Loading...
1990-11-27 CC Agenda PacketCITY COUNCIL PACKET - 11 -27 -90 #1 • CITY OF MOUND MOUND,, MINNESOTA A G E N n A ' w MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING T., 10 P.M. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2Z, 1490 - ACHQOL 1. DISTRICT BOARDROOM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. APPROVE THE MINUTES'OF THE NOVEMBER 13, 1990 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. Pg. 3161 -3170 3. PUBLIC HEARING! DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS Pg. 3171 4. CASE f 0 -940: WES OLSON, 2539 EMERALD DRIVE, LOTS 6 & 7 BLOCK 6, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT B, PID# 24- 117 -24 12 0041 & 42, REQUEST: VARIANCE EXTENSION OF RESOLUTION 88 -179• THIS WILL BE AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ON 11 -26 -90 Pg. 3172 -3186 5. CONTIUMED PUB IC HEARING! RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 1991 GENERAL FUND BUDGET, SETTING THE LEVY; AND APPROVING THE OVERALL BUDGET FOR 1991 (RESOLUTION TO BE HANDED OUT TUESDAY EVE.) !�. DISCUSSION: CHESTNUT ROAD EXTENSION AND LOT 23, KOEHLER'S 2ND ADDITION. BOOKLET INSERT 7. CASE 090 -941 REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE AT 5989 CHESTNUT ROAD FOR DAVID WILCOX. (PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS ITEM WILL BE HEARD BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AT THEIR 11 -26 -90 MEET. NG. ) Pg. 3187 -3194 8. DISCUSSION_ PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLL - DOWNTOWN PARKING LOTS. (MATERIAL TO BE HANDED OUT TUESDAY EVENING) 9. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT 10. PAYMENT OF BILLS Pg. 3195 -3212 11. INFORMATION /MISCELLANEOUS A. PARKS & OPEN SPACE COMMISSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 8 1990 Pg. 3213 -3215 B. LMCD MAILINGS Pg. 3216 -3217 C. OCTOBER 1990 FINANCIAL REPORT AS PREPARED BY JOHN NORMAN, FINANCE DIRECTOR Pg. 3218 -3219 • PAGE 3159 C v D. REMINDER: MOVING DAY IS DECEMBER 13T. STAFF WILL BE MOVING BACK TO OLD BUILDING SO THAT CONTRACTOR CAN COMPLETE WORK IN ADDITION E. REMINDER: CITY CHRISTMAS PARTY, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 15 1990, MOUND VFW, 7 PM - ? SEE ENCLOSED INVITATION PAGE 3160 171 November 13, 1990 MINUTE8 - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - NOVEMBER 13, 1990 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, November 13, 1990 in the School District School Board Meeting Room at 5600 Lynwood Blvd., in said City. Those present were: Mayor Steve Smith, Councilmembers Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Skip Johnson. Councilmember Andrea Ahrens was absent and excused. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Engineer John Cameron, Building Official Jon Sutherland and the following interested citizens: Jean & Ray Grover, Linda & David Jagerson, Michael Mueller, Curt Johnson, Peter Johnson, will Johnson, Carol & Doug Farmer, and Ken Smith. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. RECYCLOTTO WINNER8 The Mayor presented Jean & Ruth Grover, 5933 Hawthorne Road with $150.00 Westonka Dollars for winning the Recyclotto. 1.0 MINUT MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Jensen to approve the minutes of the October 23, 1990, Regular Meeting as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.1 ME #90 -935: REQUEST - FOR CONDITIONAL HE PERMIT FOR AN • David Jagerson submitted the following: - a letter stating their opposition to the granting of a Conditional Use Permit; - a letter from the Jagerson's attorney, J. Richard Bland, regarding the Conditional Use Permit; - a letter from Molly Brown, Real Estate Appraiser for Wiley Appraisal, Inc., giving her opinion of the impact on the Jagerson's property if the Conditional Use Permit were granted (along with a sheet on Ms. Brown's qualifications); 31101 a letter from A. D. Kline of Chase Brackett Company, real estate appraisers, giving his opinion of the impact on the Jagerson;s property if the Conditional Use Permit were granted (along with Mr. Kline's qualifications); and a letter from the owners of 3026 Highland Blvd. stating that they have seen the Jagerson's appraisal letter from Wiley and asking that careful consideration be given to the impact of the Conditional Use Permit on the neighborhood. The Jagersons again stated they feel, based on the above that their property value would be substantially diminished and impaired. The Building Official stated the Staff's position is unchanged. They still concur with the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the Conditional Use Permit. CouncilMLAber Johnson stated that he will be voting against granting the Conditional Use Permit because he does not feel it meets the criteria for granting a CUP. Councilmember Jessen stated she has viewed the site (front yard being the lake side and back yard being the street side where the garage is located) and feels it meets the criteria and should not have any impact in the value of abutting property or the neighborhood. Councilmember Jensen stated that she revisited the site and had Mr. Farmer put a stake in the ground to show where the depth of the wall would be if the garage where added onto without a CUP and a stake where the depth of the wall would b3 if the addition were done with a CUP. The stakes were at the same level so the wall would not be any taller. She stated that since there is no difference she does not feel that granting the CUP would be injurious to neighbors. She further stated that the Planning Commission recognizes that there are more houses being built with 3 or 4 car garages and that the ordinance needs to be revised to reflect larger garages. Mayor Smith stated that since the staff and the Planning Commission recommended approval and the applicant meets the CUP criteria that he feels no one would be violated. The Council then dealt with the motion that was on the floor when this item was tabled at the October 23rd meeting, as follows: • N%06�- C NOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jensen to direct the staff to prepare a resolution of denial for this request because it does not meet the criteria for granting a Conditional Use Permit. The vote was 1 in favor with Jensen, Jessen and Smith voting nay. Ahrens was absent. Motion failed. Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #90 - 13S KRBOLUTION AVMRIZING A CONDITIONAL U8E PERXIT !OR TRI CONsTRUCTION of AN OYRRSI3RD ACCRBBORT BUILDING AT 3020 RIGRLAMD BLVD., LOT 7, BLOCK 2, 'YIN RIGHI.ANDB, PID #23- 117 -24 41 0013, P A 3 CASK #90 -93S The Council asked that number 2 of the conditions in this resolution be amended to read as follows: 2. A landscape plan must be submitted and approved by the City Planner to ensure adequate foundation and building screening for the adjacent neighbors to the north. • The vote was 3 in favor with Johnson voting nay. Ahrens was absent. Motion carried. The Council asked that the Planning Commission and the Staff work on updating the Zoning Ordinance. 1.2 BID AWARD: 1990 -91 CBD SNOWPLOWING The City Manager explained that 2 bids were received, one from Widmer Construction in St. Bonifacius and one from Cindy Wymer Trucking and Excavating of Annandale. They were competitive bids with the exception of the rubber tired loader. The specifications required that the loader have a 4 to 5 yard bucket. The Wymer equipment had only a 2 1/2 yard capacity bucket which does not meet the specs. Therefore, the Staff recommends the Widmer Bid be approved. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Johnson to award the bid for the 19 ?0 -91 CBD Snowplowing to Widmer Construction nf at. Bonifacius. The vote was unanimously in favor with Ahrer.! absent. Motion carried. • Mr. .:urt Johnson, 5545 Shoreline Drive, stated that last February, Widmer Construction damaged his fence while plowing his parking lot which is in the CBD district. He has been trying to collect $766.00 from them since that time. Their insurance deductible is $1,000.00. He currently has a judgment from 3 103 176 November 13, 1990 Conciliation Court in the amount of $766.00, but they have not pAid him. He asked the City to intercede on his behalf. Mr. Peter Johnson, legal Counsel for Widmer, stated that Widmer has appealed the Conciliation Court Judgment to District Court. Therefore a Judge will be deciding this dispute. A letter from the City Attorney, dated November 9, 1990, stated that the Courts will be deciding this issue. No action was taken by the City Council. r 1 s _A . i a T. - Irm ,'s ' -1 , hs - s fix- ,-177 7 The City Manager reported that he had intended to bring the preliminary assessment roll to the Council tonight, but that all the pieces have not come together yet. Since the last Council meeting, the option was exercised with Mr. Mills. The City has been in contact with Peter Johnson, Phil Lansing, and Mike Mueller about the cross easements that are needed, but that is not settled to date. All the costs have not yet been determined and therefore an assessment roll cannot be done. Mills agreed to pay for platting and subdivision costs at approximately $3,500. He has also granted a 15 day extension for the closing. The Johnsons do not want to pay for platting and subdivision costs because they feel they are purchasing the lots for the CSD district to use. If they do not purchase these lots, the City would have to pay an additional $60,000 which would have to be added to the assessment roll. Mr. Johnson stated his costs for the property, improvements (sewer, water and paving), financing and other items necessary to make the property (Tract A) saleable are close to $90,000. He does not feel they should have to pay for platting and subdivision costs also. He stated that the parties need time to put this deal back together. He can only do what makes business sense. He feels that City should and could pay for the platting and subdivision costs. He also needs the easements from Mueller and Lansing. Mike Mueller, Sr. submitted a letter today to the City Manager outlining what he would like to see done. • • • 3! Gov D C 17S November 13, 1990 Mike Mueller, Jr. was present and explained that they would like the Coerce Blvd. access and egress protected. They would also like to receive parking credits in the CBD district based on square footage of parking area provided. The requested separation of the two parcels is for tax purposes. The City Engineer stated that he has a problem with Mueller and Lansing giving an easement and then asking that they be allowed to reserve the right to later change the easement location. Mike Mueller, Jr. explained that his father may someday want to develop part of the parking area and that is why he wants to reserve the right to relocate the easement. The Council discussed the various situations and problems. There appeared to be no solution in site at this meeting. The Council asked the City Manager to ask Mr. Mills for another extension of the closing. They further requested all parties involved to work together to negotiate a timely resolution to their problems and situations. No other action was taken. P - •.1 i. ,. � . a .