NY ~ hand~ the In ~resence STATE OF MINNES~A ) )~. COUNTY OF HENNEPlll ) On this /~ ~ey l. -- , lO~_~, before .-~.~ 3. Farley 948 part o? ~ore~t ~e ~or~herl~ ~r~v ~30~ fa-t, .c-o~ng ~o ~he plat ~hereof o~fXce o~ tm- 4e~rar o~ ~ie~ ~m ~ ~or Henr'eP~r'~l' , ~er, n~ waa r.e~d ~AS, · ~:~ c . ..~ ' ' . ...... ual/ or. ~ .~ ~..,?, ~.e 7~!. · o ~ , " " ~-'?'~V~ The~ I-c~ ?e ~r.. ~..~' ~e ira,' A e OF CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR ST£PHEN A. KAKOS LOT 2, BLOCK 4, MOUND TERRACE HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA R=26.91 &=28o02' 16" L=15.2 // ~2' ~ ,~.7) ', / LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES ~ ~ ~o~ 2, Block 4, ~ound Terrece o denotes iron morker , · de~o~s exis~ spot ~votio~. m~o~ ~ * : denotes ~ist~nce os ~[,u.,i "ed do[um ~ n ore hosed upon on ossum - - Beormgs show _ described property, ond the proposed Ioc~tion of ~ ' ,~o~o.~ ~o~. ~.r.o.. ~ ,o.. ! hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me tlr under my direct super- vision,'and that I am a dui)' reRistered Civil EnRineer and Land ,q(~rveyor under the laws of I1'., St,'~te of k,linne'~ota Mar~- ,c, Gronbt'r).~ Minnesot, . ' . ' 2 . - JOB NO 75'-//~' ADDRESS: SURVEY ON I:ILE'?~ I.OT OF RECORD7 YES / NO YARD IIOUSE ......... CI'I'Y OF MOUNI) - ZONING INFORMATION SIIEET ]~~'~ECTIO N ZONING D/STRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: 31 xo,ooo/~'g'o) sz v,soo/o R1A 6,000/4~- Sa 20,000/00 R2 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 R2 14,000/B0 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 1~-'~ EXISTING/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE:__ OT WrDI'H: - dE'DEl' I'll: VARIANCE FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BLUFF GARAGE, SIIEI) ..... FRONF FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR I. AKE TOP OF BLUFF N S E W N S E W NS E W N S E W N S E W N S E W 10' OR 30' DETACIIED BUll.DINGS N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W N S E W 4' OR 6' 4' OR 6' 4' 50' IIARDCOVER C¢)NFORMING? YES / NO 'l'hi~ Zoning Infimnalion Shcel ~ly summarize_s a portion of dfc rcquiremenls oullined in fife City of/Vlound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact life (.'Jly of Mound Planning Depaj t.me.nt _a? 7_2_-0600. June 23, 1998 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD, LAKESIDE, HARDCOVER AND LOT AREA VARIANCES IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING LAKESIDE DECK, AT 4853 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 4, BLOCK 14, DEVON, PID 25-117-24 11 0037 P & Z CASE #98-35 WHEREAS, the applicants, Mark & Stacey Goldberg, have applied for a front yard, side yard, lakeside, hardcoVer, and lot area variances to allow for construction of a conforming lakeside deck at 4853 Island View Drive; 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 of 6 feet for lots of record; and, WHEREAS, the existing house is 1.11' from the front yard requiring a 18.89' front yard variance. The side yard setback is 3 feet requiring a 3 foot variance. The lot size is 4,000 square feet requiring a 2,000 square foot variance; and, WHEREAS, the existing boathouse is partially on the applicant's property and partially on the commons. A 50 foot setback is requirec~,to the lake. The boathouse is 10 feet +/- is existing resulting in a variance of 40' +/-. A?~' side yard is required resulting in a variance of 3 feet. The structure is in sound condition; and, WHEREAS, the hardcover calculations are over the 40 % requiring a variance of 8% +/-; and, WHEREAS, the parcel abuts the Devon Commons also has a sewer easement which runs through the property between the house and the lake; and, WHEREAS, the boathouse has a Public Lands Maintenance Agreement Permit on file with the City; and, June 23, 1998 Goldberg- 4853 Island View Drive Page 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: The City does hereby grant setback, lot area and hardcover variances as recommended by the Planning Commission as follows: House: Front yard - 18.89' Side yard - 3' Boathouse: Side yard - 3' Lakeshore - 40' Lot Area - 2,000 square feet Hardcover at 48% +/- 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 deck is minimally sized, is a reasonable use of the property, and the livability of the residential property will be improved by the authorization of the following improvements: Construction of a deck. This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: LOT 4, BLOCK 14,DEVON, 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. June 23, 1998 Goldberg- 4853 Island View Drive 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 PL^NNINO RI PORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: June 8, 1998 SUBJECT: Variance Request - updated report OWNER: Mark and Stacey Goldberg CASE NUMBER: 98-35 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5cc LOCATION: 4853 Island View Drive ZONING: Residential District R-lA 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 Lot Area 4000 sf 6000 sf 2000 sf Front Yard 1.11' 20' 18.89' Side Yard 3' 6' 3' Boathouse Side Yard 3' 6' 3' Lakeside 10' 50' 40' The house is located at 4853 Island View Drive on an undersized 4000 sf lakeshore lot. The property is separated from the lake by Devon Commons which ranges in width from 20 to 30 feet. Current improvements to the property are a two-story house walk out house and a functioning two-story boathouse. The house was recently converted from the original one-story stucco design to the current two-story walkout. The applicant is proposing to add two lakeside decks to the house. As submitted the plans show a main floor deck measuring 15 feet by 9 feet and a 7 feet by 6 feet second story deck. A stairway along the side of the house would connect both decks. The second story deck would maintain the same 3 feet side yard setback as the 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 #98-35 - Goldberg Variance Request dune 22, 1998 house. The main floor deck would have a minimum 4 feet 2 inch sideyard setback. A sewer easement which is shown on the 1989 survey runs through the property between the house and the lake. It varies in range from 9 to 10 feet from the rear wall of the house. The owner has prepared his own site plan showing the property lines, house, deck improvements and the sewer easement. At the time of this report, an accurately surveyed improvement plan with the easement identified was not available. The applicant has been asked to provide the city with an updated survey to insure the deck is not located within the easement. It is also difficult to determine what the lakeside setback would be. The site plan shows the existing boathouse which is located in Devon Commons. It is a "true" boathouse in every respect with a functioning rail and pulley to pull the boat into the garage and an enclosed porch on the second floor. The structure is in good condition although there is some cracking and bowing seen in the foundation. 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. B° 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. Staff supports the plans for the deck as proposed. The decks were planned with the house 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 #98-3§ -- Goldberg Variance Request dune 22, 1998 remodeling but were not completed at that time. Adding the decks now has little impact on the 3 feet sideyard encroachment. There are some concerns from staff about the location of the sewer easement and if the deck as proposed would be an encroachment. Until an updated survey is submitted, staff would recommend any approval make this a condition. The existing boathouse is a nonconforming use in its present lakeside location, similar to other boathouses in Mound. 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. This boathouse is in good condition and is of substantial size. It could probably exist for a number of years before it deteriorates to a condition where it would be unsafe and it removal necessary. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the variances as requested. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Crv Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff Present: Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Voss Public Present: Michaela Diercks, Don Loken, Glenna Loken, Robert Wroda, Stephen Kakos, Lisa Hanson, Dennis Leininger, Carolyn Leininger, Doug Birdie, Vic Sacco, Jim Smith, Karl Gruhn, Jared Smith, Jim Kovach, Jim Johnson, Dave Moore, Jennifer Garden, Martin Garden, Alan Nations Chris Meyer, Peter Liupakka Meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael Chair Michael readjusted the agenda to start with the variance cases first then proceed with the Public Hearings. MINUTES -APPROVAL OF THE MAY 11, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Weiland commented that Jerry Clapsaddle be Absent and Excused. Hanus stated on Case 98-24 under the discussion his comments should read," Hanus commented there are 4 accessory buildings and this would require an additional variance. So noted and will be corrected. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the May 11, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting, Motion carried 7-0, BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 98-35: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK, LOT SIZE, MARK & STACEY GOLDBERG, 4853 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 4, BLOCK 14, DEVON, PID # 25-117- 24 11 O037 MounO l:'lanning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Loren Gordon presented the case. The applicant has submitted a request to add a conforming lakeside deck. The associated variance request is listed below. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Front Yard 1.11' 20' 18.89' Side Yard 3' 6' 3' Boathouse 10' 50' 40' Lot Area 4000 sf 8000sf 2000sf The house is located at 4853 Island View Drive on an undersized 4000 sf lakeshore lot. The property is separated from the lake by Devon Commons, which ranges in width from 20 to 30 feet. Current improvements to the property are a two-stow walk out house and a functioning two-stow boathouse. The house was recently converted from the original one-stow stucco design to the current two-stow walkout. The applicant is proposing to add two lakeside decks to the house. As submitted the plans show a main floor deck measuring 15 feet by 9 feet and a 7 feet by 6 feet second stow deck. A stairway along the side of the house would connect both decks. The second stow deck would maintain the same 3 feet side yard setback as the house. The main floor deck would have a minimum 4 feet 2 inch side yard setback. A sewer easement, which is shown on the 1989 survey, runs through the property between the house and the lake. It varies in range from 9 to 10 feet from the rear wall of the house. The owner has prepared his own site plan showing the property lines, house, and deck improvements and the sewer easement. At the time of this report, an accurately surveyed improvement plan with the easement identified was not available. The applicant has been asked to provide the city with an updated survey to insure the deck is not located within the easement. It is also difficult to determine what the lakeside setback would be. The site plan shows the existing boathouse which is located in Devon Commons. It is a "true" boathouse in every respect with a functioning rail and pulley to pull the boat into the garage and an enclosed porch on the second floor. The structure is in good condition although there is some cracking and bowing seen in the foundation. Staff supports the plans for the deck as proposed. The decks were planned with the house remodeling but were not completed at that time. Adding the decks now has little impact on the 3 feet side yard encroachment. There are some concerns from staff about the location of the sewer easement and if the deck as proposed would be an encroachment. Until an updated survey is submitted, staff would not recommend any Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 approval make this a condition. The existing boathouse is a nonconforming use in its present lakeside location, similar to other boathouses in Mound. 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. This boathouse is in good condition and is of substantial size. It could probably exist for a number of years before it deteriorates to a condition where it would be unsafe and it removal necessary. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the request as stated with the following condition. The applicant provides an updated survey showing the easement location and setbacks. Discussion: Gordon commented that there is a lot size variance that needs to be addressed also. Amended to staff recommendation: 2. Lot size variance of 2,000 sf. Chair Michael questioned how far the proposed deck is from the lake. Gordon stated that based on the survey the deck is 52.5 feet from the lake. Mark Goldberg stated that he would not be putting impervious surface under the decks. Chair Michael commented that he did not understand how the boathouse could remain when Resolution 89-33 required the boathouse to be moved or removed. Mark Goldberg review the Dock and Commons proposal for a resolution and a future ordinance change for public lands will be coming. Mark Goldberg stated the reason why the Boathouse was not removed. Goldberg had tried to move the boathouse back off the common to his property but could not because there is a city utility easement in between the house and the commons. He went back to the City Council and stated that he could not move the Boathouse. The City Attorney asked if he had a Maintenance Agreement Public Lands Permit on File. In checking records there was one on file. Burma questioned if he could license this as a fishhouse. 3 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June ~,, 1998 Hasse asked how long does the Maintenance Permit last. The applicant and Building Official responded Public Land Maintenance Permits are 5 year- renewable permits. Mueller suggested that the Planning Commission be given a chance to review the proposed resolution before it goes to the City Council. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Hasse to recommend staff's recommendation with the following additional conditions: Lot size variance of 2,000 square feet. The survey be signed and dated. Showing that the deck setback from the shoreline and the location of the easement. The Boathouse be screened properly. Weiland asked to show the boathouse setbacks on the updated survey. Gordon asked to have the survey be provide hardcover calculations and lot size. Mueller stated that the commission usually does not move on an incomplete application. Mueller requested to remove his motion. Sutherland stated that the main deck would not increase the hardcover as it would not have anything underneath it. Hasse commented that the second story deck is adding to a nonconforming use. MOTION by Burma, seconded by Michael to recommend previous motion. Burma stated that it would not increase the existing hardcover. Unless part of the home was removed, how the hardcover could change. Mueller stated that there may be some of the hardcover that could be removed such as sidewalks. Glister commented it is not the practice of the commission to act on a incomplete application. Hanus questioned size of the upper deck. Goldberg stated 7x6 deck. Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 MOTION by Burma, seconded by Michael to recommend previous motion. Motion failed 4-3. Opposed: Weiland, Michael, Glister, Mueller. In Favor: Burma, Hasse, Hanus. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Glister to table this case until a accurate survey is submitted. Motion carried 6-1. Opposed: Burma. This case will come back to the Planning Commission at a future date. PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: June 8, 1998 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Mark and Stacey Goldberg CASE NUMBER: 98-35 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5cc LOCATION: 4853 Island View Drive ZONING: Residential District R-lA 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 Front Yard 1.11' 20' 18.89' Side Yard 3' 6' 3' Boathouse - lakeside In Devon Commons The house is located at 4853 Island View Drive on an undersized 4000 sf lakeshore lot. The property is separated from the lake by Devon Commons, which ranges in width from 20 to 30 feet. Current improvements to the property are a two-story house walk out house and a functioning two-story boathouse. The house was recently converted from the original one-story stucco design to the current two-story walkout. The applicant is proposing to add two lakeside decks to the house. As submitted the plans show a main floor deck measuring 15 feet by 9 feet and a 7 feet by 6 feet second story deck. A stairway along the side of the house would connect both decks. The second story deck would maintain the same 3 feet side yard setback as the house. The main floor deck would have a minimum 4 feet 2 inch side yard setback. A sewer easement, which is shown on the 1989 survey, runs through the property between the house and the lake. It varies in range from 9 to t 0 feet from the rear wall of the house. The owner has prepared his own site plan showing the property lines, house, and deck improvements and the 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 #98-35 - Goldberg Variance Request June 8, 1998 sewer easement. At the time of this report, an accurately surveyed improvement plan with the easement identified was not available. The applicant has been asked to provide the city with an updated survey to insure the deck is not located within the easement. It is also difficult to determine what the lakeside setback would be. The site plan shows the existing boathouse which is located in Devon Commons. It is a "true" boathouse in every respect with a functioning rail and pulley to pull the boat into the garage and an enclosed porch on the second floor. The structure is in good condition although there is some cracking and bowing seen in the foundation. 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. 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. Staff supports the plans for the deck as proposed. The decks were planned with the house remodeling but were not completed at that time. Adding the decks now has little impact on the 3 feet side yard encroachment. There are some concerns from staff about the location of the sewer easement and if the deck as proposed would be an encroachment. Until an updated survey is submitted, staff would recommend any approval make this a condition. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 #98-35 - Goldberg Variance Request dune 8, 1998 The existing boathouse is a nonconforming use in its present lakeside location, similar to other boathouses in Mound. 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. This boathouse is in good condition and is of substantial size. It could probably exist for a number of years before it deteriorates to a condition where it would be unsafe and it removal necessary. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the request as stated with the following condition. 1. The applicant provides an updated survey showing the easement location and setbacks. 123 North Third Street, Suite I00, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 222 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) =lanning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution: I /'~'~ ~.g City Planner ~'~'~0~ ~ ~ City Engineer Other ~ ~ Public Works Case No. DNR SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Address C~5'3 ~cAn~ t//~c~J bP-- Lot q Block Subdivision ~ EV~/ PID# ~ ~'- tt '7 -%~ /I 0037 Plat# ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 Phone (H) c/'~.z - q G z. ¥ (M) 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.): A2~ (Rev. l ll14/97) VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 A¢~liC§tion Fee: $100.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: - t Distribution: ~'~ City Planner 5-~ ~ DNR ~--~ City Engineer Other ~~ Public Works SUBJECT Address PROPERTY Lot LEGAL Block IV DESC. Subdivision PID~ ~ ~-/~ -~ /I 0037 Plat ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 PROPERTY Name ,~,~ OWNER Address ~2 /~ v.'d~ ~.~ Phone (H) ~7~ - ~G~ (W) ~e - ~E/~ (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.)' tRey. II~14~97) ~ ~ Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (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: Side Yard: Side Yard: Rear Yard: Lakeside: : NSEW NSEC) NSEW NSEW NSEW NSEW ft. ft. ft. ft. :3 ft. ¥ ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft. Lot Size: (~oo- sq ft q o o o sq ft :~6o,~ 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 (Y,I. If no, specify each non-conforming use: o Please Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? (~c) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil (~) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify ,,(Rev. l l/14/97) Variance Application, P. 3 ,I, 11, 1 Case No. OZ -3'~"~ Was the hardship described above created Dy 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 Signature Applicant's Signature Date (Rev. 11/14/97) 49 March 28, 1989 RESOLUTION 89-33 RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AND TO ALLOW THE ADDITION OF LIVING SPACE, STORAGE SPACE AND DECKS FOR LOT 4, BLOCK 14, DEVON; PID #25-117-24-11-0037 (4853 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE); P & Z CASE #89-804. WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to recognize existing nonconforming front and side yard setbacks and allow expansion of the structure to include additional garage storage space, additional living space on three different levels and decks on two levels, collectively requiring the following variances: A variance from the requirements of Section 23.,404 (8) to expand the first floor level (basement) northward a distance of approximat.ely 20 feet. This expansion will not change the existing exterior dimensions of the structure. On the west side of the structure, expansion of the garage, living space on levels two and three, and a deck on level two, all within an approximate .5 foot setback requiring a 5.5 foot variance. Expansion of the third level of the structure to the north within 18.4 feet of the property line requiring a 1.6 foot variance and the addition of a deck with an approximate size of 8 feet by 8 feet on the southwest corner of the structure. Recognition of the existing front yard setback (attached garage with doors perpendicular to street) of 1.11 feet resulting in a 18.99 foot variance; and, WHEREAS, the property received a variance in 1979 (Resolution #79-484) to allow expansion of the property; and, garage on the WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request and recommends approval after finding that strict application of the Mound Zoning Code would present practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of his land. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 5O March 28, 1989 1. That the City does hereby authorize the variances as noted in items 1 through 3 above at 4853 Island View Drive; PID #25-117-24-11-0037. The city Council authorizes the existing structural setback violation identified in item 4 above and authorizes the additions to the structure pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) with the clear and expressed understanding that the use remains as a law- ful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provi- sions and restrictions of Section 23.404. It is determined that the livability of the residential unit will be improved by authorizing the following al- terations to a nonconforming use property due to the narrowness and total size of the lot: Expansion of the first level (basement) to the north with approximate dimensions of 20 feet by 20.4 feet. Expansion of the second level garage on the west side totaling an area approximately 3.4 feet by 8.5 feet. Expansion of second level living area on the west side of the structure with approximate dimensions of 7.6 feet by 8 feet and a deck on the south end of the new construction with an approximate size of 8 feet by 8 feet. Expansion of the third level living areas within an envelope generally defined as being 18.4 feet from the north property line, .5 feet from the west property line extending approximately 44 feet from the north property line and over the existing second level of the home with approximate dimen- sions of 20.4 feet by 36.5 feet. Additionally, a deck will be constructed at the southwest corner of level-3 with an approximate dimension of 8 feet by 8 feet as shown on Exhibits 1 and 2. Relocate boathouse 4 feet onto applicants property or remove the boathouse. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: 51 March 28, 1989 Lot 4, Block 14, Devon PID #25-117-24-11-0037 This variance shall be recorded with the county re- corder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes, Section 462.3595, Subdivision (4). This shall be considered a restriction on the use of this property. The property owner shall have the responsibility for filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. The building permit shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jensen and seconded by Councilmember Jessen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. M or Attest: City Clerk ~UILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-062{3 SITE Subject Address L~'.~ I~L~-~D ~J/~'L~ ~)/~- ~o~D Business Name~ennant The applicant is: ~owner .~contractor ~tenant LEGAL Lot Block / ~ Plat DESCRIPTION Subdivision ~E ~ O~ PIO~ ~ ~' I I ~ - ~ OWNER Name ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E Y ~ ~ ~d~ ~ Address ~ ~ ~ Phone(HI ~ y~Z-~GZ~ (W) ~ ~o-Eff)~ (M) CONT~CTOR Company Name ~C~ ~,C ~ ~ ~cense ~ ~ Contact Person ~C~ ~( Phone (H) ~3~' ~?/ (W) (M) ARCHITECT Name &/OR Address ENGINEER Phone (H) (W) (M) CHANGE OF FROM: USE TO: VALUATION OF WORK: 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 WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK tS 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 BE PERFORMED PURSUANT TO A BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTiON, REPAIRS, REMODELING, AND ALTERATIONS TO THE =~ ~P, IUR$ OF ANY BUIL[~)ING OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL BE COMPLETED VVITHIN 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 CO~JNCIL MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION UPON WRI~CI'EN REQUEST OF THE PERMI'T'I'EE. ESTABLISHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL THAT C~RCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PERMITTEE PREVENTED COMPLETION OF THE WORK FOR VVHICH THE PERMIT WAS GRANTED. THE EXTENSION SHALL BE REQUESTED NOT LESS THAN THIRTY (301 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 BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HERE1N 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 CONSTRUCTION. PRINT APPLICANT'S NAME APPMCANT'S SIGNATURE DATi~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS&COMMENTS: CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP / DIV: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD COPIED APPROVED ZONING BLDG SIZE (SQFT) · STORIES FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED? CITY ENGINEER · uNrrs YES I NO PUBUC WORKS RECEIVED BY/{)ATE; P!..ANS CHECKED BY: APPflOVED BY ! DATE: ASSESSING May 10, 1998 Mark and Stacey Goldberg 4853 Island View Dr This note is to accompany the deck application for our home. Following are a few notes to be aware of. o In 1989, at the time of reconstruction of our house, variances were granted for the decks. o There will be no increase in hardcover as a result of these decks o We are within 3-4 feet of the side yard lot line in three instances. However, the decks stay almost entirely within the rectangle created by the house. - 3rd level deck 3 feet from lot line. - main level deck. 4 feet from lot line for a nook to accomodate a grill and make room for the door to swing open. the remainder of the deck is 6 feet from the lot line. - stairway landing is 3 feet from lot line due to post holdin~up 3rd level deck. o Following is a letter from our neighbor most affected by those decks. May 10, 1998 Don and GerrySwenson 4857 Island View Dr We live next door and closest to the proposed decks of Mark and Stacey Goldberg. We would like to express that we have reviewed the deck plans and approve of them. Due to the narrow lots, both of our houses are quite close to the lot line, theirs being as close as 3 feet in places and ours being as close as 6 feet in places. When we built our home, we were aware of how close the two houses were and of their deck plans. That is in part why we put our family room and main deck on the other side of the house. We rarely use the deck on the Goldberg's side of our house. Also, since our son and his family live next door on the other side, we structured our house to flow in that direction. In summary, we are pleased that they are going to finish their house by building these decks and are comfortable with their plans. 15LA~D VIEW 18' 6 'y 7.6' MIMMETOMKA z~o. ~o~..~-'rs 0 D~O~S ~e hereby ceAi, that this Is a true and correct re~esentation of a ,u.ey of the .undaries ~,~ ~**/,~ ~t 4, Block 14, D~ON, He~epin County. ~/ff~ AnO of t~e Jocation of ail b~flObgs, if any, t~ereon, an~ ail visible encroachments, if any, from or on sai~ land. As suweyed by me or under my direct supe~ision this 12th dayof ~v ,19 Rq . M~ Frank ~$ ~ociates, Inc. i_:/Y_: ~.8. .~e~..pro~o~e~ ~eck~ PAX A. I ~ ;~:~o'"'' 2:;;% -.. ~ MARK GOLDBERG '1 '' ~T ce e ~Oee*~e e~ ~ · .. ... LAKE' NIl ldLIETO~dKA )EIdOTE$ IROkl MO~UMEIJ'r ,SET ~LM~'~S IFZ'L'"JL! MOLIIIM-~LIT r-O[JklO I March 28, 1989 i,.3L,4/dD VIEW DR. ::...'...' ! .'..~ · l! ~ ~ ' 1 ~".',ll '~ -,. . ' .~ .. ,~ .,.,.,~ \\ % .-" ' -:,,./.~, ~ '- · I-I · DEVOId ~,, , ~ EOM $ I I ~1 IdLIETO~dKA )EIdOT£$ IR'OU MOUUMEUT ,SET CI'FY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SIIEET YARD ~ [ DIRECTION ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: ! R1A R2 R2 R3 REQUIRED 10,000/60 B1 7,500/0 6,ooo/_~oj B2 2o,ooo/8o o,uu0/4u B3 10,000/60 14,000/80 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 EXISTING/PROPOSED LOT DEPTtI: ~ VARIANCE IIOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE N SEW N S E W N S E W N SEW REAR N S E W LAKE N S E W TOP OF BLUFF GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACIIED BUILDINGS FRONT N S E W 15' 10' OR 30' 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 50' TOP OF BLUFF IIARDCOVER / 30% OR 40% 10' OR 30' I ('ONFORMING? YES / This Zoning hfformation Sheel only summarizes a portion of d~e ~cquirements outlined in dse Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For furflter information, coumct ~e City of Mound · '-:: HANOVER RD ~ ~ 0 :~N N R R C 3 ,~2 ~ o e- -er ,., ~ ~ O > 78-~1 ~ O I O u% PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: June 22, 1998 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Brad Nordgren - 5661 Bartlett Blvd. CASE NUMBER: 98-36 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5dd LOCATION: 5661 Bartlett Blvd. ZONING: Residential District R- 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a r. equest to build a conforming 12 feet by 22 feet addition to a nonconforming garage. The associfited variance request is listed below. Existing/Proposed Required Variance House Front Yard 12' 30' 18' Side Yard 3.62' 6' 2.38' Garage Side Yard 5' 6' 1' The property is located at 5661 Bartlett Blvd just east of its intersection with Commerce Blvd. The lot is 22,247 sfin area, conforming to the 10,000 sfR-1 standard. Current improvements to the property are a one-story house and a garage. The house is nonconforming with a 12 feet setback from the front property line. The garage addition would be built in a conforming location in the rear with a 2 feet offset from the west wall. The applicant wants to use the addition for a shop area. Garages are limited to 1200 sf, and as proposed total area would be 936 sf. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 Nrodgren Variance Request June 22, 1998 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. 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 shop would be an improvement to the property that would not increase the existing nonconformities. The Building Official will perform all necessary building related inspections to ensure the improvements meet code. The house is in good condition and does not appear to present any safety issues in its location 12 feet from the right-of-way. The applicant states it was built in 1946. Moving the house to a conforming location would not be recommended. The garage is offset slightly causing the SW comer to encroach 1 foot into the setback. The NW comer is conforming at 6 feet. Staff views this encroachment as minor and would recommend no action be taken on the garage to bring it into conformity. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the variance as requested. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 Application Fee: $100.00 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning] Commission Date: ~) '"22 ~'~ Case No. q8 City Council Date: 'q -- lq -q ~,,~' ~ '2,_~"(~L~ ' Distribution: G-Z.~ ~ City Planner ~ ~-~- ~ DNR ~ -~.~ City Engineer ~ Other ~-~-~ Public Works~ SUBJECT PROPERTY Lot LEGAL Block DESC. Subdivision ~~~¢h ~ ZONING DISTRICT ~ R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 OWNER Address ~ '¢~* [ ~~ Phone (H) ~ 7 ~'~~ ~ (W)~G' ~~ ~ (U) '~PPLICANT Name (IF OTHER Address THAN Phone (H) (W) (M) OWNER) Has an application ever be_e~for.~,~fling, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property~~o. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies df resolutions. 2. Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. o Do the existing structures comply with a~ea, 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. set. back, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: (~~) ~ ft. Ic,~ ft. [~ ft. Side Yard: ) ~ ft. ~),(o~ ft. ~, ,'~t~ ft. Side Yard: ( N $ E (~ (0 ft. ~ ft. i - ft. Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ~ ~ ft. ~-"~24'_ ft. w ft. Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft. : (N SEW) ft. ft. ft. Street Frontage: ~;~ ft. I QI::) ft. ~ ft. Lot Size: ~C.),~ sq ft ,~q~ sq ft sq ft Hardcover: i~i'i~--ld, sq ft ~'~ _~c~_ 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 ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) soil (-~'existing situation er: specify Variance Application, P. 3 Case No, Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone ha~,ving property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (v)~. If yes, explain: 7. Was th~hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes k,K, No (). If yes, explain: affected? 9. Comments: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No (tC:"if no, list some other properties which are similarly nd remown~ch notices as may be res;~d by law. Owner's Applica! 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 Mo for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and Dat ' ' Date (Rev. 11/14/97) BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620 The a0plicant is: ~owner __~o/tractor __tenant DESCRIP'rlON Subdivision PlO# CON~CTOR Company Name ¢"~ ~', ~~[~ '~ ~ ~cense, ARCHITECT Name &tOR Address ~GINEER Phone (H) (W) ,(M) CHANGE OF FROM: USE TO: OF WORK: I VALUE APPROVED: SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR E)_ECTRIOAL, Pt. UMBING, HEATING, VENTilATiNG DR AIR CONDITIONING. PERMITS BECOME NULL ANO VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS. OR IF CONSTRUC~ON OR WORK IS SUSPENDED 0R ABANOONED FOR A P~RIC0 OF 180 DAYS AT ~Y TIME A~ER WORK tS COMMENCED. ~M E L~MITS ON BUILD,NO COMPL~ ON. ALL WORK TO BE PERFORMED PURSUIT TO A BUILDING PERMIT 08TNNED FOR N~ CONSTRUC~ON, ~EPAIR$. REMQDELING. AN0 ALTERATIONS [O Tm= :XT~IORS OF ANY 5UJLDING OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL ~E COMPL~ED ~THIN ONE [11Y~R FROM ~E DATE OF PERMIT ISSUANCE. ~-E PERSON OBT~NING THE PERMIT AND THE O~ER OF THE PROPER~ SHA~ 8E RESPONSIBLE FO~ COMPL~1ON. A ~O~ON OF ~IS 0RDIN~CE IS A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE. THE COUNC:L MAY ~TENO THE TIME FOR COMPL~ION UPON WRI~EN REQUEST 0P ~E ~E~MI~EE. ESTABLISHING TO THE REASONABLE SATISFACTION OF ~E CI~ C0~NCIL THAT CIRCUMSTANCES B~ONO THE CONTRO~ OF THE P~MI~EE PR~ENTEO COMPL~ION OF ~E WORK ~OR ~ICH ~E P~MIT WAS GRANTED. THE ~T~SION SHALL BE qEQUESTED NOT LESS THAN THIR~ (301 BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE ~O 0F THE ONE-Y~ I HERE~Y CER~ ~AT I HAVE R~D AND ~AMINED ~lS APPLICATION AND KNOW ~E S~E TO 8E TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL P~OVISIONS OF ~WS AND OR01NANCES THiS ~PE 0F WORK ~LL aE COMPLIED ~TH WH~HER SPECIFIED HERE~N OR NOT. ~E GRANTING 0F A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTNQRI~ TO VIO~TE OR C~CEL THE PRC~SiCN$ OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL ~W REGU~TING CONSTRUCTICN OR ~E P~RFQRMANCE 0F CONSTRUCTION. DATE PRINT APPLICANT'S NAME /////////////////////////////////11//////////I////////I/////// '///11/I/////I////////////////11/I//////////l/ (OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS&COMME~S: CONSTRUCTION T'YPE; OCCUPANCY GROUP / DIV: MAX OCCURANT LOAD m coPIED APPROVED m ZONING BLDG SIZE (SO FT) # STORIES FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED? m CITY ENGINEER ~' UNITS YES / NO m PUBLIC WORKS RECEI ED SY/ ATE; Pt. ANS CHECKED By: AP~OVE[)BY/DATE: -'m ASSESSING That part of the following described tract lying Northerly of the following described line: Beginning at a point on the Westerly line of said tract distant 234.4 feet !Southerly as measured along said Westerly line from the Northwest corner of said tract; thence Northeasterly at right angles to said Westerly line a distance of 93.46 feet more.or less to the intersection with the Easterly line of said tract; All that part of Government Lot 1, Section 23, Township 117, Range 24, 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 200 feet Easterly measured along said South line from the East line of Lake Avenue; thence South 10 degrees, 46 minute~ East 452.2 feet to an iron monument in Lake Shore; thence North 65 degrees 10 minutes East along said shore, 90.8 feet to an iron monument; thence North 9 degrees 42 minutes West 420.5 feet to a point on the South line of sai~ Chapman Place, now County Road No. 7, 100 feet East of point of beginning; thence Westerly along the said South line of Chapman Place, now County Road No. 7, 100 feet to ~the place of beginning. Together with an easement to maintain a private foot path 5 feet in width for private ingress and egress to the shore of Lake Minnetonka and the right to install and maintain steps down the bank of said shore and a dock for the private use and enjoyment of the grantees, their heirs and assigns over other land as shown by Deed. Document No. 1049730, Files of the Registrar of Titles. t00~ Post-~" Fax Note 7671 Oale ! # of · Co./D~ CO. ~~. CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) OWNER'S NAME: PROPERTY ADDRESS: ~ (,~ X 30% = (for all lots) .............. I ~) LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. HOUSE DETACHED BLDGS 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 WIDTz~ SQ FT X TOTAL HOUSE ......................... X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = X = TOTAL DECK .......................... X = X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER / OVER (indicate difference) ............................... J u_lq- Ill 6124767~57 NORTHGREEN ,~, Il, I PAGE 02 Mr. Edward Shukle, Jr. City Manager CITY of MOUND 5341 Maywood Roa~ Mound MN 55364 June4,1998 RE: Building Variance Permit / Case #98-36 Dear Mr. Shulde; Several days ago I submitted my building permit application with all required materials. It was then I learned of the extend length of time it would take as my new residence is subject to a variance review requirement (R27). Circumstances are such that I am approaching you in hopes of expediting my permit request. BACKGROUND First, the small addition I plan to build onto my garage does not create any encroachment issues on existing set backs. It's being built on the south side of the garage, away fi'om Bartlett. There are no unique structural issues. Everything is very standard, with the exception that my 1946 built home (5661 Bartlett) is 'too' close to the boulevard. When the 1982 set back ordiremee was implemented it automatically created a variance issue for future projects on this property. I have been informed by both John and Chris the plan complies in every respect, and a pennit would normally be issued...with the exception of the variance requirement. The critical reason I am requesting help here is that in early July I am supposed to have my lef~ leg surgically broken to straighten it. This then results in a full leg cast which I'll have 5-7 weeks. Then my right leg is supposed to be done. Not a good smi,,,er for someone who likes being outdoors. Anyway, the quote fi.om my builder (Kathryn Taylor Homes) includes my per~ortalN providing sup~rt labor to one of her cre~r (lifting framed walls, trusses, hammering, etc.) If I'm in a cast I can't help. IfI can't help I can't afford the additional labor expense. Something ora catch-22. My neighbors, the Reeses, Smith's, etc., don't have a problem with the project, and I can obtain documentation and signatures to support this. ~ff~o~ed to request being added to the 6/22 Planning Commission agenda with'"a - '6/23 'turn around' for the City meeting the following night. Is this do able? If this is not '"~-41~ible could someone alert me ASAP so I can cancel the project or scramble? Thanks~ Sin ly, 5661 B~rtlett Mound North enC.ommunicafi.onsInc._ _ I.~,,,~~ ~03 East Lake Street Suite 200-Q Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 (612)476o9501 City Manager CITY of MOUND 5341 Maywood Road June 11, 1998 ~,~z'-_~,,///,~.~ Mound MN 55364 ,'~'~ Dear Ed; I want to thank you for your part in helping to expedite my variance permit request on my ~/; home at 5661 Bartlett Blvd. This will help me get some of my labor into the s~ project before the surgery I mentioned. This whole process does prompt a question about variances and their pros & cons. The pros are understood. My experience seemed to be a con not only for me, but I would think the City as well. Just as a refresher. 5661 Bartlett is an older home very close to the road, understandably creating the need for a variance for certain types of projects. Such projects would include alterations/additions to the house, or other property and detached structure changes that may have other ordinance issues, such as set backs. It would seem a case like mine only served to bog down the system, making your day longer. My garage addition met every criteria for a standard, rubber stamp building permit. I'm not building toward the road or creating any set back issues, etc. Wouldn't it benefit the system to create a set of criteria, that if met, the variance issue would be waived? Right now the blanket policy applies a bureaucratic layer that appears to burden your people and antagonizes the citizens. It isn't necessary to respond to my letter. You have more important things to do. This has just been an observation by someone who knows little above the issues you and your people deal with day in and out. help. ri ,It ,,itt, ,I J~ , ~ N T E \ CI'I'Y OF MOUND - SURVEY ON FILE'? YES / NO I.OT OF RECORD.'? YES / NO YARD I DIRECI'ION [ ZONING INFOR. MATiON SIIEET ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: ~1 lo,ooo/6~ ~1 ~.5oo/o R1A 6,000/40 82 20,000/80 R2 6,000/40 83 10,000/60 R2 14,000/80 R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 REQUIRED EXISTING/PROPOSED EXISTING LOT SIZE: LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTtl: VARIANCE IIOUSE ......... FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR ?S E W NS E W N S{~)W N S E W .9o 15' I.AKE 50' TOP OF BI.UFF 10' OR 30' GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACIIED BUIIA)INGS /2 FRONT FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE NS E W N S E W~ N S E W w 4' O 6~ 4' OR 6' N S E W 50' 'fOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30' IIARDCOVER 30% OR 40% This Zoning Infinmalion Sheel oo1¥ summarizes a postion of dsc requirements outlined is~ fl~e Cily of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For furfl~er information, con.ct ~e City of Mound I'lannh:g Depamnrnt al 472-06{~. ~ (~) ('j © (D ; "'(') Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 22, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Michael Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff present: Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clapsaddle and Orv Burma, Assistand Planner Loren Gordon. Public Present: Audri Schwarz, Bradley Nordgren, Thomas & Amy Reese, Mark Goldberg. Meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 8, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Mueller made one correction on page 12 of the Minutes on a Motion it should state, "MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Glister to table this case until a accurate survey is submitted and completed application is submitted. Motion carried 6-1. Opposed: Burma." So noted and corrected. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Glister to approve the Minutes of the June 8, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 7-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 98-35: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK, LOT SIZE, MARK & STACEY GOLDBERG, 4853 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 4, BLOCK 14, DEVON, PID # 25-117- 24 11 0037 Jon Sutherland presented Loren Gordon's case. The applicants, Mark & Stacey Goldberg, have submitted a request to add a conforming lakeside deck. The associated variance request is listed below. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Lot Area 4000 sf 6000 sf 2000 sf Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1998 Front Yard 1.11' 20' 18.89' Side Yard 3' 6' 3' Boathouse Side Yard 3' 6' 3' Lakeside 10' 50' 40' The house is located at 4853 Island View Drive on an undersized 4000 sf lakeshore lot. The property is separated from the lake by Devon Commons which ranges in width from 20 to 30 feet. Current improvements to the property are a two-story house walk out house and a functioning two-story boathouse. The house was recently converted from the original one-story stucco design to the current two-story walkout. The applicant is proposing to add two lakeside decks to the house. As submitted the plans show a main floor deck measuring 15 feet by 9 feet and a 7 feet by 6 feet second story deck. A stairway along the side of the house would connect both decks. The second story deck would maintain the same 3 feet side yard setback as the house, The main floor deck would have a minimum 4 feet 2 inch side yard setback. A sewer easement which is shown on the 1989 survey runs through the property between the house and the lake. It varies in range from 9 to 10 feet from the rear wall of the house. The owner has prepared his own site plan showing the property lines, house, deck improvements and the sewer easement. At the time of this report, an accurately surveyed improvement plan with the easement identified was not available. The applicant has been asked to provide the city with an updated survey to insure the deck is not located within the easement. It is also difficult to determine what the lakeside setback would be. The site plan shows the existing boathouse which is located in Devon Commons. It is a "true" boathouse in every respect with a functioning rail and pulley to pull the boat into the garage and an enclosed porch on the second floor. The structure is in good condition although there is some cracking and bowing seen in the foundation. Staff supports the plans for the deck as proposed. The decks were planned with the house remodeling but were not completed at that time. Adding the decks now has little impact on the 3 feet side yard encroachment. There are some concerns from staff about the location of the sewer easement and if the deck as proposed would be an encroachment. Until an updated survey is submitted, staff would recommend any approval make this a condition. The existing boathouse is a nonconforming use in its present lakeside location, similar 2 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1998 to other boathouses in Mound. 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. This boathouse is in good condition and is of substantial size. It could probably exist for a number of years before it deteriorates to a condition where it would be unsafe and it removal necessary. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the variances as requested. DISCUSSION: Sutherland stated that this variance is recognizing existing nonconformities. A small portion of the deck is nonconforming but was approved in a previous resolution and that the proposed deck is minimal in size and a reasonable use of the property. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Michael to recommend staff recommendation of the following proposed variances: House: Front yard - 18.89', Side yard - 3'; Boathouse: Lakeside - 40', Side yard - 3', Hardcover - 48 %+/-, Lot size - 2000 sf. Motion carried 5-1-1. Opposed: Weiland. Abstained: Hasse Weiland questioned when do we say that there is no more room left on a lot to be covered with hardcover. This is an open ended question and requested to bring this issue up at a Planning Commission Workshop meeting. (Use Goldberg's case as an example) This case will go to Council on June 23, 1998 Mound P~anning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 The applicant has a request to allow a buildable lot designation on an unimproved street. Code requires the lot to have a minimum of 40 feet of frontage on an improved street. The property is located at the corner of Walnut Lane and vacated Forest Lane. The west property line is on the Mound/Minnetrista border. As lot 2 of the Mound Terrace subdivision, the lot is platted and also includes half of the vacated Forest Lane. The lot encompasses approximately 21,500 sf which exceeds the R-1 district standard. The improved section of Walnut Lane ends at approximately the southeastern corner of the property. The property is wooded and a relatively steep slope from west to east. The lot, like the surrounding area, has a number of large trees and ground vegetation. A ravine cuts across the southeastern and east portions of the lot in the vacated Forest Lane right-of- way draining the area north to Maple Road. There are no drainage easements in the vacated right-of-way. Currently the City has no plans for extending street into the improved section of Walnut Lane. The City of Minnetrista also has no immediate plans to make a connection but would like to keep future options open if development proposals are submitted for the vacant adjacent land. At this time, building plans have not been submitted and the proposed house location shown on the survey is tentative. The proposed driveway would continue from the improved portion of Walnut Lane through the ravine before curving north onto the property. A culvert would carry water under the driveway to the north. The amount of water that drains through here is uncertain. Sizing of the culvert will need to be based on further review by the City Engineer. A sanitary sewer line is located in the Walnut Lane right-of-way and is available for service. The nearest water service would come from the hydrant on the south side of improved street. The owner would need to extend a private water line to the property. In order for the lot to be built on, access needs to be provided in the form of a city street or a private drive. There have been similar past cases where single lots have been granted variances for private driveways that serve a single property. The undeveloped lot 59 on the south side of Walnut Road creates a variable in this discussion. This property could be developed and require access from Walnut Road. A public street would then be more appropriate in this case rather than a second private driveway. It seems reasonable to allow the private driveway to serve the property as proposed. Development of lot 59 may require a public street be installed to serve both properties. The property owner of lot 25 should be on notice of this possibility. Both properties would be required to pay typical street and utility assessments. The City would assume 2 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 no responsibility for the removal of the private drive if a future street were required. The City engineers report details the engineering related issues associated with the proposal. Any conditions for approval should reflect these comments. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the request with the following conditions. The applicant be responsible for all driveway improvements as reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. The applicant be responsible for providing all private water and sewer utility connections to the property. The City Engineer reviews and approves a drainage plan for the property before building permit issuance. ^ drainage easement be provided for the gully. All street and utility assessments for the property be paid as determined by the City. Discussion: Hasse commented that this lot could be split at a later date. How many sewer assessments were assessed? Gordon stated that was one of the things that he and the city engineer discussed. Hanus commented that would have to be done by a minor subdivision. Mueller commented that if a driveway is granted on the city right of way would deny the owner of lot 6 of access to Walnut Rd. Hanus commented to put in the resolution that if Walnut Road needs to be extended that the private drive would be reconsidered. Sutherland asked the planner if the Engineers report could be attached to the resolution? If so, it would be of record and any purchasers would then be notified of the issues. Mueller commented that the requirements of a resolution are not always provided on the deeds. Mueller questioned the firefighting in the area of Walnut Road. Mueller suggested that the Fire Marshall look at the request. Mueller questioned the looping of the water line. Gordon stated that the city engineer has recommended a 1 -1/2 inch water line to avoid Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE :2:2, '1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Bill Voss, Michael Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff present: Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clapsaddle and Orv Burma, Assistand Planner Loren Gordon. Public Present: Audri Schwarz, Bradley Nordgren, Thomas & Amy Reese, Mark Goldberg. Meeting was called to order at 7:34 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael. MINUTES - APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 8, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Mueller made one correction on page 12 of the Minutes on a Motion it should state, "MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Glister to table this case until a accurate survey is submitted and completed application is submitted. Motion carried 6-1. Opposed: Burma." So noted and corrected. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Glister to approve the Minutes of the June 8, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 7-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 98-37: VARIANCE, LAKESIDE SETBACK, AUDRI SCHWARZ, 5621 BARTLETT BLVD, SECTION 23, PID # 23-117- 24 14 0002 Jon Sutherland presented Loren Gordon's case. The applicant, Audri Schwarz, has submitted a request to build a conforming pool and porch addition. The associated variance request is listed below. Existing/Proposed Required Variance Shed -lakeside 8' 50' 42' Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1998 The property is located at 5621 Bartlett Blvd just east of its intersection with Commerce Blvd. The lot is 39,600 sf in area, conforming to the 10,000 sf R-1 standard. Current improvements to the property are a one-story house and a boathouse. The planned improvements include a 22 feet by 14 feet screened porch, patio and in- ground pool all located lakeside. Side yard and lakeside setbacks would be reduced with the proposed improvements, but would remain above minimum requirements. The porch would reduce the side yard setback from 19.7 feet to 16 feet. The pool would be setback approximately 85 feet from the 929.4 contour reducing the lakeside setback from the current 127 feet. Additional pool regulations which would be maintained as proposed include: Side yard 10 feet Lakeside 50 feet Other structures 10 feet Principal building 20 feet A fence enclosing the pool would also be required with a height between 5 and 6 feet. The site plan shows the existing shed location. It is approximately 8 feet from the lake and 11 feet from the side lot line. The floor elevation is not indicated, but is probably 3 to 4 feet above the lake level. The shed is a standard 5 feet by 6 feet steel shed with a sliding front door. It is used for storage of recreational equipment. It is not know exactly when the shed was placed there, but the applicant states it existed before shoreland regulations were adopted. The proposed porch, patio, and pool improvements will all be conforming and add value to the property. Prior to submitting the variance application staff visited the property to look at the large trees, namely the 3 feet diameter oak that is around 50 feet in height. Because this and two other adjacent trees are so tall, they shade the pool from summer sunshine for a portion of the day. The bottom of the canopy is high enough that it doesn't screen the house when viewed lakeside. The owner has indicated that this tree will be removed to provide additional sunlight on the pool. Staff discussed possibilities that could keep the tree, but the owner will probably cut the tree down. Due to the circumstances, the code does not provide protection to a single tree and it is the owner's discretion if it stays or goes. The existing shed is a nonconforming use in its present lakeside location. Although its status will eventually require its removal, the applicant states it is used on a daily basis for storage of equipment. A lock box is an option that could be approved to eliminate 2 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1998 the shed. This case similar to other lakeside structure cases, except that the shed could be moved relatively easily. Other lakeside structures such as the boathouse next door are much more difficult to remove. If the Commission feels there is reason to remove the shed, 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 accessory uses, 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. 1. The existing shed be removed or moved to a conforming location. DISCUSSION: Hanus clarified staff's recommendation. That it is a recommendation for denial. Sutherland stated you could view it that way and essentially, that is what it is stating. Mueller asked what the shed is made out of. Sutherland stated metal. Audri Schwarz commented that she would like to keep her shed. She feels that it is a hardship for her if the shed was to be moved. She stated that she would paint the shed and plant more shrubs to screen the shed. Mueller suggested to the applicant to consider getting a lock box. The applicant stated she likes her shed the way it is. Hanus commented that it is an older tin shed on a cement slab that appears to be sound. It has conduit lighting with a yard light on top. The color of the shed is a neutral color. The shed is very well screened from the lake. It is used to store boating items, other outdoor furniture and water toys. If the shed were to be moved it would be a fairly long walk to the lake since there is a hill. Hanus feels it would be better off where it is than up on the hill where it would not be required to be screened. Thomas Reese commented that Mound should revisit its ordinance on storage sheds along the lake front. Mueller commented that Orono does not allow sheds within 100 feet of the lakeshore. Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1998 There are other communities that also do not any structure along the lakeshore within 50 feet. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Michael to approve the location of the shed to remain due to the Finding of Facts: 1) The color of the shed is a neutral color. 2) The shed is well screened. 3) The shed is located on a slab and appears to be in sound condition. 4) The shed would be much more visible if the shed were to be moved where screening would not be required. Motion failed 4-3. Opposed: Voss, Hasse, Weiland, Mueller. In Favor: Michael, Glister, Hanus. Mueller stated that on a lot with 39,000 square feet with all the structures on the lot being conforming that we would extending the situation of the property to become a nonconforming because of a shed at the lakeshore. Weiland stated that he would like to see comments a, c, e, f of the planner's report taken off the report for this case. There was some discussion on the comments section of the report. Thomas Reese commented on a line of sight for the pool. Sutherland stated that Mound does not have a line of sight ordinance. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Voss to recommend staff recommendation of denial. Motion carried 5-2. Opposed: Michael and Hanus. This case will go to the City Council on June 23, 1998 4 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: June 22, 1998 SUBJECT: Variance Request OWNER: Audri Schwarz - 5621 Bartlett Blvd. CASE NUMBER: 98-37 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5ee LOCATION: 5621 Bartlett Blvd. ZONING: Residential District R- 1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to build a conforming pool and porch addition. The associated variance request is listed below. Existine/Pror~osed ~ V~ Shed - lakeside ~' - 50' 42' The property is located at 5621 Bartlett Blvd just east of its intersection with Commerce Blvd. The lot is 39,600 sfin area, conforming to the 10,000 sfR-1 standard. Current improvements to the property are a one-story house and a boathouse. The planned improvements include a 22 feet by 14 feet screened porch, patio and in-ground pool all located lakeside. Side yard and lakeside setbacks would be reduced with the proposed improvements, but would remain above minimum requirements. The porch would reduce the side yard setback from 19.7 feet to 16 feet. The pool would be setback approximately 85 feet from the 929.4 contour reducing the lakeside setback from the current 127 feet. Additional pool regulations which would be maintained as proposed include: Side yard 10 feet Lakeside 50 feet Other structures 10 feet Principal building 20 feet 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 Schwarz Variance Request June 22, 1998 A fence enclosing the pool would also be required with a height between 5 and 6 feet. The site plan shows the existing shed location. It is approximately 8 feet from the lake and 11 feet from the side lot line. The floor elevation is not indicated, but is probably 3 to 4 feet above the lake level. The shed is a standard 5 feet by 6 feet steel shed with a sliding front door. It is used for storage of recreational equipment. It is not know exactly when the shed was placed there, but the applicant states it existed before shoreland regulations were adopted. 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): A. 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. B. 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 proposed porch, patio, and pool improvements will all be conforming and add value to the property. Prior to submitting the variance application staff visited the property to look at the large trees, namely the 3 feet diameter oak that is around 50 feet in height. Because this and two other adjacent trees are so tall, they shade the pool from summer sunshine for a portion of the day. The bottom of the canopy is high enough that it doesn't screen the house when viewed lakeside. The owner has indicated that this tree will be removed to provide additional sunlight on the pool. Staff discussed possibilities that could keep the tree, but the owner will probably cut the tree down. Due to the circumstances, the code does not provide protection to a single tree and it 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 3 Schwarz Variance Request June 22, 1998 is the owner's discretion if it stays or goes. The existing shed is a nonconforming use in its present lakeside location. Although its status will eventually require its removal, the applicant states it is used on a daily basis for storage of equipment. A lock box is an option that could be approved to eliminate the shed. This case similar to other lakeside structure cases, except that the shed could be moved relatively easily. Other lakeside structures such as the boathouse next door are much more difficult to remove. If the Commission feels there is reason to remove the shed, 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 accessory uses, 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. 1. The existing shed be removed or moved to a conforming location. 123 North Third Str_eet, 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 7FOR OFFICE USE ONLY--'~_~i,.;L|~_- Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: Distribution'. City Planner ~ City Engineer v' Public Works Other DNR SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. ,)iL PROPERTY OWNER Lot Block , , , , Subdivision~ ZONING DISTRICT ~.~ R-lA Name ~ 6. ~'~[Jr/J~ Address / Z R-2 R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 APPLICANT Name (IF OTHER ress 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. I1/ l_J.4dP.7) Variance Application, P. 2 I, ,,, Il Case No. Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Y~ No ~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. ~,,~1;.,~,, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) Front Yard: (~ E W) 42~ ft. I~/t~ ft. ft. Side Yard: (~- S(~/,~) 11~ ft. ~ ~ ft. ft. Side Yard: (N S E~ [~ ft. ~ ~ ft. ft. Rear Yard: ( N~E W ) ft. ft. ft. Lakeside: ( N E W ) ~ ft. ~ ft. ~ ft. VA~~ : (N SEW) ft. ft. ft. '~treet Frontage: ft. ft. ft. Lot Size: ~,~ sq ft ~ sq ft sq ft Hardcover: " sq ft ' ' sq ft sq ft Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) too small ( ) too shallow ( ) topography ( ) drainage ( ) shape Please describe: soil existing situation other: specify (Rev. 11/14~9 7) Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. "'~ Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (), No (). If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (), No ~. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Owner's Signature Applicant's Signature Date Date ~ (Rev. ll/14/~7) CiTY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS (IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) PROPERTY ADDRESS: .~,~;~ / Zc~'~'~,~. ~.~,-~. /~~~,, II OWNER'S NAME: ~'~_~ /¢, ,~~O/~-~.~ LOT AREA j~c~¢ (oOO SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... v/'LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only) .. *Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted and approved by the Building Official. LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT HOUSE ~-~ 4~ff X Z~ = ~C~ DETA C H E ~.~~ ~//DRIvEWAY, PARKING AREAS, SIDEWALKS, ETC. DECKS Open decks (1/4" min. opening between boards) with a pervious surface under are not counted as hardcover OT_.Uerr TOTAL HOUSE x = X = TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS ................. ,~,r ~ o ,y./.cx = X TOTAL DECK .......................... TOTAL OTHER -~o77 TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMP-~RVIOUS SURFACE ~/OVER (indicate difference) ............................... I - zi ~a- .-P3 p 7 _BUILDING SITE PERMIT APPLICATION 5341 CITY OF MOUND Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620 Business Name/mennant The applicant is: __owner .~.._contractor __tenant LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot Subdiv~Bion B~ock Plat PID# OWN~ CONTRACTOR ARCHITECT &/OR ENGINEER CHANGE OF USE Address ,,.~-~ ~_.. Phone (H) ' ?~" "~ ~" {W) (M) Phone {H) ~ _(w)~~ (M) License ,/~ Address Phone (H) FROM: TO: (M) LUATION OF WORK: Z~"' ,'~ VALUE APPROVED: ,"~ SEPARATE PERMITB ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRIOALo PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. PERMITS BECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCT]ON AUTHOR/ZED tS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCT]ON OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANOONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED. E LIMITS CN 8U1LDING COMPLETION. ALL WORK TO 8E PERFORMED PURSUANT TO A ~ 'J, 7=.'~IQRS Q~ A,'~Y 5UiLDIN~OR STRUCTURE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT SHALL ~E COMPLETED WITHIN ONE BUILDING PERMIT OBTAINED FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, REPAIRS. REMODELING, AND ALTE~AT]ONS OBTAINING THE PERMIT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SHALL BE RESPONSIBLe =OR COMPLET]ON. A C~UNC:L MAY EXTEND THE T]ME FOR COMPLETION P N ' ' C,RCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF T~E Pcm~U~lO'O~'~hhh¢-'w~RI~'~'~'T~-N-.'-R--E-QUEST OF THE 3ERMITTEE, ESTABLISHING Tn OF THIS ORDINANCE IS A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE. THE Cl'~f THE REASONABLE SATISFACT]ON DF THE CITY OUNCIL NOT LESS THAN THIRTY (301 BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD. ~ERMIT _ C ' THAT ....... ~ ~n~v~:m~,j COMPL=~'ION OF THE WCRK FOR WHICH TH'~, WAS GRANTED. THE EXTENSION SHALL 5E ~EGUESTED I HEREBY CER~-'¥ THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW ,'HE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING TH~S TYPE Jr WORK W~LL ~E COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROV~SICNB OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE Rc.={FORMANCE OF CONSTRucTiON. PRINT APPLICANT'S NA~E - APPLICANT'S SIGNA~'URE DATE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~11/111/111/ (O,FFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL . 7./////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// CONDITIONS & COMMENTS, CONSTRUCTION TYPE; OCCUPANCY GROUP 1 OlV: STORIES PLANS CHECKED BY: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED? YES / NO APPROVED BY / DATE: ZONING CITY ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS ASSESSING COPIED APPROVED D4,.,, 38/~ _.a,=, .5,2B SCP MINHEAPOLIS I' /-10 I/2' ~ /~ 22,~' ELL /. s ~' RADIUS ~ ~, PACIFIC S'~[P PAGE 01 ,! l, Neighborhood Building & Remodeling Co."" 933-7673 NAME ADDRESS PHONE L Neighborhood Building & Remodeling Co.'" 933-7673 NAME PHONE .f SURVEY FOR: AUDRI SCHWARZ 163033-001238. Prepared By: BOU L 'V I:2D '-' :' \$ h'ne or , I ::" ' (~rmer~ ~lloprpo · t ; 120 $CHOELL & MADSON, INC. Engineers. Surveyors. Planners. Soils Testing 10550 Wayzata Boulevard Minnetonka, Mn. 55343 Tel. 546-7601 I · ~drve.~ Line .0 I hereby certify that this survey was prepared under my supervision and that I am a Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. / Theodor8 D. Kemna Date: 28 August 1986 ~h4E ~-- License No. 17006 o0~ 0 .~ ""~/ GENERAL NOTES: 1) o- Denotes iron monument set. 2) Bearings shown are based on the south line of Bartlett Boulevard having an assumed bearing of South 84 degrees 30 minutes O0 seconds West. 3) Area = 39,600 sq.ft.+ or 0.91 ac.+ DESCRIPTION: 4~ ~46.%-9~-~o~es exi~--~.sp~ ~v.- That part of Government Lot 1, Section 23, Township 117 North, Range 24 West of the 5th Principal Meridian described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the south line of Bartlett Boulevard {formerly Chapman Avenue) with the west line of the east 120.00 feet of said Government Lot 1; thence on an assumed bearing of South 84 degrees 30 minutes O0 seconds West, along the south line of said Bartlett Boulevard, a distance of 127.80 feet; thence South 6 degrees 10 minutes O0 seconds East about 382 feet to the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka; thence ~asterly, along said shoreline, to the Intersection with a line drawn southerly from the point of beginning and parallel with the east line of said Government Lot 1; thence northerly, along said parallel line about 347 feet, to the point of beginning. CI'I'Y OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SIIEET ZONING DISFRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH: EXISTING LOT SIZE: A DI')RESS: ~(d/~ I ;I. IRVEY ON FIL~'.~ ~/ NO . , ~' R1 R1A R2 R2 R3 I DIRECTION I REQUIRED IIOUSE ......... ~ FRONT I S E W FRONT N S E W SIDE N S ) W SIDE N S E REAR N S E W TOP OF BLUFF I GARAGE, SIIEI) ..... 10,000/60~ Bi 7,500/0 6,000/40 B2 20,000/80 6,000/40 B3 10,000/60 14,000/80 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100 EXISTING/PROPOSED lO 50' 10' OR 30' !03,% iq-' LOT WIDTH: LOT DEPTtl: VARIANCE DETACIIED BUII.1)ING$ FRONT N S E W i FRON'F SIDE SIDE REAR LAKE TOP OF BI.UFF IIARDCOVER (5) / N S E W N S E W 4' OR6' N S E W 4' OR6' 50' N S E W N S E W 30% OR 40% '(:ONFORMING? YES I{?O) ? BY: Tiffs Zoning Information Shcel only summarizes a portion of rite rcqui Planning Depaltmcnt at 472416(R}. 4? (~Z) .4?;' ~ ,' (49) ~,' I0' OR 30' oullim:d in the (;it)' of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, conlacl the City of Mound Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design June 1,1998 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. III! gill Mr. Ed Shukle City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364-1687 Re: Contract Proposal for Updating Comprehensive Plan Attention Mr. Shukle: This letter proposal outlines a Scope of Services, Fee Schedule and other elements which together constitute an agreement between the City of Mound, hereinafter referred to as the CITY, and HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC., hereinafter referred to as the CONSULTANT for professional planning services authorized to assist the City of Mound in updating their Comprehensive Plan, hereinafter referred to as the PROJECT. The CITY and CONSULTANT agree as set forth below: A. WORK PROGRAM/BASIC SERVICES The Work Program will include the following: Task 1 Goals and Policies The purpose of this task will be to update the policies currently found in the plan addressing community development, natural resources, land use, housing, transportation and recreation. In all cases, policies will be reviewed for consistency with those found in the Metropolitan Council's Regional Blueprint. Policies will also be brought into compliance with recent legislative changes and regional goals supported by the city of Mound such as the Livable Communities Act. Task 2 Socio-Economic Update Employment, population and household projections will be updated utilizing projection data generated by the Metropolitan Council. Projections for 2010 and 2020 will be utilized in other portions of the plan in order to address land use, housing, transportation, and recreational needs. Task 3 Land Use A. GIS base information to be acquired from Hennepin County will be used as the basis for updating the City's existing land use map. Categories used for the mapping will be compatible with those used by the Metropolitan Council. Maps and acreage tabulations will be assembled and compared with the data available from the Metropolitan Council's 1995 database. Updated information will include the current supply of vacant lots. 123 North Thircl Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838 Future land use analysis will be conducted addressing development of the remaining vacant portions of the community (approximately 8% of the total land area). This analysis which will lead to the preparation of a future land use plan will also address redevelopment of portions of the community based on identified needs. The analysis will include an examination of densities to address the Metropolitan Council's forecasts and density targets. Task 4 The future land use analysis will incorporate the Mound Visions effort to revitalize the downtown area. It will also utilize information prepared regarding tax forfeit properties. A future land use map and related calculations will be assembled. The map will depict the allocation of land for residential, commercial, industrial, recreation and open space uses. Housin~ mo Housing Supply Update - Housing supply information will be updated using information from the Metropolitan Council and from the data currently being collected by the consortium of communities around Lake Minnetonka. Information will include total counts of units by types, age and occupancy characteristics, currently permitted densities, age vacancy rates and to the degree that housing information is available, housing condition. Housing policies will be reviewed as part of Task 1. Housing policies will specifically address affordable housing, housing mix, development densities, mixed use, particularly in the downtown area currently under redevelopment, employment/housing linkages, and concentrations of lower cost or substandard housing. The housing policy section will also address joint housing needs with the City of Minnetrista along Mound's western border. The existing housing plan will be updated to address housing programs to be used to meet identified local and regional goals, the impact of local controls on housing supply and cost, and local fiscal devices to be used with other available tools to facilitate housing consistent with needs identified in the plan. Task 5 Surface Water Manaeement Task The Surface Water Management Plan will include the items referenced in this work program as Appendix A. The tasks identified will be prepared by the City Engineer, MFRA with land use data and other base information supplied to MFRA by Hoisington Koegler Group. 6 Solar Access Protection This section of the plan will meet the statutory requirements of Minn. Sec. 473.859, Subd. 2. Policies, text, and graphics will depict means to ensure protection of direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Task 7 Transportation The transportation section of the Mound Comprehensive Plan will be updated to correlate land use information along with household and employment projections in order to assess future impacts on local roadways and metropolitan highways. The plan will provide an allocation of households and employment by Traffic Assignment Zone (TAZ) through the year 2020. Mapping will be developed depicting volumes and functional classifications. The transportation City of Mound Contract for Updating Comprehensive Plan May 26, 1998 plan update will also address existing and future transit needs as well as bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Task 8 .Sewers Task Mound is completely served by sanitary sewer. Therefore, the City will comply with Tier 1 requirements for sewer plans. The sewer plan element will correlate sewer capacity with adopted community household and employment forecasts. Mapping of the existing system as available from the City Engineer will be included in the plan and where future growth will occur, means and methods of providing sanitary sewer service will be identified and mapped. 9 Parks and Open Space Task Mound Comprehensive Plan that was completed in 1990 contained a detailed parks and open space section. The material will be updated to reflect household and user projections for 2020. The five-year capital improvement program will also be updated. 10 Water Supply Task Mound has recently completed an update of its water supply plan which will satisfy the majority of the regional requirements. The material will be updated to reflect household and user projections for 2020. The plan will be updated as necessary with the assistance of the City Engineer to satisfy the requirements found in Minnesota Statutes Section 473.859, Subd. 3 (4). 11 Aviation Task Although Mound is not directly impacted by operations of any public or private airport, the plan update will include provisions to protect general airspace (>200'). The plan will also address seaplane safety requirements on Lake Minnetonka. 12 Economic Development Task Over the past 7 years, Mound has been actively involved in implementing an economic development program which will provide new and unique recreation, business and housing opportunities in the downtown area. The information, policies, and plans for the Mound Visions program will be incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan. 13 Implementation Section This section will be updated and expanded to ensure that it addresses local programs, fiscal devices and other actions to implement the comprehensive plan, including official controls; and a capital improvement program, housing implementation program, and other programs that the community will undertake to implement the plan. Impacts of administrative procedures as well as consistency between the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance will be addressed. Task 14 Public Participation Throughout the preparation of the comprehensive plan, public participation will be encouraged at all Planning Commission, Park and Open Space Commission and City Council meetings and work sessions. A public hearing will be held at the conclusion of the process. City of Mound Contract for Updating Comprehensive Plan May 26, 1998 Bo Meetings Assembly of the Comprehensive Plan Update will require the following meetings: · Planning Commission (4) · Park and Open Space Commission (2) · City Council (2) · Staff (as needed) SCOPE OF ADDITIONAL SERVICES The following services have not been requested by the CITY but are available, upon authorization, from the CONSULTANT. 1. Meetings in addition to those specified in Basic Service. Additional services not specified herein. Engineering and other detail elements that may be required as part of the Metropolitan Council's Surface Water Management Guidelines as found in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 8410. Engineering and other detail elements that may be required as part of the Metropolitan Council's Water Supply Guidelines as sound in Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.859, Subd. 3 (4). C. FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES The CITY a~ees to pay the CONSULTANT for services rendered as follows: 1. For the CONSULTANT'S Basic Services described in Paragraph A above, a fee based on the CONSULTANT'S current hourly rate schedule (see Attachment A) plus incidental expenses not to exceed FIFTEEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($15,500.00). 2. For the CONSULTANT'S Additional Services described in Paragraph B, a fee based on the CONSULTANT'S current hourly rate schedule plus incidental expenses or a negotiated fee. 3. Statements will be submitted to the CITY on a monthly basis as work is completed and shall be payable within 30 days of receipt by the CITY. 4. The CONSULTANT reserves the right to suspend services if the CITY is delinquent in making payments in accordance with this agreement. D. CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY The CITY shall be responsible for the following: 1. The assembly of background information including, but not limited to, the following: a. Copies of all former comprehensive plans. b. Available base map and inventory data. c. Aerial photography d. U.S. Census information e. Transportation and street information such as street jurisdictions, traffic volumes, and street conditions. City of Mound Contract for Updating Comprehensive Plan May 26, 1998 2. Mailing lists, printing, postage, and the mailing of invitations for public meetings. 3. Arrangements for public meetings. 4. Reproduction of all reports and distribution to the Planning Commission and City Council. 5. Printing the final document. E. COMPLETION SCHEDULE The services of the CONSULTANT will begin upon City Council approval and will, absent of causes beyond the control of the CONSULTANT, be completed by December 31, 1999. F. NONDISCRIMINATION The CONSULTANT agrees not to discriminate by reason of age, race, religion, color, sex, national origin, or handicap unrelated to the duties of a position, of applicants for employment or employees as to terms of employment, promotion, demotion or transfer, recruitment, layoff or termination, compensation, selection for training, or participation in recreational and educational activities. G. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY During the performance of this Contract, the CONSULTANT, in compliance with Executive Order 11246, as amended by Executive Order 11375 and Department of Labor regulations 41 CFR Part 60, shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. The CONSULTANT shall take affirmative action to insure that applicants for employment are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion sex, or national origin. Such action shall include but not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The CONSULTANT shall post in conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for employment notices to be provided by the Government setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. The CONSULTANT shall state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The CONSULTANT shall incorporate the foregoing requirements of this paragraph in all of its subcontracts for program work, and will require all of its subcontractors for such work to incorporate such requirements in all subcontracts for program work. H. TERM, TERMINATION, SUCCESSORS, ASSIGNS The Term of this agreement shall be concurrent with the work authorized and shall be in accordance with the schedule to be established between the CITY and the CONSULTANT. Termination may be accomplished at any time by written notice ten (10) days prior to termination. This shall not relieve the CITY of its obligation to pay for the full value of the services performed to the date of termination. Neither the CITY nor the CONSULTANT shall assign, sublet, or transfer its interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other. City of Mound Contract for Updating Comprehensive Plan May 26, 1998 4. The time schedule shall not apply and/or time extensions will be allowed for any circumstances beyond the control of the CONSULTANT. 