�,;. ��. iii � : ._ • . The City Manager explained that due to work added by changes during construction, Shingobee has asked for an extension of the completion date to December 15, 1990. Steve Jantzen has recommended approval. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Johnson to approve the project completion date for the City Sall Addition and Remodeling to December IS, 1990 The vote was unanimously in favor, notion carried. There were none. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jessen to approve Payment Request 11 for the 1990 Lift Station Improvement to Northwest Mechanical in the amount of $9,804.00. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. • The City Engineer explained that an extension until December 31, 1990, is necessary because the pumps have not come in from the 3cro.5 factory and after they do arrive there will need to be installation time. NOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jessen to approve and estensioa to December 31, 1990, for the completion of the 1990 Lift Station Uprovememt. TDe vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.6 REOLOTION APPROVING NADOP? GREEN BPACEN PROGRAM Councilmember Jessen reported that it persons or groups have signed up to participate in the Adopt a Green Space program. The Park i Open Space Commission is very excited about this program and would like to have it become a huge success. They are now recommending that the City Council approve the program and the Agreement they have drafted for individuals or groups to enter into to became a part of the program. Tom Casey, Park i Open Space Commissioner, asked that "wetlands* be included in the part of the resolutioi, and the part of the Agreement dealing with areas covered. The Council agreed. • The Council asked if the City Attorney and the City Insurance Agent have reviewed the program and Agreement. The City Manager stated that neither had any problems with the program or Agreement. Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #90 -136 RE80LVTION APPROVING "ADOPT 6% GREEK SPACE" PROGRAM AS RECOMMENDED EY ?an PARIS i OPEN SPACE COMMISSION AND THE AGREEMENT The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Johnson to authorise the payment of bills as presented on the pre -list in the amount of $231,033.74, whon funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Notion carried. • 31te to m. • 177 November 13, 1990 MOTION mad* by Johnson, seconded by Jensen to approve Pay■eat Request #7 for the City mall Addition and Remodeling Ptoject to ebiagobee Do lders in the amount of $83,419.03. The vote was unanimously in favor. Notion carried. «.r .i. • r . The City Manager explained each of the proposed Change Orders: CHANGE ORDER #26 - Additional labor and material to provide 1 Hour rated soffits around the existing ductwork system. The plans called for a layer of sheetrock attached directly to the bottom of the existing joists. This could not be done without changing the ductwork flexible connections and transitions. ADD $3,196.00 CHANGE ORDER #28 - Additional wiring required for 10 car heater outlets in lower parking lot, includes all labor and materials. ADD $3,736.00 CHANGE ORDER #38 - Additional cost for the revised location of folding door West of the receptionist. ADD $193.00 CHANGE ORDER #39 - For the revised handicap ramp to the Council desk in the new Council Chambers. ADD $1,675.00 CHANGE ORDER #41 - Replace existing leaking gas pipeline from meter to new boiler. ADD - $825.00 CHANGE ORDER #42 - Add eight (8) Halo can lights, 6 in reception area i 2 above city office counter, add switches as needed. ADD - $800.00 CHANGE ORDER #43 - Rework existing entry door - existing hardware. i.e. locks, pulls and panic hardware - need to be moved to allow handicapped accessibility. ADD - $420.00 CHANGE ORDER #45 - Install two (2) special "institutional" sprinklers, not specified in specifications. ADD - $253.00 Jensen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: sr (ol • 177 November 13, 1990 MOTION mad* by Johnson, seconded by Jensen to approve Pay■eat Request #7 for the City mall Addition and Remodeling Ptoject to ebiagobee Do lders in the amount of $83,419.03. The vote was unanimously in favor. Notion carried. «.r .i. • r . The City Manager explained each of the proposed Change Orders: CHANGE ORDER #26 - Additional labor and material to provide 1 Hour rated soffits around the existing ductwork system. The plans called for a layer of sheetrock attached directly to the bottom of the existing joists. This could not be done without changing the ductwork flexible connections and transitions. ADD $3,196.00 CHANGE ORDER #28 - Additional wiring required for 10 car heater outlets in lower parking lot, includes all labor and materials. ADD $3,736.00 CHANGE ORDER #38 - Additional cost for the revised location of folding door West of the receptionist. ADD $193.00 CHANGE ORDER #39 - For the revised handicap ramp to the Council desk in the new Council Chambers. ADD $1,675.00 CHANGE ORDER #41 - Replace existing leaking gas pipeline from meter to new boiler. ADD - $825.00 CHANGE ORDER #42 - Add eight (8) Halo can lights, 6 in reception area i 2 above city office counter, add switches as needed. ADD - $800.00 CHANGE ORDER #43 - Rework existing entry door - existing hardware. i.e. locks, pulls and panic hardware - need to be moved to allow handicapped accessibility. ADD - $420.00 CHANGE ORDER #45 - Install two (2) special "institutional" sprinklers, not specified in specifications. ADD - $253.00 Jensen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: sr (ol 178 November 13, 1990 RESOLUTION #90 -137 RESOLUTION TO AP23tOVa CN11 M ORDERS #2i, 28, 34, 39, 41, 42 43 i 45 - CITY BALL AWITION AND RRHODELING. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.10 JO XT POSERS AGREERM - g=9 The City Manager explained that Hennepin County's newly adopted recycling funding policy requires cities with less than 30,000 Population work together in delivering recycling services to their residents. To help cities, Hennepin County has been working with cities in the nest Metro area in preparing a single request for proposals for recycling services to try to keep the costs down and still remain efficient. This has now been done and 5 companies submitted bids. The bid would be good for 3 years. Knutson Services appears to be the one that the Committee and Hennepin County agreed on. Price per household was $1.70 with 1/3 material revenue split. The service would start January 1, 1991. We would retain the same pick -up days, Monday and Tuesday. Now the Council needs to approve the bid and enter into a Joint Powers Agreement with the other cities involved. • NOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jensen . to approve the Proposal submitted by Knutson services as outliaeA above, contingent upon -all the cities involved entering into a Joint Powers Agreement. Council authorises the Mayor and City manager to enter into Joint Powers Agreemant. The vote was unanimously in favor. motion carried. 1.11 NIMMS NOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jensen to approve the minutes of the November 7, 1990, Election Canvassing meeting as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. motion carried. INPORNATIONINISCBLLMMUS A. Department Head Monthly Reports for October 1990. B. Planning Commission Minutes of October 22, 1990. C. LXCD Representative's Monthly Report for October 1990. D. LMCD Mailings. The City Manager pointed out that the owner of Minnetonka Boat Rentals has asked to make a temporary slip permanent. • 31,03 179 November 13, 1990 B. Analysis of City Liquor Store Operations for 1989 as published by the League of Minnesota Cities. F. 1991 Proposed Legislative Policies and Priorities. Please note that the annual LNC Policy Adoption Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, November 27, 1990, from 9:00 A.M. to mid- afternoon. G. List of Hennepin County NNember at Large Appointments" for 1991. If you are interested, please advise Fran. She will find out the process by which you could apply for appointment to the various boards and commissions. H. REMINDER: 1991 Budget Hearing - Tuesday, November 20, 1990, at 7:30 P.M. in the School District Boardroom. I. REMINDER: Tree Lighting Ceremony, Tuesday, November 20, 1990, at 6:30 P.M. at Christmas Tree, downtown Mound. Please note this precedes the Budget Hearing. J. Due to the fact that the completion date is being pushed back to December 15 and that we will not be moving from the addition back into the old building until December 1, it is unlikely that we will be holding any advisory commission meetings or City Council meetings in the new Council Chambers until January 1991. We will continue to meet at the School District Boardroom until further notice. K. Letter dated November,b, 1990, from Paul i Wendy Lewin, 6216 Red Oak Road, complimenting Geno Hoff and Greg Skinner on the fine jobs they are doing with the City. L. City Hall will be closed on Monday, November 12, 1990, in observance of Veteran's Day and Friday, November 23, 1990, the day after Thanksgiving. M. Response from Robert D. Sjogren, Ph.D., Metropolitan Mosquito Control District. The Council discussed Dr. Sjogren's reply and decided they could not determine the attitude of the residents in the Lake Langdon area to give NMCD the O.K. to continue spraying or to tell MMCD to omit the Lake Langdon area from their control program. The Council also felt they have no authority to tell the MMCD what to do. • 3 tO9 Tom Casey asked that "nature conservation areas" be added to the resolution and Agreement in the areas to be maintained. WTION made by 7*ssea seconded by Johnson to add the words "nature conservation areas" be added to the resolution cad Agreement in the areas to be maintained by individuals or groups. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. WTIOM made by Jessen, seconded by Jobnson to adjourn at 10s3S P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Fran Clark, CMC, City Clerk • 3110 • MINUTES - 1991 BUDGET HEARING — NOVEMBER 20, 1990 r The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session to review the proposed 1991 Budget on Tuesday, November 20, 1990, at 7 :30 PM, at the Westonka School District Boardroom, 5600 Lynwood Boulevard, in the City of Mound, Minnesota. Those present were: Mayor Steve Smith, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jensen and Skip Johnson. Also present: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., Finance Director John Norman, Fi a Chief Don Bryce, Police Chief Len Harrell, Street Superintendent Geno Hoff, water and Sewer Superintendent Greg Skinner, Park Director Jim Fackler, Liquor Store Manager Joel Krumm and Building Official Jon Sutherland. Also present were the following interested citizens: Councilmember Elect Ken Smith, Parker Hodges, Mildred Hodge, Bev Hodge, Phil Haugen, Sharon Haugen, Don Cox, Dean Fleming and Greg Anderson. The Mayor opened the Public Hearing and welcomed the people in attendance. The City Manager reviewed the purpose of the Truth in Taxation Law. He reviewed the Budget Message contained within the 1991 proposed budget and specifically highlighted the General Fund Summary and Tax Levy. John Norman, Finance Director, distributed information concerning the health insurance line items and explained that the 1991 budget was prepared based on a 20% increase in the health insurance cost. Since the budget was prepared, the percentage has been reduced to approximately 12%. Hence, the line items for health insurance as proposed are slightly higher than what the actuals will be for 1991. The Mayor (,hen asked to go through the budget by department and each department head reviewed their budget and answered questions, if any from the Council and the citizens present. Following the department head reviews, the City Manager recommended the proposed budget be adopted at the next regular city council meeting, and asked the City Council to pass a motion directing that a resolution be approved approving the tax levy, overall budget, etc., so that it can be approved at the November 27, 1990 regular meeting. Upon notion by Jensen, seconded by Johnson, and carried unanimously, the City Council agreed with the City Manager's recommendation to have a resolution drafted and a*#Ped at the next regular w ar meeting on November 27th. '�'o� co►,� Upon motion by Ahrens, seconded by Smith, and carried unanimously, the Council hereby continues the budget hearing to the November 27, 1990 meeting beginning at 7:30 PM. • • • • NINUTES 1991 BUDGET HEARING NOVEMBER 20, 1990 It should be noted that the only change in the proposed budget uas'to reduce the recycling fund budget due to the fact that bids have been received from a new vendor which will reduce the budget for recycling. The City Manager will incorporate this change into the resolution to be approved at the next meeting. Notion made by .Johnson, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 PH. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk 2 Delinquent Water and Sewer $ 88.13 73.06 247.06 96.92 111.60 87.36 104.99 144.62 205.58 126.28 145.65 149.96 150.87 123.34 73.24 132.16 117.47 143.26 117.09 213.59 161.50 106.82 110.48 109.91 105.14 136.39 146.41 110.33 120.24 165.97 $3925.42 0 31 '7/ 11/20/90 11 0130 031 11 0130 092 11 0220 121 11 0220 182 11 0280 302 11 0280 393 11 0460 183 11 0460 211 11 0550 301 11 0670 332 11 0670 421 ll 0672 211 11 0760 033 11 0850 601 11 0850 751 ll 1120 241 11 1120 301 11 1120 572 11 1150 062 11 1240 391 11 1690 544 11 1692 571 11 1692 843 11 1750 181 11 1900 601 11 1990 241 11 2020 186 11 2020 213 11 2050 121 33 4750 124 Delinquent Water and Sewer $ 88.13 73.06 247.06 96.92 111.60 87.36 104.99 144.62 205.58 126.28 145.65 149.96 150.87 123.34 73.24 132.16 117.47 143.26 117.09 213.59 161.50 106.82 110.48 109.91 105.14 136.39 146.41 110.33 120.24 165.97 $3925.42 0 31 '7/ 11/20/90 Delinquent Water and Sewer 11/27/90 11 0130 031 Monte Sohns $ 88.13 1667 Avocet Ln. 11 0130 092 D. Archambault 73.06 1676 Avocet Ln. 11 0220 121 Geo. Haugh Pd. 247.06 1571 Dove Ln. 11 0220 182 Glen Lemmerman 96.92 1583 Dove Ln. 11 0280 302 Briam Harju 111.60 1613 Finch Ln. 11 0280 393 Jon Knosallo 87.36 1625 Finch Ln. 11 0460 183 Jan Paulson 104.99 1742 Sumach Ln. 11 0460 211 John Anderson Pd. $70.11 144.62 1743 Sumach Ln. 11 0550 301 Marie Hofstadter 205.58 5139 Woodland Rd. 11 0670 332 Bruce Gustofson Pd. 126.28 1743 Shorewood Ln. 11 0670 421 James Thorn Pd. 145.65 1761 Shorewood Ln. 11 0672 211 Wayne Burkhalter 149.96 1904 Shorewood Ln. 11 0760 033. Jon Subrant 150.87 1712 Resthaven Ln. 11 0850 601 Mark Allen 123.34 4970 Three Pts. Blvd. 11 0860 751 Thomas Hawley 73.24 4987 Three Pts. Blvd. 11 1120 241 James Swanson 132.16 5941 Gumwood Rd. 11 1120 301 E Whitbeck Pd. 117.47 5947 Gumwood Rd. 11 1120 572 Steve Schmidt 143.26 5972 Gumwood Rd. 11 1150 062 Greg Ward Pd. 117.09 2143 Diamond Ln. 11 1240 391. Doug Kodewald 213.59 6090 Aspen Rd. 11 1690 544 Lynn Dustin Pd. $61.50 161.50 5709 Lynwood Blvd. 11 1692 571 R.Blake Pd. 106.82 5932 Lynwood Blvd. 11 1692 843 Steve Helland 110.48 5969 Lynwood Blvd. 11 1750 181 Barb Byington 109.91 5504 Spruce Rd. 11 1900 601 Lauren Hofteig Pd. 105.14 2216 Noble Ln. 11 1990 241 M. Mittelsteadt 136.39 2149 Belmont Ln. 11 2020 186 Fe Moy 146.41 2208 Fern Ln. 11 2020 213 Harry Nasset 110.33 2212 Fern Ln. 11 2050 1 21 Paul Larson 120.24 5513 Church Rd. 44 4750 124 Mary Cragg Pd. $40.00 165.97 4515 Manchester Rd. $2788.30 r STAFF RECONlIENDAT I ON DATE: TO: fRONt CASE 0. t APPLICANT: LOCATION: LEGAL OESCRIPTIOI SUBJECT: ZONING: Planning Commission Agenda of September 10, 1990 Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official 90 -940 6 0 Wes Olsen 2539 Emerald Drive Lots 6 b 7, Block 6. Shirley Hills Unit B. N: PID #24- 117 -24 12 0041 Variance: Extension of Resolution #88 -179 R -I Single Family Residential The City Council, on June 12, 1990 voted unanimously to deny modification of this same resolution, and In addition, stated the non - conforming garage on the site was to be removed immediately. To -date, the garage has not been removed. The applicant is requesting approval of the variance extension to allow con- struction of an addition consisting of a garage with two bedrooms above. The proposed addition conforms to ail required setbacks. The applicant has stated that they will remove the existing non- conforming garage as soon as the new garage is built. Staff recommendation is to approve the extension of Resolution #88 -179 and al- low a building permit to be Issued subject to the the applicant submitting to the City Clerk a cash bond in the amount of $3,000. The conditions of the bond being that in the event the existing non - conforming garage is not removed, including any concrete slab end /or the area being properly graded to match the existing lawn, within 6 months of the date the building permit is issued, the City may proceed with demolition and apply bond money towards demolition expenses. Any surplus bond money will be refunded to the ap- plicant. The conditions of the bond are subject to review by the City Attorney. ..� t 0 0 This case will be heard by the City Council on November 27, 1990. The abutting neighbors have been notified. 111'7 J► Fiv.' .r ou ".w '14- ru iwtw rU3L110 wVnAJ rhA iru. OIC4"e -04t; � , P. ts3 �.J CITY Of rwuNo PART It Case N o , _qo -% COmbnm C - At►X t xl r(ek S 0,4 to Fi1ea 14 h( ►s teen Ci�pj -i - F• y �P -� S lt � Fee _— ___ --_�- _ VAR LM FA APPL ICAT I ON E'1.AHN t N(i JON 1 NG CdIM I WON (Please type or print the foliowing Information.) Address of Subject Property -��3 9 �.e�r�� � - / ✓s Lot. 0.­� - r 1310Ck Addition e (J - rl � ,i'� P 10 No. Owner's Name — ,4 1 6 0 5 ©�5��•.. Day Phone 3G - o.J ! r Owner's Address 2C 1 7 t I e L� App I IC&nt's Naile (if other than owner ) *Wroos I Osy P hone_ Existing Use of Property i _A0b 1dfa-6CLq Zoning District___„�� ~ Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other Zoning procedure for this property? 4iV4- no_ if yes, list dates) of application• action taken, and provide resolution number(s) (Copies of previous resol3tlon5 must accompany this application.) 1 certify that ail of the above statements and the statements contained .n any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and ac- curate. 1 consent to the entry In or upon the premises described in this OPPII Cat Ion by any authorized official Of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Applicant's Sionatura / z Date FOR OFFICE USE ONLYi Planning Commission Recommendation �. Council Actlontr Resolution No. _ __. dote_ _�,.� � /`1J4 „L.Y LL•J� �wv:IN �HM1.IV nv:.:w ::u� �w. Ut�.1 ►vv1M � My VARIANCE APPLICATION Core N o.. — ROL ._ t. Does the present use of the property conform to all rtgule ons for the Zoning district In which it Is located? Yes ( ). NO (Aor. If no Spec ea ch non - conforming use t &..... . "*- . .2 �rm+ f 2. Oo the existing structures comply With al' urea, height, bulk, and setback repuiat{,Ono for the tonlnp district 1n which It 1s IOCet*0? Yes ( ) . No if no, sFBc i fy each non.-conformi Use 3. Which unique physical Characteristic$ Of the subject property prevent Its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? t ) too rirrow ( ) topography t ) soft t ) too small ( ) drainage t ) sub- surface t ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) others specify 4. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property Interests In the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ), No ( ). ►f yes, expl S. Was the hardship Created by any Other man -made Change, s u C h as the relocation of a road? Yes t ), No ( ). if yes, explain_ of 51-1 «,. , y 3� Mcu i • �o nWNU rUdL I U WLWKS FAX No. 6124 KKo P. 05 0 VARIANCE APPLICAT Case f+• Are the conditions of hardship for which PeCuitar only to the property described in this p,titio to variance NO 1 � If hO• how many Other prOPerties are SIM[larl ( )` J20 A 1- 11 Y affected? 7. What It the "a t n i mum" Modification ( ve r i n setback regulations that will a Ce) from the ores. bulk. and your lane? (SpsCtf PerTtt you to make reasonable use of ten exP lOnation. Y. u'In9 rtwps. rite Pl with dimensions and writ- lei 00.1. ------- MI11 grant rig the ram$ t he var thelenforcementeOfathisdorc llnence� to prOPerty in PART III J. ttal Oh s A l !- A.IS?L dne_...o., s s l� plans, i�L!!:t>Il�ntr sk� . etc.. ax,st b e su,�Q4 In 8 - ?1 "x.( ravloar eler 1llust Dr er•�.��� for each tt - ��— lrrye� slit s site plan must ` a lso zon de attached g var i ance Prucedure at a stele l Ing the following Information: enough for clarity s how- I. Location, areaq and dimensions of existin ut driveway s) /street access. Off-str eet Parki �sed� Parki a ), ut ng. and Z. Existing and proposed elevations. 3. Olrtance betweens building and front. 4100 and rear lot lines; Principal building and accessory buildings; Principal and principal buildings on adJacent lots. building 4• Location ofg sign$, easements. under r S. Indl; 9 ound uttlitle�, etc, ste "north" co mpass dlreGtlon. 6 • Any eddtt±onal Information as may reasonably be required by the city staff and applicable sections of the 20ning Ordinance. 3( *S 1%c4,tIVEl3 Nov ! 5 Certificate of Survey for Bonnicksen Builders z of lots 6 and 1. Block 6, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT B too Hennepin County, Minnesota o • ` yoo 6 � •' �� � f, � t J � - t `'• 3, P. ?'� •� � l i -•� o ti V / y ,o. N a` Q V I hereby certify that this is a true and correct Zpre,entation of a survey of the boundaries of Lots 6 and 7, Block 6, SHIRL;r HILLS UNIT B, and the lucatrut, of any existing buildings thereon. It does not purport to Show any other improve- ments or encroachments. Scale I" - 30' COFFIN 6 GRONBERG, INC. Cate 6.20 -88 0 Iron marker Mark S. Gronberg Lic. No. 12755 "31"1(Q Engineers, Land Surveyors and Planners Long Lake, Minnesota MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE "OUNO ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION November 26, 1990 C ase No. 90 -940: Wes Olsen, 2539 Emerald Drive, Lots 6 a 7, Block 6, Shirley Hills Unit 8, PID 024- 117 -24 12 0041 a 42 VARIANCE: EXTEN OF RESOLUTION X88 -179 (addition). Building Official. Jon Sutherland, reviewed the applicants request for an extension of Resolution #88 -179 to allow construc- tion of an addition onto the existing nonconforming dwelling structure. On June 12, 1990, the City Council directed Wes Ol- sen, owner of the subject property, to remove the nonconforming detached garage from the site immediately. The garage has not been removed to -date. Staff recommended approving the extension of Resolution #88 -179 and allow a building permit to be issued subject to the applicant submitting a cash bond in the amount of $3,000 to ensure removal of the nonconforming garage. The conditions of the bond are sub- ject to review by the City Attorney. The Applicant, Wes Olsen, agreed with staff recommendation. He stated he hoped to have the garage down in approximately three weeks. NOTION made by Smith, seconded by Weiland to approve staff recommendation. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the City Council on November 27. 1990. NIMOTSS - MOUD CITY COUNCIL - JUNS 1:, 1996 • 1.3 City Planner Mark Koegler summarized this item stating that no nev proposal had been presented. The garage remains an illegal non - conforming structure. The evidence presented does not justify reversal of this decision. Council discussed this vith the : The house is currently for sale. NOTION by Jessen, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to den7 codification of Resolution I86 -179. The vote was unanimously is favor. Notion carried. r� The garage is to be removed or relocated immediately. ' r 7 .0 - MINUTES OF A MUTING, OF VK MAID AOVISORT PLANING CGMNISSIOII May al. 1910 C . City this ease as outlined In his recommendation. uoegler explained that after Resolution OSS was adopted, which required rawoval of the garage. the garage then become an Illegal non - conforming use. In Order for Ilr. Olsen to keep his garage, a variance must be granted. Koegler Informed the COmmission that he conferred with the City Engineer about the possibility of vacating Ruby Lane. however. It as not recommended. Staff recommended *ionlal of the proposed Modification of the resolution granting a vorl*nce for the existing garage. App 1 1 cant . Mr. Was O i e M. rev 1 awed the h i story Of this Case and Made the fOilowinl - rrements, he wishes to keep the garage. the garage sits 22 feet from the pavement. the garage Is structurally sound. the neighbors garage Is 2.S' closer to Ruby lane than his garage. he did not know the garage had to be removed when he pur- chased the house, he does not wish to vacate Ruby lane. he would like to Improve the garage. however. has not done so to -date since It was not recommended until this Issue was resolved. and he was quoted the amount of $I. S00 to remove the garage. Frank Matachek. Mr. Olson's neighbor, spoke In favor Of removing the garage. Thal asked Mr. Olsen when the electricity as Installed in the garage. Mr. Olsen Informed the Commission that It as install before he purchased the house. Mueller commented that Mr. 019%n could take the Contractor to court for restitution since he did not remwve the gorilla as he promised to do. Mueller also compared this request to other variances that have been granted to properties where their as a greater encroachment involved. Some Conmissiontrt argued that each case Is different and their are different circumstances with each case to consider. Thal commented on the fact that a hardship does not exist to al- low this garage; their Is plenty Of available yard space to con- struct a conforming Attached or detached garage. Mueller commented that Ruby lane Is not a busy street. Mr. Matachtk stated that Ruby lane is a well traveled street; he has counted eight or nine cars pass In one half a day. After further discussion. the following motion was made; NOT IOU made by The I, Saco# by Mellaid, to deny the request as recomi,ei by staff. Motion carried 7 to 1 (those In favor war# Clapseddle, Welland. Thal. Michael, Jensen. Voss, and Salthl those opposed wart, Mueller). Mueller explained that he was not In favor of the motion due to previous actions of the Planning Commission recommending a variance be granted for a property on a buster road, with a garage closer to the street than this one. Mr. Wes Olsen expressed his unhappiness with the Planning Commission's recaronendation. 0 31 T$ This case wIII be reviewed by the City COVnCII on June 12. 1990. PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner f"--- OATE: May 11, 1990 SUBJECT: Variance Resolution Extension Request APPLICANT: Wes Olsen CASE NUMBER: 90 -921 VMS FILE NUMBER: 90- 310- A19 -ZO LOCATION: 2539 Emerald Drive EXISTING ZONING: R -1, Single - Family Residential COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The following chronology provides an overview of this request: October 24, 1988 The Planning Commission recommended approval of a house size and setback variance to permit improvement of the residence at 2539 Emerald Drive. The variance approval required removal or relocation of an existing one car garage that was non - conforming. The owner of the property was Donald R. Bonnicksen. November 29, 1988 The City Council approved the variances with the stipulation that the existing non- conforming garage either be removed or relocated to bring it into conforming status. August 4, 1989 A new owner of the property, Mr. Wes Olsen signed a statement reading, "I have received copies of the variance proceedings of the City Council dated November 29. 1988, Resolution 088 -179. I agree to fomply with the requirements of this resolution or I will re- apply to reverse or alter the original decision." 3179 3030 Harbor lane Norm 2iC: 1 1 $u 104 Mrnneaoolle, MN. SS44 -217S A17rit'1 -jocn Olsen Planning Report May 11, 1990 Page 2 November 14, 1989 Mr. Olsen applied for an extension of the resolution citing three facts: I. "My builder did not disclose to me any variance problem with the garage." 2. "I am the new owner of the property and do not have an alternative garage." 3. "There is substantial cost to removing the structure." November 28, 1989 The City Council denied the variance extension request stating, "Mr. Olsen was aware of the variance problem with his garage. The variance was to be filed on the property. Removal or relocation of non - conforming garage Was clearly stipulated in the original resolution." November 29, 1990 The Mound Building Official notified Mr. Olsen that the requested extension was denied leaving three options: 1. Mr. Olsen could secure a demolition permit for the garage. 