5. This A~eement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. I. DISPUTES In the event the CITY and CONSULTANT are unable to reach agreement under the terms of this contract, disputes shall be resolved using alternative dispute resolution (ADR). J. REVOCATION If this Agreement is not signed and accepted by both parties within 90 days of the contract date, it shall become null and void. K. AUTHORIZATION IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the CITY and the CONSULTANT have made and executed this Agreement for Professional Services, This day of ,1995. CITY OF MOUND In Presence of: Ed Shukle, City Manager HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC. In Presence of: Mark Koegler, Semor Vite Pres~den City of Mound Contractfor Updating Comprehensive Plan May 26, 1998 Attachment A HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP INC. 1998 HOURLY RATES Senior Principal ............................................. $85-115/hr Principal .......................................................... $70-75/hr Professional II ................................................. $52-54/hr Professional I .......................................... $38-48/hr Technical ......................................................... $26-38/hr Secretarial .............................................................. $38/hr Testimony ............................................................ $150/hr * 5% discount for retainer services Incidental Expenses: Mileage .............................................................. 31 C/mile Photocopying ..................................................... 15C/page Outside Printing ............................................ Actual Cost Diazo Printing .............................................. Actual Cost Draft Plotting .................................................. $5.00 each Vellum Plotting ............................................ $10.00 each Color Plotting ............................................... $20.00 each O"'~'ADMINVtRRATE.~x98-PUB. WPD Surface Water Management Plan Ci~ of Mound June 1998 McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. Engineering · Planning · Surveying June 16,1998 Mound City Council c/o Edward J. Shukle, Jr. 5341 Maywood Drive Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: Proposal for Surface Water Management Plan Mound, Minnesota MFRA #9999 Dear Council Members: McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. (MFRA) appreciates the opportunity to submit this proposal for the preparation of Mound's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). This proposal presents our understanding of the City's SWMP needs, MFRA's approach and proposed tasks to prepare the plan, a cost estimate, and our qualifications to complete the work. As the City of Mound reviews its needs for water resources services, we invite you to consider the following key distinctions in selecting MFRA as your SWMP consultant: Depth and diversity ofMFRA. MFRA is a multi-disciplined engineering and planning firm offering services in engineering, planning, landscape architecture, soil and wetland science, and surveying. All these services are required today for effective and sound water resources planning and management. MFRA is committed to utilizing the expertise of City personnel and our staff to provide creative and "big picture" solutions, rather than only temporal and immediate options. Understanding of local issues and City needs. MFRA has served as Mound's City Engineer since 1973. In fact, we have provided services in western Hennepin County for over 30 years and are familiar with the areas history, development pressure, and present and future demands on local natural resources. MFRA also serves a number of other communities within the metropolitan area to address water resources issues. As identified above, MFRA is large enough to offer various specialty disciplines, but small enough and close enough to Mound to cost-effectively meet your specific needs. 15050 23rd Avenue North · Plymouth, Minnesota · 55447 phone 612/476-6010 fax 612/476-8532 e-nTail, rnfra(a'rnfra, corn Mound City Council June 16, 1998 Page 2 Familiarity with Minnehaha Creel{ Watershed District. The Project Manager proposed to serve the City on this project is very familiar with the projects, permits and requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, having served as its project engineer for one of its largest projects to date. Mr. Parks has closely followed the District's "second generation" watershed planning efforts, local plan requirements and recently submitted formal comments on District rule revisions. Mr. Parks' past and present association with the MCWD will enhance the City's SWMP and assist its approval by the watershed. The City of Mound is an important client for MFRA and we would be very pleased to prepare your surface water management plan. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact either of us at 476-6010. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron, Engineer Daniel M. Parks, P.E. JC:pry Enclosure TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT UNDERSTANDING ................................................................................................... 1 PROJECT APPROACH AND WORK PLAN SCOPE OF WORK ........................................................................................................................ 2 COST ESTIMATE ....................................................................................................................... 12 Q UALIFICA TIONS Appendices Abilities and Experience Of Firm Resumes Proposal for Surface Water Management Plan Mound, Minnesota Page 1 Project Understanding From discussions with Mound City staff, MFRA understands that the City desires preparation of a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) to address current water resource problems and pro- actively identify future City stormwater needs, for the entire City of Mound. MFRA understands that the following important issues are driving this project and will need to be addressed with this study: Existing drainage problems within the City. Development pressure and increased run-off within the downtown area. City's desire to develop regional ponds rather than smaller ponds within each development. SWMP complying with the requirements of the MCWD, Minnesota Statutes, BWSR Rules, and other agency requirements. Plan with maps and graphics compatible with the City's current GIS system. A project schedule starting in the Summer of 1998 and completed by late Winter 1999. Preparation of a document identifying City policies, ordinances, and technical water resource related materials to guide sound water resource planning and related City expenditures. Project A_~l~roach and Work Plan The major impetus for the preparation of a local SWMP is to address known problems within the community and to guide the direction of future water resource related city and private expenditures. In addition to addressing immediate and future city needs, there are a variety of other regulations and requirements that need to be addressed in the preparation of a city SWMP. Most notably Minnesota Statues 103B, Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410, and the MCWD's Water Resources Management Plan. MFRA staff have significant experience working within and for the MCWD, and our staff have been retained by the District in watershed administration as well as implementing specific projects, including the 1993 Gleason Creek Water Management Project constructed in Wayzata to address Proposal for Surface Water Management Plan Mound, Minnesota Page 2 water quantity and water quality problems. MFRA has been retained by the City of Minnetrista to prepare their SWMP, which is scheduled for completion by late Summer of 1998. Scope of Work In order to comply with the MCWD plan and Minnesota Statues and Rules, Mound's plan will generally need to comply with the following list of requirements identified in Minnesota Rules 8410. These requirements identify the content of local plans and provide a methodical approach in addressing municipal surface water management. Introduction and purpose. This section will identify the purpose of the SWMP, state and local plan requirements, and purposes of water management programs required by state laws and rules. Executive summary. This section will include an overview of the plan, the location of specific information within the document, and a brief narrative of each section of the SWMP. o Water Resource Related Agreements. Any appropriate water resource management related agreement, which have been entered into by the community will be outlined. This includes joint powers agreements related to water management and the WMO, adjoining communities, or private parties. Land and water resource inventory. The plan will contain a composite land and water resource inventory containing relevant data from WMO plans consistent with the data required by Minnesota Rules including physical features, studies, ordinances, soil and groundwater information, pollutant sources, etc. Proposal for Surface Water Management Plan Mound, Minnesota Page 3 o Establishment of policies and goals. The plan will state specific goals and corresponding policies for the city. It will also be consistent with the policies and goals of WMO plans and address the relation of the local plan to the regional, state and federal goals and programs. o Assessment of problems and corrective actions. The plan will summarize existing and/or potential water resource related problems, including those identified in WMO plans which affect the city. The plan will also describe non-structural, programmatic and/or structural solutions to the identified problems. Financial considerations. The plan will contain an analysis of the financial impact of implementation of the proposed regulatory controls and programs identified. o Implementation priorities and implementation program. The plan will prioritize implementation components so as to make the best use of available local funding and prevent future water management problems. According to Minnesota Rules, official local controls must be enacted with 6 months of adoption of the local plan. o Amendment procedures. The plan will contain an amendment section indicating the year the plan shall extend to and establishing the process by which amendments may be made. The amendment procedure shall be in conformance with the plan amendment procedure outlined in the WMO plan(s). MFRA will use the above outline and develop a SWMP to specifically meet the needs of the city, as well as address agency requirements. The plan will include all land within the City of Mound. MFRA's approach in preparing the City's SWMP will be to utilize existing water quantity and water quality information from projects and programs underway within the MCWD. This will allow specific issues to be addressed within the City and remove redundancies for projects or programs already administered by the MCWD. For example, the MCWD has already conducted significant Proposal for Surface Water Management Plan Mound, Minnesota Page 4 water quantity modeling, water quality monitoring and the identification of capital improvement projects for City water bodies. The MCWD has identified projects for Dutch Lake, Lake Langdon, Jennings Bay, and Cooks Bay. In order to complete the tasks required to prepare a SWMP consistent with the Minnesota 8410 rule outlined above, MFRA has prepared the work plan below, identifying tasks and activities. A cost estimate to complete these tasks is included in the Cost Estimate section. Task 1 Project Management The objective of this task is to provide the City of Mound with proper project management of the proposed SWMP to ensure that the City's needs are met in a timely fashion. MFRA has identified the following activities to ensure a smooth running project and clear lines of communications between the City and MFRA. Activities: Prepare a detailed work plan after discussions with the City on final scope of work. The final scope of work and work plan will be in conformance with the City's budget and completion dates. Identify City staff, Council, and interested parties' communication protocol and determine dates for regular project program meetings and communications of upcoming activities. o Prepare clear and concise monthly invoices identifying a narrative of work completed, contract amount, and amount billed to date. The narrative will also include other significant issues or expenses anticipated for the upcoming month. Proposal for Surface Water Management Plan Mound, Minnesota Page 5 Task 2 Project Initiation and Agency Research The objective of this task is to initiate the SWMP project, research City and agency requirements for plan preparation and meet with regulatory agencies that may affect the plan's implementation. Activities: Meet with City staff to review project scope, identify project teton members, and communication's protocol. Obtain water resource related agreements and all pertinent in-house water resource information. Obtain and review stormwater related information from Hennepin County, Metropolitan Council, U.S. Corp of Engineers and Board of Water and Soil Resources. Meet with representatives from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Deptartment Of Natural Resources, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the Hennepin Conservation District to obtain background water resource information relating to Mound. To facilitate thorough information gathering from each of the contacted agencies, a letter will be sent requesting desired information and followed up with subsequent visits or telephone conversations. Task 3 Collect Available Land and Water Resources Information The objective of this task is to collect existing information from the City and other governmental files pertaining to the City's land and water resources. Some of this information will be obtained during discussion or visits from Task 1 or from subsequent Proposal for Surface Water Management Plan Mound, Minnesota Page 6 meetings with the City staff. All information gathered in Task 1 & 2 will be cataloged and the sources referenced for future City use. Activities: 1. Obtain the following drawings, maps, plans or studies from the City of Mound and from MFRA files: Storm sewer drawings and existing water management system facilities. Storm sewer system map. · City base maps and GIS or CADD files. Aerial photography and contour mapping. City comprehensive plan and land use maps. · Zoning map. · Past storm drainage studies and reports. · Past flooding problem areas identified by City. · City ordinances related to shoreland protection, erosion control, water resources management and wetlands management. · Stormwater utility funding mechanisms and other City fiscal information related to storm sewer improvements. · Water based recreational areas and land ownership. · Unique features and scenic areas within the City. 2. Obtain the following information from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District: Watershed Management Plan. Engineering studies and water quality data from Lake Langdon, Dutch Lake, Jennings Bay, and Cooks Bay. Proposal for Surface Water Management Plan Mound, Minnesota Page 7 3. Obtain the following information from the Department of Natural Resources: · Protected waters inventory map. · National wetlands inventory map. · Lake, river or stream water quality data. · Flood insurance studies. 4. Obtain the following information from the Hennepin Conservation District: · Groundwater resource data and county groundwater plan. · Physical environmental data, including soils, geology, land use, prime farm land. · Future land or water resource improvements, programs or policies. Task 4 Develop Surface Water Management Planning Guidelines, Goals, and Policies The objective of the this task is to develop stormwater management planning guidelines, goals and policies for the City. This will be accomplished by meeting with public agencies to understand current and future guidelines and policies, and by meeting with the City staff, City Council or interested parties, to understand current policies and ordinances. This task will develop goals, policies, and ordinances for future implementation within the City of Mound. Activities: 1. Meet or obtain goals and policies from the following public agencies: · Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Hennepin County, Metropolitan Council, MDNR, MPCA, COE, HCD, and BWSR Proposal for Surface Water Management Plan Mound, Minnesota Page 8 2. Meet with City personnel to develop general guidelines, goals and policies for the following categories that will need to be addressed in the final SWMP: · Water quantity and quality management. · Flood protection. · Erosion and sediment control. · Recreation, open space and wildlife habitat. · Lake management. · Wetland management. · Groundwater management. · Upland management. · Financing · Public information and education. · Other goals and policies arising from meetings with agencies or City staff. Task 5 Determine Hydrologic Parameters and Perform Hydrologic Modeling The obi ective of this task is to identify acceptable water quantity modeling parameters and to perform hydrologic modeling to determine surface water impoundments, contributing drainage areas, effectiveness of stormwater conveyance facilities and the need for storm sewer system improvements. The MCWD has identified and regulated a number of receiving water bodies that will need to be considered as the City of Mound plans for future expansion of its storm sewer system. The MCWD Watershed Management Plan and previous FEMA studies have promulgated significant water resource related information pertaining to the hydrology within Mound. Any hydrologic or hydrology studies or proposals developed by the City of Mound will need to closely resemble management strategies and practices previously developed by the MCWD. Proposal for Surface Water Management Plan Mound, Minnesota Page 9 Activities: Identify major and minor subwatershed boundaries within the City of Mound. Major subwatersheds have already been identified by the MCWD as Dutch Lake, Lake Langdon, and Lake Minnetonka subwatersheds. These subwatersheds will need to be analyzed to properly understand and plan for the City's stormwater system. Field measure existing culverts or storm sewers for which plans are not available, and overflow heights of i~npoundment structures' and photograph drainage areas and outlets. This activity is necessary to properly analyze subwatershed conditions due to limited City topographic information. This task does not include surveying to actual datum elevations. o Work with City staff and the MCWD to determine appropriate flood level protection and future storm sewer design basis. These will likely be the analysis of 100-year storm events for flood control and 1 O-year storm events for future storm sewer system improvements. 4. Determine linking of subwatersheds and existing conveyance systems en-route to receiving water bodies. Determine subwatershed hydrologic characteristics for each subwatershed including drainage area, soils type, land use, time of concentration, storm sewer conveyance within each subwatershed, ponding areas and discharge locations. o Perform hydrologic modeling using a TR-20 based model to develop stormwater run- off hydrographs for existing and proposed land use conditions. MFRA will work with City staff to determine the planning window and the year for which future conditions are planned. For example, year 2010. Proposal for Surface Water Management Plan Mound, Minnesota Page 10 Conduct hydraulic modeling at discharge locations from subwatersheds to receiving water bodies and determine consistency with existing MCWD stormwater analysis and FEMA flood studies. Summarize results of hydrologic and hydraulic modeling in a table correlating to storm sewer area maps. Also included will be subwatershed characteristics including pond volumes, high water levels and peak overflows, pipe capacities and sizes, and channel sizes and locations. Task 6 Prepare Cost Estimates and Capital Improvements Program The objective of this task is to utilize the policies developed in Task 4 and the results of hydrologic/hydraulic modeling in Task 5 to prepare cost estimates for the City's capital improvements program. Activities: 1. Meet with City staff or other interested parties to discuss preliminary results of stormwater modeling analysis and identify known or modeled problem areas. 2. Determine priorities for problems identified in Activity 1. 3. Estimate costs to remedy known problems and required infrastructure improvements. 4. Work with City staff to establish implementation priorities for the following: · Flood protection. · Existing system upgrade. · Construction for anticipated new development. · Detention and water quality ponds. Proposal for Surface Water Management Plan Mound, Minnesota Page 11 5. Develop a list of potential funding mechanisms available to the City of Mound identifying applicability to above capital improvements. Task 7 Prepare Draft Report The objective of this task is to prepare a draft report in a format similar to the 8410 outline described in the Project Approach section. Fifteen copies of the draft report will be provided to the City for review and for distribution to review agencies. The draft report will include the following: · Report text with a table of contents as identified on the first two pages of the scope of work. · Recommend policies, goals and ordinances or updates for City adoption including erosion control, pond design criteria for stormwater detention basins, subdivision or commercial site plan erosion and stormwater control. · Appendices, including results from the hydrologic/hydraulic modeling, subwatershed and land use information, pond design data and cost estimates. · City storm sewer mapping, including major and minor subwatershed boundaries, pond locations, pipe locations, water levels, potential stormwater treatment facility locations and water body classifications. Task 8 Review Draft Report Comments and Prepare Final Report The objective of this task is to review plan comments from the City of Mound, the watershed district and review agencies. The salient issues will be resolved and included in the final report. After final review of the plan and approval by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, MFRA will provide 20 copies of the final report to the City of Mound. It is envisioned that the final report will be a 3-ring binder, including text, tables, maps and related water resource agreements. Proposal for Surface Water Management Plan Mound, Minnesota Page 12 Cost Estimate The following table summarizes the estimated project costs for the tasks presented in the work plan. We estimate the cost of the requested basic services to be $39,800.00. SWMP Cost Estimate Task - Description MFRA Staff Hours Estimated Cost 1 - Project Management 2 - Project Initiation and Agency Research 3 - Collect Information 4 - Develop Guidelines, Goals and Policies 5 - Determine Hydrologic Parameters and Perform Hydrologic Modeling 6 - Cost Estimates and CIP 7 - Draft Report 8 - Review Comments & Final Report TOTAL BASIC SERVICES 25 $ 2,000 30 2,300 20 1,200 50 3,500 240 14,400 60 3,700 160 10,200 40* 2,500 $ 39,800 * Since the review of this plan and scope of comments by agencies is beyond MFRA's control, we have included an allowance of 40 hours for this task. MFRA understands that the final scope of work and cost estimate cannot be entirely completed until the specific needs of the City of Mound are addressed and identified. MFRA would be happy to meet with City staff or Council to discuss any aspects of this work plan and more thoroughly develop a scope of work that meets your City's specific needs. Proposal for Surface Water Management Plan Mound, Minnesota Page 13 Qualifications MFRA is well suited to serve the City of Mound in the preparation of your Surface Water Management Plan. Our qualifications include a unique combination of multi-disciplined staff and our firms experience in similar projects. MFRA envisions the key team members on this project to include; Daniel M. Parks, Meg J. McMonigal and Kelly J. Bopray. Complete resumes for these personnel are included in the appendix and their special qualifications to serve the City on this project are included in the following paragraphs: PROJECT TEAM AND EXPERIENCE Daniel M. Parks, P.E. is the proposed project manager for the Surface Water Management Plan. Mr. Parks is the leader of MFRA's water resources department and has extensive experience with metropolitan communities and watershed management organizations, addressing both water quality and water quantity issues. Mr. Parks has served as district engineer or lead engineer for four watersheds including the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and has served a variety of municipalities addressing stormwater management, planning and capital improvement projects. Mr. Parks is experienced in surface water management and has conducted numerous hydrologic and hydraulic investigations, drainage studies, sediment basin and pond outlet designs, and computer simulation models of water quantity and water quality. He has also served on various projects requiring extensive coordination with local, state and federal regulators. In addition to his resources, planning and management experience, his general civil and environmental experience have included complex projects requiring public consensus building, public meetings, and addressing concerns of local stakeholders. As project manager for the City's surface water management plan, Mr. Parks can focus on water resources issues within the City. He will be available to the community and will work Proposal for Surface Water Management Plan Mound, Minnesota Page 14 closely with City staff and other interested parties for the duration of this project. Mr. Parks is well suited to serve the City of Mound on this project due to his knowledge and understanding of the MCWD. He has served as district engineer for the {31eason Creek project constructed in Wayzata to address both water quantity and water quality problems, and conducted a ditch inventory for the Watershed District for both Painters Creek and Six Mile Creek. Recently Mr. Parks has closely monitored the development of the Watersheds "second generation" watershed plan and recently submitted formal comments on the proposed watershed rule amendments. Mr. Parks is very familiar with MCWD board of managers, its staff and consultants, and has worked successfully with the district on past projects. This understanding of the district's requirements, will ensure that the City's plan is properly prepared and assist in its prompt approval by the MCWD. In addition to experience with the MCWD, Mr. Parks has served as the watershed engineer for the Prior Lake/Spring Lake Watershed District, the Gun Club Lake Watershed and the Vermillion River Watershed Management Commission. In that capacity, Mr. Parks has conducted water quantity and water quality analysis, prepared watershed plans, reviewed numerous city plans for Minnesota 8410 Rules compliance, administered district activities, and completed numerous water resource related projects. Mr. Parks has also served metropolitan communities in addressing stormwater issues, including a stormwater plan for Ravana Township, the City of Eau Claire, Wisconsin, and a water quantity and water quality plan for an Inver Grove Heights subwatershed. Meg J. McMonigal, AICP is an Urban Planner with 10 years of experience and a Master's Degree in Urban and Regional Planning. Ms. McMonigal has been a planner with the Cities of Northfield and Apple Valley, and currently consults to the Cities of Rogers, Carver, Excelsior, Breezy Point and Hassan and Stillwater Townships. In addition to working in all facets of land development, Ms. McMonigal has specific experience with surface water management. She was a member of the Black Dog Watershed Management Organization, developed a Surface Water Quality Management Program for Proposal for Surface Water Management Plan Mound, Minnesota Page 15 lake area residents in Apple Valley and aided in developing Northfield's Surface Water Management Plan. Ms. McMonigal has worked with developers on a daily basis to implement the policies and requirements of stormwater plans and ordinances. Kelly J. Bopray, Licensed Professional Soil Scientist - Mr. Bopray serves as MFRA's wetlands specialist. He is a licensed soil scientist, trained and experienced in wetland delineation, inventories, and wetland mitigation, planning and permitting. He is also an instructor in soil science and wetlands at the University of Wisconsin, River Falls. Mr. Bopray serves as MFRA's representative on Wetlands Technical Evaluation Panels. He is the technical expert for those communities, which we serve and which are the LGU for the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act. Mr. Bopray is also skilled in conducting historical research and identifying potential pollution problems for environmental site audits. MFRA EXPERIENCE In addition to the qualifications of the project team, MFRA has provided water resource services and surface water planning to the communities that we serve as engineering consultants. Other Lake Minnetonka communities we serve include the Cities of Minnetrista and Excelsior We have also provided water resource services for the city of North Oaks, St. Paul Park and Brooklyn Park. Currently, MFRA is completing a massive storm sewer and street reconstruction project for the Department of the Army at Camp Ripley in Little Falls, Minnesota. This project includes an extensive surface water system analysis, and has recently been expanded to include water quality modeling, monitoring and remedial measures to prevent surface water pollutants entering the Mississippi River. A more thorough description of MFRA services are provided in the appendix of this proposal. Environmental Services This group includes a wide range of disciplines, all involved with the intricate and sensitive issues of environmental engineering. The disciplines includes water resource specialists, a licensed soil scientist (wetlands expert), environmental engineers, environmental scientists, water/wastewater treatment engineers, and a certified treatment plant operator. The types of contracts include on-going contracts for water/wastewater treatment plants, watershed district engineers, and specific contracts for a variety of large and small environmental projects. Surveying Services This group provides registered land surveying and construction staking services. The registered land surveying work includes boundary surveys and certificates, lost comer restoration, final plat documents, aerial control networks, topographical mapping, easement preparation and acquisition, legal descriptions, and boundary dispute resolution. The construction staking operations are directed and coordinated by a registered land surveyor and primarily provides support services to the engineering groups. MFRA surveying services are state-of-the-art electronic total stations. They have the capability to tie into a County's state plane coordinate system or use global positioning system coordinates (GPS). The data collectors transfer information directly into the CADD system, which then gives a compilation of points within minutes. The beauty of the system is that the computer can then put all critical project coordinate information back into the data collectors, which then are an immediate field resource for the survey crews. Private Services This group is comprised of a separate group of project engineers and planners that supply these services to residential, commercial, and industrial clientele. The company adheres to strict policies regarding full disclosure and non-conflict of interest. On many occasions, the contacts and knowledge of the private services groups have been a valuable resource to the government agencies we serve. e:hnain:\proposal\mound6-16 FOR CITY OUNCIL MEETING JUNE 23~ 1998 June 11, 1998 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 TO: FROM: RE: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK TREE LICENSE & CIGARETTE LICENSES The following company has applied for a Tree Removal License. The license period is June 1, ,1998 through March 31, 1999. Approval is contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being submitted. TREE LICENSE SHOREWOOD TREE SERVICE - RESIDENTIAL SERVICE The following licenses are up for renewal. The license period is March 1, 1~98 through February 28, 1999. Approval is contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being submitted. CIGARETTE LICENSES American Legion Post #398 By the Way Snack Shop (Steve Bedell) John's Variety & Pets Jubilee Foods Mainstreet Market Mound Municipal Liquor Store PDQ #292 R & R Bait SuperAmerica VFW Post #5113 printed on recycled paper BILLS June 23, 1998 BATCH 8062 Total Bills $210,211.54 $210,211.54 ~Z (3-0 ~.serl oo~ o~ U ..J o Z 0 z t~ I I I ' I 'I I I , < ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ o ~ o ...... ..... L ..... L .... 00~o~ ,! ~g,l,l:,,l" O~ oo~oo~o~oooooNooo 0 I / 0 z .... [ ..... I .....t .: J:.t, ,-- J ,Ill, ,l I , II, i ~ o ~ o ~ o~ ~o oooo~ o ~ o ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ o Z ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ z ~ ~ ~ Z ~ z Z ~ L~ U 0 ' I ~5t'1 u .7- b og ? 'o THE CITY OF MOUND~ MINNESOTA CABLE TELEVISION ~' FRANCHISE AGREEMENT M^Y 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-(~3~. 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS 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) GENERAL PROVISIONS .............................................................................. 1 Definitions ................... Written Notice ............. RENEWAL OF FRANCHISE ......................................................................... 2 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 ...................................................................................... 4 Recovery of Processing Costs ....................................................................... 4 Liability Insurance ....................................................................................... 5 Indemnification ........................................................................................... 6 Grantee's Insurance ..................................................................................... 7 Workers' Compensation Insurance .............................................................. 7 Security Fund .............................................................................................. 7 Procedure for Enforcing Franchise Agreement .............................................. 8 Reservation of Rights ............................... . .................................................... 8 Annual Report ............................................................................................. 8 DESIGN PROVISION Minimum Channel Capacity ........................................................................ 9 System Design ............................................................................................. 9 Operation and Maintenance of System ...................................................... 10 Special Testing .......................................................................................... 10 FCC Reports .............................................................................................. 10 Emergency Alert Capability ........................................................................ 10 Parental Control Lock ................................................................................ 10 Technical Standards .............. Right of Inspection .................................................................................... 11 Periodic Evaluation, Review and Modification ........................................... 11 SERVICES AND PROGRAMMING ............................................................. 12 Services and Programming ......................................................................... 12 Leased Channel Service. Periodic Subscriber Survey ........................................................................ 12 PUBLIC ACCESS PROVISIONS .................................................................. 12 Public, Educational and Government Access .............................................. 12 Grantee Support for PEG Usage ................................................................. 1 3 REG U LATION ........................................................................................... 1 3 Amendment of Franchise Agreement ......................................................... 1 3 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 "Grantee"). WITN ESSETH WHEREAS, pursuant to Ordinance No. (the "Ordinance"), 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, and after public hearings, 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. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 3.1) 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) (3) The policy shall cover personal injury as well as bodily injury. 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) Broad form property damage liability shall be afforded. (5) (6) 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) Standard form of cross-liability shall be afforded. (8) 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, includin§ a certificate of insurance si§ned by the insurance a§ent 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 System. 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) Workers' 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 orkers W ' 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 ($1 75) 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. 4.1) DESIGN PROVISION 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 capa6ie 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 l:)y 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. ~~l~l~.~,, L ....... ii, ,Il ,1~,, 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. 5.1) SERVICES AND PROGRAMMING 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. 6.1) PUBLIC ACCESS PROVISIONS 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 educational 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 emergencies 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 long as Grantee utilizes due diligence to timely obtain said permits. 7.4) Rate Regulation. Nothing in this Agreement 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 1.19 of the Ordinance or Applicable Laws. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor and Grantee have executed this Agreement the day, month and year first above written. CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA Dated: By: MAYOR ATTEST: (SEAL) By: Its: CITY MANAGER TRIAX MIDWEST ASSOCIATES, UP. Dated: (CORPORATE SEAL) By: Its: STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF ) City. The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on ., the of the City of ,19 ,by , on behalf of the Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ,SS. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on , 19 , by , the of Triax Midwest Associates, L.P. on behalf of the Company. Notary Public 1 79769/1 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 zAdL'THUR zauNDERSEN LLP T F To Triax Midwest Associates, L.P.: lVl]dwest Associates, L.,~_. (the crsmp ) as ot December 31, '1995, and the related statemen of operations, panners deficit and cash flows for the year then end--~ an" '- ...... ts thereon dated April 9, 1996. ~ ~ nave tssuca our report ~ . . not ~ p~y to~ o~ ~owl ~ mn~ ~) ~ ~~on s~ fo~ ~d ~ d-~-~ :- --- g ~ge of m~ non~mp~ ~ ~t~ r~p~s, ~ ~agon t~ ,~- ~, m m· ~~ ~ i ~ not ~y ~ · - ~ ~ ~t~ ~m ~ ~ ~ b~ d~v~. ~ m ~ r~a ~ ~tend~ ~l~y for ~e ~O~on ~d ~e of~e ~~ of&e P~~p ~d the CiF of C~s~ ~o~ ~d ~o~d not ~ ~ ~r ~ o~ p~. Denver, Colorado, City of Mound, Minnesota EXHIB~ I Basic Revenues Tier Revenues A/O Revenues Late Charge Guides Equipment HBO Showtime TMC Cinemax Disney DCR PPV ' Encore Home Wiring Starz Sega Advertising HSN Commission Gross Revenues Franchise Fee Rate Payments Made Within 90 Days of December 31, 1995 $ 35%794 398,790 1,793 25,652 335 8,089 13,257 50,238 21,925 8,129 18,270 10,904 1,830 4,317 26,232 521 3,263 934 15,352 1,808 $ 980,433 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 Applicable o The programs and service changes meet demand expressed in customer satisfaction surveys Other (describe in attachment) PUBLIC, GOVERNMENTAL AND EDUCATIONAL ACCESS 1 79769/1 C-1 Check Where Applicable J CUSTOMER SERVICE Customer service requirements complied with Summary of complaints (attached) System outages summary (attached) Description of new customer services, promotions (attached o 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 (ATTACH COMPLETED FRANCHISE FEE PAYMENT WORKSHEETS - EXHIBIT B TO FRANCHISE AGREEMENT) COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION Upgrade/rebuild (summary attached) 179769/1 C-2 Check Where Applicable New technologies incorporated into System Channel capacity increased Service extended to new areas Other 10. NEW SERVICES 11. 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 Company participated in planning studied and Cable Advisory Committee activities (summary attached All insurance, bonds and deposits are updated and filed with City 12. OTHER PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS OR PLANS TO BE INTRODUCED WITHIN THE NEXT TWELVE (12) MONTHS (SUMMARY ATTACHED) Dated this ~ day of ,1 9 , by Officer of fl , 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 require 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 I~y I~oth 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. SERVICE 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 PUBLIC BUILDINGS: 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 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/t 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. 79769/1 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, 7.50 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 billing 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 converters. 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 convener 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 z '7 TABLE 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 1.3.5. SECTION 1.36. SECTION 1.37. INTENT ................................................................................................. 1 DEFINITIONS. FRANCHISE TO INSTALL AND OPERATE .............................................. 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 ...... FRANCHISE APPLICATIONS ................................................................ 11 CONSIDERATION OF INITIAL APPLICATIONS ................................... 12 FRANCHISE RENEWAL ........................................................................ 12 CONSUMER PROTECTION AND SERVICE STANDARDS .................... 12 RATE REGULATION.. FRANCHISE FEE ................................................................................... 15 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS .............................. 16 TECHNICAL STANDARDS ................................................................... 19 TRIMMING OF TREES ........ USE OF GRANTEE FACILITIES ............................................................. 20 PROGRAMMING DECISIONS ............................................................. 