2. Mr. Olsen could re -apply for a variance to modify the original resolution (88- 179). 3. The City could initiate legal action. April 4, 1990 James Larson, City Prosecuting Attorney, informed Mr. Olsen that he was requested to commence legal action to force removal of the garage. May 1, 1990 Mr. Olsen submitted a new variance application to the City of Mound to modify the resolution to approve a variance for the existing garage. COMMENT: This case has a long history all centering on a non- conforming garage. When the original application was submitted in 1987, the property had the status of a legal non- conforming use. After the resolution specifically requiring removal of the garage was adopted in 1987, the garage became an illegal non - conforming use. It remains in this status today. • 3190 g * � 1tr01 Planning Report s 1990 The facts of this case have remained unchanged since the first application was filed in 1987. Based on the facts alone, staff does not see any grounds for reversal of any of the previous actions taken by the Planning Commission and City Council. In support of the recent application, Mr. Olsen states that Ruby Lane Is a 13.5 foot wide access that serves only one other garage. In response to this statement, the City Engineer examined the potential of vacating Ruby Lane. Because of overall traffic patterns in the area and the existence of utilities in Ruby Lane, vacation of the right -of -way does not appear to be a reasonable option. RECOMMENDATION; Past actions by the City of Mound have followed a pattern indicating that the non - conforming garage is to be removed. The evidence presented does not justify reversal of this decision. Denial of the proposed modification of the resolution granting a variance for the existing garage is recommended. • 0 3 191 284 November 28, 1989 RESOLUTION NO. 89 -188 RESOLUTION DENYING TEE EXTENSION Of RESOLUTION 1 -179, WEB OLBEN, 2599 EMERALD DRIVE •BER218 the current owner of property, legally described as Lot 7, Block 6, Shirley Hills Unit "B "; PID #21 -117- 28 12 0041 (2539 Emerald Drive), has requested an extension of Resolution #88 -179 which was granted to the prior owner; and WHEREAS, the prior owner did not complete the variance requirements in Resolution #88 -179, for garage removal and did not file the variance as required by Mound ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby deny the extension of Resolution #88 -179. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jensen and seconded by Councilmember Johnson. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Ahrens, Jensen, Jensen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Mayor - T� A - TLC &I /VLC , Q, � Attest: City Clerk 0 N sx. 9MZi 326 November 29, 1988 RESOLUTION N0, 88 -179 RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE TO ALLOW STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS FOR LOT 7 1 BLOCK 6 SHIRLEY BILLS UNIT 'IS"; P.I.D. NO. 24- 117- 24 -1_2 0041 (2539 EMERALD DRIVE) P 6 Z CASE NO. 88 -736 WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to recognize existing nonconforming setbacks of 24.2 feet to Emerald Drive and 21.9 feet to the unimproved 30' alley way for the prin- cipal building, a 4.3' setback for the accessory building and an under sized lot of 6,500 square feet +/- to allow structural repairs to a nonconforming 600 square foot dwelling on Lot 7, Block 6, Shirley Hills Unit "B "; P.I.D. No. 24- 117 -24 -12 0041; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in an R -1 Single Family Zoning district, which according to the,City Code requires a 30' front yard abuttinig the street front, and a 20' street front setback for the accessory building, and a 10,000 square foot lot size, and a minimum 840 square foot dwelling floor area, and WHEREAS, Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) provides that alterations may be made to a building containing a lawful noncon- forming residential unit when the alteration will improve the livability thereof, but the alteration may not increase the num- ber of units, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission ris reviewed the request and does recommend approval with modif ations to the ap- plication. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council, the City of Hound, as follows: 1. That the City does hereby authorize the existing non- conforming principal structure setback to the street frontage at 2539 Emerald Drive, P.I.D. No. 24- 117 -24 -12 0041 with a 24.2' and a 21.9' setback to the street fronts for the principal building, a 4.3' setback to the street front for the accessory building, and a 600 square foot dwelling size. 2. The City Council authorizes the existing structural setback and lot area violation and authorizes the addi- tion setforth below pursuant to Section 23.404, Sub division (8) with the clear and express understanding 319.3- I V 327 November 29, 1988 that the use remains as a lawful nonconforming use sub- ject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Sec- tion 23.404. 3. It is determined that the livability of the residential unit will be improved by authorizing the following al- terations to a nonconforming use property to afford the owner reasonable use of the parcel: to raise the house approximately 24" above the present basement top of block, install new roof trusses, and remodel the inte- rior of the structure to be brought up to the minimum current building code standards. Upon the conditions as follows: a. No building permit will be issued until the ap- plicant submits proof of ownership for Lots 7 and 1, 6, Block 6, Shirley Hills Unit "B" to bring the lot.area to 11,600. square feet + / -, • . b. The nonconforming accessory building will be removed or relocated with conforming setbacks to the property lines. t. The applicant may continue to add onto the struc- ture with a future addition upon the condition that the addition meet all current zoning or- dinance requirements within one year of this variance approval. d. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot 6 and 7 Block 6 Shirley Hills Unit "B "; P.I.D. No. 24- 117 -24 -12 0041. 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 how this property may be used. 5. The property owner shall have the responsibility for filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. The building structure shall not be occupied until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jensen and seconded by Councilmember Abel. • 1) �10-gZl 328 November 29, 1988 The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: Abel, Jensen, Jensen, Johnson and Smith. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. MAYor . I ��,C1,1 t-• • 1��4� Attest: City Clerk • -5 1 (F ZONING REQUIREMENTS ADDRESS APPL 1 CANT • -L-0c:5 L� n LOT: 9LK= ADON: ZONE_ — REQUIRED LOT AREA: 10., = -ST EXISTING LOT AREA: REQUIRED SE FRONT: 30 , t SIDE: , SIDE: �Q 1 , REAR: LAKESHORE & 50 f et , EXISTING a PROPOSED SETBACKS FRONT: 51 DE: _ SIDE: , i ?EAR: _AKESHORE: H H i i , i 1 1 1 1 i )ATE: ALj-L4j BY= tW - TU (0111�IN& r7 6 A4'A(if f ' •o ff �� . � \ t oo N "- r • - - .a ;� "► i t F1� A 0. rf (n ouF b . a • r.� .r, PAF 1N0 14 1 �• o A. N Ak s= Z's 1 EME tIs* U November 27 1990 RESOLUTION NO. 90— RESOLUTION APPROVING THE 1991 CENERAL FUND BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,264,150; SETTING THE LEVY AT $1,620,464; AND APPROVING THE OVERALL BUDGET FOR 1991 BF IT RESOLVED, that Mound, Minnesota, does hereby Fund Budget appropriations. the City Council of the City of adopt the following 1991 General GENERAL FUND Cour:!it 61,300 City Manager /Ci`.y Clerk 161 ,530 Electi /Voter Registration 590 Assessing 44,600 Finance 171,0 "0 Computer 21,300 Legal 76,950 Cable T.V. 1,380 Recycling 0 Police 745,910 Planning & Inspection 123,230 Civil Defense 2,700 Street 392,67 Shop & Stores 59,840 City Property & Buildings 89,200 Parks 152,690 Recreation 11,760 Contingency 40,000 Transfers 107.4 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 2,264,150 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby direct the County Auditor to levy the following taxes for collection in 1991: & E C I AL -LEY IM • Bond- Indebtedness Unfunded Accrued Liability of Public Pension Funds Total Special Levies M ` 0 /9/ TOTAL LEVY LIMITATION f:,Fey GRAND TOTAL TO BE LEVIED 1 124,226 33,.3. j SIB S7� 1 77 n T 7 T 9 Qn I Y4,' �0 ,4 November 27, 199' BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, doesr.�reby adopt the overal' budget for 1991 as foliows: As per above 2,264,150 Capital Projects 21,400 Area Fire Service Fund 256,000 Cerma;,ery Fund 4,180 Pension Fund _0_ Commons Docks Fund 31,150 F :4 MIRTKY 0 4, 'dater Fund 364,450 Sewer Fund 913,540 Liquor Fund 219,7 • TOTAL 4,074,630 e The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest. City Clerk • 2 �7- RESOLUTION NO. 90— November 27, 1990 RESOLUTION APPROVING A LEVY NOT TO EXCEED $24,000.00 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFRAYING THE COST OF OPERATION, PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF NSA 469, OF THE HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF HOUND FOR THE YEAR 1991 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Mound is the governing body of the City of Mound; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received two resolutions from the Housing & Redevelopment Authority of the City of Mound: one entitled, "Resolution Approving the Mound Housing and Redevelopment Authority Budget for the Year 1991 Pursuant to MSA Chapter 469 ", and the other entitled, "Resolution Establishing the Tax Levy for the Mound Housing and Redevelopment Authority for the Year 1991 "; and WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to the provisions of MSA 469., must by resolution consent to the proposed tax levy of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Mound. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, that a special tax be levied upon real and personal property within the City of Mound in the amount not to exceed $24,000. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the said levy, not to exceed $24,000.00 is approved by this Council to be used for the operation of the Mound Housing & Redevelopment Authority pursuant to the provisions of MSA 469, and shall be certified as a tax levy to the County Auditor of Hennepin County on or before September 1, 1990. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: 0 Mayor Attest: City Clerk t t rA McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. t r Planners Sur vevo«s Preliminary Engineering Report For Chestnut Road Extension For The City of Mound, Minnesota November, 1990 McCombs Frank Roos Asso ciates, Inc �� 150�I)�':i!�1 A- t•nU�' fv:xGh. f' n�,i, ±�,. PA n. - .5uGi � �1•t�� t TOt I, i'.1 a 6 60 i 0 ngineers Planners W J 6 8532 FAX Surveyors November 20, 1990 t Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 53 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 1 SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota Preliminary Engineering Report Chestnut Road Extension MFRA #4909 Dear Mayor and Council Members: As requested, we submit herewith a Preliminary Engineering Report for the extension of Chestnut Road, including sanitary sewer and watermain extensions and street improvements from the end of the existing street easterly to provide access for undeveloped property. If' you have any questions regarding the information enclosed in this report, we would be pleased to discuss them at your convenience. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron J Enclosures t r GENERAL The owners of Lot 23, Kohlers 2nd Addition to Mound have requested a building permit for a new home on their property. Because the property does not have frontage on an improved City street as required by the City's zoning ordinance. a variance application was submitted and hearings held by both the Planning Commission and City Council. The City Council, at their meeting on September 12, 1990. discussed the possible extension of Chestnut Road as being the better solution to the applicant's immediate problem and also a possible long -term solution. Therefore, the City Council authorized this Preliminary Engineering Report to study the feasibility of extending Chestnut Road to the east. The ownership of the properties affected by the street extension are as u t 0 I� �.J follows: Lot 23 (14- 117 -24 43 0005) Tom & Stacy Hintz Lot 24 (14- 117 -24 43 0006) Mark Mulvey Lots 25 - 28 (14- 117 -24 43 0007 -10) Dave and Julie Wilcox Lots 29 - 43 " (14- 117 -24 43 0012, 0013, 0018 & 0019) City of Mound Parcels "" (14- 117 -24 43 0011, 0014 & 0017) City of Mound " Tax forfeited property taken for park purposes Tax forfeited property taken for road purposes Attached to t'i­i report are three (3) alternates for the extension of Chestnut Road. Alternate No. 1 would make it possible to subdivide Lot 23 into 3 lots and, at the same time, provide the Owner of Lot 24 an option to subdivide his property into 2 building sites. Alternate No. 2 shows the minimum extension of Chestnut Road to serve Lot 23, with the possible subdivision into 2 lots. Alternate No. 3 would extend Chestnut Road to the City owned property, Lot 32. This alternate was addressed in a Preliminary Engineering Report prepared in May, 1979, from which final plans were prepared and bid as part of the 1980 Street Improvement Project. This street extension was eliminated from the project when the necessary easements could not be obtained. The two advantages this alternate has over the others are that it would provide access to City - 1 - property and allow for a short loop to connect two watermains and eliminate deadend mains on both Chestnut Road and Langdon Lane. This alternate would also allow for the subdivision of Lot 23 into a minimum of 3 lots. Any division of the existing lots as they are presently platted must meet the City's Platting and Subdivision Regulations as spelled out in Section 330.00 of the City of Mound Ordinance Code. UTILITIES (Sanitary Sewer and Watermain) As indicated on the attached drawings, all three alternates would require extension of both sanitary sewer and watermain from the existing mains at the present termination of Chestnut Road. It would still be possible, but more expensive, to loop the 6" watermain to Langdon Lane under either Alternate 1 or Alternate 2. An easement between Lots 9 and 10. Mark's Addition, was previously acquired by the City and the watermain stubbed to approximately 10 feet behind the curb during the 1978 Street Construction. This would allow for a connection with minimal disruption to the area. STREETS Right -of -way for the street extension would be required from Lots 23, 24, 25 and 26 in all three alternates proposed in this report. We are suggesting a deviation from the City's requirements of a 50' right -of -way and 100' c'_iameter cul -de -sac to a 40' right -of -way and 80' diameter cul -de -sac. This would still allow for the standard 28' wide improved street measured : ')m back to back on the concrete curb. The improved portion of the cul -de -sac would be reduced to 70' diameter which would still be sufficient. This reduction in right -of -way width is recommended to help minimize the amount of private property required for this project. The street construction 1 would consist of 1 -112" bituminous wear course, 2" bituminous base course and a 6" gravel base. A 4" high surmountable concrete curb and gutter would be constructed at both edges of the street surfacing. Alternates 1 and 2 would not require any storm sewer because the proposed street grade would allow for drainage in the gutters westerly to the existing catch basins. Alternate No. 3 would require the construction of storm sewer consisting of one catch basin and an outlet to the City's wetlands to the south. COST ESTIMATES Included with this report are estimated costs for each of the three alternates. These estimates are based on projected 1991 prices and include 10% contingencies and 35% for engineering. legal. fiscal and administrative costs. The estimated project costs do not include any costs for right -of -way acquisition The cost to extend a 6" watermain to Langdon Lane has not been included but will need to be addressed if this project should proceed. The total cost for each alternate is shown as follows, with a complete breakdown included in the exhibits at the end of this report. Alternate 1 $ 73,000.00 Alternate 2 $ 49,700.00 Alternate 3 $ 82,100.00 ASSESSMENTS For the purposes of this report, it is assumed that Lots 25 and 26 are one unit and Lots 27 and 28 are another unit. Lots 27 and 28 have not been included in the calculations for the proposed assessments, as there may be a question whether topography restricts this parcel from being a viable building site. If this project should proceed, then additional investigation will need ' to be done to determine whether the parcel formed by Lots 27 and 28 is buildable. If said parcel is declared buildable, it should then share in the cost for the watermain and street improvements, but not the sanitary sewer. Under Alternate No. 1, Lot 24 would be considered to have 2 units; Lots 25 and ' 26, 1 unit; and Lot 23, 3 units. In Alternte 2, Lot A would be 3. unit; Lots 25 and 26, 1 unit; and Lot 23, 2 units. For Alternate 3. Lot 24 would be 1 unit; Lots 25 and 25, 1 unit; Lot 23, 3 units; and the City property, Lot 32, 1 unit. r _3_ Lot 24 and the parcel comprised of Lots 25 and 26 have paid previous assessments for sanitary sewer and watermain; therefore, we cannot recommend they be assessed for utilities as part of this project. The one exception would be for Alternate No. 1. which shows Lot 24 divided into 2 building sites. If this should occur. then Lot 24 would be assessed 1/4. or $7.925.00 of the'cost for utilities. Because these Lots 23, 24, 25 and 26 have never been assessed for any type of street improvements, they will be treated the t same as any other parcels using the City's street improvement assessment policy adopted under Resolution No. 76 -77. That assessment criteria is as follows: a. 30 percent of the total cost to be assessed shall be based on front footage. b. 30 percent of the total cost to be assessed shall be based on the square footage of the property to be assessed. C. 40 percent of the total cost to be assessed shall be on a unit charge. Using the previously mentioned criteria, the enclosed proposed assessment for street improvements were calculated for each alternate. Lot 23 would be responsible for the total cost of utilities, except for Alternate No. 1, as previously mentioned, where Lot 24 would pay a share of the utility extension. I CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATI 1 Any one of the three alternates presented in this report would accomplish the main objective of providing utilities for Lot 23 and an improved street for the entire area. Alternate No. 3, which provides access to City owned Lot 32 appears to be the most advantageous to the City of Mound, but is also the most expensive, particularily to the Owners of Lot 23. It is the opinion of the Engineer that the proposed project is feasible and can be accomplished as described herein. COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATE NO. 1 D escription Est. Qty. Unit Price Est. Amount STREETS Clearing & Grubbing LUMP SUM $ 3.500.00 ' Grading Erosion Fence 1.600 C.Y. 500 L.F. $ $ 4.00 /Cy 1.50 /LF $ $ 6.400.00 750.00 Seeding 1/3 ACRE $ 1,500.00 /AC $ 500.00 Concrete Curb & Gutter 730 L.F. $ 6.00 /LF $ 4,380.00 Class 5 Gravel 500 TON $ 9.00 /TN $ 4,500.00 Bit. Base 2331 160 TON $ 27.00 /TN $ 4,320.00 Bit. Wear 2341 115 TON $ 30.00 /TN $ 3,450.00 Contingencies (10X) $ 2.800.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - STREETS $ 30.600.00 Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Costs (35%) 10,700.