20 INDEMNIFICATION ...... INSURANCE ........................................................................................ 21 RECORDS REQUIRED AND GRANTOR'S RIGHT TO INSPECT ........... 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 .................................................................. 26 SEVERABILITY. 179781/1 ORDINANCE NO. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: The following 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 c. "Cable Act" means the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-549, 98 Stat. 2779 (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 and 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; 4. An open video system that complies with Section 653 of the Cable Act; or 5. Any facilities of any electric utility used solely for operating its electric utility system. e. "Cable Service 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. ~.'Channel" or ~'Cable Channel" means a portion of the electromagnetic frequency spectrum which is used in a Cable 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. rancn~se 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 3 P. .'.'Installation" means the connection of the System to a Subscriber and the provision of Cable Service. q. i'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 OperatinR 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. IIS ' · II II v. "berv~ce 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 wa~" means each of the following which have been dedicated to the public or are hereafter d~dicated 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. Any Franchise granted pursuant to this Ordinance shall be valid within the Service Area. SECTION 1.7. FEDERAL, STATE AND CITY JURISDICTION. ao Laws. 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 qualificatior~s, 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 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. REVOCATION. PURCHASE BY CITY UPON EXPIRATION OR 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 1 79781/1 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 "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. 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 System office hours and telephone availability~ 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. 1 79781/1 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 .l~2~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 ~n appointment with a customer after the close of business on the business day prior to the scheduled appointment. 1 79781/1 13 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 aot 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. 179781/1 14 (ii) In case of a billing dispute, the Grantee must respond to a written complaint from a Subscriber within thirty (30) days. 3. Refunds: Refund checks will be issued promptly, but no later than either: (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 to§ether 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 trenchin§ and associated costs and shall repair all property to the condition which existed prior to such trenching. e. Construction Codes and Permits. 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 Use. 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 1 79781/1 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 applicable 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 "Indemnified 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 2O 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 Franchise. If the City chooses to terminate Grantee's Franchise, the following additional procedure shall be followed: 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. 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. In the event that City determines to terminate Grantee's franchise, the Grantee shall have an opportunity to appeal said decision in accordance with all 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. SERVICES. EXTENDED OPERATION AND CONTINUITY OF 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. R£CEIV£RSH[P 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 We. fl~e undersigned, are residents of the Three Points Boulevard area of Xloimd .\[innes6ta. and are IN( .... '"( ' -,' 3[ [ 3SITION to fl~c convenience store.prop°sal tbr the .site at the south c'ast qnadrant of thc Three Points ,' Commerce: Boulevard intersection. D~//,d June 23rd. 1998 9 7z- gr _g q/~../q.2...,> 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 event that such Applicable Laws are subsequently repealed, rescinded, amended or otherwise changed, so that the provision hereof which had been held invalid or modified is no longer in 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: MAYOR By: Its: CITY CLERK 179781/1 28 June 23, 1998 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCES FOR AN AMOCO GAS AND CONVENIENCE STORE LOCATED AT 1730 COMMERCE BLVD. PART OF LOT 27, LAFAYETTE PARK, PID 13-117-24 22 0025 PZ CASE #98-26 & 98-27 WHEREAS, the applicant, James Kovach, has applied for a conditional use permit with variances to allow construction of a Amoco gas station, convenience store and car wash; and, WHEREAS, the development would be located within the B-2 Central Business District and is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit; and, WHEREAS, the site has been vacant for the last few years, but has a history of various gas stations dating back 30 plus years. Adjacent uses include the PDQ directly north, single-family residential to both the east and south, and a vacant hillside west of the site which is located in Minnetrista; and, WHEREAS, the development plan proposes a building for the food shop, an accessory car wash building, and 6 gas pumps with an overhead canopy. The food shop and car wash buildings will have a brick exterior; and, WHEREAS, Almost two-thirds of the site will be hardcover. The plans provide for storm water drainage in a series of catch basins and pipes which connect to the existing storm sewer line along Commerce Bird; and, WHEREAS, underground fuel storage tanks are located along the south property line adjacent to the pump island. Both the pump island and underground storage tanks will have concrete covers. and, Bird; and, WHEREAS, the gas station will be served with water and sanitary sewer service; WHEREAS, access to the site is served from Commerce Blvd. and Three Points WHEREAS, parking is provided directly in front of the food shop with 11 spaces including 2 handicapped; and, June 23, 1998 Amoco. 1730 Commerce Blvd Page 2 WHEREAS, the car wash is a full cycle car wash with dryers and overhead doors that close during wash cycles. The entrance is in the rear of the food shop and would provide stacking for approximately 8 cars; and, WHEREAS, The site will be graded to make it more level, reducing the slope on the eastern half of the site. A retaining wall will be installed there along the car wash drive. Most of the aspen trees in this area would be removed; and, WHEREAS, the proposed landscape plantings include a variety of Linden, Honeylocust, and Crabapple trees. Additional shrubs are located at the base of signage and entry points. All planting areas would be irrigated. The existing cedar trees along the south property line would be retained and incorporated into the landscaping plan; and, fence; and, WHEREAS, adjacent residential properties would be buffered with a 6 feet cedar WHEREAS, The site will be lighted with fixtures on the gas pump canopy, building walls, and freestanding posts located at both entrances, the car wash loop drive and in front of the car wash; and, WHEREAS, the signage for the property is proposed to be one free standing sign at 93.6 sf of area requiring a variance of 45.6 sf; and, WHEREAS, the hardcover on the property including the easement minus street pavement is 69% requiring a variance of 39%. The site would be below the 75% allowable hardcover for commercial properties upon adoption of a City storm water management plan; and, WHEREAS, the driveway widths are 40 feet requiring a 18 feet variance; and, WHEREAS, the proposed buffering methods shall meet the requirements outlined in the zoning code, and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota hereby approves a Conditional Use Permit with variances for Amoco with the following conditions: Approves a Conditional Use Permit wit variances for Amoco with the following conditions: The storm water plan be reviewed and approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The "Food Shop", "Car Wash", and dumpster enclosure be constructed of brick. June 23, 1998 Amoco - 1730 Commerce BLVD Page 3 3. The Car Wash only be allowed to operate between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. as regulated by the zoning code. The doors be required to remain closed while in operation. All employees must be notified of this. 4. The City Engineer review and approve all grading and drainage plans. 5. All lighting meet zoning code requirements. 6. Total site signage be limited to 93.6 sf of freestanding signage, 13.41 sf of canopy signage, 60.7 sf of signage on the Food Shop, and 26.6 sf of signage on the Car Wash. 7. No deliveries between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 8. Canopy cannot be back lit. 9. Lighting poles not to exceed 15 feet in height on the back side of the building. B. Approve the following variances as part of the Conditional Use Permit: Proposed Hardcover 38,416 sf - 69% Sign Area- Commerce 93.6 sf Driveway Width 40' Required Variance 16,824 sf 21,592 sf 48 sf 45.6 sf 22' 18' C. The property legally described at 1730 Commerce BLVD as: THAT PART OF LOT 27 AND THAT PART OF THE ADJOINING COUNTY ROAD, ALL IN "LAFAYETTE PARK LAKE MINNETONKA" DESCRIBED AS BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOT 4, SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 117, RANGE 24 DISTANT 1099.71 FEET SOUTH FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 4; THENCE NORTH, ALONG SAID WEST LINE, 251.11 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY DEFLECTING TO THE RIGHT 88 DEGREES 30 MINUTES, A DISTANCE OF 275.09 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND 275 FEET EAST, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 4 FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE WEST ALONG THE LAST DESCRIBED LINE 275 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, ACCORDING TO THE RECORDED PLAT THEREOF EXCEPT THAT PART WHICH LIES WEST OF A LINE DRAWN PARALLEL WITH AND 40 FEET EAST OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 13. THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PREMISES ARE MARKED BY JUDICIAL LANDMARKS SET PURSUANT TO TORRENS CASE NO. 1689. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember , seconded by Councilmember. The following Councilmembers voted in favor: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Crv Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff Present: Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Suthedand, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Voss Public Present: Michaela Diercks, Don Loken, Glenna Loken, Robert Wroda, Stephen Kakos, Lisa Hanson, Dennis Leininger, Carolyn Leininger, Doug Birdie, Vic Sacco, Jim Smith, Karl Gruhn, Jared Smith, Jim Kovach, Jim Johnson, Dave Moore, Jennifer Garden, Martin Garden, Alan Nations Chris Meyer, Peter Liupakka Meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael Chair Michael readjusted the agenda to start with the variance cases first then proceed with the Public Hearings. MINUTES -APPROVAL OF THE MAY 11, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Weiland commented that Jerry Clapsaddle be Absent and Excused. Hanus stated on Case 98-24 under the discussion his comments should read, "Hanus commented there are 4 accessory buildings and this would require an additional variance. So noted and will be corrected. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the May 11, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 7-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE #98-26: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, MOTOR FUEL STATION LOCATED WITHIN THE B-2 ZONING DISTRICT, JAMES SMITH/JAMES KOVACH, 1730 COMMERCE BLVD, PART OF LOT 27, LAFAYETTE PARK, PID # 13-117-24 22 0025 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 CASE #98-27: VARIANCE, HARDCOVER, JAMES SMITH/JAMES KOVACH, 1730 COMMERCE BLVD, PART OF LOT 27, LAFAYETTE PARK, PID # 13-117-24 22 0025 Loren Gordon presented the cases. Gordon stated that this was tabled at the May 11th Planning Commission Meeting. This is a supplement to the May 11th staff report for the proposed Amoco development. In your packets is a letter from the Amoco Architect discussing elements of the project from the last meeting. Staff has been in contact with the architect in preparation for this meeting to address the comments and concerns stated by the Commission. The following are proposed modifications to the site plan as described in the letter: Signage - The freestanding signage along Three Points Blvd. has been removed from the plan. The 25 feet freestanding sign along Commerce will be the only freestanding sign on the site. It will include all advertising and gas pricing information. At the last meeting, there were questions about the size of the PDQ freestanding sign and building signage. Further review of the site shows the freestanding sign at a height of 25 feet with 80 sf of signage. The building is permitted for 120 sf of signage although the PDQ is the only sign on the building. The total signage for the site is 200 sr. After the removal of Three Points freestanding sign, the total for the Amoco site is 214.3 sr. Staff had recommended the freestanding sign along Commerce be reduced in height to more closely match a monument sign look. Now that the Three Points sign is not proposed, it seems reasonable to allow the sign as proposed at 25 feet in height with 93.6 sf of area. Code would allow two freestanding signs at 25 feet with 48 sf each. This proposal reduces the number of signs, which is an aesthetic improvement from Staffs perspective. Hardcover - The previous hardcover calculations included highway easement which are not normally included. The following calculations should clarify the hardcover issue. Property Area Property w/ Easement 59,980 sf Property w/ Easement 56,080 sf minus street Property w/o Easement 48,673 sf HardcoverArea Variance Percent Hardcover 38,416 sf 21,564 sf 64% 38,416 sf 17,664 sf 69% 38,416 sf 10,257 sf 79% Traffic - There was some discussion about how much traffic the Amoco TO CONCERNED NEIGHBORS The City of Mound is holding a hearing on Tuesday, June 23, 1998 at 7:30 p.m. at City Hall to decide whether or not to accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to permit AMOCO to build a gas station, convenience store and car wash on the corner of 3 Points Blvd. and Commerce Blvd. If you are concerned as we are about a substantial increase in traffic and noise, let us hear from you! If you are concerned about declining property values and possible ground pollution that will affect Lake Minnetonka, let us hear from you! If you are concerned that we do not need another gas station and convenience store at that corner carrying similar products, let us hear from you! At the very least, if you agree with us, show up at the council meeting on June 23rd at City Hall and help us convince our elected officials to make better use of this property. Chris & Steve Mayer, 472-2846 ...~~rtin & Jennifer Garden, 338-2714~'~ Ron Christensen, 472-2672 Jim and Donna Geisler, 472-8174 Don & Glenna Loken, 472-8099 Michaela Diercks, 472-2061 We, the undersigned, are residents ot'~he Tlu'ee Points Boulevard area of' MounrfMinnesbta, and are IN OPPOSITION to the convenience store proposal tbr the site at the south east quadrant of fl~e Three Points/Commerce/Boulevard intersection. D~d June 23rd. 1998 Z n 'r 0 0 m 0 ~QO ID erO'r Z ,~ ~ 0 (20) : (17) 'DOC I~ a37DO3~ ~ · ' ~ (271)-, ALEXANDER,, ,~.~., (~s) ~5 PT ~ LOT 27 (249) ~ (~5o) (246) APT OWN NO 8 SEAHORSE CON: PART O~ LOf 25 LOT 28 (i5) (4) K~ 4~13151 OUTLOT Z _"*'-, x (2) NO/E, DETAIL ( PARR I SEE REC( ;[.PT IgTZ ('3) SCHOOL DIST NO 277 (~) ~05 I94 / ?o / ) (8,) (?) r/ lOG / / ......... 430 0'~i,::'" ........ ( 4~: · (6) ~ ? ~4. ISe, 4§' SLttSE T RD GOVT ("iT) LOT I (2) ,,,', (35) .~ (26) 5~ i 5~'0 "i We, the undersigned, are residents of the Tlu:ee Points Boulevard area of Mound Minnesota, t~nd are IN' OPPOSITION to fl~e convenience store proposal for the site at the south east qnadrant of the Three Points / Commerce~/Boulevard mler,,cchc, n.' -' ~-' ' ~ June 23rd. 1998 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, lgg8 store would produce. Amoco did not prepare a traffic study for the store but there are some general assumptions that can be made. Gas station/convenience stores are somewhat reliant on the amount of traffic already on the street. Due to their nature, they are not usually a destination that would change existing travel routes. However, they may divert Some local trips that would go to downtown Mound or Minnetrista. Amoco probably assumes it will gain customers from PDQ with competitive products and pricing. Because it is one of the only gas stations in the area with a car wash, it may capture additional local traffic. ' Parking stall size - There was some discussion about the appropriate parking stall size and handicapped stall size. In previous cases, variances have been granted to reduce parking stall sizes to 9 feet. If the 10 feet standard were used it may cause one parking space to be lost in the current parking area adjacent to the store. Amoco states that they find 10 to 11 spaces to be more than adequate. Either width could be accommodated by the proposal. If the Planning Commission deviates from the 10 feet size requirement, reasons for the change should be stated. · Buffering/Glare _ One item briefly discussed was buffering techniques to adjacent residential properties. What did not get addressed was the lighting glare on adjacent properties. The zoning code regulates the amount of light that is cast on adjacent residential properties to 0.4 foot candles measured at the Property line. The lighting plan shows readings ranging from 1 to over 4 foot candles on the east Property line. The lighting intensity along the south property line also exceeds the maximum. Revisions to the site lighting plan need to be made to reduce the lighting intensity at the east and south property lines. Methods to reduce the intensity could include reducing bulb wattage or planting additional landscaping. Either method or a combination of the two could Prove to be effective. The following recommendation follows that of the previous report with modifications reflecting the signage and car wash operations. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the conditional use permit and requested variances with the following conditions: 1. The stormwater plan be approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 2. The "Food Shop", "Car Wash", and dumpster enclosure be constructed of brick. 3. The car wash only be allowed to operate between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 3 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 p.m. as regulated by the zoning code. 4. The City Engineer review and approve all grading and drainage plans. 5. The parking size and space issue be determined. Discussion: Weiland stated that "wash" needed to be added to the recommendation. So noted and will be corrected. Burma questioned the hardcover calculation the the Property with the easement should state 72% hardcover not 64% on page 2 of the Planner's report. So noted and will be corrected. Mueller questioned which items were tabled at the last meeting. Loren stated that he feels they were covered in the current Staff's Report. Glister recommended that a traffic study be done. She commented that Amoco would probably have some idea of the traffic flow. Gordon stated that the Engineer would probably have to be involved. Glister commented that this is zoned Business but is surrounded by Residential. Gordon stated that a traffic study as not be requested by staff due to the history of similar uses on the property. Chair Michael opened the Public Hearing: Michaela Diercks, 1765 County Road 110, Her property is located in Minnetrista. Her propertY is zoned Park, residential, and agriculture. Her main concern is noise. PDQ's sign illuminates right into her window. She feels that a traffic study be done prior to the approval. The garbage is an issue. She would like to know how many gas stations are needed in the city of Mound. Martin Garden, 1760 Commerce BIvd, stated that if a gas station was on the site he would not have purchased the townhome. He questioned the pollution impact level of the gas station. He believes that the noise will substainciallY increase. He has concerns with the traffic flow with the car wash and traffic would be blocking adjacent driveways. He feels that the Commission should also have a traffic study done along with the report from Amoco. Weiland asked how Garden could comment on the Women's Shelter as he did in regards to noise and nuisance. Garden stated that the noise would be contained within the structure and would create less traffic. 4 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Chris Meyer, 1790 Commerce Blvd, questioned why Concept Landscaping was denied their request. Michael stated that a case did not review a case. Gordon stated that staff performed a sketch plan review but no formal application was made. One Concern that Ms. Meyer has is the loitering ofteen-agers at the proposed site. Also the delivery of gas during all hours of the night. Doug Birdie, 5028 Enchanted Road, is in favor of the proposal. He feels that Three Points needs additional options of gas providers in that area. He stated there is other commercial property around this site. He doesn't feel there is going to be any addition traffic. He feels that it is an upgrade to bring a major gas provider to Mound. Mark Hanson, 5555 Three Points Blvd, firmly agrees with the opposition arguments Glenna Loken, 5545 Three Points Blvd, expressed concerns for the noise, lighting, and drainage of the lot. She expressed concerns that a lot of trees would be taken down. She feels that she would be forced to keep her windows shut. Hanus questioned the lighting. Gordon reviewed the lighting plan. Hanus questioned the height of the canopy. Gordon stated that the canopy height is 16'6". The adjacent property owner to the east would probably be above the top of the canopy on the second floor of the frame. All canopy and pole lighting is down lighted. Vic Sacco, 5016 Enchanted Road, stated the abutting homeowner to the south is zoned B-2. He stated that he discussed this site with Dennis with the City of Minnetrista. He stated that the car wash takes 4-5 minutes depending on the cycle of the wash. There is a closure on the property from the Metropolitan Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). He stated that the lighting will meet City Code. The Canopy will not be back lit. He said there would be approximately 410 cars per day. Jim Smith, 3153 Priest Lane, he stated that he owns the property. He handed out an area showing that many of the properties around the site are zoned Business. Don Loken, 5545 Three Points Blvd, He feels that it is an invasion of his privacy. Chris Meyer, 1790 Commerce Blvd, questioned why her property was zoned B-2. Gordon stated that one can have a single family dwelling in a Business district. Jennifer Garden, 1760 Commerce Blvd, commented that since the video store went out of business it created an eye sore. If the PDQ were to go out of business it would create even a larger eye sore. Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Diercks commented that her property is not zoned Commercial. Commented that Huber and Anthony's are quiet neighbors. Martin Garden, 1760 Commerce Blvd, questioned what Vic Sacco's interest was in the property. Sacco stated owner under contract. Chair Michael closed the Public Hearing. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m. Motion carried 7-0. Mueller commented on that this property has always been zoned business. The only variances that are hardcover and one for a sign. He made many comments about the growth of the surrounding area. Michael made comments on businesses in a B-2 zoning district. Meyer questioned the drainage plan. Michael assured her that it would be addressed with the Engineer. Diercks asked the Commission to really to consider this before make a motion without a traffic study. Burma stated that the traffic is going to be there whether the Amoco was there or not with the improvements happening with County Road 110 and the developments happening in Minnetrista. Meyer questioned when the drainage plan would be addresses. Gordon stated that Amoco has already submitted a Drainage Plan for review. Hanus commented that in # 5 in the recommendation. To leave the parking lot with 10 feet parking spaces. He also stated that a variance would not be required for the hardcover. Meyer requested a retaining pond. Sutherland stated that the Minnehaha Water Shed District will also review and regulate the Drainage Plans. Glister commented on the noise and the traffic. Alan Nations, Nations & Co., Clarified the canopy lighting. The "AMOCO" will be the only lighted facia on the canopy. Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Hanus questioned if there was one or two handicapped parking spaces. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Hasse recommendation with alterations and additions. to recommend staff Modify #1 to state: The stormwater plan be reviewed and approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) Modify # 3 to state: The car wash only be allowed to operate between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. as regulated by the zoning code. The doors be required to remain closed while in operation. All employees must be notified of this. 7. 8. 9. All lighting meet zoning codes Signage as stated in Planner's Report No deliveries between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Canopy can not be back lit. The lighting pole not to exceed 15 feet in height on the back side of the building. Motion carried 6-1. Opposed: Glister. These cases will go to City Council on June 23, 1998 7 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE #98-26 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A MOTOR FUEL STATION, CAR WASH AND FOOD SHOP LOCATED WITHIN THE B-2 ZONING DISTRICT, PART OF LOT 27, LAFAYETTE PARK, AT 1730 COMMERCE BOULEVARD PID # 13-117-24 22 0025 P & Z 98-26 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on TUESDAY, June 23, 1998 to consider the approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow a motor fuel station, car wash and food shop at 1730 Commerce BIvd located within the B-2 Zoning District. All persons appearing at said hearing with reference t/~t)he above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeti_r~g~.--/.. ,/ /~ ....... --~ ~, ~]--K-r't.s~ln~''- '"' '( uis{ PlOg Secretary Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on June 10, 1998 Published in the Laker, June 13, 1998 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: June 8, 1998 SUBJECT: Variance Request and Conditional Use Permit - Updated Report Supplement OWNER: Jim Smith- 3153 Priest Lane APPLICANT: James Kovach representing Amoco CASE NUMBER: 98-26 and 27 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5w and x LOCATION: 1730 Commerce Blvd. ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: This is a supplement to the May 11th staff report for the proposed Amoco development. In your packets is a letter from the Amoco Architect discussing elements of the project from the last meeting. Staff has been in contact with the architect in preparation for this meeting to address the comments and concerns stated by the Commission. The following are proposed modifications to the site plan as described in the letter: Signage - The freestanding signage along Three Points Blvd. has been removed from the plan. The 25 feet freestanding sign along Commerce will be the only freestanding sign on the site. It will include all advertising and gas pricing information. At the last meeting, there were questions about the size of the PDQ freestanding sign and building signage. Further review of the site shows the freestanding sign at a height of 25 feet with 80 sfof signage. The building is permitted for 120 sfof signage although the PDQ is the only sign on the building. The total signage for the site is 200 sf. After the removal of Three Points freestanding sign, the total for the Amoco site is 214.3 sr. Staff had recommended the freestanding sign along Commerce be reduced in height to more closely match a monument sign look. Now that the Three Points sign is not proposed, it seems reasonable to allow the sign as proposed at 25 feet in height with 93.6 sf of area. Code would allow two freestanding signs at 25 feet with 48 sf each. This proposal reduces the number of signs, which is an aesthetic improvement from Staff's perspective. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 Amoco Conditional Use Permit and Variance Request - Updated Report dune 8, 1998 · Hardcover - The previous hardcover calculations included highway easement which are not normally included. The following calculations should clarify the hardcover issue. Property w/Easement Property w/Easement minus street Property w/o Easement Property Area Hardcover Area Variance Percent Hardcover 59,980 sf 38,416 sf 21,564 sf 64% 56,080 sf 38,416 sf 17,664 sf 69% 48,673 sf 38,416 sf 10,257 sf 79% Traffic - There was some discussion about how much traffic the Amoco store would produce. Amoco did not prepare a traffic study for the store but there are some general assumptions that can be made. Gas station/convenience stores are somewhat reliant on the amount of traffic already on the street. Due to their nature, they are not usually a destination that would change existing travel routes. However, they may divert some local trips that would go to downtown Mound or Minnetrista. Amoco probably assumes it will gain customers from PDQ with competitive products and pricing. Because it is one of the only gas stations in the area with a car wash, it may capture additional local traffic. Parking stall size - There was some discussion about the appropriate parking stall size and handicapped stall size. In previous cases, variances have been granted to reduce parking stall sizes to 9 feet. If the 10 feet standard were used it may cause one parking space to be lost in the current parking area adjacent to the store. Amoco states that they find 10 to 11 spaces to be more than adequate. Either width could be accommodated by the proposal. If the Planning Commission deviates from the 10 feet size requirement, reasons for the change should be stated. Buffering/Glare - One item briefly discussed was buffering techniques to adjacent residential properties. What did not get addressed was the lighting glare on adjacent properties. The zoning code regulates the amount of light that is cast on adjacent residential properties to 0.4 foot candles measured at the property line. The lighting plan shows readings ranging from 1 to over 4 foot candles on the east property line. The lighting intensity along the south property line also exceeds the maximum. Revisions to the site lighting plan need to be made to reduce the lighting intensity at the east and south property lines. Methods to reduce the intensity could include reducing bulb wattage or planting additional landscaping. Either method or a combination of the two could prove to be effective. The following recommendation follows that of the previous report with modifications reflecting the signage and car wash operations. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 3 Amoco Conditional Use Permit and Variance Request- Updated Report dune 8, ]998 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the conditional use permit and requested variances with the following conditions: 1. The stormwater plan be approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 2. The "Food Shop", "Car Wash", and dumpster enclosure be constructed of brick. 3. The car only be allowed to operate between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 regulated by the zoning code. 4. The City Engineer review and approve all grading and drainage plans. 5. The parking size and space issue be determined. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 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 #98-26: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, MOTOR FUEL STATION LOCATED WITHIN THE B-2 ZONING DISTRICT, JAMES SMITH/JAMES KOVACH, 1730 COMMERCE BLVD, PART OF LOT 27, LAFAYETTE PARK, PID # 13-117-24 22 0025 CASE #98-27: VARIANCE, HARDCOVER, JAMES SMITH/JAMES KOVACH, 1730 COMMERCE BLVD, PART OF LOT 27, LAFAYETTE PARK, PID # 13-117-24 22 0025 Loren Gordon presented the case. A proposal has been submitted to develop the site at the corner of Commerce and Three Points Blvd. as an Amoco gas station, convenience store and care wash. The use would require a conditional use permit as prescribed by the B-2 district for its use and operations. Additionally, the applicant is requesting variances to hardcover, signage, and driveway size for the development as proposed. The site has been vacant for the last few years, but has a history of various gas stations dating back 30 plus years. Adjacent uses include the PDQ directly north, single-family residential to both the east and south, and a vacant hillside west of the site which is Mound Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 located in Minnetrista. The owner, Jim Smith is currently using the property for storage of landscaping equipment. The site contains approximately 60,000 sf including a highway easement along Commerce and Three Points Blvd. The grade slopes from the east to the west, changing in elevation from 954 feet along the east property line to 936 feet in the southeast corner. Vegetation includes scrub grass covering most of the site and a stand of aspen trees along the north and east property lines. A few larger trees are scattered around the site including Elm, Ash, Box Elder, and Cedar. Other site conditions include driveway remnants of the previous gas station along the roadway frontages. DEVELOPMENT PLAN: The development plan proposes a building for the food shop, an accessory car wash building, and 6 gas pumps with an overhead canopy. The main food shop building is located on east half of the site with its front facing Commerce Blvd. It is a single story design with a brick exterior. The associated car wash facility would be directly south the food shop. It would also include a brick exterior in its design. The gas pump canopy stands independent of the food shop and car wash buildings. Access to the site is from a driveway along Commerce Blvd. and a driveway along Three Points Blvd. Each driveway would have one entrance lane and two exit lanes. Circulation patterns allow almost unrestricted movement around the site. Parking is provided directly in front of the food shop with 11 spaces including 2 handicapped. The car wash drive circles the rear of the building where cars would enter, complete the wash cycle, and exit through the front. Approximately 8 stacking spaces are provided for the car wash entry. Almost two-thirds of the site will be hardcover. Green space is generally located on the perimeter of the site. The plans provide for storm water drainage in a series of catch basins and pipes which connect to the existing storm sewer line along Commerce Blvd. Underground fuel storage tanks are located along the south property line adjacent to the pump island. Both the pump island and underground storage tanks will have concrete covers. All driveways will be bituminous paving except for the approach aprons which will be concrete. Water and sewer connections as shown come from lines along Commerce Blvd. The signage for the site consists of building and freestanding signs. The Commerce frontage has a 25 feet pylon sign, with almost 94 sf of area. Its location would be setback about 14 feet from the back of the existing sidewalk, 10 feet from the property line. The monument sign along Three Points Blvd. is 9.5 feet in height with 45 sf of area. Its proposed location is 13 feet from the back edge of the sidewalk and 2 feet from the highway easement. Both freestanding signs would be internally illuminated. Building signage consists of a internally illuminated 60.7 sf "Food Shop" sign, a 26.6 sf "Car Wash" sign, and 13.41 sf "Amoco" signage on the south and west canopy fascias. Additional directional signage would be used at access points and car wash drive. Accent red, white and blue graphics would be used on the buildings as well. Mound Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 The site will be graded to make it more level, reducing the slope on the eastern half of the site. A retaining wall will be installed there along the car wash drive. Most of the aspen trees in this area would be removed. The proposed landscape plantings include a variety of Linden, Honeylocust, and Crabapple trees. Additional shrubs are located at the base of signage and entry points. All planting areas would be irrigated. The cedar trees along the south property line would be retained. To buffer adjacent residential properties, a 6 feet fence is proposed. The site will be lighted from fixtures in the canopy and on the building walls and freestanding posts located at both entrances, the car wash loop drive and in front of the car wash. The lighting plan also includes the intensity on and off site. Lighting will be most intense around buildings and under the canopy and lighting posts. At property lines the intensity ranges from .5 to over 4 foot candles. The proposed variances are also requested as part of the development plan: Existing/Proposed Hardcover 38,416 sf Sign Area - Commerce 93.6 sf Sign Setback- Three Points 2' Driveway Width 40' Required Variance 17,994 sf 20,420 sf 48 sf 45.6 sf 10' 8' 22' 18' COMMENTS: Considerations for variance and conditional use permit criteria are addressed below: Variance 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. Co 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. Mound Planning Commission Minutes May11, 1998 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. Conditional Use Permit The following criteria may be used as findings in granting a conditional use permit. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off- street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use. That adequate measures have bee or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that non of these will constitute a nuisance, and to control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result. Fo The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. H. The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City. I. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. Existing adjacent uses will not be adversely affected because of curtailment of customer trade brought about by intrusion of noise, glare or general unsightliness. ISSUES: During the review, staff has found a number of issues that need to be discussed on considering this proposal. Mound Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 Hardcover" The site is approximately 66 percent hardcover. With an approved storm water management plan, the City could approve up to 75 percent total hardcover as governed by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. To address storm water, the proposal uses a number of catch basins which are connected to the main along Commerce. This method was chosen by the developer rather than using a ponding area which was somewhat restricted because of the level of improvements to the site. The developer has indicated they have been in contact with the Watershed District about the proposed method and is proposing to pay treatment fees. The City Engineer has reviewed and is recommending approval of the storm water system. Three Points Blvd. Signage - The highway easement arching through the northwest corner of the property has an impact on the site. This line determines the 30 feet front yard setbacks for the property. The monument sign along Three Points is setback 2 feet from the easement although it is 19 feet from the curb and 15 feet from the sidewalk. This location would be typical for most freestanding signage absent the easement. Staff would recommend approval of the 8 feet setback variance as requested. Commerce Blvd. Signage - The freestanding sign along Commerce is proposed to be increased above normal 48 sf standard to 93.6 sf. This is almost a 100 percent increase to the requirement. The applicant sites that most gas station facilities are afforded more signage than 48 square feet. This is probably true due to the needs for displaying the company logo, store amenities, and gas pricing. The intent of the code in the B-2 district however, is to encourage signage that is less obtrusive. Staff would like to offer a compromise to get a more consistent freestanding sign package by reducing the height from 25 feet to 17 feet. By removing the bottom 8 feet of standard, the sign would have a smaller scale with the same amount of area requested. Driveway Access - The code prescribes a 22 feet driveway width maximum for all property access points to public streets. This standard is probably outdated and should be revised to reflect more modern traffic engineering methods. Each driveway has one entry point and two exit points on each driveway. This facilitates safe traffic movement on and off site. Consideration also needs to be given to tanker trucks which will need to access the site. Staff would recommend the Planning Commission approve the variance for a 40 feet wide curb cut on Three Points Blvd. and Commerce Blvd. Parking Space Size - The parking plan shows 11 parking spaces including 2 handicapped. The plans indicate a 9 feet by 20 feet size. The code requires a 10 feet by 20 feet stall size. Variances have been granted for sizes that are similar to the 9 feet width as proposed. Staff would support the reduction of parking space size as proposed. Mound Planning Commission Minutes May11,1998 Parking Spaces - The plan shows 11 parking spaces for the site. This use does not specifically fall under the any of the listed uses, but probably best fits as a retail store. If applied, the site would need 16 parking spaces. This formula uses 1 space per every 150 square feet of gross floor area. In looking at other community requirements for retail uses, this is on the high end of the typical range. Standards typically vary from 1 per 250sf to 100sf of floor area. If 1 space per every 200sf were applied, the requirement would be 12 spaces. The code does have the provision for the Planning Commission and Council determine the number of spaces if the use does not fit. The Planning Commission should discuss this with the developer to determine if the parking as proposed will be adequate or if additional spaces are needed. Grading and Landscaping - The grading plan indicates that many of the existing aspen trees will be removed. This is somewhat necessary to accommodate the car wash driveway and retaining wall. Staff would like to encourage the Planning Commission to work with the developer to preserve the more mature trees before grading commences. These trees could be relocated to appropriate planting areas on the site. The benefits would be many. It would help maintain more of the existing site qualities, add aesthetic value to the site and neighborhood, provide additional buffering to adjacent residential properties, and would provide a more mature looking site up front. Retaining Wall - There is an existing retaining wall along Three Points Blvd. on the site and the adjacent residential property. There are parts of the wall that are starting to bow out. The City Engineer has commented that the retaining wall by the car wash drive could tie into this wall thereby eliminating most of the wall on the property. This would eliminate a retaining wall and the City's maintenance responsibility. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the conditional use permit and requested variances with the following conditions: 2. 3. 4. The freestanding sign along Commerce Blvd. be reduced to a height of 17 feet. The storm water plan be approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The "Food Shop", "Car Wash", and dumpster enclosure be constructed of brick. The freestanding sign along Commerce Blvd. have a brick base similar to the monument sign on Three Points. The City Engineer review and approve all grading and drainage plans. The parking size and space issue be determined. DISCUSSION: Voss questioned on page 14 item I "The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion", how did staff come up with this conclusion. Gordon stated that with access off of Three Points Boulevard that would help reduce congestion on Commerce Mound Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 Blvd. Voss suggested that maybe it would be a good idea to have a right turn only out onto Commerce Blvd. Voss questioned on page 15 item 4 "Driveway Access" what was meant by the statement in the planners report. Gordon explained the comments. Weiland had a question on page 16 item #8 "Retaining Wall", by removing the retaining wall would it help the sight issue coming from Three Points Blvd to Commerce Blvd. Gordon stated that it may help and be an improvement. Mueller commented on the ordinance regarding commercial corner lots and their accesses. Gordon stated that the driveway was designed to line up with the PDQ across the street. It was determined that by doing this it would increase visibility and safety along Three Points Blvd. Mueller had concerns with the access only being 80 feet back from the corner. He feels that it would create traffic issues. He requested that the City Engineer address this issue. Mueller questioned the signage on the property. Mueller asked if the signs on the buildings would need variances. Mueller considered the signage as proposed to be excessive. Gordon stated that the free standing signage exceeds the code by 45 feet. The total proposed signage for the site is 259.3 square feet, code limits the site to 271 square foot. Gordon stated that the building is under the allowable square footage. Weiland made comments on banner signage. Mueller questioned if there was a comparison done with other gas station sites. Gordon stated that free standing signage in other communities may vary from 100 to 150 square feet, along major commercial corridors. Weiland questioned how it compared to PDQ. Gordon stated that staff had not checked but the site is comparable to PDQ. Hanus commented that he would also be interested in comparing PDQ and the proposed Amoco regarding signage. Chair Michael questioned if PDQ has 25 feet pylon how could Amoco be limited to 17 feet. Gordon stated that staff was working toward a consistant comprehensive sign package for the site. This might be a way of negotiating for the proposed additional sign area. Mueller commented on the signage on Commerce is a changeable sign and is visible from Three Points Blvd. The size of the sign on Three Points Blvd should be reduced. Gordon stated that we need to be careful not to restrict if the sign could be changeable or not. The sign could be reduced in size. Hasse commented that 9 feet handicapped parking is not large enough for handicap parking. It should be at least 10 feet. Gordon stated that there is a standard handicapped space size that can be provided in a couple of ways. Mound Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 Mueller agreed that the handicap parking needs to be larger. He questioned how the square footage is calculated. Questioned if the 60,000 square feet footage included the city highway easement. Gordon stated that the easement is owned by the owner. It appears that the easement was included in the calculations and that it would include some improved street area. Mueller commented on other properties within the city with similar situations. Sutherland commented that there was a similar case but was in a residential area. Hanus commented that he would agree to allowing the calculation be used up to the edge of the curb but not out into the improved street. Mueller stated that he would like to see the lot size readjusted to state that the property does not have the easement included in the lot size area. Hanus commented that we have included lot area calculation that includes the easement. Sutherland pointed out other commercial properties that have more impervious surfaces than this site and the City has issued variances for these properties. Chair Michael opened the public hearing: Craig Goodrich, 1776 Lafayette Lane: Concerned about the height of the sign, about how late the car wash will be running, about accidents, about noise levels, about the property abutting residential homes. Steve Mayer, 1790 Commerce Blvd. Had concerned about lights, hours of operation, Water run off. He suggested possibly putting up a tree barrier. Chair Michael closed the public hearing. Alan Nations, Nations Co. Architect for Amoco., Stated that Amoco is interested in moving back into neighborhoods that they have left. They want to update to keep competitive. He commented that there will be curb and gutter around the perimeter and the water runoff will be contained within the property and will be routed into storm sewer. Steve Mayer commented that if an evergreen tree buffer could be maintained it would help keep down the noise and light. Nations commented that they would work with the neighbors to keep a buffer. Voss commented that there would be increased traffic. Mound Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1998 Vic Sacco, Developer, 5016 Enchanted Road, Mound; Studies have found that residents what to keep their convenience shopping local. Stated the lighting is a canned lighting system that directs the light downward. The carwash would follow the code for the hours of 8 am to 10 PM. There are doors that enclose the car during the washing and drying process. The property will be buffered with fences and landscaping. The reasons for 24 hours keeps the vandalism down, caters to the 3rd shift workers, and allows the employees to keep the establishment clean. Hanus questioned what the neighboring properties zoning. Mueller questioned if this is the best buffering conditions for this situation. Gordon stated that it is adequate in terms of meeting code requirements although other methods could provide additional buffering. Mueller questioned how high the retaining wall is. Gordon stated that is approximately 4 feet in height. Nations commented that at approximately behind the car wash the retaining wall would be approximately 8 feet in height sloping to 4 feet on the north end. Mueller commented that there appears to be some questions that need to be addressed. MOTION by Mueller seconded by Voss to table these cases to a further date. Motion carried 7-1. Michael opposed. ARCHITECTONICS , 4815 Upton Avenue South ~ Minneapolis, Minnesota 55410 Phone 612-922-4409 . Fax 612-922-4409 ;''~ ' *'R¢~sonable DeCgn for a Rational World*' May 2¢, 1998 To: Planning Commission Members City of Mound - Mound, Minnesota Re: Proposed Amoco Food Shop / Car Wash - Corner of Commerce & Three Points Blvd., Mound, Minnesota Project No. 98100 Dear Planning Commission Member: During your last official meeting on May 11t~, 1998, the Amoco Oil Company presented for your consideration a proposed project to be located on the southeast corner of Commerce and Three Points Blvd. in the City of Mound. This project consisted of a Gas/Convenience Store, which Amoco refers to as a Food Shop and a touch free automatic car wash facility to be located in a separate structure directly adjacent to the Food Shop building. The gas pump area would consist of 6 MPDs (Multiple Pump Dispensers), and an overhead canopy structure supported by steel tube columns located in front of the Food Shop building. Prior to submitting plans for the Commission's review, Amoco had met with city staff for an initial review of the preliminary site design and clarification of certain zoning issues pertinent to this specific site. The site submittal package presented on May 11th was based on this initial meeting as well as subsequent conversations with your City Planner, Engineer and the Minnehaha Creek Water Shed District. This letter is in response to various issues and concerns expressed by the Commission and neighbors during that meeting. As you know, consideration of Amoco's proposed project was ;ob/ed. This apparently precluded your city planner from asking additional questions of the Commission or getting direction as to the various issues of which the Commission were concerned and which resulted in the tz~b//ng. At the time of this writing the minutes of that meeting were not available either. As a result these responses come from nates taken by Amoco. Amoco desires to be a good neighbor ondwith this goal in mind wishes to partner with the city and the neighbors in working on the various issues they might have concerning this project. As pan of keeping with this desire, Amoco held an open house/orsurrounding neighbors in the area on May Proud member of AIA - American Institute of Architects and ICBO - International Conference of Building Officials 6th at the Hennepin County Library on Commerce Blvd. During this gathering, they attempted to introduce the project and respond to various concerns and issues expressed by individuals at that time. Written invitations to this event were mailed out to surrounding property owners from the same list the city uses to notify these same owners of a proposed project as required in your zoning ordinance. This list was obtained from the office of the Hennepin County Treasurer. One issue raised at the Planning Commission meeting was that no one ~'ne~,about Amoco's intentions. By the time of the meeting each property owner within the surrounding area as defined by your ordinance should have received written notification twice. During this meeting neighbors spoke with representatives of Amoco and various issues were addressed, some of which were later broached again during the Commission meeting. So what were some of the issues expressed which required the tabling of this proposal? Without an official detailing of concerns from the city, Amoco will rely on notes taken at the meeting of the 11'h. The following is a listing of those issues and Amoco's responses. · Traffic Concerns - Amoco prepares and creates repons of an area's existing density, future growth patterns and existing surrounding gas/convenience stores prior to moving forward with a project to the level currently being presented to the Commission. Amoco sees the area as currently underserved in terms of available gas/convenience stores. They do not foresee additional traffic being brought into the area beyond that which already exi~ or that, which will exist, through the natural growth of the immediate area. They calculate that the existing traffic driving pas~ the site each day is currently sufficient to warrant a new store on this site. The new facility will pull business from the immediate area. Drivers which currently may buy gas somewhere between their homes and work or home and shopping will have the opportunity to make that purchase in their own neighborhood. They do not believe that significant additional traffic will be brought into the area from the outside because of this project. · Traffic Congestion - The safe, orderly flow of cars, trucks, trailers and tanker gas trucks to and from a site is always a concern to Amoco and any neighborhood. Amoco consulted with the County regarding preferred access onto Commerce and with city staff regarding access onto Three Point as well as Commerce. Our propose design of 40 foot wide curb cuts allows for defined turning lanes from the site onto these busy streets. Three lanes allows a car the opportunity to wait safely before making its turn onto one of these streets without blocking egress from the site of another vehicle wishing to turn in an opposite direction. These two access points shown on the plans also allow for an easy site access by the 55 foot gas tanker trucks which will need to enter from one of the streets and exit via the other. The scale of the site would preclude such a truck from being able to circle and exit from the same curb cat it entered, regardless of which street the curb cut was on. As such the location of the curb cuts as shown are :Zqll paramount to the orderly function of on site traffic as well as dampening potential conflict of traffic on either Commerce or Three Points. · Car Wash Noise and 0peration- Your current zoning ordinance allows for the operation of a car wash only beween the hours of 7:00am and 10:00pm. In addition, the type of car wash being proposed makes use of a system, which allows the car being washed to remain enclosed within the wash bay throughout the wash/dry cycle. Air operated overhead doors open for a car to enter and then close behind once it has safely stopped within the wash bay. The exit door opens only after the dryer has completed it cycle. This greatly reduces any noise which might possible be heard from the outside. · Screening - The ordinance requires that screening, either a solid fence or densely planted materials extend the entire perimeter of a lot line minus the building setbacks, which abut a residential area. Amoco has chosen what it considers to be the most effective route to achieving this, namely the use of a 6-foat high cedar board fence. This fence is shown on the plans as extending the length of the south and east property lines minus the building setbacks. Amoco believes this to be preferable to any type of plantings since Jt will serve equally well in any season. It will also serve as a safety device on the east lat line where a required retaining wall will need to be constructed. This wall will be approximately 8 feet Jn height at some point along its length and the fence is seen as a must in terms of safety on the site. · tlardcover- Much discussion was spent on calculation proprieties concerning the sites hardcaver. Amoco followed accepted procedures for their these calculations but are open to proposed revisions as to the what areas should and should not be included in these figures. Currently Amoco used all the area within the surveyed lot boundaries. This includes the ceaterline of Three Points. If Amoco excluded this area, the total hardcover % should be reduced for the site. Amoco will await direction pertaining to this issue. · Parking Space Size and Number - Amoco currently shows their parking gall design to be 9'x20'. After initial consultation with the city planner Amoco proceeded with this gall size in its preliminary design. Stalls 10 feet in width are possible on the site, however this will require a tightening of the throat to the driveway leading to the car wash and the trash dumpsters on the north side of the Food Shop. Amoco currently indicates 11 open stalls including two handicapped stalls. Code requires only one handicapped stall and Amoco will propose reducing the number to one and thus freeing up an additional gall for general usage. In addition, there are spaces for 12 cars at the pump islands. This would bring the total available parking spaces to 23, far exceeding that required. A gas/convenience operation differs from most other retail operations in that the majority of customers are purchasers of gas at the pumps. They are therefore already parked and never use the stalls in front of the store. Amoco has found that 10-11 parking stalls in addition to the spaces at the pumps more than fulfill the parking practical requirements for a typical Food Shop location. · Handicapped Parking Stall Design - The HDCP stalls shown are code compliant by the Minnesota State Building Code and by the ADA. The intent of the 8-foat wide stalls is that they make use of the 8 foot or four foot wide striped area immediately adjacent. This allows for a HDCP van use and the required side wheel chair lift. In eff~ the spaces are 16 and 12 foot wide respectively. This more than exceeds a comment from the commission that they be at least 10 feet in width. · Signage - The issue of signage caused much discussion. Amoco has been informed by the city planner that the existing PDQ sign directly across Three Points is only 25sf less in size that the proposed Amoco pylon sign on Commerce. The staff recommendations from the meeting of the 11'h stated that this pylon sign be reduced in height from 2.5 feet (which is within the allowed height by ordinance) to 17 feet and that it be convened to a monument type sign with a brick base like the proposed price sign along Three Points. Those recommendations would have allowed the signage on Three Points. However, much contention arose around this price sign. Amoco, in seeking to find an equitable solution proposes to delete this price sign, thus removing the need for a setback variance at this location and reducing the number of freestanding signs to the single one on Commerce. Amoco requests that the signage area be granted for the pylon sign along Commerce as shown on the plans. The design height of 25 feet is within existing zoning ordinance requirements, however Amoco is open to discussion for a reduced height to more match the existing PDQ pylon signage height. · Existing Retaining Wall- An existing retaining wall along Three Points has been requested by city staff for removal and redesign by Amoco of that portion of their site to accommodate its removal. Amoco is in favor of this proposal and sees it as a benefit to the project as a whole in that it should improve sight lines alone Three Points. This should assist in increasing safety to the cars exiting from the north end of the site onto Three Points. · Existing Vegetation - Amoco proposes saving most of the larger, mature trees along the south side of the property. Staff has recommended that existing Aspen trees along the east side of the property be saved or relocated. The required retaining wall location will preclude saving these trees in their current location and Amoco questions the value of relocating this particular species. Aspen grow best in natural groves. Dug up and planted singularly Aspen does not seem to be a strong survivor. The landscape plan is of course open for discussion, but Amoco would prefer to plant more hardy varieties such as shown on the plans rather than attempt relocation of a tree which in its opinion most likely will expire from the shock of the relocation. · Amoco's preferred design of exterior building materials is EFIS, (~erior Finish Insulating Material). To accommodate the stated desires of the city that the structure fit in better with the neighborhood, Amoco is proposing that the entire structure be brick as shown on the site submittal documents. Certainly this l~er does not cover all aspects and concerns that the Commission might have regarding Amoco's proposal, however without direction from the city this letter has attempted to cover most of the topics which were brought up during the meeting of the 11th. Again, Amoco wishes to construc~ a high quality, first rate state of the an fadlity on this lacation and be integrated into the community as a good neighbor as well. We look forward to coming before you once more and responding to these or additional questions and issues as might arise. Sincerely, Alan Nations, AIA Cc: Gary DiPilato, Amoco Jim Kovach, Amoco Vic Socco Loren Gordon, City Planner PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: May 11, 1998 SUBJECT: Variance Request and Conditional Use Permit OWNER: Jim Smith - 3153 Priest Lane APPLICANT: James Kovach representing Amoco CASE NUMBER: 98-26 and 27 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5w and x LOCATION: 1730 Commerce Blvd. ZONING: Residential District R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: A proposal has been submitted to develop the site at the comer of Commerce and Three Points Blvd. as an Amoco gas station, convenience store and care wash. The use would require a conditional use permit as prescribed by the B-2 district for its use and operations. Additionally, the applicant is requesting variances to hardcover, signage, and driveway size for the development as proposed. The site has been vacant for the last few years, but has a history of various gas stations dating back 30 plus years. Adjacent uses include the PDQ directly north, single-family residential to both the east and south, and a vacant hillside west of the site which is located in Minnetrista. The owner, Jim Smith is currently using the property for storage of landscaping equipment. The site contains approximately 60,000 sfincluding a highway easement along Commerce and Three Points Blvd. The grade slopes from the east to the west, changing in elevation from 954 feet along the east property line to 936 feet in the southeast comer. Vegetation includes scrub grass covering most of the site and a stand of aspen trees along the north and east property lines. A few larger trees 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 ]).2 Amoco Conditional Use Permit and l/ariance Request May I 1, 1998 are scattered around the site including Elm, Ash, Box Elder, and Cedar. Other site conditions include driveway remnants of the previous gas station along the roadway frontages. DEVELOPMENT PLAN: The development plan proposes a building for the food shop, an accessory car wash building, and 6 gas pumps with an overhead canopy. The main food shop building is located on east half of the site with its front facing Commerce Blvd. It is a single story design with a brick exterior. The associated car wash facility would be directly south the food shop. It would also include a brick exterior in its design. The gas pump canopy stands independent of the food shop and car wash buildings. Access to the site is from a driveway along Commerce Blvd. and a driveway along Three Points Blvd. Each driveway would have one entrance lane and two exit lanes. Circulation patterns allow almost unrestricted movement around the site. Parking is provided directly in front of the food shop with 11 spaces including 2 handicapped. The car wash drive circles the rear of the building where cars would enter, complete the wash cycle, and exit through the front. Approximately 8 stacking spaces are provided for the car wash entry. Almost two-thirds of the site will be hardcover. Green space is generally located on the perimeter of the site. The plans provide for storm water drainage in a series of catch basins and pipes which connect to the existing storm sewer line along Commerce Blvd. Underground fuel storage tanks are located along the south property line adjacent to the pump island. Both the pump island and underground storage tanks will have concrete covers. All driveways will be bituminous paving except for the approach aprons which will be concrete. Water and sewer connections as shown come from lines along Commerce Blvd. The signage for the site consists of building and freestanding signs. The Commerce frontage has a 25 feet pylon sign, with almost 94 sfofarea. It's location would be setback about 14 feet from the back of the existing sidewalk, 10 feet from the property line. The monument sign along Three Points Blvd. is 9.5 feet in height with 45 sfofarea. It's proposed location is 13 feet from the back edge of the sidewalk and 2 feet from the highway easement. Both freestanding signs would be internally illuminated. Building signage consists of a internally illuminated 60.7 sf"Food Shop" sign, a 26.6 sf"Car Wash" sign, and 13.41 sf"Amoco" signage on the south and west canopy facias. Additional directional signage would be used at access points and car wash drive. Accent red, white and blue graphics would be used on the buildings as well. The site will be graded to make it more level, reducing the slope on the eastern half of the site. A retaining wall will be installed there along the car wash drive. Most of the aspen trees in this area would be removed. The proposed landscape plantings include a variety of Linden, Honeylocust, and Crabapple trees. Additional shrubs are located at the base of signage and entry points. All planting 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p.$ Amoco Conditional Use Permit and Variance Request May 11, 1998 areas would be irrigated. The cedar trees along the south property line would be retained. To buffer adjacent residential properties, a 6 feet fence is proposed. The site will be lighted from fixtures in the canopy and on the building walls and freestanding posts located at both entrances, the car wash loop drive and in front of the car wash. The lighting plan also includes the intensity on and off site. Lighting will be most intense around buildings and under the canopy and lighting posts. At property lines the intensity ranges from .5 to over 4 footcandles. The proposed variances are also requested as part of the development plan: Existing/Proposed Required Hardcover 38,416 sf 17,994 sf 20,420 sf Sign Area - Commerce 93.6 sf 48 sf 45.6 sf Sign Setback - Three Points 2' 10' 8' Driveway Width 40' 22' 18' Variance COMMENTS: Considerations for variance and conditional use permit criteria are addressed below: Variance A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis ora 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. The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of this Ordinance. C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant. Do That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the same district. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 4 Amoco Conditional Use Permit and Variance Request May Il, 1998 E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship. F, Thc variance would not bc matcrially dctrimcntal to thc purpose of this Ordinance or to property in the same zone. Conditional Use Permit The following criteria may be used as findings in granting a conditional use permit. A. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the immediate vicinity. Do That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses predominant in the area. That adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities have been or are being provided. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide sufficient off-street parking and loading space to serve the proposed use. That adequate measures have bee or will be taken to prevent or control offensive odor, fumes, dust, noise and vibration, so that non of these will constitute a nuisance, and to control lighted signs and other lights in such a manner that no disturbance to neighboring properties will result. The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. G. The use is consistent with the purposes of the zoning code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends to locate the proposed use. H. The use is not in conflict with the policies plan of the City. I. The use will not cause traffic hazards or congestion. J. Existing adjacent uses will not be adversely affected because of curtailment of customer trade brought about by intrusion of noise, glare or general unsightliness. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 5 Amoco Conditional Use Permit and Variance Request May 11, 1998 ISSUES: During the review, staff has found a number of issues that need to be discussed on considering this proposal. Hardcover - The site is approximately 66 percent hardcover. With an approved stormwater management plan, the City could approve up to 75 percent total hardcover as governed by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. To address stormwater, the proposal uses a number of catch basins which are connected to the main along Commerce. This method was chosen by the developer rather than using a ponding area which was somewhat restricted because of the level of improvements to the site. The developer has indicated they have been in contact with the Watershed District about the proposed method and is proposing to pay treatment fees. The City Engineer has reviewed and is recommending approval of the stormwater system. Three Points Blvd. Signage - The highway easement arching through the northwest comer of the property has an impact on the site. This line determines the 30 feet front yard setbacks for the property. The monument sign along Three Points is setback 2 feet from the easement although it is 19 feet from the curb and 15 feet from the sidewalk. This location would be typical for most freestanding signage absent the easement. Staff would recommend approval of the 8 feet setback variance as requested. Commerce Blvd. Signage - The freestanding sign along Commerce is proposed to be increased above normal 48 sfstandard to 93.6 sf. This is almost a 100 percent increase to the requirement. The applicant sites that most gas station facilities are afforded more signage than 48 square feet. This is probably true due to the needs for displaying the company logo, store amenities, and gas pricing. The intent of the code in the B-2 district however, is to encourage signage that is less obtrusive. Staff would like to offer a compromise to get a more consistent freestanding sign package by reducing the height from 25 feet to 17 feet. By removing the bottom 8 feet of standard, the sign would have a smaller scale with the same amount of area requested. Driveway Access - The code prescribes a 22 feet driveway width maximum for all property access points to public streets. This standard is probably outdated and should be revised to reflect more modem traffic engineering methods. Each driveway has one entry point and two exit points on each driveway. This facilitates safe traffic movement on and off site. Consideration also needs to be given to tanker trucks which will need to access the site. Staff would recommend the Planning Commission approve the variance for a 40 feet wide curb cut on Three Points Blvd. and Commerce Blvd. o Parking Space Size - The parking plan shows 11 parking spaces including 2 handicapped. The plans indicate a 9 feet by 20 feet size. The code requires a 10 feet by 20 feet stall size. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 6 Amoco Conditional Use Permit and Variance Request Ma3, 1 I, 1998 Variances have been granted for sizes that are similar to the 9 feet width as proposed. Staff would support the reduction of parking space size as proposed. o o Parking Spaces - The plan shows 11 parking spaces for the site. This use does not specifically fall under the any of the listed uses, but probably best fits as a retail store. If applied, the site would need 16 parking spaces. This formula uses 1 space per every 150 square feet of gross floor area. In looking at other community requirements for retail uses, this is on the high end of the typical range. Standards typically vary from 1 per 250sf to 100sf of floor area. If 1 space per every 200sf were applied, the requirement would be 12 spaces. The code does have the provision for the Planning Commission and Council determine the number of spaces if the use does not fit. The Planning Commission should discuss this with the developer to determine if the parking as proposed will be adequate or if additional spaces are needed. Grading and Landscaping - The grading plan indicates that many of the existing aspen trees will be removed. This is somewhat necessary to accommodate the car wash driveway and retaining wall. Staff would like to encourage the Planning Commission to work with the developer to preserve the more mature trees before grading commences. These trees could be relocated to appropriate planting areas on the site. The benefits would be many. It would help maintain more of the existing site qualities, add aesthetic value to the site and neighborhood, provide additional buffering to adjacent residential properties, and would provide a more mature looking site up front. Retaining Wall - There is an existing retaining wall along Three Points Blvd. on the site and the adjacent residential property. There are parts of the wall that are starting to bow out. The City Engineer has commented that the retaining wall by the car wash drive could tie into this wall thereby eliminating most of the wall on the property. This would eliminate a retaining wall and the City's maintenance responsibility. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the conditional use permit and requested variances with the following conditions: 1. The freestanding sign along Commerce Blvd. be reduced to a height of 17 feet. 2. The stormwater plan be approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 3. The "Food Shop", "Car Wash", and dumpster enclosure be constructed of brick. 4. The freestanding sign along Commerce Blvd. have a brick base similar to the monument sign on Three Points. 5. The City Engineer review and approve all grading and drainage plans. 6. The parking size and space issue be determined. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 ~Sy, 7, 1998 7'59AM I~CCOlaBS YRAI~K ROOS No, 2236 P, 2/3 McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 15050 25rcl Avenue North, Plymouth, MN 55447 Telephone 612/476-6O 10 61~475~,532 FAX Engineem Planners Surveyom MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CASE NO.: MFRA FILE #: Jon Sutherland, Planning John Cameron, City Engineer May 7, 1998 Amoco Food Shop 98-26 & 27 11991 As requested, I have reviewed the plan submitted for a new Amoco Food Shop and gasoline outlet and have the following comments and recommendations: Site Plan Both driveways are shown as 40 feet wide. City code limits entrances to 22 feet wide; therefore, a variance will be needed. An entrance perrni! from Hermepin County will be needed for the Count)' Road 110 driveway. The parking stall width is not dimensioned, but it scales 9-feet. City code requires 10 feet, thus a variance will be required. Thc City sidewalks need to be handicap accessible at thc driveways. There should be a note on the plans to insure this is not missed during construction. Grading and Utility Plan The new 4-inch water service is shown connected to a hydrant lead. It must be changed to connect directly to the 10-inch waterrnain in County Road 110. It may be possible to design a plan that would allow the sanitary sewer and water services to be mn in the same trench; thus, requiring only one excavation in the Count)' road. Hennepin County will require a utility permit. An Equal Opportunity Employer l,la,v, 7, 1998 8'00~,~,i Jon Sutherland May 7, 1995 Page 2 I~ICCOMBS YRANK ROOS No, 2238 No consideration has bccn given to restrict the nm-off rate or treatment of storrnwater, other then providing 3-foot sumps in the las; two catch b~in structures, The grading plan will need to be approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). Hennepin County will also need to approve the installation of the proposed storm sewer and connection to their system. The grading plan shows substantial grading along the east portion of the property which requires the construction of a retaining wall that terminates at the south right-of-way line of Three Point's Boulevard. We have suggested to the applicants that they consider extending their new retaining wall north until it intersects the City's existing retaining wall at the south edge of the Three Point's Boulevard sidewalk. They could then remove the westerly 60-feet of City wall and regrade the boulevard and setback area to provide a more desirable landscaped area. They seemed receptive to the idea, which would be beneficial to the City by eliminating 60-feet of unnecessary retaining wall. e:~aain:\1199 l~u~er$-6 Rev. 11~14-97 Application for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 APR 2 3.1.998 Case No. Conditional Use Permit Fee: $250.00 Distribution: City Planner: Public Works: Other: Fire Dept. Please type or print the following information: PROPERTY Subject Address ~--J~t~ ~~J~C.~ INFORMATION LEGAL Lot 2 ~ Block Plat DESCRIPTION su v,s o. APPLICANT The applicant is: __owner ~ other: Address~l ~- Bo~ ~. ~,~i~,~u~ Phone (H) ~ (W) ~ Name ~~ ~. OWNER {if other than Address ~J ~ ~J~ ~J~, ' ~ I I ' applicant) Phone (H) (W) (M) Name ~ ~~ 1 ~ ~CHIT~I, ENGINEER ZONING Circle: R-1 R-lA R-2 R-3 B-1 ~ B-3 DISTRICT CHANGE OF FROM: ~0 C~~ ~ USE TO: Conditional Use Permit Application Page 2 Description o f Proposed Use: / EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development. Estimated Development Cost of the Project: $ 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. This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. Print Applicant's Name//~4~,o~_° /~plicant's Signature Date Print Owner's Name Print Owner's Name Signature Date Notions Co. ARCHITECTONICS 4815 Upton Avenue South 4, Minneapolis. Minnesota 55410 Phone 612-922-4409 + Fax 612-922-4409 "Reasonable Design for a Rational World" April 23, 1998 EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE.. The Food Shop will operate similarly to the adjacent existing PDQ facility across Three Points Blvd. As such it should create no new traffic patterns or uses from those already existing in the area. The proposed facility has 6 gas pump islands capable of handling up to 12 cars. The Food Shop has an additional 11 parking spaces for employee and non.gas customer use. The Food Shop itself has self-serve beverage and bakery products along with a minimal amount of general retail. Please see attached floor plans. No seating area is provided within the Food Shop. The detached car wash is a touchless, automatic facility with ample stacking area on the approach side behind the Food Shop building. The car wash is equipped with overhead doors, which remain closed during operation, mitigating any potential noise while in use. There are 2 dry off areas provided adjacent the car wash exit allowing for customers to stop and wipe down their cars if they so choose. However, the facility is equipped with a dryer system, which should preclude the necessity for this procedure. The lights from the parking area and the canopy are designed to throw light down and limit/e~geonto surrounding areas outside the bounds of Amoco's property. Please see the attached lighting plan. Access to the site is from both Commerce Blvd. and Three Points Blvd. allowing for and easy flow onto and off the site. RECEIVE APR 2 3 MOUND PLANNING & iNS Proud member of AIA - American Institute of Architects and ICBO - International Conference of Building Officials ,I J ,aiL, VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) Planning Commission Date: ~d i~ /qqb City Council Date: Distribution: L['~-'q 'c1~ City Planner ij'c~L')-q~ City Engineer L~;)_') -cl~ Other q-gq-q% Pub,c Works q-~n-~'g F"u~ SUBJECT Address J "'/~4g COI~I~E.F&d.~_ P.OPE.TV Lot .a--r:~cor¢ ~ I_c+ LEGAL Block DESC. Subdivision LI~/~'-I'E~q'T~_ ?~,~-_1~. PID# I%- I['-/- ~q /~ t-7 'b~-~ P~at # i,~l I,~% /gdo ZONIN~ D~STR~CT R-~ R-~A R-2 R-3 a-~ ~ B-3 PROP£RT¥ Name .~~_.~ M~ j OWN£R Address .~1 ~"5 ?r~[~-%'"l- L~.~l~ b,',~ . N,,~t,J Phone (H) (W) (M) APPLICANT Name _~~ ~-O~- ~ ~cy~O ~-¢-~-~ (IF OTHER Address ~Oml //~. ~oTM ~T'- I~-~'~,~-r~_ THAN Phone (H) ---' (W) c~. G - ~"~. ~' (M) -- OWNER) 7 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.)' (R~v. 11/14197) Variance Application, P. 2 Case No. o Do the ~ structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE (or existing) ,, Front Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Side Yard: ( N S E W ) Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) Lakeside: ( N S E W ) : (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. ~--~1, 'TEa 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: o 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 describe: (Rev. 11/I 4/9 7) Variance Application, P. 3 Case No. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No~). If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes ~, No (). If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~:Y), 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 ~-._ /~/~/~'~~ Signature ~&~~ Date Date (Rev. I 1/I 4/9 7) Nations aha Co. ARCH] ECTONICS Phone 612-922-4409 ,I Fax 612-922-4409 "Reasonable Design for a Rational World" April 23, 1998 VARIENCE REQUESTS AND REASONS: 1. Hardcover The lot size is 59,980sf. The proposed hardcover as defined by Mound's zoning ordinance is 38,419sf or approximately 64% of the site. The allowable by the ordinance is 30%. Gas/Convenience stores and Car Washes such as the ones proposed by Amoco for this site are unique in their need for a high amount of paving area relative to building size to facilitate on site traffic. This traffic, unlike that in simple retail type projects, is often in continual motion and requires greater turning radius in the form of widened drive isle widths to allow for safe alignment with the gas pumps both during the entry and exiting process. In addition, the industry's use of 55-foot tanker trucks to supply gas to the underground tanks requires an even greeter turning radius. These radiuses are required to facilitate their ability to access and exit the site in a safe manner, which does not block traffic either on site or on the adjacent streets. The zoning ordinance requires the car wash facility to have S stacking spaces on the entry side plus 2 dry off spaces on the exit side. In addition, this type of facility requires that the approach to the entry of the car wash be wide enough to allow for customers to leave the waiting line and come back later if they so choose. This in turn requires greater amounts of paving. For these reasons this projects requires a greeter amount of hardcover than strictly allowed by ordinance. 2. Size of Pylon Sign on Commerce Blvd. The zoning ordinance allows for one sign per street frontage, 25 feet in height and up to 48st in area. Most pylon type signs for gas/convenience stores usually exceed this limited area requirement. Amoco's pylon sign requires their corporate Torch and Oval Iago, the add on information that this facility Js a "Food Shop" and "Car Wash" and also contains the price signs so vital to all gas station type operations. Amoco has a variety of signage designs available to them and has altempted to stay as close to the intent of the ordinance as possible by proposing one of their smallest available pylon signs in terms of area for this site. The sign shown on the drawings is 93.6sf in area. An increase from the ordinance of 51%. For reasons stated above Amoco requests a variance to allow for this increase. 