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS - STREETS $ 41,300.00 SANITARY SEWER 8" PVC Sewer 10 - 12' 300 L.F. $ 18.00 /LF $ 5,400.00 Manholes 2 EACH $ 1,000.00 /EA $ 2,000.00 Manholes, Extra Depth 5 L.F. $ 80.00 /LF $ 400.00 8" x 4" Wyes 5 EACH $ 80.00 /EA $ 400.00 4" Sewer Service Granular Foundation Material 200 L.F. 80 TON $ $ 8.00 /LF 8.00 /TN $ $ 1,600.00 64o.00 Contingencies (10X) $ 1,060.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - SANITARY SEWER $ 11,500.00 WATERMAIN 6" DIP Watermain 330 L.F. $ 20.00 /LF $ 6,600.00 Fittings 200 LBS $ 2.00 /LB $ 400.00 Hydrants 1 EACH $ 1,000.00 /EA $ 1,000.00 6" Gate Valve 2 EACH $ 400.00 /EA $ 800.00 1" Service Groups 5 EACH $ 100.00 /EA $ 500.00 1" Copper Service Pipe 200 L.F. $ 8.00 /LF $ 1,600.00 Contingencies (10x) $ 1,100.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - WATERMAIN $ 12,000.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - UTILITIES $ 23,500.00 t Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Costs (35x) $ 8,200.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS - UTILITIES $ 31,700.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST - ALTERNATE NO. 1 $ 73,000-00 -5- COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATE NO. 2 Description Est. Qty. Unit Price Est. Amount STREETS Clearing and Grubbing LUMP SUM 190 L.F. $ 2,500.00 Grading 1,200 C.Y. $ 4-50/Cy $ 5,400.00 Erosion Fence 250 L.F. $ 1.50 /LF $ 375.00 Seeding 1/4 ACRE $ 1,500.00 /AC $ 375.00 Concrete Curb & Gutter 480 L.F. $ 7.00 /LF $ 3,360.00 Class 5 Gravel 300 TON $ 10.00 /TN $ 3,000.00 Bit. Base 2331 100 TON $ 29.00 /TN $ x,900.00 Bit. Wear 2341 70 TON $ 32.00 /TN $ 2,240.00 Contingencies (10x) 730.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - $ 2,150.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - STREETS 7.900.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION $ 22,300.00 Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Costs (35x) Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & 7,800.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS - STREETS $___ 5, 100.00 $ 30,100.00 SANITARY SEWER $ 19,600.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST - ALTERNATE NO. 2 8" PVC Sewer 10 - 12' 165 L.F. $ 20.00 /LF $ 3,300.00 Manholes 1 EACH $ 1,000.00 /EA $ 1,000.00 Manholes, Extra Depth 2.5 L.F.• $ 100.00 /LF $ 250.00 8" x 4" Wyes 3 EACH $ 90.00 /EA $ 270.00 4" Sewcr Service 100 L.F. $ 9.00 /LF $ 900.00 Granular Foundation Material 30 TON $ 9.00 /TN $ 270.00 Contingencies (10x) $ 610.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - SANITARY SEWER $ 6,600.00 WATERMAIN 6" DIP Watermain 190 L.F. $ 22.00 /LF $ 4,180.00 Fittings 100 LBS $ 2.00 /LB $ 200.00 Hydrants 1 EACH $ 1,000.00 /EA $ 1,000.00 6" Gate Valve 2 EACH $ 400.00 /EA $ 800.00 1" Service Groups 3 EACH $ 120.00 /EA $ 360.00 1" Copper Service Pipe 70 L.F. $ 9.00 /LF $ 630.00 Contingencies (10x) $ 730.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - WATERMAIN $ 7.900.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - UTILITIES $ 14,500.00 Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Costs (35x) $___ 5, 100.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS - UTILITIES $ 19,600.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST - ALTERNATE NO. 2 $ 49,700.00 - 6 - 7-8-75 COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATE NO. 3 Description Est. Qty. Unit Price Est. Amount STREETS Clearing and Grubbing LUMP SUM S 2.500,00 Grading 1 C.Y. S 4.00 /CY S 7.600.00 Erosion Fence 500 L.F. S 1.50 /LF S 750,00 Seeding Concrete Curb & Gutter 112 ACRE 910 L.F. S $ 1.500.00 /AC 6.00 /LF $ $ 750.00 5.46o,00 Class 5 Gravel 585 TON $ 9.00 /TN $ 5.265.00 Bit. Base 2331 177 TON $ 27.00 /TN $ 4,779.00 Bit. Wear 2341 125 TON $ 30.00 /TN S 3.750.00 Catch Basin 1 EACH $ 800.00 /EA $ 800.00 Storm Sewer 12" RCP 25 L.F. S 30.00 /LF S 750.00 12" Concrete Apron 1 EACH S 350.00 /EA $ 350.00 Rip Rap 2 C.Y. S 50.00 /CY S 100.00 Contingencies (10X) $ 3,286.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - STREETS S 36.140 Engineering. Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Cost. (35X) S 12,660.ou TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS - STREETS S 48.800.00 SANITARY SEWER 8" PVC Sewer 10 - 12' 380 L.F. $ 16.00 /LF S 0 1 080.00 Manholes 8 4 1 EACH S 1.000.00 /EA S 1,000.00 x Wyes 6 EACH S 80.00 /EA S 480.00 4" Sewer Service 200 L.F. $ 8,00 /LF S 1.600.00 Granular Foundation MA`,erial 100 TON $ 8.00 /TN S 800.00 Contingencies (10X) S 1.000.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - SANITARY SEWER S 10,960.00 WATERMAIN 6" DIP Watermain 410 L.F. $ 20.00 /LF $ 8,200,00 Fittings 300 LBS $ 2.00 /LB $ 600.00 Hydrants 6" 1 EACH S 1,000.00 /EA $ 1,000.00 Gate Valve 2 EACH $ 400.00 /EA $ 800.00 1" Service Groups 6 EACH $ 100.00 /EA $ 600.00 1" Copper Service Pipe 160 L.F. $ 8.00 /LF $ 1,280.00 ' Contingencies (10X) S 1.220.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - WATEhRA1y S 13.700.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST - UTILITIES $ 24,66o.00 Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Costs (35X) S 8,640.00 ' TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS - UTILITIES S 33.300.00 ' TOTAL ESTIMATED COST - ALTERNATE NO. 3 $ 82,100.00 -7- t t t PROPOSED ASSESSMENT SPREAD Alternate No. 1 STREETS $ 41,3 4o% of 41,31 30% of 41,300 = 30% of 41,300 = Unit Charge Frontage Area LOT 23 DO.00 TO BE ASSESSED $ 16,520.00 $ 12.390.00 $ 12,390.00 S 16,520 - 6 units = $2 ,753 .00 /unit S 12 ,390 - 680 L .F. = $ 18.22/L.F. $ 12,390 - 104,200 S.F. = $ 0.119/S.F. 3 Units @ $ 2.753.00 / unit $ 8,259.00 28� L.F. @ $ 18.22/L.F. $ 5,193.00 48,200 S.F. @ $ 0.119 /S.F. $ 5.736.00 TOTAL PROPOSED STREET ASSESSMENT - LOT 23 $ 19.188.00 LOT 24 2 Units @ $ 2,753.00 /unit $ 5,506.00 295 L.F. @ $ 18.22/L.F. $ 5.375.00 29,000 S.F. @ $ 0.119 /S.F. $ 3,451.00 TOTAL PROPOSED STREET ASSESSMENT - LOT 24 LOTS 25 AND 26 1 Units @ $ 2,753.00 /unit $ 2,753.00 100 L.F. @ $ 18.22/L.F. $ 1,822.00 27,000 S.F. @ $ 0.119 /S.F. S 3,213.00 TOTAL PROPOSED STREET ASSESSMENT - LOT 25 & 26 TOTAL ASSESSMENT - STREETS UTILITIES $ 31,700.00 TO BE ASSESSED LOT 23 3 Units @ $ 7,925.00 /unit LOTS 24 1 Unit @ $ 7,925.00 /unit TOTAL ASSESSMENT - UTILITIES m $ 23.775.00 $ 7.925.00 $ 14,332.00 $ 7,788 $ 41,308.00 $ 31,700.00 1 1 1 1 t t PROPOSED ASSESSMENT SPREAD Alte No. 2 STREETS $ 30,100.00 TO BE ASSFSSED 40% of 30,100 = $ 12,040.00 30% of 30,100 = $ 9,030.00 30% of 30,100 = $ 9,030.00 Unit Charge $ 12,040 - 4 units $3,010.00 /unit Frontage $ 9.030 - 325 L.F. = $ 27.80/L.F. Area $ 9,030 - 115,500 S.F. = $ 0.078 /S.F. LOT 23 2 Units @ $ 3,010.00 /unit $ 6,010.00 125 L.F. @ $ 27.80/L.F. $ 3.475.00 57,400 S.F. @ $ 0.078 /S.F. $ 4,477.00 TOTAL PROPOSED STRE- ASSESSMENT - LOT 23 $ 13,972.00 LOT 24 1 Units @ $ 3,010.00 /unit $ 3,010.00 100 L.F. @ $ 27.80/L.F. $ 2,780.00 29,800 S.F. @ $ 0.078 /S.F. $ 2,324.00 TOTAL PROPOSED STREET ASSESSMENT - LOT 24 $ 8,114.00 LOTS 25 AND 26 1 Unit @ $ 3,010.00 /unit $ 3,010.00 100 L.F. @ $ 27.80/L.F. $ 2,780.00 28,300 S.F. @ $ 0.078 /S.F. $ 2,207.00 TOTAL PROPOSED STREET ASSESSMENT - LOT 25 & ?6 $ 7, 997-00 TOTAL ASSESSMENT - STREETS $ 30,073.00 UTILITI $ 19,6 00.00 TO BE ASSESSED LOT 23 Total Utilities - 9 - $ 19,600.00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 PROPOSr^ ASSESSMENT SPREAD Alternate No. 3 STREETS $ 48.800.00 TO BE ASSESSED 40% of 48,800 - $ 19,520.00 30% of 48.800 = $ 14,640.00 30% of 48,800 = $ 14.640.00 Unit Charge $ 19,520 - 6 units = $3.253.00 /unit Frontage $ 14,640 - 630 L.F. = $ 23.24/L.F. Area $ 14,640 - 137.000 S.F. = $ 0.10'7 /S.F. LOT 23 3 Units @ $ 3,253.00 /unit $ 9.759.00 29C L.F. @ $ 23.24/L.F. $ 6,740.00 49.800 S.F. @ $ 0.107 /S.F. $ 5,329.00 TOTAL PROPOSED STREET ASSESSMENT - LOT 23 $ 21,828.00 LOT 24 1 Unit @ $ 3.253.00 /unit $ 3.253.00 100 L.F. @ $ 23.24/L.F. $ 2.324.00 29,800 S.F. @ $ 0.107/S.F. $ 3,189.00 TOTAL PROPOSED STREET ASSESSMENT - LOT 24 $ 8,766.00 LOTS 25 AND 26 1 Unit @ $ 3.253.00 /unit $ 3,253.00 100 L.F. @ $ 23.24/L.F. $ 2,324.00 28,300 S.F. @ $ 0.107 /S.F. $ 3 ,028.Ou TOTAL PROPOSED STREET ASSESSMENT - LOT 25 & 26 $ 8,605.00 LOT 32 1 Unit @ $ 3,253.00 /unit $ 3,253.00 140 L.F. @ $ 23.24/L.F. $ 3,254.00 29,100 S.F. @ $ 0.107 /S.F. $ 3,114.00 TOTAL PROPOSED STREET ASSESSMENT - LOT 32 $ 9,621.00 TOTAL ASSESSMENT - STREETS $ 48,820.00 UTIL ITIES $ 33,2 00.00 TO BE ASSESSED LOT 23 Total. Utilities $ 33.200.00 - 10 - u LL � � I� I� ► a 1 t O N 1►� U Z p W � 7 J O V C e w w w e C a O O Q Y C ^ 2 tL n w ��o 0 0 $ ^ e u o > AAL 77) s m m m r m m m m m m m" m m m m m i U4 41C w +n o op m s m m r m m mm m im m mm mm mm r ■ r r r w � � r � � � � � � � r � �_... �__ �, �.�._. `, ,\ -� �� I� I I 1 ,�,� �� �, �; r 1 i ,� � 1 1� e v 7 [ _ --- -- - cam - - -- � - -_— . _____ ---- W ---� ..��((\ .� � _ `, r/ S A k I *,.t E T I .,f McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. T p 1',W,0 23rd A,ft N PI'eT MN YA4 o f 61,1416 i- r McCorrobr Frank Roos Associates, Inc. November 26, ig(y) llon,wab.L, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 7341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota ;5364 SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota Chestnut Road Extension Addendum to Preliminary Engineering Report MFRA #r4yo9 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Additional information regarding the above referenced project has been furnished to oul. office, which has a bearing on how some of the assessments should h( in particular, the watermain extension. Enclosed is a cop; of kt solution NO. 75 -2 ) (0, elated July H, 19i5, which water sorvice for Lot 2 The pre rit ownor• of Lot 211 has paid an amount as slacgosted under Item N,,. 3 of thc roso]rrtivn; tE)ereforc;�, if' the waterr i, ,, is «xtcnded tts proposed in t,ur• report , Lot 24 should ho rrss­ssed part of t hr' cost, lc �; ('l credit for what. hus he(�u p�riid. Encl<)sod is a su rest 'd niE)tir.)d of sprcrulirtf t w c() <;t of the w:rtermain he twe( Loos ?) rind 24. sic, hay. c> <r l sr� t�nc1 osc�cl , rrs '!dd i t i ontr l i nf'ormat. ion , ('St iRINI "I ci,stt; for ("rich , I!tc'rrn'itc to I()ctl, Ihi f." watt rmr+ili f' Iht. propos -1 (•u l -df­ .