3. Setback of Monument Type Sign off Three Points Blvd. The zoning ordinance allows for one sign per street frontage, 25 feet in height and up to 48st in aree. On typical corner lot situations such as here, Amoco locates a single pylon type sign at the intersections of the two streets. This layout allows clear visual access to the gas prices for potential customers from both streets. With competition such as PDQ directly across the street, the need for this corner layout is paramount. However, the existing large radius easement off the Commerce/Three Points Blvd. intersection precludes such a positioning of the pylon sign. Insteed this vital sign has been moved some 100 feet south of its preferred location along Commerce Blvd. This location RECEIVED Proud member of AIA-American Institute of Architects and ICBO-International Conference of Building Officials API~ 2 3 199P MOUND PLANNING places it in a position, which obscures it from traffic going west along Three Points Blvd. Amoco feels strongly that they wil~ Jose potentiaJ customers to the competition across Three Points Bird. due to those customer's inability to easily see and compare Amoco's gas prices with those of PDQ. They therefore need a second sign along Three Points Blvd. to alleviate this situation. Such a sign would be allowed by the ordinance stated above. The proposed monument type sign is of minimal size at 9'-6~ in height and 4$sf in area which conforms to the requirements of the ordinance. However, due to the layout of the site the required 10' setback need to be reduced to 2' to allow its placement along Three Points Blvd. Amoco is requesting that a variance in terms of this setback be granted due to the reasons stated above. RECEIVED APR 2 3 1998 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. 40 February 9, 1988 RESOLUTION 88-29 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A SIGN SETBACK VARIANCE FOR FINA AT 1730 COMMERCE BOULEVARD; ?ID~ 13-117-24 22 0025; P & Z CASE NO. 88-703 WHEREAS, the applicant, Suburban Lighting, Inc., Contractor for Fina, has requested a setback variance for the free standing sign at the loca- tion shown on Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, said sign would be erected as a free standing sign that would be located South of Three Points and East of Commerce Boulevard with zero foot setback to the furthest projection of the sign shown on Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, said sign would identify the Fina Service Station at 1730 Commerce Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request for the 50 square foot free standing sign and the two canopy signs and does recommend the sign be approved as requested. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the sign variance for a free stand- ing, 50 square foot sign, with a height of 20 feet to be located as shown on Exhibit A and as described on Exhibit B, upon the condition that the canopy free standing sign comply with the provisions of the Sign Ondinance Section 365 of the Mound Code for 1730 Commerce Boulevard; PID~ 13-117-24 22 0025. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Johnson and seconded by Councilmember Jensen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Abel, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. ~ Attest: City Clerk November 27, 1984 RESOLUTION NO. 84-193 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A SIGN PERMIT FOR TEXACO, 1730 COMMERCE BLVD., AS REQUESTED (PID ~13-117-24 22 0025) WHEREAS, the Getty Oil Station at 1730 Commerce Blvd. has been sold to Texaco; and WHEREAS, Texaco now wishes to install their sign which is proposed to be 45 square feet (6 feet by 7 feet, 6 inches) to be mounted on the existing pylon; and WHEREAS, this sign will be approximately 1 square foot less than the Getty sign; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby concur with the Planning Commission recommendation to approve a sign permit for Texaco, 1730 Commerce Blvd. (PID #13-117-24 22 0025), as requested. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Jessen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Charon, Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson and Polston. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor Attest: City Clerk - 188 August '14', 1'984 RESOLUTION NO. 84-120 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A SIGN VARIANCE FOR GETTY OIL - PID ~13-117-24 22 0025 WHEREAS, Getty Oil, owner, and Suburban Lighting, applicant, have requested a sign variance; and WHEREAS, 'said sign would be erected on the canopy (free standing) at 1730 Commerce Blvd. and will be 12 sq. ft. on the single face as shown on Exhibit A and located on the property as shown on Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, said sign would identify the location of the Getty Oil Station at 1730 Commerce Blvd. described as "Pt. of Lot 27, Layfayette Park", PID #13-117-24 22 0025. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the free standing sign variance as requested for 1730 Commerce Blvd. and described on Exhibit A and B upon the condition that the portable signage be removed from the site as described in the Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 1984. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Peterso~ and seconded by Councilmember Paulsen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson and Polston. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Counci!member Charon was absent and excused. Mayor Attest: City Clerk I ' July 5, RESOLUTION NO. 83-119 1983 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A SIGN PERMIT FOR (1730 COMMERCE BLVD.), PART OF LOT 27, LAFAYETTE PARK, LAKE MINNETONKA (PID # 13-117-24 22 0025 WHEREAS, the owner Getty Refining & Marketing, and the applicants Suburban Lighting, Inc. of the property described as Part of Lot 27, Lafayette Park, Lake Minnetonka, PID #13-117-24 22 0025, have requested a sign permit; and WHEREAS, said sign would be erected on the southwest portion of the property and be of a sign described on Exhibit "B" and in the location as described on Exhibit "A" mounted on a free standing pylon; and WHEREAS, said sign would identify the location of the Gerry Service Station. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota does concur with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and does hereby approve the sign permit as requested, provided it be placed at the same location as the present pylon sign. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Charon and seconded by Councilmember Paulsen. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Charon Paulsen and Polston. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: None. Councilmembers Peterson and Polston Mayor Arrest: City Clerk cASE RESOLUTION NO. 72-46 RESOLUTION CRANTLNG SPECIAL USE P~RMIT FOR GASOL~E SERVICE ST~TION (Plat 61690, Parcel 8140) NO. 83-234 W~ww~S, by Resolution No. 72-16, adoptod J~nuary I1, 1972, a hearing was ..:lied for a Special Use Permit for a g~asollne service st~tlon on tho southeast corner of the intorsection of Three Points Boulevard ~nd County Highway ~ll0 for February 8, I~72, and .:. W~'z~mS, by Resolution No. 72-32, adopted February 8, 1972, the hea~ing was continued to Februmry 29,' 1972 and was held, .~ NOW, T~'~.WMFORE, BE IT RESOLV~ BY T~ VILLAGE COUNCIL OF MOUND, MOUND, ~S 0TA: :' That the owner of Plat 61690, Parcel 8140 be granted a Special. Use Permit for a gasoline service station with the following s~ipulations: 1. This Special Use Permit is for the construction of a a gasolLue filling stmtion as shown on site plan marked, "Exhibit A" and pictures marked, "Exhibit B, C, D, E and F." '2. Site improvement of bituminous pcvement and landscapLug shall be in conformance with "~xhibit A." 3. Structures and signs shall be painted or of b=ic~. 4. Ingress and egress shall conform to the requirements of Hen~epin County Highway Department. '5. All structures shall meet the requirements of the Mound~ Building Code and S~ate Reg~lations. 6. This Special Use Permit is authorized for the opera~ion of a g~soline filllr~ station and the sale of related products. Automotive repair shall be limited to carburetor and ignition work and replacement of exte_~nal eng~_ue par~s, and other minor repair work. Heavy repair work and body work, disassembly or replacemen~ of engines, transmissions or differentials are not authorized u~der the provisions of this permit. 7. The posting of a performance bond in the amount of $2,500 to assure installation and mainZenance of ~he land's~caping and maintenance of the structure is ~o become a par~ oS this permit. The bond is 'to be for 18 months after certi- fication of occupancy is issued. R~:SOLUTION A~T. NG~AZING RE2V~D OF MGZET .POSTED FOR SPECIAL USE PE/t~IT kEQ~EST WHEP. EAS, the coats were as lollows, ~Publication Costs Hearing Mo~lce~ A~t t orney Fee. 8-12-65 Notice & Resolution 10- 1-65 Resolution ~212 Administration Costs & Postag~ the Council requested ~he posting of $100.00 to cover legal, publXcation and ac~nistra~ion costa on the Special Uae Permit request for a gasoline re~a~l filling station on Pr~ of Lot k7, lafayette Par~, lying Westerly of the Easterly 150 feet and Southerly of Wemonan ~oad, $ 6.40 20.OO $66.40 TEER~E BE IT RESOLVED ~y TEE VILLAGE C0~NCIL OF MO~E~D, MINNESOTA, That · refund of $~.60 be ~ade to Rruce Robinson. Adopted by the Council this 25th day of Janmary, 1966. "+2 ,$ 3;' dOHS ~003 ODO~¥ Ol I 'ON il,' L ;I .'Iv ill~ \ I I '1"- ' -- COUNTY ROAD NO. 110 ~ '~ EXC~EP ~0 ~ ~ CITY OF MOUND HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS. IIMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE) RECEIVED APE 2 3 1998 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. LOT AREA LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 30% = (for all lots) .............. SQ. FT. X 40% = (for Lots of Record*) ....... I _1 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 X = X = DET,-,,.., ,,-,-, ,.-, ,-. ,..".~ '-' (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 SQ FT TOTAL ~'~---:OL:~..%~2~. .............. ~- ~i- x ~-~r - 4- X : TOTAL m:~ ~' '~ DLD~ ~ -~~ ...... X = X = TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC .................. X = TOTAL OTHER ......................... _ 5q~$Yz- ,_ TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE UNDER/~R~~dicate difference) ............................... ADDRESS: ._ -'-., ? I ZONE: REQ LOT ~'. ~ . , ,~ · AREA: FT l · i ~ EXISTING LOT DEPTH: EXIST. LOT AREA: $0 FT ~EQUIRED SETBACKS PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W 15' LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: · 50' (measured from O.H.W.) _ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED FRONT: N S E W - FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W ..4'or 6' SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' REAR: N S E W 4' LAKESHORE: · TOP OF BLUFF: 50' measured from O.H.W. EXISTING AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: PRINCIPAL BUILDING HOUSE FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: HARDCOVER CONFORMING? YES / NO / ? BY: ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: IS THIS PROPERTY CONFORMING7 YES / NO / 7 June 23, 1998 PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98- RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCES FOR 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE TWIN HOME PROJECT, LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, PID 13-117-24 44 0032 PZ CASE # 98-28, 98-05, & 98-07 WHEREAS, the applicant, James Johnson has submitted an application for a Preliminary Plat and Conditional Use Permit with Variances for a 6 unit twinhome development; and, WHEREAS, the property was previously used as a staging area during the County Road 15 reconstruction project and has remained vacant since; and, WHEREAS, the development would be located within the R-2 Single or Two Family Residential district and is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit; and, WHEREAS, the developer is seeking assistance from the City and adjacent property owners for street and utility improvements along the unimproved portion of Norwood Avenue; and, WHEREAS, the developer will pay for 51 percent of the street and utility assessments for the project; and, WHEREAS, lots 2-6 are under the required 7000 sf lot area standard for twin homes. The proposal meets all other setback requirements for twinhome developments with established dwelling setbacks of 10 feet side yards, 45 feet rear yards and 20 feet front yards; and, WHEREAS, each proposed unit would be 1534 sf in size with a two stall attached garage; and, WHEREAS, the developer is marketing the units to a senior population by incorporating a single story design and added association amenities; and, WHEREAS, the proposed landscaping includes a row of 7 over story deciduous trees including ash, oak or maple planted on a 2 feet earthen mound along Shoreline Drive with a typical 2 inch caliper; and, June 23, 1998 Moore-4901 Shore#ne Drive Page 3 WHEREAS, the total hardcover for the entire property is 39.85 percent, under the 40 percent lot of record requirement by 0.15 percent; and, WHEREAS, outside lighting consists of two lights on each garage and two lights in the rear of each unit; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission cited 2 finding of fact in recommending approval of the development: 1) Good for the City - purchasers would be targeted to the semi retired or retired individuals. 2) Only street in Mound that is used as a street and has not been developed yet; and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota hereby: approves the Preliminary Plat, Conditional Use Permit with variances with the following conditions: 1. No hardcover variances due to the project is being considered as a whole. 2. That the lot size variance be granted due to land being taken during the reconstruction of County Road 15 (Shoreline Drive). 3. The City Engineer review and approve all grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building Permits 4. The stormwater plan be reviewed and approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 5. The City Engineer review and approve all road improvements prior to issuance of Building Permits. 7. Developer will relocate the existing encroaching fence at the expense of the Developer and all required permits will be required. 8. A ten (10) foot Right of Way Variance be granted. B. Recognize lot size variances as follows: square square Lot 2 - 5: proposed lot size of 5,828 square feet requiring a lot size variance of 1,172 feet. Lot 6: proposed lot size of 5,853 square feet requiring a lot size variance of 1,147 feet. C. The property legally described at 4901 Shoreline Drive as: Lot 1, except the East 3.00 feet of said Lot 1 and except that part of said Lot 1 which lies Northeasterly of a line drawn from a point on the East line of said Lot 1, distant 10.00 feet South from the Northeast corner of said Lot 1, to a point on the North line of said Lot 1, distant 15.00 feet West from said Northeast corner and Lots 2 to 6 inclusive, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit A, according to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and for said County, Hennepin County, Minnesota. June 23, 1998 Moore- 4901 Shoreline Ddve Page 3 The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in favor: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Attest: , seconded by Councilmember. Mayor Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orr Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff Present: Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Voss Public Present: Michaela Diercks, Don Loken, Glenna Loken, Robert Wroda, Stephen Kakos, Lisa Hanson, Dennis Leininger, Carolyn Leininger, Doug Birdie, Vic Sacco, Jim Smith, Karl Gruhn, Jared Smith, Jim Kovach, Jim Johnson, Dave Moore, Jennifer Garden, Martin Garden, Alan Nations Chris Meyer, Peter Liupakka Meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael Chair Michael readjusted the agenda to start with the variance cases first then proceed with the Public Hearings. MINUTES -APPROVAL OF THE MAY 11, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Weiland commented that Jerry Clapsaddle be Absent and Excused. Hanus stated on Case 98-24 under the discussion his comments should read, "Hanus commented there are 4 accessory buildings and this would require an additional variance. So noted and will be corrected. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the May 11, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 7-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: Chair Michael explained how the Public Hearing would be conducted. Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 CASE #98-28: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW TWIN HOMES, JAMES JOHNSON/DAVE MOORE, 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, PID # 13-117-24 44 0032 CASE # 98-05: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION, MAJOR SUBDIVISION, JAMES JOHNSON/DAVE MOORE, 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, PID # 13-117-24 44 0032 CASE #98-07: VARIANCE, LOT AREA, HARDCOVER, JAMES JOHNSON/DAVE MOORE, 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, PID # 13-117-24 44 0032 Loren Gordon presented the cases This is a supplement report to the April 27, 1998 report for rezoning, preliminary plat, and variance requests. At the time of consideration during the April meeting, the conditional use permit was not prepared. The Planning Commission decided to hear the items and continue the hearing at a later date when the CUP was ready. The application has been submitted and the applicant is requesting approval at this time for the preliminary plat, lot area variances, conditional use permit, and financial assistance from the City to improve of the balance of Norwood Avenue. The applicant has submitted a site plan which is being used for purposes of addressing the conditional use permit requirements. Sections of the code that apply to conditional use permits are Section 350:525 which generally addresses all CUP developments and subdivision 4 of Section 350:630 which speaks more specifically to twin home dwellings as conditional uses. If approved, the CUP will incorporate all subdivision and site plan issues for the property and control any modifications to the site. The developer is proposing 3 twin units on the 6 lots. Lots 2 - 5 are under the required 7000 sf lot area standard for twin homes. The proposal meets all other setback requirements for dwellings maintaining 10 feet on side yards, 45 feet rear yard, and 20 feet front yard setbacks. Each of the units would be 1534 sf in size with a two stall attached garage. The developer is marketing the units to a senior population by incorporating a single story design and added association amenities. Landscaping includes a row of 7 over stow deciduous trees planted on a 2 feet earthen mound along Shoreline Drive. The developer is proposing typical 2 inch caliper ash, oak or maple trees. These are the only landscaping shown on the site plan. The hardcover calculations for the property have been updated to consider the site as a 2 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 whole rather than an individual lot basis. Total hardcover is 39.63 percent of the property, under the 40 percent lot of record requirement by 0.37 percent. Outside lighting consists of two lights on each garage and two lights in the rear of each unit. Specifics are not given but it appears to be standard residential lighting fixtures. Covenants have been submitted to the City Attorney for review. Changes to the language have been made and the updated copy should be in your packets. The street and utility improvements have at this point been addressed conceptually. The developer estimates the cost for street, water and sewer connections would be $48,871. Of this amount $25,000 would be paid for by the developer, $10,000 by an abutting property owner, and $13,871 left to be paid by the City. These estimates will need to be verified by the City Engineer. If the City should chooses to approve the project, the proposal shows that it would be responsible for contributing $13,871 up- front for the improvements. These costs could be then be deferred to the abutting properties or paid from other city funds. If the City chooses to proceed with assisting in the project funding gap, greater detail will need to be provided on the specifics of the project before final project approvals are granted. This would include construction plans prepared by the City Engineer or the developers engineer, costs for street and utility assessments to the abutting properties. COMMENTS: In addition to the concerns stated in the previous report, the same issues are present with the CUP. The lot sizes do not meet code requirements. Staff feels other options for the development should be more thoroughly explored before granting approval to this project. The most ideal approach, is a development proposal incorporating all vacant land along Norwood Avenue into a comprehensive plan where the developer be responsible for all private and public project elements. This approach also puts the least amount of risk on the City. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the conditional use permit request based on the concerns for lot size and the City's assumed financial risk for street and utility improvements. Discussion: Hanus questioned Gordon's position on the recommendation. Gordon stated that staff recommendation is to deny this portion of the project. Staff feels uncomfortable about putting the City at any financial risk. Staff feels there may be better options or uses for this property. Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Gordon stated that staff would like to see both sides of the street developed at the same time. Burma questioned the ownership of lot 13. Gordon stated that it was a separate owner. Burma stated then there is one neighbor in favor of the project and three that are unknown of their position on the project. Mueller moved to have the public hearing opened. Chair Michael opened the Public Hearing. Chair Michael closed the Public Hearing. Mueller questioned Gordon on the other options for the site. Gordon commented that maybe duplexes be built or possibly downsizing the project to only having two sets of twin homes instead of three, something that fits the standards. Mueller commented on the reason why harddrives purchased the property to begin with. Mueller commented from a planning prospective would the city rather see duplexes that are rented out versus purchases twinhomes. Gordon stated that this project meets a needed elderly housing segment in Mound. Mueller commented what cost would it be to the city. The amount would be deferred through assessments. There was lengthy discussion on deferrments. Finding of Facts: - Good for the City - purchasers would be targeted to the semi retired or retired individuals. - Only street in Mound that is used as a street and has not been developed yet. For all three cases 98-28, 98-05, & 98-07 · MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Burma to recommend the proposal by the applicant with the following conditions: No hardcover variances due to the project is being considered as a whole. That the lot size variance be granted due to land being taken during the reconstruction of County Road 15 (Shoreline Drive). 4 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 m 6. 7. 8. The City Engineer review and approve all grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building Permits The stormwater plan be reviewed and approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The City Engineer review and approve all road improvements prior to issuance of Building Permits. Developer pay 51% of assessments for Road development. Developer will relocate the existing encroaching fence at the expense of the Developer and all required permits will be required. A ten (10) foot Right of Way Variance be granted. Motion carried 6-1. Opposed: Hanus. This case will go to the City Council on June 23, 1998. 5 PLANNING REPORT Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. k-4H TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP DATE: June 8, 1998 SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit OWNER: James Johnson - 4901 Shoreline Drive CASE NUMBER: 98-28 HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5y LOCATION: 4901 Shoreline Drive COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: This is a supplement report to the April 27, 1998 report for rezoning, preliminary plat, and variance requests. At the time of consideration during the April meeting, the conditional use permit was not prepared. The Planning Commission decided to hear the items and continue the hearing at a later date when the CLIP was ready. The application has been submitted and the applicant is requesting approval at this time for the preliminary plat, lot area variances, conditional use permit, and financial assistance from the City to improve of the balance of Norwood Avenue. The applicant has submitted a site plan which is being used for purposes of addressing the conditional use permit requirements. Sections of the code that apply to conditional use permits are Section 350:525 which generally addresses all CUP developments and subdivision 4 of Section 350:630 which speaks more specifically to twin home dwellings as conditional uses. If approved, the CUP will incorporate all subdivision and site plan issues for the property and control any modifications to the site. The developer is proposing 3 twin units on the 6 lots. Lots 2 - 5 are under the required 7000 sf lot area standard for twin homes. The proposal meets all other setback requirements for dwellings maintaining 10 feet on side yards, 45 feet rear yard, and 20 feet front yard setbacks. Each of the units would be 1534 sf in size with a two stall attached garage. The developer is marketing the units to a senior population by incorporating a single story design and added association amenities. Landscaping includes a row of 7 overstory deciduous trees planted on a 2 feet earthen mound along Shoreline Drive. The developer is proposing typical 2 inch caliper ash, oak or maple trees. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 p. 2 Johnson Conditional Use Permit Request dune 8, 1998 These are the only landscaping shown on the site plan. The hardcover calculations for the property have been updated to consider the site as a whole rather than an individual lot basis. Total hardcover is 39.63 percent of the property, under the 40 percent lot of record requirement by 0.37 percent. Outside lighting consists of two lights on each garage and two lights in the rear of each unit. Specifics are not given but it appears to be standard residential lighting fixtures. Covenants have been submitted to the City Attorney for review. Changes to the language have been made and the updated copy should be in your packets. The street and utility improvements have at this point been addressed conceptually. The developer estimates the cost for street, water and sewer connections would be $48,871. Of this amount $25,000 would be paid for by the developer, $10,000 by an abutting property owner, and $13,871 left to be paid by the City. These estimates will need to be verified by the City Engineer. If the City should chooses to approve the project, the proposal shows that it would be responsible for contributing $13,871 upfront for the improvements. These costs could be then be deferred to the abutting properties or paid from other city funds. If the City chooses to proceed with assisting in the project funding gap, greater detail will need to be provided on the specifics of the project before final project approvals are granted. This would include construction plans prepared by the City Engineer or the developers engineer, costs for street and utility assessments to the abutting properties. COMMENTS: In addition to the concerns stated in the previous report, the same issues are present with the CUP. The lot sizes do not meet code requirements. Staff feels other options for the development should be more thoroughly explored before granting approval to this project. The most ideal approach, is a development proposal incorporating all vacant land along Norwood Avenue into a comprehensive plan where the developer be responsible for all private and public project elements. This approach also puts the least amount of risk on the City. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the conditional use permit request based on the concerns for lot size and the City's assumed financial risk for street and utility improvements. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 Engineering ° Planning · Surveying MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CASE NO.: MFRA NO.: June 3, 1998 Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning. John Cameron, City Engineer City of Mound Major Subdivision, 4901 Shoreline Drive Lots 1 through 6, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit A 98-05 11951 As requested, we have reviewed the material submitted with the application for a major subdivision of the subject property and have the following comments and recommendations: Grading and Drainage This site, including the street right-of-way, was graded by Hardrives after they were through using it as a storage yard during the 1998 reconstruction of County Road 15. Therefore, only minor grading will be required to complete the proposed development. Permits may still be required from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Sanitary Sewer The existing sanitary sewer manhole located at County Road 15 has a 20-foot stub to the south, which was installed during the County's reconstruction project in 1988. The proposed manhole no. 1 needs to be moved south 20-feet; therefore, the length of new sewer required will remain the same at 250-feet. A sewer service needs to be added for Lot 12 on the east side of the street. 15050 23rd Avenue North · Ptyrnoutt~ Minnesota · 55447 pl~one 612/476-6010 · fax 612/476-8532 e-mai/: mfra ~ mfra.corn Jon Sutherland, Planning and Zoning June ~. ~. 1998 Page 2 Watermain The watermain should be looped to the main in Bartlett Boulevard as noted on the preliminary plans. Some form of cost sharing between the developer and the City may need to be negotiated. Lot 12 also needs a water service extended from the new main. Storm Sewer and Streets The necessary storm sewer is already in-place having been installed by Hardrives when these lots were graded. The two existing catch basins at the south end of the subject property should only need adjusting to match the new street construction. The new street will need to be constructed tc City standards, 28-feet wide with concrete curb and gutter. The street construction must extend beyond the applicant's property and connect to the end of the existing section of improved Norwood Lane as shown on the preliminary plans. The existing right-of-way of Norwood Lane is 40-feet wide, which is 1 O-feet less than required by City code. A 1 O-foot variance would need to be granted as part of the plat approval, which has been granted on previous projects and for which we would recommend approval. Financing Installation of utilities and improvement of this street has been proposed in the past, but failed to materialize, primarily due to financing. Preliminary cost estimates and suggested assessment spreads were first prepared ten years ago, which of course will now be totally out of date. The City Council at that time indicated that either the developer pay the entire cost of the improvements or request a public improvement project that could be assessed to the benefiting properties. Discussions held at a Council meeting in 1988 indicated the owners of the property along the east side of Norwood lane were not ready to develop their land; thus they were unwilling to agree to an assessment. In the past, the City of Mound has not proceeded with such an improvement and assessed the cost unless vertically all the property owners agreed to the assessment. One alternative that may be available is to defer the assessments against the vacant property, then when it is developed, the assessments actually levied, including interest. There are specific requirements contained in Section 429 of the State Statutes which would need to be followed if the assessments are deferred. The City Attorney, John Dean, should be consulted with regard to the contents of said statute as it relates to deferred assessments. The major drawback to deferring assessments is the financial burden it places on the City. The City of Mound would need to pay for the deferred portion of the improvements up front and not be reimbursed until the property is developed or the deferment period ends. e:~rnain:\11951 \sutherland6-2 C;ITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 {612) 472-1155 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA CASE #98-28 NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW TWIN HOMES LOCATED WITHIN THE R-2 ZONING DISTRICT LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, AT 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE PID # 13-117-24 44 0032 P & Z 98-28 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Monday, June 8, 1998 to consider the approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow Twin Homes at 4901 Shoreline Drive located within the R-2 Zoning District. m. '.,4:' ,a~ ~ ". ~_-..-~.~-~.-~T-T.~.9 ~'~' z~. 3 All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting. K i, Mailed to property owners within 350 feet of affected property on May 29, 1998 Published in the Laker, May 30, 1 998 Rev. 11-14-97 Application for CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 5 1998 C±t¥ Counc±l Date IDi s t ribut ion: ICity P!anner: .~'~A~.~ ICity Engineer :~ -' ~ ~ ~ Conditional Use Permit Fee: $250.00 Please type or print the following information: INFORMATION Name of Business LEGAL Lot i- ~ Block 3 Plat# APPLICANT The applicant is: owner .,)< other: Name. '~1 ~L"--~ ~,~/~'t~._) ~~~ /, ~ ~. Phone (H) 3g ~-- 3~ (W) ~~ (M) Name ~ ~ ~ OWNER (if othe~ than Address applicant) Phone (H) (W) (M) Name ~ ~1' ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ARCHITECT, ~ SURVEYOR, OR Address ENGINEER Phone (H) ~ ~/~ (W),, {M) ZONING Circle: R-1 R-lA ~R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 DISTRICT CHANGE OF FROM: USE TO: Conditional Use Permit Application Page 2 Descriptionof Proposed Use:~ ~- EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development. Estimated Development Cost of the Project: $ o~-~l~D~ ~:DC~CD Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this proper~y? ( ) yes,Xno. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resolutions. Print Applicant's Name This application must be signed by all owners of the subject property, or an explanation given why this is not the case. , Applicant's Signatur~(/ D~te / Print Owner's Name Owner's Signature Date Print Owner's Name Rev. 11'-14-97 Owner's Signature Date Application for ~ MAJOR SUBDMSION City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 1998 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 D IST~B UTI O N DATE ~PE OF ~PPLICATION FEE ~ss~ss~ ~- ~ ~sc~o~ ~os~ OTHER: ~A~ANCE $100 TOTAL $ Please type or print the following information: INFORMATION Name of Proposed Plat LEGAL ZONING DISTRICT Circle: ~ R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3 R-lA APPLICANT The applicant is: __owner X other: Phone (H) ~ (W) ,.~//oOO- r,~o'~C)~'- (M) OWNER , applicant) Phone (H) (W) Z~2DC'- ~ ~..~,, (M) Phone (H) (W) F~'~/- ,DZ"-~'/.~~'' (M) ~~(Rev. '11-14-97) Major Subdivision Application Page 2 Description of Proposed Use: P- .In T & EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED USE: List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, including, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. · , ,- · ' ' "~ ~-~ ~ ~,"5 ~'~' "-'~- ~,_~ ,~o0 c'~'~ r-;,, ~ ~ ~. ) If applicable, a development schedule shall be attached to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development. Estimated Development Cost of the Project: $ ~-~4-d)~. cOd>cO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS: Number of Structures: ~ Lot Area Per Dwelling Unit:~ sq. ft. 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. Number of Dwelling Units/Structure: ~ Total Lot Area: ,aj~, ~ c~(,v sq. ft. This application must be signed by al._~l owners of the subject property., or an explanation given why this is not the case. 11 ' d. Print Owner's Name ~ Owner's Signature Date (Rev. I'1-14-97) (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620 FEB 1 3 1998 Application Fee: $100.0C Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: _Distribution: City Planner City Engineer ._ Public Works Other DNR SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. ,2)1"1VE Block Subdivision ,~ ]~ ~ r PID# /,~ -/. 7-~,-- ~,'--."-'.3.D .~ ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lA PROPERTY OWNER ~ R-3 B-1 Plat # B-2 B-3 Phone (H) APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN OWNER) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? ( ) yes, .~.o. 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. II/14/97) Vanance Application, P. 2 Case No. qSOq 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, lot area, etc.): SETBACKS: REQUIRED 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 Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~,. If no, specify each non-conforming use: o Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) soil ( ) existing situation (~'~, other: specify Please describe: (Rev. I I/14197) Variance Application, P. 3 qg-oq 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,(~. If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes J~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected? 9. Comments: Owner's Signature Applicant's Signatu 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 (Rev. ll/14/97) 95 April 12, 1988 RESOLUTION NO. 8~-63 P~ESOLUTION TO APPRO~rE A GRADING PERi!IT FOR LOTS lr6,.BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS U~IT A AIkTAC-ENT TO I~ORWOOD LA/~E WHE.~EASs Hardrives, Inc., the contractor for the County Road 15 Pro~ct, has requested a Grading Permit for Lots 1-6, Block. 3,~ Shirley Hills Unit A; and WHEREAS, this parcel is a wooded parcel, adjacent to Shoreline Blvd. (County Road 15) and Norwood Lane, and an unimproved platted right-of-way; and W~LEREAS%. a portion of the parcel is low, with a ditch running, thr. ou.gh it-which carries water from a culvert under County'Roa~. 15' souther, ly to a city storm sewer at the end of the improv, ed potion of No~ood Lane; and WHEREAS, this ditch would need to be replaced by a storm sewer sxstem to allo~v for filling of the low area; and ~EREAS-',,. the applicant, has agreed to install this storm sewer' sxstem with'in the unimp~o~e~ pc~'tion of Norwood Lane up .to.. the city's present storm sewer ~stem in improved. Norwood Lane a~ no expense to the CSty; and " WHEREAS, the-applicant has also agreed to construct the street to rough grade, including gravel base for a future road or cul-de-sac in the unimproved' portion of No~good Lane; and WHEREAS, ~,~e_e are no utilities in the Norwood Lane right-of-way and the adjacent property owners were urged to con- sider th~ possibility of extending sanitary sewer and watermain to their vacant property,, but ch_y choose not to do do. this; 'and WHEREAS, the Staff im recommendingL approval of the grading permit with certain conditions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE' IT RESOLVED that the city Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the issuance of a Grading Permit for Lots 1-6, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit A to Hardrives, Inc. contingent on the follov;ing conditions: 1. Soil borings be furnished and any unsuitable material be removed from the proposed roadway and building pad areas, before filling commences. Ail trees, brush and other vegetation be removed from the areas of proposed fill. 96 April 12, 1988 3. Ail fill placed in the City right-of-way shall be of quality suitable for street construction and shall be compacted to meet the City's re~uirements. 4. Storm sewer be installed as per plans and specifica- tions that are approved by the C~ ~Y Engineer. 5. Upon completion of grading, furnish and install Class 2 gravel base, in Norwood Lane, 30 feet wide at a minimum compacted thickness of 6 inches. 6. Furnish performance bond in the amount of $45,000 to cover grading, storm sewer and street construction. 7. Upon completion, site will be spread with a minimum of 4 inches of black dirt and seeded. 8. It is the responsibility of the applicant for the grad- ing permit (also the owner of Lots 1-6, Block 3, Shir- ley Hills Unit A) and the owners of Lots 15 & 16, Block 2, Shirley Hills Unit A to provide the City with the necessaz7 executed public easements for the smaller recommended cul-de-sac (80' diameter 'right-of-way with 70' diameter improved street by June 1, 1988. If the. easements are not provided by. June 1, 1988, then Hardrives will put Norwood Lane thru to County.Road 15 as it is platted under the same conditions 1-7, above. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember ~el and seconded by Mayor Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: ~el, Jensen, Jessen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted.in the negative. none. · ~ttest: City Clerk Ma~or ~ Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design May 13, 1998 Edina Realty % Dave Moore 7812 Market Blvd. Chanlaassen, MN 55317 Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. RE: 4901 Shoreline Drive proposal IVIU~JI t.~. This letter is intended to define where we are in reviewing the conditional use permit received May 7, 1998, what additional information needed to complete the submittal, and the approach and approval process timeframe. I have listed below items relating to the conditional use permit that need to be addressed as well as forthcoming comments from City Engineer. Again, it is our intent to work with you on this project to ensure city standards are satisfied to facilitate a successful development. The following items are needed as per the conditional use requirements: ~ - · ' e bulldin size modifications hg'/Updated building floor plans to reflect th g ..... ' .... :'~ -lan · ~// Provide an updated hardcover calculations report rellecting mose shown on mc a la · ~ An anticipated time schedule for the completion of the project. · Proof of ownership. ~~ The City Engineer is anticipatingtO have cOmlnents ready by the first part Of next weelc One Of the concerns with the proposal as submitted, is the lack of specifics regarding the street and utility improvements. Our discussions have revolved around the need to make the street and utility connections to the improved section of Norwood. We do not have any plans that show these connections. The conditional use permit site plan and grading, drainage, and road plans show only iml~rovements adjacent to your parcel. Again, the specifics of the project need to be clearly identified on the plans. It is my understanding that you will be asking the Council to participate up from in the costs of the street and utility connections and defer assessments on the adjacent properties. At this time, the total project costs and breakdown by property are unknowrL I would highly recommend a letter describing the project scope be submitted to describe the improvements and quantify the costs. The Council will want to know the costs they will bear upfront and the costs to each of the adjacent property owners involved. As we discussed last week, the next Planning Commission meeting is on June 8m. All of the above information plus the City Engineer's comments will need to be addressed and submitted to the Mound City Offices by May 22~a to be placed on the agenda. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to call me or Jori Sutherland at the City Offices. 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, MN 55401-1659 Ph (612) 338-0800 Fx (612) 338-6838 p. 2 May 13, 1998 Dave Moore Sincerely, Loren Gordon, AICP Assistant City Planner cc' Jon Sutherland, City of Mound John Cameron, City Engineer .-L~H ¢I~nla:-,;t..ib June 1, 19'98 NORWOOD LANE MOUIqD, ~. HARDCO~ER AREA 37,302 Tot, 1 area square feet 40% 14,920 ODV. AGE AREA ./. 6 2,486 ~a::, :: -or, ~.r per unit 1,440 Home 94 Porch 576 c~arage 320 Drive~'~ 72 Sidewall 2,502 X 3 Units= 75n& S~quare Feet 1,440 Home 94 Porch 528 Garage 320 Driveway 72 Sidewalk 2,454 X 3 Units= 7362 Square Feet 14,920 Total allowed hardcover -14,868 Proposed hardcover or 39.85% of land area. RECEIVED JUN - ~ i998 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. June 1, 1998 PROPOSED STREET IMPROVZ~4ENT $14,914.00 $ 4,935.00 $29,022.00 Subgrade prqm, class 2" 2332 base course, tack coat, 1.5 degree 2341 wear course. Curb and gutter approximate 658' includes bal ~mce of neighbors street. Install 312' of 8" w~ter and 6" sewer inclufling 1" copper and 6" P.V.C. and one madhole. * Extra $1,500 for fire hydraunt and does 'lot include permits. $48,871.00 Total costs James F. Johnson Developer June 1, 1998 DEVELOPERS PROPOSAL $25,000 $23,871 $10,000 $13,871 Cash paid to City by the Developer Cost to City of Mound and other haxZ Byers Paid by Wayne and Linda E ,lebracht , .~ither levied or deferred by the City o£ ~ ~und. Balance of assessments deferred by other tax payers. James F. Johnson Developer April 4, 1998 Wayne & Linda Ehlebracht 4873 Shoreline Drive Mound, Mn. 55364 City Of Mound We the owners of lots 14, 15, 16 & 17 Block 3 Shirley Hills Unit B are in favor of the development of Norwood Lane and its new street. We were contacted by Dave Moore with his concerns of the expense of the new street and would we be interested in sharing in part of the assessment. Mr. Moore informed us the street would cost in excess of $40,000 and we would agree to assume $10,000 on our taxes. It would be our understanding the developer, City of Mound and t~le other adjoining property owners would share in the balance of the street costs. If you have any other questions please feel free to call. Mr. & Mrs. Ehlebracht June 2, 1998 City of Mound Ref: 4901 Shoreline Drive 6 Unit t%~inh~ne un/ts After final approval from the City I anticipate a twelve month construction period and completion or sooner. If there are any questions please feel free to ask me at the June 8th planning meeting. J. F. Johnson Owner of J.F. Johnson General Dev. Corp. RECEIVED JUN - 3 1998 MOUND PLANNING & INSP, RECEIVED VACANT LAND PURCHASE AGREEMENT 1. Date Decel~3er 26, 1997 J U N - 3 1998 z Page 1 of Pages 3 RECEIVEDOF $~[~S F. )ohr~[~!~,~,~[N~nent Corporat:.ion azu or 4 thee. of F~ve ~e] .. 5 b~CASH-NOTE as earnest money to ~ deposited upon acceptance of Purchase Agr~ment by all padies, on ~r ~ore the next fi busi~day after acceptance, in a trusl account of lisliog broker but to be returned Io Buyer if Purchase Agr~ment is riel accepted by 7 Seller. Said earnest money is pad payment for the purchase of lhe prope~y located at: 9 City of ~b~ i~_~536~ Coun~ of I ~[~e~ , Stale of Minnesota, 12 including the following prope~, if any,~w~ed 6y ~eiler aod located on said prope~: all garden bulbs, plants, shrubs and trees; and also the following 13 ~rsonal prope~: 14. all of which prope~ Seller has this day agreed to sell to Buyer for the sum of: ~O~ ~&,~~ ~ 15. ....... ($__~00 ) Dollars, 16 which Buyer agrees to pay in the following manner: Earnest money of $ ~_~ .... and $ ~ 7,500. O0 17. cash on or before ~CI i J 1, 19 9~ the da e of c osing, and the balance of $ 18 by linancing in accordance with lhe a~ached financing addendum: 19 Assumplion Contract for Deed Conve~tional Purchase Money MoAgage Other 20 SPECIAL CONTINGENCIES: This Purchase Agreemenl is subjecl lo the following contingencies and if lhe following contingencies checked below 21 cannel be satisfied or waived, in writing, by Buyer by _ ~.~.~ ............ 19 ~ .... this Purchase Agreement shall become null 22 and void and all earnesl money shall be refunded Io lhe Buyer. Buyers and Sellers agree Io sign a cancellalion of the Purchase Agreemenl, 23. (Selecl appropri~ a-h) 24, ~(a) BUYER ~hall provide a ce~ificate o su~ey of the prope~, at BUYER/~xpense not later than 26 ~ (b) Buyer obtaining approval of city/township o~o~os;d building plans and s~cifications a~/SELLER expense. 27. (c) Buyer obtaining approval of city/township of proposed su~ivision development plans at BUYER / SELLER expense. 28 ~ (d) Buyer obtmmng approval of c~ty/township for rezoning or use permits a~ SELLER exp~nse. 29. (e) Buyer obtaining at BUYER I SELLER expense, perc~ation tests which are acceptable lo Buyer. 32. (g) Buyer obtmmng approval of bu~ans a~d/or specifications in accordance with any recorded subdivision covenants and approval of 33 lhe archileclural conlrol commi~ee. 34 ~h) OTHER: l~y~S l~J~ a~roval of ~il tes~, p~se I tnv!r(,~t~ re~rt ~ ~ ~ior to 36 Seller's expenses for these contingencies (if any shall not exceed $ ~~ ~. (.~ ~ ~ ~ , _ 37 Seller grants permission of access to the properly for lesling and suweying pur~ses. ' ..... ~ ~ -, -' 38. PLEASE NOTE: Buyer may incur additional charges improving the prope~ including but not limited to: Ho P and/or access charges, municipal 39. charges, costs for sewer access, stubbing access, water access, park dedication, road access, utility connection and connecting fees, curb cuts 40. and lree planling charges. 41 SELLER'S REPRESENTATIONS: Sellers represents that the prope~ described in this purchase agreement consists of __ 42 ACRES/SQUARE FEET. Seller fudher represents and warranls that 1o the best of Sellers' knowledge this properly does not contain an under- 43 ground storage tank nor has it been used for the dis~silion of hazardous, loxic or petroleum based materials, except as follows: 44. WELL DISCLOSURE: (Required by Minnesota Stalule Section 1031.235) (check appropriate ~x) 45 The seller cedillas that lhe seller does not know of any wells on the above described real properly. 46 The seller cedifies one or more wells are located on the above described real prope~. See lhe aHached Well Disclosure Cedificate(s). 47 PRIVATE SEWER SYSTEM DISCLOSURE: (Required by Minnesota Statute Section 115.55) (check appropriate box) 48. The seller does nol know of a private sewer system on the above described real properly. 49. There is a privale sewer system on the above described real pro~. See a~ached Private Sewer Syslem Disclosure. 50. BUYERS' INVESTIGATIONS 53 B. ~he Buyer has been advised to direct questio~in~l~ Prolecli~n ~,~:~-'~- ~ -)' I~i,~,, · a, ,.e .~o.e.~ OO~S ~.O~,eceiv~ .r~e,e.,a~ ta. ~re~m..~ (i~~ ~;~ - '/ 56 Atlached are other addenda which are made a pa~l this Purchase Agreement. (Enter page or pages on line 2) 57. DEED/MARKETABLE TITLE: Upon pedormance by Buyer, Seller shall deliver a 58. in by spouse, if any. conveying marketable title, subject to: Warran~ Deed joined 59. (A) Building and zoning laws, ordinances, state and federal regulalions; (B) Restrictions relating to use or improvement of the prope~ without eff~ive 60, fodeiture provisions; (C) Rese~ation of any mineral rights by the State of Minnesota; (D) Utility and drainage easements which do riel interlard 61. with existing improvemenls; (E) Rights of tenants as follows (unless specified, nol subj~ lo lenancies): 62._ 63. (F) Others (Must be specified in writing): 64. TITLE & EXAMINATION: Seller shall, wilhin a reasonable time after acceptance of this agreement, furnish an abstract of lille, or a registered 65. property abstract, ceditied lo date lo include proper searches covering bankruptcies, state and federal judgments and liens, and levied and pending 66. special assessments. Buyer shall be allowed 10 business days after receipt of abstract for examination of title and making any objections which 67 shall be made in wriling or deemed waived, If any objection is so made, Seller shall have 10 business days from receipt of Buyer's written title 68 obiections to nolify Buyer of Seller's intention to make lille marketable within 120 days from Seller's receipt of such written objection. If notice is 69. g~ven, paymenls hereunder required shall be postponed pending correction of title, but upon correction of lille and within 10 days after written notice 70. lo Buyer the padies shall perform this Purchase Agreement according to its terms, If no such nolice is given or if notice is given but title is not 71, corrected wilhin the time provided for. this Purchase Agreement shall be null and void. at option of Buyer; neither pady shall be liable for damages 72. hereunder to the other and earnesl money shall be refunded o Buyer; Buyer and Seller agree to sign cancellation of Purchase Agreement. Buyer 73. agrees to accept an owner's title policy in the full amount of the purchase price in lieu of an abstract of title if the properly is subject Io a masler 74 abstract or if no abstract of title is in Seller's possession or control. If Buyer is to receive such policy (1) the title examination period shall commence 75. upon Buyer's receipt of a current title insurance commitment and (2) Seller shall pay the entire premium for such policy if no lender's policy is 76. obtained, and only the additional cost of obtaining a simultaneously issued owner's policy if a lender'~ po. li~, is obtained (Buyer shall pay the premium 77. for lhe lender's policy). I, 78' Seller and Buyer lrrilial: Seller ~,,~' d Date /-': '~' B"'~"'~,/~//'"~' Date /2.'2,.~.-~'z · 79. ER 169.1 (6197) / ./ , I 142 RECEIVED J U N - 3 1998 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. VACANT LAND PURCHASE AGREEMENT 139. Address 4901 .Shor_elt~e 140. Page 3 Date _ .D~_ ~0e~_ 26, !997. DUAL AGENCY REPRESENTATION t44, DUA'~'"~_GENCY REPRESENTATION DOES/DOES NOT APPLY IN THtS TRANSACTION. th the Seller(s) and the Buyer(s) ol the property involved in this transaction, which cre~,c"s~a dual agency ] ers 145. Broker repr'~es ~..bo ....... t- ~th Seller's' and Buyer(s) Because t~ay have c~nflicting 146 means that Broker ~s sa espersons owe l,au~,a.~ ouues, u u~ ....... j.,~, ............ ~v ~t act ~ua~ent in this interes s Broker and its ~spersons are prohib~teo ~rom aovocam~ ux~uo,w,y ,~ ....... ~--z. B g 147. ' . ~ ........ II-tls~ and Buyer(s) Seller(s) and Buyer(s) ack~h;t: ...... t the consenuuu, o~ ~ t ~ ~ · ' 148 transaction wlthou n~ __ - ...... '~rm- ~.~],,=tln n v or sell will remain confidential 149. (1)confident at informat on corn icated o Broker welch regarus pnuu, ~.,.?~ .......... n unless Seller(s)or B~~ker in writing to disclose this Calion Other information will be shared; 150 - ...... ~r~n's will ecl re~t the interest of eit~"Y to the detriment of the other: and 151 (2) Broker ane .~ s~ ~ual ................... a eec Broker and~~pers~ work diligently to facilitate the mechanics of the sale. 152. (3) wdhm the hm~ts o g .. Y' · ...... ,~A~I~ and Buver(s authorize and instruct Broker and its salespersons 153 With the knowledge and understano~ng o~ rna exp=a.~o~l~r(~ ~d ~y( _ ) 154.to act as dual agents in this transaction. / ~_ _ Seller ................................... 155 ..................... ~--- Buyer Seller 158 h the owner of the property, accept this Agreement and authorize 159. the listing broker to withdraw said property from the market, 160. unless instructed otherwise in writing and I have reviewed all 161. pages of this Purchase Agreement. 162. (Date) (Seller's S~gnatu e) (Seller's Printed Name) (Social Security Numbe ) (Marital Status) t agree to purchase the property for the price and in accordance with the terms and conditions set fodh above and I have reviewed all pages of this Purchase Agreement. ~Te~ ....... (Date) _x___~__~_~____.~,~_~ ........................ (Buyer's Printed Name) (Social Security Number) (Marital Stalus) 165. }( (Date) (Seller's Signature) (Buyer's Signature) 166 X~ (Seller's Printed Name) (Buyer's Printed Name) X 167. X_ (Social Securily Number) (Marital Status) (Social Security Number) 168. FINAL ACCEPTANCE DATE /- THIS IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT BETWEEN BUYERS AND SELLERS. 169, IF YOU DESIRE LEGAL OR TAX ADVICE. CONSULT AN APPROPRIATE PROFESSIONAL. (Marital Status) Bu er ou have the opportunity to select providers of mortgage financing and/or title closing services. ¢oSJp~hoi~Y~ t;3YeCither elect or decline to make a selection is not a part of, and has no effect on, the purchase agreement. My choice for title insurance and closing services is: .~~. I wish to have Edina Realty Title, Inc. provide title insurance and/or closing services. I will arrange for a qualified title insurance company to prov/~e~urance and closing services. (Buyer's Signature) Date (ye4/Si;~ture) Date My choice for Mortgage Financing is: ~ / I wish to have Edina Realty Mortgage, Inc. provide mortgage financing. I will arrange for a qualified lender to provide mortgage fina cjng., (Buyer's Signature) Date (l~y e'r',~.,Sig n at u re) SIAl[ si MINN[SOIA. COUNTY of HENN£MN. This is to certify that CERTIFICATE OF TITLE DISTRICT COURT No.(I) c~8~ Transfer from No. h58227 Originall~ registered the 26th day of Angust A. D. 19~2 Volume 77 ]'acc 246~9 REGISTRATION Carol J. Aslesen (now by remarriage Carol J. Child) of 271~ Casco ]~int Road, City of Crone, County of Henne[,in, State of Ilirn~esota N? ~,~ now the owner(s) of an estate in fee simple of and in the following described land situated in the County of Hennepin end State of Minnesota, to wit: lot 1, except the i::ast 3.00 feet of said Lot 1 arid except that part of said Lot 1 which ]le.~ IIorthea~terly o[' a line drawn From n point on the East line of said Lot 1, distant 10.G~) feet South from the Rortbeast corner of said Lot l, to a point on the llorth line of said t~t 1, distant 15.OO feet West from said Northeast corner and [~ts 2 to f~ inclusive~ Dlock 3, f]llirley llills, Unit A, aceordinE to the plat thereof on file or of record in the office of the ReSlstrar of Titles in and for said County. Subject to the encumbrances, liens and interest noted by Ihe memorial underwrille, or endorsed hereon; and subject !o the following rights or encumbrences subsisting, as provided in the twenty-fourth section of "An ecl concerning the registration of lend and the title thereto" of the General laws of the Slale of Minnesota for the year 1905, en~ lhe amendmenls Ihereof, namely: t. Liens, claims or rlghls arising under Ihe Jaws or the constituNon of lhe United Slates, which lhe slalutes of this slate cannot require to appear of record. 2. Any lax or special sssessment for 'which a sate of the land has not been had al the dale of Ihe cerlificate GE lille. 3. Any lease for a period not exceeding three years, when there is actual occupation of the premises under the lease. 4. All rights in public highways upon the land. 5. Such right o~ appeal or right to appear and contest the application as is allowed by law. 6. The rights of any person in possession under deed or contract for deed from the owner of the certificate of title. That the said C~ol J. Aslesen (now by reme. rriage Carol J. Child) is of the age of 114 years, is married to Sampson Reed Child and is under no disability. OOCUMEN NUMBER r"/'3I~ 5 7 OF ESTATES, EASEMENTS quit Claim l)e~ . Jun 3 lq3h B 3, %he N ne of sd IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed my name and affixed the seal of my office this ~ixth day of September 1~7~ Wayne A. Johnson Registrar of Titles, In and for the County of Hennepln and Slale of Minnesota. MEMORIAL By___2 .... ~ . . ' ., OR CHARGES ON THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE HERETO ATTACHED. DEPUTY AMOUNT the 1t line RUNNING IN FAVOR OF SIGNATURE OF REGISTRAR Streater & Alma Streater, bis wi. Sranting ~, perpet, al ease~3nt 5 ft ~ ~f sd lot. COUN~ OF HENNEPIN ,[~ ,ov~. STATE 0F MINN~SOTA TIII~ IS A C0[1DITION OF THE RECEIVED HEG)STCR AS lO THE WITHIN JUN - 3 t998 CE~i)F~L" K g',: TITLE ON FILE I:: u-:c ,:FFICE OF tHE ~OUf~L; PLANNING & INSR REOIST~!~ O~ FIFLkg AS nF INSTRUMENT DAlE o¢ ~ DATE OF DEGISTRATION INSTRUMENTII MEMORIAL AMOUNT RUNNING IN FAVOR OF SIGNATURE OF REGISTRAR RECEIVED MOUND PLANNING & INSP. DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS This Declaration, made on the date hereof by J. F. Johnson General Development Corporation, ( Declarant ). WHEREAS, Declarant is the o~ner of certain property located in the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, which is legally described as: Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 Block 3 SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A. and more particular~ described as: Parcel A. 2305 Norwood Lane legally known as Lot 1 Block 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A. Parcel B. 2307 Norwood Lane legally known as Lot 2 Block 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A. Parcel C. 2311 Norwood Lane legally known as Lot 3, 'Block 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A. Parcel D. 2313 Norwood Lane legally known as Lot 4 Block 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A. Parcel E. 2317 Norwood Lane legally known as Lot 5 Block 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, Parcel F. 2319 Norwood Lane legally known as Lot 6 Block 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A. ( Property ) WHEREAS, for the benefit of the Property Declarant desires to impose certain covenants, conditions and restr- ictions. NOW, THEREFORE, Declarant hereby declares the Property shall be held, sold and conveyed subject to the following restrictions, covenants, and conditions, which are for the purpose of protecting the value and desirability of, and which shall run with the Property and be binding on all parties having any right, RECEIVED J U N - 3 998 MOUND PLANNII G & INSP. t.';t].e of i~t.e.~'¢;st 5. n Lhe P~-~l)e~.'ty ,'~'c any part t.l~er_eof~ lheL~- heS.~-g, successors and ar.:sJgn;:'~, an~l shall inure to the heno(i-t o£ each o~mer thareo£. nRTICLE I DEFIMITIO~IS Declar;: t'..~ on, proh.thit, s: _T~K_r,.q.~Z. Th~; f,~l..1, owi.n9 writ'ds, when us,~.d in this have thn 'fo ] ].,_~w i. ng meani, ng, unless I'.he context "'f,c)l:" :;hal ] m~;an ai~d vafe. r to any plot of ]an,l :~t~own upol~ ag~, T'Ocovded aubd.iv.ision map o:f the Property. "Own(:~5" sha].] mean at)d refer tn the record own~r, whether c)na o}' moz'e per'sons or ent~t.i, as, of a fee simple title t:.o any Lot, contracL purchas~t's a~ld ].i. fe tenanl~s thereof, and ].e~:seea under a lease havi. ng a term of more than i..hrea year's, but exc]ucling t. hose having sucl~ interest m(~;l-aly aa sec,lr.ity 'f~[' 'l;?~e perf()rmance of an ARTICLE II T,hNT) USE EEQUIIqEMEN'.PS ~.~.C..F...i.gQ_....]... !%9.r_L]!]e..l~.!.:.!.f:!.l=__~!kr!),X~=t)~.-9~. All. Lol;.~; sha].], be used on].y for re:~i, der, tia] [,urpc,~es e~<:ept: thai: any l'.,ot decl]ca~ ed to thc pub].5, c :far park purposes, may l>a used for park purpose~, and shall nat be usad FoI7 vegjd~ntial p,,~'pr~ses. No buLl. ding or structure aha]]_ I>~:~ eyf:r:l.c:d/ alt:e,'ed, [',la~,'ed c~- pe~-u.,.i.t, terl t.o remain ~Bll any Lot ,. ~'-s i~ppr-o,,red by Che Dec].arnnt, .i.l:s rst]cce~;so~'s o]' as.;sJonr;. 2 .Section 2- Easement Areas. Easements for installation and maintenance of utilities and drainage facilities are reserved as shown on the recorded plat unless vacated by action of the appropriate governmental authority. Within these easements, no structure, planting or other material shall be placed or permitted to remain which may damage or interfere with the installation, maintenance, repair and replacement of utilities, or which may change the direction of flow of drainage channels in the easement, or which may obstruct or retard the flow of water through drainage channels in the easements. The easement area of each lot shall be maintained continuously by the owner of the lot except for improvements owned by a public authority or a utility company. Section 2. Setback. Every building, structure, or other improvement shall be set back in accordance with the setback ordinances, rules and regulations of any governmental body which may have or acquire jurisdiction over the property. In addition, the placement of all structures and improvements is subject to the approval of the Declarant, it's successors of assigns. ~ection 4. Common Walls. Lots 1 and 2 of the property share a common wall located on the lot line, and lots 3 and 4 of the property share a common wall located on the lot line, and lots 5 and 6 share a common wall located on the lot line. The common walls of lots 1 and 2, and lots 3 and 4, and lots 5 and 6 are party walls standing one half on one lot described and the other half on the other lot adjoining, forming part of the building on both such lots. The premises herein before described shall, therefore, be sold subject to all rights of the Owners of such adjoining 3 prope~'l:.ios Sn the, sa.~d [,arty ¥,~a]i,.s. Owners sha].], main'ha~n thei~ t..l~ .. Common wa],~ or par'l:y wail in A ~,sab]e heal and uniform manne'r'~ ~;o I:l~aL the ov~rall f~nc:tion and appea~;a~ce i.~ uni.nlpa.ired. the [)a]':Ly wa]..ls; e:xc:o[~t I.'.hah. any damage due Lo tile negli, ge~ce or pursnanl: to aul:hnr~.t.y of t~ny owner~ J.n which case~ Lbo Owner. sha~ be ].~.at .~e . . · of the Property sha].l be responsible for the ma.int;e~ance and upl~eep of their respective Parcels .and the b~i. ldi',',gs and o ;her improvements located thereon. The Parcels and the build.in,Is and .l~prnvements ]~',cated l..he~reon shall be kept Jn good condition and repair al:. ail. times. ARTICLE III ' S PROIIIBITF, D I~C~IVITIE ]IND USES Sect..inn 'l tlu~e;an~e~, bio nnxJous ,-r offel]sive activities shall be caf'tied on upnn any l,nl:, nor sha].] anything be (tone thereon ~ ~,~ may ]~ecnme ar, annoyance or ~]n]sance to the ne] ghborhood. E.E:~g.~k~.9.fi_Z. ;~!'~i~2L.]~.. lqo animals, ].i,.,e~l~.ock or pou].t, ry of any kind s~a].] be raid;ed, bre~] o~' I~.~pl'. on Shy I,nt except Lhat d~gs, cats or ol:her ho,.~s~l~o]d doment, i,':al.ed l;,eLs :any h~'. l~epl: provided that they are n~l: l~l-,l ~ Ill-od o]- I~1~ [.ltl-~l] ll~'~ f~7)l' ~I]]' ~OII~K~]-oJ al. purpose and pr-ov~d~,t Ii,al. ~;,~c'l~ [',e~ n ~re kept :in actor(lahore with al ] Se.,::tlc,'n 'q .!-~O.t£}2_a. Or!. (i;arbnge rub}.~.jGh ztnd l;'caGh Gha.1] not be kept ~ned or kepl~ fay I'.h~ ~l.'.or.r~Ue of d.i~posnl ~ such materj.~.~] sh~ll be ~ocL.i.c)n .] Temporary ..qi-r't,e ...... ' ................... - ..................... : ...... - ....... ::.:. t.lo ntrucl:,~re of a temporary c:haracLert t~-aJ.]e~7~ basome~ff, forth, shaclt~ garage, barn or other ouh-buJid.ing shall be used on any r,ot a~: any time as a res.5, dence either Lemporar.ily or L-,ermanenl.:]y. °'~c:f]r,n B. g.iqns. HO r;.igns of any kJ.n~l sha].] }:>e dj. splayed ho hhe pul).l.i.r: v.iew on any IL,(~I; excepl; n s.Jgn nT- signs no~ more Ehan five square fnet adver~..is.jng l:he prc, i)ert;y for' sale or rent by the then o,,.,ner/ ccupan-L of any s.ign or signs used by advert.isa I:.he proper'i:y ,lur.in9 cor~sl'.rucL.ion and sate of Lots. g~gU.i.r~n ~ V~h..~_ es. No buses, trucks, housel;raj. J. ers, tral].ers, ~ ........... · ... C~ .... . un].]eensed aul. omoh.i]es, ni. vcrafh, Lracto'e-s or watercra.ft over 20 feet shn ].] be parked, kept. o:7 sLo]red on any Lot except on a t:es, por.~-~].y basis ,n]es~s pat:keri, kepi.: of stored w.{hhin an erlclosed garage. may be .insl..a] led !:.hat; excee~t ID feel: .in heigill; except thai; an o~l:sido tad_ia or i..e]ev.i_sion anl:e~na may be placed upon t:he rage of a residence, p~ovt,-led sucl~ ant. anna does not e.xttenct Ino]Te feat: at)ova l. he FOOl where ].C J_s ]oc~ll-.ed. gqf:{;_}:f,~ 8. ~;1. or.~(l~' 'T'h(~ [;I.o~-:~(l~~ c)~7 er~llec:l:ion ,-.,[: r~l-fl~i, sh of any c:hari~c:'l:et ',d'~al:soev~r-, any II//ll. O1 .iai hhat emj. t~; ~011.1. OU obnoxious 5 d./sl:.ur'bs the peace, cnmfo'r.'t (~r se¥'eni, ty of Owners i.s prohibited. however, t.hi:(; sec~:.i,',n ~l~al! not apply to the temporary storage of so.ii, and b~lding )'r, 0heY~ol acc,.um~]aited as a result of construction. ARTICLE IV GENERAL PROVISIONS .[.[~!~i~!fffLJ.· .................... I~uval..[on , The covenanLs , t.'esl~]TJct. J.o~hs and easements c~[ l:h~s I,~:,.Jaral..%o~', nhal] r~n with and I~.i. nd the land and sha].]. inur'e to the bene:[[t o[ ar~cl be enfor'ceah]e hy the Owner of any Lot subject tn the Declaration, his or l~er respective ].ega ]. rapre~ enteL.ives, heirs, su~ eessors and assigns, for a term of twenty (20) 'y~at's [Fora l.l~e daKe the Declaration of Covenants, Cond[1. ions and Restr.ichions w{~s recor'~le{l; after which time sai.d :.~l.r.~ct.]ons and easements sha]] be automatica].ly renewed roy successive [~eriods o[ ten (10) years. Sect:ion ') h,,endm~nts The covenaults and r'esL. Yiclz~ons of thi. s At any I:~me up and ~,nt.%.l the last l,ot is sold and ~-,-; J denc:e has I-)(]a~ tonsil-ut:l: ed ()~ every Lot~ tile De,z].arant may amend l:he I~ec]a~-al:.i.nn Jn j. ts discretJ_on. From l.l~e dat.~ l:l~ Dec]aranl: scl.la the last Lot and a t-esJdence has beet] c;nnc;l:r'ucl, e~l nn evary Lot to the or, d of the f~r'al, t:.w~nty (2(~) yea]' t[~eri_od from tile date 6 I~nd.y ~ur! [;r~perlV ruoorde¢l. governJ, ng ..Cer;l:. i np .'1 ]':l! r-or:-q'3!!!q!'!t~-. l~,n fnr -emen I: nf tlJe,.o,e covenants and resl;1-Jc:l:j, on~: ~;l~a]] he I..,y an~x Prc, oee~l.ing at: .la~,, or i.l'l equ.i.~y against ~lDy ~ :'~:C~l"l Cji' J5(~1"~i(~1'18 v.Lo].~t L.i ng oF (~l:l:empl-.j. ng ho vJ. olaLe an~ n(:vennnl_ of r-,::::;L~-Jnl-ic~l~ e.i.i:.l:e~ 1.0 Fer;l:.lr<:irl v.io.lakJ, on, ~pecifi. c Parform,:~nr;,; nf an ni',l..igati(:~n r~T' i:o ]"ecovej- cJsm&ges and :q(:r:l i(!n_.,1. Vf~.if~!!(.;e!;, 'Pl~.(t l'~e(:la:-anl. Ilerel)y ~:eso~.'ves the r.LghL gr,qn~ 8 res~o~[~l).lr, ~:ar.i.a~.~e or ~dj~l:menl: n[ Lhese eond].t..L~n8 and Yesl.rJol:.ir,~ ~; i~l ny<leT t.c nverc;nme [:~Yzlcl:i.c,'l] d.i.[~.i(:u].l:Jes anti oF l' lie ;'esJ.~' i ( i. i <'~n;:; r:c)nt:,:,.i n c:<.[ he?:ej i1 , ~tlOJl vat.Lances or l[,erm]~: any vjo]al:i.c~n oE .law, o]?di, naf,ce; ru].e o~ regulation c,~ tipon the Dec] a r'aJ'lt (;e]] .Lllg tJlo ] ~.lf4l. Lot al%d ]-esidences beJ. 1'lg park purposes. ~!i~lS..[~p_..~L. ~{fj~j.j:~f}p.. hny n()l ica requ.i i'ecl I:o I)o sent. to ~ny Owner been a(td'f,e~s cJf such Owner al~[:,ea~'.}llg on the [tax records at tJ~e ti. file of s,~ch ~Xg_?-J_O~...._~.. ~.Qy.~.~.0_bl;i,[~%. Ir, va ]..i dat i on of any one or more of these covennuts c,~- lTesl.r i. cL.ionr; bS' jt~cl~jlllel'llS. ,'~17 c:OillTt o~7cler sl~a]], not affect any other pr,>vi.=~5on wl~i. cli aha].] remnin .in :[,.,]..l force and effect. II'.l I,IlTNESS NtlI:iEEOF, t:he ,~ncleraigned, being the Declarant herein, has hereunto z~eL its halld and ~ea] thJ s day o.~ , ]99 8 J. F. Johnson General Dev. Corp. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF The foregoing instrument was ackowledged before me this day of 1998 by. the of J. F. Johnson General Development Corp- oration, on behalf of the corporation. Notary Public Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. March 2, 1998 Edina Realty % Dave Moore 7812 Market Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 RECEIVED MAR- 3 1998 MOUND PLANNING & INSP. RE: 4901 Shoreline Drive proposal Dear Mr. Moore: We have received and reviewed your development proposal for the property at 4901 Shoreline Drive in Mound, Minnesota. The proposal as submitted is incomplete, lacking some important items that are listed below. At this time we are removing the three items from the March 9th Planning Commission meeting as was initially scheduled. Before we reschedule the proposal for the next meeting, I would suggest that we schedule a meeting with City Staff to go over these items. We need to be comfortable with the issues before taking your development package to the Planning Commission and Council. I would also like to suggest that the three applications (major subdivision, variance, and rezoning) be taken through the process together because of the interrelated issues of each. Additional information needed: How will access to the site be handled? If Norwood Avenue is extended through to Shoreline as a public street, property assessments will need to be determined. This usually involves property owners on both sides of the street. There may be some other ways to address the cost of improvements. Again, we should discuss these options if this approach is taken. As we discussed, Staff does not wholly support a private access drive to the property. There are a number of issues related to adjacent property access that could be an issue in the future. · How will water and sanitary sewer lines be installed along Norwood? Need to develop plans for these utilities. The City may also want to coordinate the water plans to provide a loop connection to a line along Bartlett Avenue. · Need building elevations for the proposed twinhome units. · Need a drainage plan for the development to satisfy hardcover requirements. After you have addressed these items, lets schedule a meeting with staff to go over the proposal. If you have any additional questions, please feel free to call me or Jon Sutherland at the City Offices. Loren Gordon, AICP Assistant City Planner CC: Jon Sut,h, erland, City of Mound ~ ~Oinr~ ~O~'t / 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401 (612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838 PROPOSED SUBDIVISION CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR DAVE MOORE IN LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A HENNEPtN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LEGAL D£SCRPTION OF PREA4SES: Lot 1, except the Irrupt 5.00 feet of sold Lot 1 and except that part of said Lot 1 which lles Northeasterly of o linc drown from a point on the [eat line of said Lot 1, distant 10.00 feet South from the Northeast corner of said Lot 1. to c point on the North line of ~ald Lot I. distant 15.00 feet west from said Northeast corner and Lots 2 to 6 inclusive. B~:)ck 5. Shirley Hlle, Unit A, occordlng to the I:~t thereof on file or of record in the office of the Registrar of Titles in and far said Co~ty. This survey inten~is to ~how the boundaries of the above described proporty, and the location of all existing bulid'mgs, if any, thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or ~naroachmante. Bearings shown are based upon an oesumed daturn ECEIVED 1 9 1998 PLANNING & INSP. ,, I I4 ROSEDALE ED .2 ~a 2 2 15/,3.2 2,3 70 I '559 7 '~? H ~)/;5'.h,q,7 4,s/&;'~%' s/2' ,.'-_.;, :' 6 ~( 48" ~dJ (49) [.~ ~ I 60 : 60 . ~,'319 jgO2ULr'.i 21tf; ,_~,.20..I_ i ~i(f~)'_o (.8~. 86 Z~.¢,' '. 5O 5) j ( 66'~- (64) RD 145,7 7 22 ~44 (40) ~44 (~g) ;44 19 144 18 ~44 (57) 16 ';' 144 ~6.5 ~5 (88) r,q cURVg,v LLqE ,', _ _ jE/,_lu /__ ~ , ~ , · LOT AREA. EXIST. LOT AREA, SURVEY ON REQUIRED S~G E/WiDTH: REQUIRED S~BACKS ~'NCIPAL "U,LD,NG HOUSe. _. FRONT: N~¢,~ / FRONT: N S E W -' iD-' ( ~ ~:; SIDE: N S E W ~lO'tq- ¢ %- SIDE: N S E W ~(OF~ REAR: N S E W 15' LAKESHORE: _ 50' {measured from O.H.W.) TOP OF BLUFF: EXI.__STIN.._._~G AND/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS: PRINCIPAL BUILDING/HOUSE FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: TOP OF BLUFF: _ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED FRONT: N S E W FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6' SIDE: N S E W _4' or 6' REAR: N S E W 4' LAKESHORE: 50' measured from O.H.W. - TOP OF BLUFF: _ACCESSORY BUILDING/GARAGE/SHED FRONT: N S E W - FRONT: N S E W SIDE: N S E W SIDE: N S E W REAR: N S E W LAKESHORE: · --'----- TOP OF BLUFF: HAR?~OVF_~ CONFORMING? YES / NO' ? ~ --------"-' .....____ Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound Planning Department at 472-0600. il Z I-ri I .t I C) ~ i i%) i CD r"- 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 CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT May 1998 TOTAL REVENUE FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCK FUND 41.67% May 1998 YTD PERCENT BUDGE_ T REVENU_ _ E REVENU. _ E VARIANCE RECEIVE__ D 0 0 (1,271,520) 2,095 3,550 (1,230) 13,804 41,234 (64,066) 3,818 44,732 (906,118) 952 5,790 (44,860) 9,342 34,018 (50,982) 200 20,262 (50,738) 0 0 (43,500) 1,365. 5.438 {188.912~ 1,271,520 4,780 105,300 950,850 50,650 85,000 71,000 43,500 194,350 31.576 2.776.950 0.00% 74.27% 39.16% 4.70% 11.43% 40.02% 28.54% 0.00% 2.80% 3.58% 360,220 16,235 179,036 (181,184) 49.70% 118,920 18,012 42,300 (76,620) 35.57% 1,530,000 164,148 611,108 (918,892) 39.94% 451,000 37,927 166,185 (284,815) 36.85% 924,000 94,908 425,360 (498,640) 46.03% 5,100 750 3,320 (1,780) 65.10% 77,300 645 70,652 (6,648) 91.40% 06/15~98 re~97 G.B. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT May 1998 41.67% GENERAL FUND Council Promotions Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspections Streets City Property Parks Summer Recreation Contingencies Transfers GENERAL FUND TOTAL Area Fire Service Fund Recycling Fund Liquor Fund Water Fund Sewer Fund Cemetery Fund Dock Fund May 1998 YTD B U D_~_~_.G__~. EXPENSE EXPENSE PERCENT VARIANCE EXPENDED 71,610 4,118 32,267 39,343 45.06% 4,000 0 0 4,000 0.00% 3,000 963 1,885 1,115 62.83% 210,970 13,844 91,953 119,017 43.59% 13,200 36 1,809 11,391 13.70% 62,450 2 173 62,277 0.28% 172,710 12,360 63,350 109,360 36.68% 18,550 981 11,466 7,084 61.81% 86,460 9,737 37,555 48,905 43.44% 990,170 55,862 403,487 586,683 40.75% 4,250 11 761 3,489 17.91% 173,280 14,918 61,590 111,690 35.54% 420,820 36,279 177,337 243,483 42.14% 103,380 5,681 52,516 50,864 50.80% 192,380 9,830 90,747 101,633 47.17% 37,290 0 0 37,290 0.00% 45,000 2,844 8,743 36,257 19.43% 167.430 13.953 ~ 97.668 41.67% 181.419 360,220 13,825 104,744 255,476 29.08% 126,830 5,600 53,541 73,289 42.21% 215,200 15,344 85,893 129,307 39.91% 445,400 30,810 133,478 311,922 29.97% 981,020 65,416 451,209 529,811 45.99% 6,710 767 983 5,727 14.65% 76,660 14,268 31,849 44,811 41.55% Exp-97 06/15~98 G.B. Minneh Watershed Ilistrict .rmproving Quality of Water, Quality of Life Gray Freshwater Center Hw,/s, 1,5 & 19. Navarre Mai[: 2500 Shactywood Road Excelsior. MN 55331.9578 Phone: {$12} 471-0590 Fax: (612) 471-06B2 Email: admin ~ minnehahacreek.org Web S[te: www.m[nnehahacreek, org Managers Pamela G, Btixt James Cslkins Lance Fisher Monica Gross Thomas W, LaBounty Thomas Maple, Jr, Malcolm Reid District Office: Diane P, Lynch District Administrator MEMO. RANDUM DATE: June 18, 1998 TO; FROM: Mayors and City Managers Cities and Towns in the Watershed District Hennepin and Carver Counties Board of Commissioners Diane Lyn~b~~t~ Resignation Effective July 3, 1998, I will leave my position as the District Administrator of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and return to my consulting business. Thank you for your continued support and assistance as the District moves in new directions. I have enjoyed assisting the District through some very challenging times. I believe I provided leadership and stability during that time and successfully helped build a new foundation for the District. We have a strong staff in place to carry on the many important activities of the District. We are also following a new long-range plan and the District will continue to move forward and implement the recommendations of the Board of Soil and Water Resources, Hennepin and Carver counties and our constituents. District staff will notify you with information on the new District Administrator as soon as that person has been selected. Peter Cangialosi, Project Coordinator and Assistant District Administrator, will coordinate the activities of the District in the interim. Please call me if you have any questions. I wish you the best. TOTRL P.02 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 MINUTES MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1998 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael, Orv Burma, Frank Weiland, Becky Glister, Cklair Hasse, Michael Mueller, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff Present: Assistant Planner Loren Gordon, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Jerry Clapsaddle, Bill Voss Public Present: Michaela Diercks, Don Loken, Glenna Loken, Robert Wroda, Stephen Kakos, Lisa Hanson, Dennis Leininger, Carolyn Leininger, Doug Birdie, Vic Sacco, Jim Smith, Karl Gruhn, Jared Smith, Jim Kovach, Jim Johnson, Dave Moore, Jennifer Garden, Martin Garden, Alan Nations Chris Meyer, Peter Liupakka Meeting was called to order at 7:38 p.m. by Chair Geoff Michael Chair Michael readjusted the agenda to start with the variance cases first then proceed with the Public Hearings. MINUTES -APPROVAL OF THE MAY 11, 1998 MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Weiland commented that Jerry Clapsaddle be Absent and Excused. Hanus stated on Case 98-24 under the discussion his comments should read, "Hanus commented there are 4 accessory buildings and this would require an additional variance. So noted and will be corrected. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to approve the Minutes of the May 11, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting. Motion carried 7-0. BOARD OF APPEALS: CASE # 98-32: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD SETBACK, SIDE YARD SETBACK, PID # 24-117-24 44 0134 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Loren Gordon presented the case. The applicant has submitted a request to add a conforming sun porch in the front yard. The associated variance request is listed below. Existinq/Proposed Required Variance Garage Front Yard 18'8" 20' 1' 4" Side Yard 4' 6' 2' House Side Yard - north 5'10" 6' 2" Side Yard o south 1'6" 6' 4'6" The property is located at 3065 Dundee Lane. The lot has frontage Dundee and Churchill Lane, some of which has been vacated. Drainage on the property is from east to west. Existing nonconformities on the property include the house and detached garage which do not meet code setback requirements. The detached garage is a two stall front entry and is in good condition. The 11 feet by 14 feet sun porch is conforming to front and side yard setbacks. The proposed addition will not increase or expand the nonconformity of the house. The improvements should increase the owners enjoyment of the property and its overall value. The porch does not appear that it presents a negative impact on the adjacent properties or the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variances as requested with the following condition. 1. The City Engineer review and approve a drainage plan for the proposed sun porch. 2. An updated survey accurately locating structures on the property. Discussion: Weiland suggested that if the survey shows a discrepancy that this case be brought back to the Planning Commission for approval. Hanus suggested that the sun porch be in a conforming location. Weiiand questioned if there can anything be done with the drainage between the two parcels. Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Mueller to recommend approval with the following conditions: 1. Updated survey be required 2. Complete drainage plan be reviewed and approved by City Engineer. 3. The proposed sunporch be conforming. 4. Should the variances exceed 1.6' for the house or 1.0' for the garage then the case come back to the Planning Commission for further review. Motion carries 7-0. This case will go to the City Council on June 23,1998 CASE #98-33: VARIANCE, FRONT, SIDE & LAKESHORE SETBACKS, LOT SIZE, HARDCOVER, PETER LIUPAKKA, 1920 LAKESIDE LANE, LOT 11, BLOCK 11, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID # 18-117.23 23 0057 Loren Gordon presented this case. The applicant has submitted a request to replace an existing deck and locate a fish house within the lakeside setback. The associated variance request is listed below. _Existing/Proposed ~ Variance Garage Front Yard 5.32' 20' 14.68' Side Yard 1.4' 6' House 4.6' Front Yard 20.47' 30' 9.53' Side Yard 4.63' 6' Shed 1.37' Side yard 2.27' 4' Fish House 1.73' Lakeside 18' 50' 32' Lot Street Frontage 49.83' 60' 10.17' Lot Size 8377 sf 10,000 sf 1623 sf The property is located at 1920 Lakeside Lane on a nonconforming lakeside lot. All structures on the lot have nonconforming setbacks including the single story house; one Z505" Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 stall detached garage and shed. The garage is setback just over 5 feet from the right- of-way, which doesn't accommodate vehicle parking. The front yard is paved with bituminous that provides for necessary parking. The applicant is proposing to replace an existing lakeside deck that is deteriorating. The new deck would be located in same location as the existing and would be one foot wider and deeper than the current. Due to the number of repairs needed to the existing deck the applicant has chosen to build new rather than replace the joists and decking boards. The proposed deck replacement will be built in a conforming location and will be an improvement to the property. Staff would recommend the Planning Commission recognize the existing nonconformities on the property to allow its replacement. The applicant recently built a fish house and has been storing it on the patio in the rear of the house. For convenience purposes of storing boating equipment during the summer months, the lakeside location is proposed. This is a nonconforming location under the shoreland management ordinance. The proposed fish house is regulated as a recreational vehicle under the zoning code. The zoning code does not regulate the location of these uses. Although labeled a fish house, which it functions as for 3 months during the year, it is used as a storage shed most of the time. For this reason, it seems reasonable to apply shed setback standards. Because the fish house is portable, there is no guarantee it would remain in its proposed location. Sheds are required to be fastened to the ground/concrete base to insure their location is permanent. This raises a number of other issues regarding structure requirements. It may necessary to review this section of the code again to more specifically address fish houses. There may be some ways to regulate their placement and treat them more like a shed. The DNR has commented on this case and opposes the proposed fish house location as well. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the request to rebuild the deck and deny the proposed location for the fish house. Its current location on the patio, the fish house meet all setback requirements. Discussion: Mueller questioned the shed setbacks. Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Mueller questioned the garage being to close the principle dwelling. Sutherland stated that according to the code a garage would need to have fire resistive material on the garage and the house, if less than three (3) feet. Weiland commented that on the wording on page 138 second paragraph. It should state one foot wider and one foot deeper. Hanus commented that on the side yard setback for the garage on a through lot has a four foot setback that would require a 2.6 foot. Hanus commented that according to the code a fish house is not regulated as an accessory structure by the current code and is considered a recreational vehicle. does not seem that the commission can take a vote on the fish house issue. It Chair Michael commented on the letter received by Ms. Amidon. Sutherland stated that he and the plannermeet with Ms. Amidon and the applicant on site and discussed some of the issues addressed in the letter. Hasse commented who would go and check the fishhouse to see if was used for something other than a fishhouse. Weiland commented that it should be verified that the fishhouse has current registration for the current year. Mueller questioned what constitutes a structure. Sutherland stated that anything anchored to the ground or built on top of a slab. He quoted the structure definition of the zoning code, Section 350:310, Subdivision 132. Mueller commented more on the fishhouse being a structure. There is not a regulation on fishhouse location on properties. He stated that is an 8x8 fishhouse. Sutherland commented on previous cases on Island View Drive where variances were granted for sheds less than 50 feet to the lake. MOTION by Michael, seconded by Hanus to recommend staff recommendation to approve the request to rebuild the deck. Striking any comments regarding the fishhouse. Weiland stated that he did not want to let the issue be dropped. Gordon stated that he was unclear what the use of the fishhouse would be for the 9 months that it wasn't being used for fishing. Although it is currently being used for storage of boating Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 equipment and miscellaneous items which catagorizes the fishhouse as a shed from Staffs perspective. Chair Michael commented that if the fishhouse did not have current license that it would be an enforcement issue by the City. MOTION by Michael, seconded by Hanus to recommend staff recommendation to approve the request to rebuild the deck. Striking any comments regarding the fishhouse, Motion carried 5-2, Opposed: Weiland and Hasse, This case will go to City Council on June 23, 1998. Peter Liupakka asked if he could move the fishhouse down by the lake. Chair Michael informed the applicant he needed to wait for the City Council's decision. Mueller moved to bring back case 98-32 for reconsideration. Hanus seconded. Mueller stated that he discovered that the hardcover would increase with the sun porch addition. Hanus stated that it was calculated at 30% and the 40% lot of record status could be used. Gordon stated that there may be encroachment of the retaining wall. Case # 98-32: Mueller motioned to rescind the prior motion, Michael seconded to reconsider this case after a current survey is obtained. MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Mueller to table this case until an accurate survey is obtained. CASE # 98-34.' VARIANCE, LOT FRONTAGE, STEPHEN & ELIZABETH KAKOS, XXXX WALNUT RD, LOT 2 & ADJACENT VACATED STREET, BLOCK 4, MOUND TERRACE, PID # 14-117-24 32 0025 Loren Gordon presented this case. The applicant has a request to allow a buildable lot designation on an unimproved street. Code requires the lot to have a minimum of 40 feet of frontage on an improved Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 street. The property is located at the corner of Walnut Lane and vacated Forest Lane. The west property line is on the Mound/Minnetrista border. As lot 2 of the Mound Terrace subdivision, the lot is platted and also includes half of the vacated Forest Lane. The lot encompasses approximately 21,500 sf which exceeds the R-1 district standard. The improved section of Walnut Lane ends at approximately the southeastern corner of the property. The property is wooded and a relatively steep slope from west to east. The lot, like the surrounding area, has a number of large trees and ground vegetation. A ravine cuts across the southeastern and east portions of the lot in the vacated Forest Lane right-of- way draining the area north to Maple Road. There are no drainage easements in the vacated right-of-way. Currently the City has no plans for extending street into the improved section of Walnut Lane. The City of Minnetrista also has no immediate plans to make a connection but would like to keep future options open if development proposals are submitted for the vacant adjacent land. At this time, building plans have not been submitted and the proposed house location shown on the survey is tentative. The proposed driveway would continue from the improved portion of Walnut Lane through the ravine before curving north onto the property. A culvert would carry water under the driveway to the north. The amount of water that drains through here is uncertain. Sizing of the culvert will need to be based on further review by the City Engineer. A sanitary sewer line is located in the Walnut Lane right-of-way and is available for service. The nearest water service would come from the hydrant on the south side of improved street. The owner would need to extend a private water line to the property. In order for the lot to be built on, access needs to be provided in the form of a city street or a private drive. There have been similar past cases where single lots have been granted variances for private driveways that serve a single property. The undeveloped lot 59 on the south side of Walnut Road creates a variable in this discussion. This property could be developed and require access from Walnut Road. A public street would then be more appropriate in this case rather than a second private driveway. It seems reasonable to allow the private driveway to serve the property as proposed. Development of lot 59 may require a public street be installed to serve both properties. The property owner of lot 25 should be on notice of this possibility. Both properties would be required to pay typical street and utility assessments. The City would assume no responsibility for the removal of the private drive if a future street were required. Mound Planning Commission Minutes June $, 1998 The City engineers report details the engineering related issues associated with the proposal. Any conditions for approval should reflect these comments. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the request with the following conditions. 1. The applicant be responsible for all driveway improvements as reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 2. The applicant be responsible for providing all private water and sewer utility connections to the property. 3. The City Engineer reviews and approves a drainage plan for the property before building permit issuance. 4. A drainage easement be provided for the gully. 5. All street and utility assessments for the property be paid as determined by the City. Discussion: Hasse commented that this lot could be split at a later date. How many sewer assessments were assessed? Gordon stated that was one of the things that he and the city engineer discussed. Hanus commented that would have to be done by a minor subdivision. Mueller commented that if a driveway is granted on the city right of way would deny the owner of lot 6 of access to Walnut Rd. Hanus commented to put in the resolution that if Walnut Road needs to be extended that the private drive would be reconsidered. Sutherland asked the planner if the Engineers report could be attached to the resolution? If so, it would be of record and any purchasers would then be notified of the issues. Mueller commented that the requirements of a resolution are not always provided on the deeds. Mueller questioned the firefighting in the area of Walnut Road. Mueller suggested that the Fire Marshall look at the request. Mueller questioned the looping of the water line. Gordon stated that the city engineer has recommended a 1 -1/2 inch water line to avoid potential water pressure concerns. Looping the water lines was not part of the discussion with the engineer. Any discussions about looping water lines are better 8 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 addressed by the City Engineer. Steve Kakos, 6381 Maple Road, commented that the looping was denied when a larger housing development was proposed. Hanus commented on a lot on Three Points on Glen Elyn Road that was brought to the Planning Commission for review to affirm that it was a buildable lot. Gordon stated that the recent Downey subdivision case was also similar to this case. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Burma to recommend staff recommendation with the following additional conditions: 6. The City Fire Marshall shall review the proposal and give his report to the Council. 7. The City Engineer address the city water looping for future use. 8. The City Attorney draft language to attached to the resolution that would require this resolution be addressed for future sale of the property that it would disclose to prospective purchasers. Hanus recommended the City Attorney address the access issue. Motion carries 7-0. This case goes to City Council on June 23, 1998 CASE # 98-35: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK, LOT SIZE, MARK & STACEY GOLDBERG, 4853 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 4, BLOCK 14, DEVON, PID # 25-117- 24 11 0037 Loren Gordon presented the case. The applicant has submitted a request to add a conforming lakeside deck. The associated variance request is listed below. Existing/Proposed Required .Variance Front Yard 1.11' 20' 18.89' Side Yard 3' 6' 3' Boathouse 10' 50' 40' Lot Area 4000 sf 6000sf 2000sf The house is located at 4853 Island View Drive on an undersized 4000 sf lakeshore lot. Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 The property is separated from the lake by Devon Commons, which ranges in width from 20 to 30 feet. Current improvements to the property are a two-story walk out house and a functioning two-story boathouse. The house was recently converted from the original one-story stucco design to the current two-story walkout. The applicant is proposing to add two lakeside decks to the house. As submitted the plans show a main floor deck measuring 15 feet by 9 feet and a 7 feet by 6 feet second story deck. A stairway along the side of the house would connect both decks. The second story deck would maintain the same 3 feet side yard setback as the house. The main floor deck would have a minimum 4 feet 2 inch side yard setback. A sewer easement, which is shown on the 1989 survey, runs through the property between the house and the lake. It varies in range from 9 to 10 feet from the rear wall of the house. The owner has prepared his own site plan showing the property lines, house, and deck improvements and the sewer easement. At the time of this report, an accurately surveyed improvement plan with the easement identified was not available. The applicant has been asked to provide the city with an updated survey to insure the deck is not located within the easement. It is also difficult to determine what the lakeside setback would be. The site plan shows the existing boathouse which is located in Devon Commons. It is a "true" boathouse in every respect with a functioning rail and pulley to pull the boat into the garage and an enclosed porch on the second floor. The structure is in good condition although there is some cracking and bowing seen in the foundation. Staff supports the plans for the deck as proposed. The decks were planned with the house remodeling but were not completed at that time. Adding the decks now has little impact on the 3 feet side yard encroachment. There are some concerns from staff about the location of the sewer easement and if the deck as proposed would be an encroachment. Until an updated survey is submitted, staff would not recommend any approval make this a condition. The existing boathouse is a nonconforming use in its present lakeside location, similar to other boathouses in Mound. 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. This boathouse is in good condition and is of substantial size. It could probably exist for a number of years before it deteriorates to a condition where it would be unsafe and it removal necessary. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approve the request as stated with the following condition. ]0 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 The applicant provides an updated survey showing the easement location and setbacks. Discussion: Gordon commented that there is a lot size variance that needs to be addressed also. Amended to staff recommendation: 2. Lot size variance of 2,000 sf, Chair Michael questioned how far the proposed deck is from the lake. Gordon stated that based on the survey the deck is 52.5 feet from the lake. Mark Goldberg stated that he would not be putting impervious surface under the decks. Chair Michael commented that he did not understand how the boathouse could remain when Resolution 89-33 required the boathouse to be moved or removed. Mark Goldberg review the Dock and Commons proposal for a resolution and a future ordinance change for public lands will be coming. Mark Goldberg stated the reason why the Boathouse was not removed. Goldberg had tried to move the boathouse back off the common to his property but could not because there is a city utility easement in between the house and the commons. He went back to the City Council and stated that he could not move the Boathouse. The City Attorney asked if he had a Maintenance Agreement Public Lands Permit on File. In checking records there was one on file. Burma questioned if he could license this as a fishhouse. Hasse asked how long does the Maintenance Permit last. The applicant and Building Official responded Public Land Maintenance Permits are 5 year- renewable permits. Mueller suggested that the Planning Commission be given a chance to review the proposed resolution before it goes to the City Council. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Hasse to recommend staff's recommendation with the following additional conditions: Lot size variance of 2,000 square feet. The survey be signed and dated. Showing that the deck setback from the shoreline and the location of the easement. ]! Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 4. The Boathouse be screened properly. Weiland asked to show the boathouse setbacks on the updated survey. Gordon asked to have the survey be provide hardcover calculations and lot size. Mueller stated that the commission usually does not move on an incomplete application. Mueller requested to remove his motion. Suthedand stated that the main deck would not increase the hardcover as it would not have anything underneath it. Hasse commented that the second story deck is adding to a nonconforming use. MOTION by Burma, seconded by Michael to recommend previous motion. Burma stated that it would not increase the existing hardcover. Unless part of the home was removed, how the hardcover could change. Mueller stated that there may be some of the hardcover that could be removed such as sidewalks. Glister commented it is not the practice of the commission to act on a incomplete application. Hanus questioned size of the upper deck. Goldberg stated 7x6 deck. MOTION by Burma, seconded by Michael to recommend previous motion. Motion failed 4-3. Opposed: Weiland, Michael, Glister, Mueller. In Favor: Burma, Hasse, Hanus. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Glister to table this case until a accurate survey is submitted. Motion carried 6-1. Opposed: Burma. This case will come back to the Planning Commission at a future date. Chair Michael explained how the Public Hearing would be conducted. 12 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 CASE #98-26: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, MOTOR FUEL ~O~ATED WITHIN THE B-2 ZONING DISTRICT, JAMES SMITH/JAMES KOVACH, 1730 COMMERCE BLVD, PART OF LOT 27, LAFAYETTE PARK, PID # 13-117-24 22 0025 CASE #98-27: VARIANCE, HARDCOVER, JAMES SMITH/JAMES KOVACH, 1730 COMMERCE BLVD, PART OF LOT 27, LAFAYETTE PARK, PID # 13-117-24 22 0025 Loren Gordon presented the cases. Gordon stated that this was tabled at the May 11th Planning Commission Meeting. This is a supplement to the May 11th staff report for the proposed Amoco development. In your packets is a letter from the Amoco Architect discussing elements of the project from the last meeting. Staff has been in contact with the architect in preparation for this meeting to address the comments and concerns stated by the Commission. The following are proposed modifications to the site plan as described in the letter: · Signage - The freestanding signage along Three Points Blvd. has been removed from the plan. The 25 feet freestanding sign along Commerce will be the only freestanding sign on the site. It will include all advertising and gas pricing information. At the last meeting, there were questions about the size of the PDQ freestanding sign and building signage. Further review of the site shows the freestanding sign at a height of 25 feet with 80 sf of signage. The building is permitted for 120 sf of signage although the PDQ is the only sign on the building. The total signage for the site is 200 sf. After the removal of Three Points freestanding sign, the total for the Amoco site is 214.3 sf. Staff had recommended the freestanding sign along Commerce be reduced in height to more closely match a monument sign look. Now that the Three Points sign is not proposed, it seems reasonable to allow the sign as proposed at 25 feet in height with 93.6 sf of area. Code would allow two freestanding signs at 25 feet with 48 sf each. This proposal reduces the number of signs, which is an aesthetic improvement from Staff's perspective. Hardcover- The previous hardcover calculations included highway easement which are not normally included. The following calculations should clarify the hardcover issue. ~ .HardcoverAre~ Variance .Percent Hardcover Property w/Easement 59,980 sf 38,416 sf 21,564 sf 64% Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Property w/ Easement 56,080 sf minus street Property w/o Easement 48,673 sf 38,416 sf 17,664 sf 69% 38,416 sf 10,257 sf 79% Traffic - There was some discussion about how much traffic the Amoco store would produce. Amoco did not prepare a traffic study for the store but there are some general assumptions that can be made. Gas station/convenience stores are somewhat reliant on the amount of traffic already on the street. Due to their nature, they are not usually a destination that would change existing travel routes. However, they may divert some local trips that would go to downtown Mound or Minnetrista. Amoco probably assumes it will gain customers from PDQ with competitive products and pricing. Because it is one of the only gas stations in the area with a car wash, it may capture additional local traffic. Parking stall size - There was some discussion about the appropriate parking stall size and handicapped stall size. In previous cases, variances have been granted to reduce parking stall sizes to 9 feet. If the 10 feet standard were used it may cause one parking space to be lost in the current parking area adjacent to the store. Amoco states that they find 10 to 11 spaces to be more than adequate. Either width could be accommodated by the proposal. If the Planning Commission deviates from the 10 feet size requirement, reasons for the change should be stated. Buffering/Glare - One item briefly discussed was buffering techniques to adjacent residential properties. What did not get addressed was the lighting glare on adjacent properties. The zoning code regulates the amount of light that is cast on adjacent residential properties to 0.4 foot candles measured at the property line. The lighting plan shows readings ranging from 1 to over 4 foot candles on the east property line. The lighting intensity along the south property line also exceeds the maximum. Revisions to the site lighting plan need to be made to reduce the lighting intensity at the east and south property lines. Methods to reduce the intensity could include reducing bulb wattage or planting additional landscaping. Either method or a combination of the two could prove to be effective. The following recommendation follows that of the previous report with modifications reflecting the signage and car wash operations. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the conditional use permit and requested variances with the following 14 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 conditions: The stormwater plan be approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The "Food Shop", "Car Wash", and dumpster enclosure be constructed of brick. The car wash only be allowed to operate between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. as regulated by the zoning code. The City Engineer review and approve all grading and drainage plans. The parking size and space issue be determined. Discussion.. Weiland stated that "wash" needed to be added to the recommendation. So noted and will be corrected. Burma questioned the hardcover calculation the the Property with the easement should state 72% hardcover not 64% on page 2 of the Planner's report. So noted and will be corrected. Mueller questioned which items were tabled at the last meeting. Loren stated that he feels they were covered in the current Staff's Report. Glister recommended that a traffic study be done. She commented that Amoco would probably have some idea of the traffic flow. Gordon stated that the Engineer would probably have to be involved. Glister commented that this is zoned Business but is surrounded by Residential. Gordon stated that a traffic study as not be requested by staff due to the history of similar uses on the property. Chair Michael opened the Public Hearing: Michaela Diercks, 1765 County Road 110, Her property is located in Minnetrista. Her property is zoned Park, residential, and agriculture. Her main concern is noise. PDQ's sign illuminates right into her window. She feels that a traffic study be done prior to the approval. The garbage is an issue. She would like to know how many gas stations are needed in the city of Mound. Martin Garden, 1760 Commerce BIvd, stated that if a gas station was on the site he would not have purchased the townhome. He questioned the pollution impact level of the gas station. He believes that the noise will substaincially increase. He has concerns with the traffic flow with the car wash and traffic would be blocking adjacent driveways. He feels that the Commission should also have a traffic study done along with the report from Amoco. ]5 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Weiland asked how Garden could comment on the Women's Shelter as he did in regards to noise and nuisance. Garden stated that the noise would be contained within the structure and would create less traffic. Chris Meyer, 1790 Commerce Bird, questioned why Concept Landscaping was denied their request. Michael stated that a case did not review a case. Gordon stated that staff performed a sketch plan review but no formal application was made. One Concern that Ms. Meyer has is the loitering of teen-agers at the proposed site. Also the delivery of gas d u ring all hours of the night. Doug Birdie, 5028 Enchanted Road, is in favor of the proposal. He feels that Three Points needs additional options of gas providers in that area. He stated there is other commercial property around this site. He doesn't feel there is going to be any addition traffic. He feels that it is an upgrade to bring a major gas provider to Mound. Mark Hanson, 5555 Three Points BIvd, firmly agrees with the opposition arguments Glenna Loken, 5545 Three Points Blvd, expressed concerns for the noise, lighting, and drainage of the lot. She expressed concerns that a lot of trees would be taken down. She feels that she would be forced to keep her windows shut. Hanus questioned the lighting. Gordon reviewed the lighting plan. Hanus questioned the height of the canopy. Gordon stated that the canopy height is 16'6". The adjacent property owner to the east would probably be above the top of the canopy on the second floor of the frame. All canopy and pole lighting is down lighted. Vic Sacco, 5016 Enchanted Road, stated the abutting homeowner to the south is zoned B-2. He stated that he discussed this site with Dennis with the City of Minnetrista. He stated that the car wash takes 4-5 minutes depending on the cycle of the wash. There is a closure on the property from the Metropolitan Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). He stated that the lighting will meet City Code. The Canopy will not be back lit. He said there would be approximately 410 cars per day. Jim Smith, 3153 Priest Lane, he stated that he owns the property. He handed out an area showing that many of the properties around the site are zoned Business. Don Loken, 5545 Three Points Bird, He feels that it is an invasion of his privacy. Chris Meyer, 1790 Commerce BIvd, questioned why her property was zoned B-2. Gordon stated that one can have a single family dwelling in a Business district. Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Jennifer Garden, 1760 Commerce BIvd, commented that since the video store went out of business it created an eye sore. If the PDQ were to go out of business it would create even a larger eye sore. Diercks commented that her property is not zoned Commercial. Commented that Huber and Anthony's are quiet neighbors. Martin Garden, 1760 Commerce Blvd, questioned what Vic Sacco's interest was in the property. Sacco stated owner under contract. Chair Michael closed the Public Hearing. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Weiland to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m. Motion carried 7-0. Mueller commented on that this property has always been zoned business. The only variances that are hardcover and one for a sign. He made many comments about the growth of the surrounding area. Michael made comments on businesses in a B-2 zoning district. Meyer questioned the drainage plan. Michael assured her that it would be addressed with the Engineer. Diercks asked the Commission to really to consider this before make a motion without a traffic study. Burma stated that the traffic is going to be there whether the Amoco was there or not with the improvements happening with County Road 110 and the developments happening in Minnetrista. Meyer questioned when the drainage plan would be addresses. Gordon stated that Amoco has already submitted a Drainage Plan for review. Hanus commented that in # 5 in the recommendation. To leave the parking lot with 10 feet parking spaces. He also stated that a variance would not be required for the hardcover. Meyer requested a retaining pond. Sutherland stated that the Minnehaha Water Shed District will also review and regulate the Drainage Plans. Glister commented on the noise and the traffic. ]7 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Alan Nations, Nations & Co., Clarified the canopy lighting. The "AMOCO" will be the only lighted facia on the canopy. Hanus questioned if there was one or two handicapped parking spaces. MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Hasse to recommend staff recommendation with alterations and additions. Modify #1 to state: The stormwater plan be reviewed and approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) Modify # 3 to state: The car wash only be allowed to operate between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. as regulated by the zoning code. The doors be required to remain closed while in operation. All employees must be notified of this. 6. All lighting meet zoning codes 7. Signage as stated in Planner's Report 8. No deliveries between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. 9. Canopy can not be back lit. 10. The lighting pole not to exceed 15 feet in height on the back side of the building. Motion carried 6-1. Opposed: Glister. These cases will go to City Council on June 23, 1998 CASE #98-28: PUBLIC HEARING: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW TWIN HOMES, JAMES JOHNSON/DAVE MOORE, 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, PID # 13-117-24 44 0032 CASE # 98-05: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUATION, MAJOR SUBDIVISION, JAMES JOHNSON/DAVE MOORE, 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, PID # 13-117-24 44 0032 CASE #98-07: VARIANCE, LOT AREA, HARDCOVER, JAMES JOHNSON/DAVE MOORE, 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, PID # 13-117-24 44 0032 Loren Gordon presented the cases 18 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 This is a supplement report to the April 27, 1998 report for rezoning, preliminary plat, and variance requests. At the time of consideration during the April meeting, the conditional use permit was not prepared. The Planning Commission decided to hear the items and continue the hearing at a later date when the CUP was ready. The application has been submitted and the applicant is requesting approval at this time for the preliminary plat, lot area variances, conditional use permit, and financial assistance from the City to improve of the balance of Norwood Avenue. The applicant has submitted a site plan which is being used for purposes of addressing the conditional use permit requirements. Sections of the code that apply to conditional use permits are Section 350:525 which generally addresses all CUP developments and subdivision 4 of Section 350:630 which speaks more specifically to twin home dwellings as conditional uses. If approved, the CUP will incorporate all subdivision and site plan issues for the property and control any modifications to the site. The developer is proposing 3 twin units on the 6 lots. Lots 2 - 5 are under the required 7000 sf lot area standard for twin homes. The proposal meets all other setback requirements for dwellings maintaining 10 feet on side yards, 45 feet rear yard, and 20 feet front yard setbacks. Each of the units would be 1534 sf in size with a two stall attached garage. The developer is marketing the units to a senior population by incorporating a single story design and added association amenities. Landscaping includes a row of 7 over story deciduous trees planted on a 2 feet earthen mound along Shoreline Drive. The developer is proposing typical 2 inch caliper ash, oak or maple trees. These are the only landscaping shown on the site plan. The hardcover calculations for the property have been updated to consider the site as a whole rather than an individual lot basis. Total hardcover is 39.63 percent of the property, under the 40 percent lot of record requirement by 0.37 percent. Outside lighting consists of two lights on each garage and two lights in the rear of each unit. Specifics are not given but it appears to be standard residential lighting fixtures. Covenants have been submitted to the City Attorney for review. Changes to the language have been made and the updated copy should be in your packets. The street and utility improvements have at this point been addressed conceptually. The developer estimates the cost for street, water and sewer connections would be $48,871. Of this amount $25,000 would be paid for by the developer, $10,000 by an abutting property owner, and $13,871 left to be paid by the City. These estimates will need to be verified by the City Engineer. If the City should chooses to approve the project, the Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 proposal shows that it would be responsible for contributing $13,871 up-front for the improvements. These costs could be then be deferred to the abutting properties or paid from other city funds. If the City chooses to proceed with assisting in the project funding gap, greater detail will need to be provided on the specifics of the project before final project approvals are granted. This would include construction plans prepared by the City Engineer or the developers engineer, costs for street and utility assessments to the abutting properties. COMMENTS: In addition to the concerns stated in the previous report, the same issues are present with the CUP. The lot sizes do not meet code requirements. Staff feels other options for the development should be more thoroughly explored before granting approval to this project. The most ideal approach, is a development proposal incorporating all vacant land along Norwood Avenue into a comprehensive plan where the developer be responsible for all private and public project elements. This approach also puts the least amount of risk on the City. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council deny the conditional use permit request based on the concerns for lot size and the City's assumed financial risk for street and utility improvements. Discussion: Hanus questioned Gordon's position on the recommendation. Gordon stated that staff recommendation is to deny this portion of the project. Staff feels uncomfortable about putting the City at any financial risk. Staff feels there may be better options or uses for this property. Gordon stated that staff would like to see both sides of the street developed at the same time. Burma questioned the ownership of lot 13. Gordon stated that it was a separate owner. Burma stated then there is one neighbor in favor of the project and three that are unknown of their position on the project. Mueller moved to have the public hearing opened. Chair Michael opened the Public Hearing. Chair Michael closed the Public Hearing. 20 Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 Mueller questioned Gordon on the other options for the site. Gordon commented that maybe duplexes be built or possibly downsizing the project to only having two sets of twin homes instead of three, something that fits the standards. Mueller commented on the reason why harddrives purchased the property to begin with. Mueller commented from a planning prospective would the city rather see duplexes that are rented out versus purchases twinhomes. Gordon stated that this project meets a needed elderly housing segment in Mound. Mueller commented what cost would it be to the city. The amount would be deferred through assessments. There was lengthy discussion on deferrments. Finding of Facts: - Good for the City - purchasers would be targeted to the semi retired or retired individuals. - Only street in Mound that is used as a street and has not been developed yet. For all three cases 98-28, 98-05, & 98-07 · MOTION by Mueller, seconded by Burma to recommend the proposal by the applicant with the following conditions: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. No hardcover variances due to the project is being considered as a whole. That the lot size variance be granted due to land being taken during the reconstruction of County Road 15 (Shoreline Drive). The City Engineer review and approve all grading and drainage plan prior to issuance of building Permits The stormwater plan be reviewed and approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The City Engineer review and approve all road improvements prior to issuance of Building Permits. Developer pay 51% of assessments for Road development. Developer will relocate the existing encroaching fence at the expense of the Developer and all required permits will be required. A ten (10) foot Right of Way Variance be granted. Motion carried 6-1. Opposed: Hanus. 2] Mound Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1998 This case will go to the City Council on June 23, 1998. INFORMATION: CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MAY 12, 1998 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES MAY 26, 1998 There was no discussion on the Council Minutes. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Hasse, seconded by Weiland to adjourn the meeting at 12:01 a.m. The Motion carried 7-0. 22 % Wo METROPOLITAN MOSOUITO CONTROL DISTRICT METRO COUNTIES GOVERNMENT CENTER 2099 UNIVERSITY AVENUE WEST · ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA55104-3431 612-645-9149 · FAX 612-645-3246 TDD use Minnesota Relay Service JOSEPH F. SANZONE W.J. CAESAR Director RECEi ,;5 Date: 6/19/98 To: City Manager From: Metropolitan Mosquito Control District Re: Follow-up to adult mosquito control notification procedures In early May we sent you a letter notifying you of our intentions to provide adult mosquito control in and around your community this summer. The District provides adult mosquito control to protect the public from mosquito transmitted disease, and to make our short summer months more enjoyable. Recently MMCD has come under attack from the Sierra Club. They have started what in essence is a petition drive to have metro citizens drop out of the District's program. Their weapons in this attack are misinformation and alarmist rhetoric. In their most recent newsletter they state that MMCD "spews toxic chemicals over the landscape". The fact is the District uses the most environmentally sensitive control materials available. These materials are registered both on the federal and state levels, and are applied by licensed applicators. In addition these materials are applied only to areas that have been sampled for mosquitoes in order to provide metro citizens the most benefit. The Minnesota Department of Health has found that the adult control materials as used by MMCD do not pose a health risk to humans. The Sierra Club is trying to convince people that these materials are somehow harmful to children and the environment. To support this they are using out-of-context quotes and product label descriptions designed to caution applicators about the consequences of pesticide misuse. Please do not be misled by this groups campaign against the District. If we can provide more information, or be of further assistance please contact Jim Stark or Mike McLean at (612) 645- 9149 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER {~ Printed on recycled paper containing at least 15% post-consumer paper fibers 'We, the undersigned, are residents of lhe Three Points Boulevard area or' Moimd Minnesota, and are IN OPPOSITION to thc convenience store proposal for the site at the south east qttadrant of the Three Points/Commerce/Boulevardmt~r~.ct~c,n.' · ~ :' '~ We. fl~e undersigned, are residents of'the Tlu-ee Points Boulevard area of Moi~nd Minnemta. and are IN OPPOSITION to the convenience store proposal tbr the site at the south east quadrant of the Tl~ee Points ./Commerce/Boulevard intersection. D~/,d June 23rd. i998 We. the undersigned, are residents of the Three Points Boulevard area of Moitnd Minnesbta. t~nd are IN OI:'EOSITION to fl~e convenience store proposal for the site at the south east q~adrant of the Three Points /Commerce/Boulevard intcrsec!io~. D2d June 23rd. 1998 ~- AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL *~: 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, d' ~' SPE~_.IAL ME~T~G. ~:00 PM, OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PAGE ~EXECUTIVE SESSION_.. WOODLAND POINT LITIGATION. o REG~ MEETING BEGINS AT ?:30 PM, 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. *A. *B. *C. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 9, 1998, REGULAR MEETING ................................. 2146-2153 APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 16, 1998 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING ................................ 2154-2155 CASE 98-33: VARIANCE, FRONT, SIDE & LAKESHORE SETBACKS, LOT SIZE, HARDCOVER, PETER LIUPAKKA, 1920 LAKESIDE LANE, LOT 11, BLOCK 11, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID//18-117-23 23 0057. . . 2156-2181 *D. .CASE 98-34: VARIANCE, LOT FRONTAGE, STEPHEN & ELIZABETH KAKOS, XXXX WALNUT ROAD, LOT 2 & ADJ VAC ST. BLOCK 4, MOUND TERRACE, PID//14-117-24 32 0025. 2182-2211 *E. .CASE 98-35: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK, LOT SIZE, MARK & STACEY GOLDBERG, 4853 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 4, BLOCK 14, DEVON PID//25-117-24 11 0037. (PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS WILL ~'~ bLX iGd bbkiGiskidG ' ' 2212-2237 ON 6/22/98 AND WILL BE TURNED AROUND FOR THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING). *F. CASE 98-36: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS, BRADLEY NORDGREN, 5661 BARTLETT BLVD, SECTION 23, PID//23-117-24 14 0004. .............................. 2238-2257 (PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS WILL BE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON 6/22/98 AND WILL BE TURNED AROUND FOR THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING). *G. ,CASE 98-37: VARIANCE, LAKESIDE SETBACK, AUDRI SCHWARZ, 5621 BARTLETT BLVD, SECTION 23, PID//23-117-24 14 0002 ...... 2258-2273 (PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS WILL BE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON 6/22/98 AND WILL BE TURNED AROUND FOR THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING). *H. APPROVAL OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONTRACT WITH HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP, INC. ~ a.~.,o~ - ~ ¢7,~>~.~ ;~,~ ~_'k .................. 2274-2280 *I. APPROVAL OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN PROPOSAL FROM MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS & ASSOCIATES .............. 2281-2304 oo.oo 3 APPROVE CABLE FRANCHISE AND AUTHORIZE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE. ORDINANCE//98-1998 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 17-A OF THE CITY CODE (APPENDIX G) ENTITLED CABLE TELEVISION REGULATORY ORDINANCE ............................ 2357-2386 6. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 98-26: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, MOTOR FUEL STATION LOCATED WITHIN THE B-2 ZONING DISTRICT, JAMES SMITH/JAMES KOVACH, 1730 COMMERCE BLVD., PART OF LOT 27, LAFAYETTE PARK, PID//13-117-24 22 0025. Ae ,I l, CASE 98-27: VARIANCE, HARDCOVER, JAMES SMITH/JAMES KOVACH, 1730 COMMERCE BLVD., PART OF LOT 27, LAFAYETTE PARK, PID//13-117-24 22 0025 ................................ 2387-2449 PUBLIC HEARING. CASE 98-05: MAJOR SUBDIVISION, JAMES JOHNSON/DAVE MOORE, 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, PID//13-117-24 44 0032. PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 98-28: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW TWIN HOMES, JAMES JOHNSON/DAVE MOORE, 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, PID #13-117-24 44 0032. 6 go ..CASE 98-07: VARIANCE, LOT AREA, HARDCOVER, JAMES JOHNSON/DAVE MOORE, 4901 SHORELINE DRIVE, LOTS 1-6, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, PID//13-117-24 44 0032 ........ 2450-2499 Bo Eo INFORMATION/M ISCELLANEOUS: MAY 1998 FINANCIAL REPORT AS PREPARED BY GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR ...................................... 2500-2501 MCWD NOTICE OF RESIGNATION OF DIANE LYNCH, ADMINISTRATOR ..... 2502 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 1998 ................ 2503-2524 REMINDER: INTERVIEWS WITH ARCHITECT AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT FIRMS WILL BE HELD WITH THE WCCB ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24 AND THURSDAY, JUNE 25, RESPECTIVELY, MOUND CITY HALL, BEGINNING AT 6 P.M. REMINDER: NEXT REGULAR WCCB MEETING WILL BE TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 1998, 7 P.M. MOUND CITY HALL. MOTION made by , seconded by to adjourn at P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk 7