�trr•s t o Liu:. ' 'n !.nn!�. if . "()u ll, nn; yut­,t ;. „ (•(l 'I idit 1(4 , E,Irrtscr contact .Iohr, C�rnurnr, j E;rc i c,sur' ADDENDUM TO UTILITY ASSESSMENTS ALTERNATE NO. 1 Lot 23 = 3 units Lot 24 = 2 units Because Lot 24 has 2 units under this alternate, some of the cost for sanitary sewer must be charged as well as the watermain. Sanitary Sewer Total Cost $15,500.00 - 4 units = $3,875.00 /unit Watermain Total Cost $16,200.00 - 5 units = $3,240.00 /unit Lot 23 Sanitary Sewer = 3 units @ $3,875.00 /unit = $11,625.00 Watermain = 3 units @ $3,240.00 /unit = $ 9,720.00 TOTAL UTILITY ASSESSMENT ALTERNATE 1 " = $21,345-00 Lot 24 Sanitary Sewer = 1 unit @ $3,875.00 /unit = $ 3,875.00 Watermain = 2 units @ $3,240.00 /u:sit = $ 6,480.00 SUBTOTAL $10,355.00 Credit for Amount Previously Paid $ 292.20 TOTAL UTILITY ASSESSMENT ALTERNATE 1 ' _ $ " These proposed utility assessments should be used in lieu of those shown in the bound report. ADDENDUM TO UTILITY ASSESSMENTS ALTERNATE NO. 2 Lot 23 = 2 units Lot 24 = 1 unit Lot 24 would not be assessed for any of the sanitary sewer cost under this alternate. WntPrmAin Total Cost $10,665.00 - 3 units = $3.555.00 /unit Lo 23 Sanitary Sewer = Total Cost = $ 8,935.00 Watermain = 2 units @ $ 3,555.00 /unit = $ 7,110.00 TOTAL UTILITY ASSESSMENT ALTERNATE 2 " = $ 16.045-00 Lot 24 Sanitary Sewer = $ 0.00 Watermain 4 1 unit @ $ 3.555.00 /unit = $ 3.55 5-00 SUBTOTAL $ 3.555.00 Credit for Amount Previously Paid $ 292.20 TOTAL UTILITY ASSESSMENT ALTERNATE 2 = $ - 3 -- .2 - 6 - 27MO " These proposed utility assessments should be used in lieu of those shown in the bound report. ADDENDUM TO UTILITY ASSESSMENTS ALTERNATE NO. 3 Lot 23 = 3 units Lot 24 = 1 unit Lot 24 would not be assessed for any of the sanitary sewer cost under this alternate. Watermain Total Cost $18 ,500.00 - 4 units = $4,625.00 /unit L ot 23 Sanitary Sewer = Total Cost = $14,800.00 Watermain = 3 units @ $4,625.00 /unit = $13,8 TOTAL UTILITY ASSESSMENT ALTERNATE 3 " _ $29 Lot 24 Sanitary Sewer = $ 0.00 Watermain = 1 unit @ $4,625.00 /unit = $ 4,625.00 SUBTOTAL $ Credit for Amount Previously Paid $ 292.20 TOTAL UTILITY ASSESSMENT ALTERNATE 3 " = $ 4.33 - 2 0- " These proposed utility assessments should be used in lieu of those shown in the bound report. ESTIMATED COSTS TO LOOP WATERMAIN FROM PROPOSED CUL -DE -SAC TO LANGDON LANE Clearing and Grubbing 6" Watermain Fittings Restoration Sod Seed Contingencies Alternate No. 1 Lump Sum $ 1,200.00 620 L.F. @ $ 20.00 /LF $ 12,400.00 400 LBS @ $ 2.00 /LB $ 800.00 300 S.Y. @ $ 2-50/Sy 1/4 AC @ $2,000.00 /AC $ 750.00 $ 500.00 $ 1.550.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Cost TOTAL, ESTIMATED COST Alternate No. Clearing and Grubbing 6" Watermain Fittings Restoration Sod Seed Contingencies $ 17,200.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 23.200.00 Lump Sum $ 1,200.00 560 L.F. @ $ 20.00 /LF $ 11,200.00 400 LBS @ $ 2.00 /LB $ 800.00 300 S.Y. @ $ 2-50/Sy 1/4 AC @ $2,400.00 /AC TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Cost TOTAL. ESTIMATED COST Clearing and Grubbing 6" kato retain Fitti.n�s Restoration Sod Seed Con ti11genci.us Alt ernate No. 3 Lump Sum 340 L.F. @ $ 20.00 /LF 300 LBS @ $ 2.00/LB $ 750.00 $ 500.00 $ 1,450.00 $ 15,900.00 $ 5,600.00 $ 21,500.00 $ 700.00 $ 6,800.00 $ 800.00 300 S.Y. @ $ 2-50/Sy 1/8 AC @ $2,400.00 /AC TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST F'.ng; neeri rig, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Cost TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $ 750.00 $ 300.00 $ 950.00 $ 10,100.00 $ 3.500.00 $ 1 -00.00 7-8 -75 1 RESOLUTION NO. 75 -269 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING WATER AND SEWER SERVICE TO LOT 2L, KOEHLER'S 2ND ADDITION TO MOUND, AND PROVIDING FOR ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY WHEREAS, Lot 24, Koehler's 2nd Addition to Mound has neither water nor sewer service and does have a road Tight -of -way past the property, and WHEREAS, the owner wishes to build on the property, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY CO11Nt;.1L OF MOUND, MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the owner of Lot 24 be allowed to build providing the following stipulations are met: 1. A 25 -foot right -of -way for street and utility purposes be dedicated to the City of Mound. The right- of -way to be the Southerly 25 feet of Lot 2L. 2. Lot 2L pay a sewer lateral assessrent of $728.58 and be allowed to connect at service from Manhole A - 19. (An as�cFs:.ent of $63.OL is to be made for the service if it exists.) 3. Lot 24 will be allowed to connect to the watermain at the end of Chestnut Road providing they install their own service., pay all connection charges and an addi- tional $L.00 per front foot. If the water - main is extended easterly along Chestnut Road at any future date, this property shall be subject to a special assessment under the formula used to assess that project less a credit for the $L.CYJ per foot previously paid. Adopted by the council this 8th day of July, 1975. McC.om Frank tRoos Associa Inc. 15050 Ord Avenue North. Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 Telephone Engineers 612 476 -6010 Planners 612 476 -8532 FAX Surveyors November 20, 1990 Mr. Jon Sutherland Planning and Zoning City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound, Minnesota Variance Application Case No. 90 -941 MFRA #8902 Dear Jon: As requested, we have reviewed the above referenced variance application and have the following comments and recommendations - Background . I believe the City's files should contain numerous correspondence from the past 20 years regarding the history of this area, including our most recent letter dated September 4. 1990. This letter addressed problems associated with Lot 23 and resulted in the City Council ordering another feasibility study for the extension of Chestnut Road. A copy of this report is enclosed for your review. Comments and Recommendations Due to the fact that there is a possibility that Chestnut Road could be extended either now or in the near future, we are recommending the variance be granted, but with the following revision: The proposed garage be moved south a minimum of 12 feet from its present proposed location or relocated elsewhere on the property in an approved location which would not interfere with the proposed extension of Chestnut Road. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact US. Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:jmj An Equal Opportunity Empbyer 3121 Ak C I STAFF RECOMMENDATION DATE: Planning Commission Agenda of September 10, 1990 TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff FROM: Jon Sutherland, Building Official CASE NO.: 90 -941 APPLICANT: David & Julie Wilcox LOCATION: 5989 Chestnut Road LEGAL Lots 25, 26, 27 3 28, Koehler's 2nd Addition DESCRIPTION: PID 014- 117 -24 43 0046 & 47 SUBJECT: Varia+ ice: Inadequate Street Frontage ZONING: R -1 Single Family Residential BACKGROUND . The applicant is seeking a variance to allow construction of a 28' x 28' detached accessory building. The zoning code requires a minimum frontage of 40 feet to an improved public street. The subject property currently has only 15 feet of lot frontage on Chestnut Road. A building permit was issued on 11 -9 -90, a stop work order was then issued on 11 -14 -90 after further review with the City En- gineer revealed this permit was issued in error. Please note the attached report and feasibility study for the continuation of Chestnut Road by the City Engineer John Cameron. COMMENTS With the possibility of the continuation of Chestnut Road, a reasonable separation must be provided if the street is improved. It is suggested the proposed garage location be shifted another 12 feet to the South. This will result In a non - conforming situation for the garage if the street is improved, but given the existing terra�i, this appears a reasonable alternative. A variance of 10 feet +/- to the required 20 foot setback would be necessary depending on the design of proposed road. If the garage is construction in this location, it would be conforming to current setback requirements. • Staff Recommendation Case No. 90 -941 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the variance request as further modified by moving the proposed garage an additional 12 feet to the south and maintaining all other required setbacks. NOTE This case will be heard by the City Council on November 27, 1990. The abutting neighbors have been notified. 0 3 X89 U 4 4 - NW lI F 199 CITY OF M CITY OF MOUND PART 11 Case No. -q4 1W q0 Date F i I ed_11 -6 Fee__ VARIANCE APPLICATION PLANNING 3 ZONING COMMISSION (Please type or print t r h h e J f o l l o w i n g information.) Address of Subject Property_ Lot Zs - ae. 2) -ZV Block A d d i t i o n � C ' S nrJ ca&r � P I D No. Owner's Name i L-,,% kV\ ( _ r, Day Phone y_ 2 - - 3 �t ( -t C Owner's Address �1 l Q1 WS Applicant's Name (if other than Address _ Day Phone_ Existing Use of Property: A e - Zoning District1 Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this property? de s Z no . If yes, Iist dates) of application, action taken, and provide resolution numbers) (Copies of previous resolutions must accompany this application.) certify that aII of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and =_- curate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in tnis application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of po ting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. , \ Applicant's Signature `~`—`/ _ Date FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Planning Commission Recommendation__ Date Council Action:__ Resolution No. �)1q0 0 VARIANCE APPLICATION ':ase No. q c - c f T -- 1. Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations I -or the zoning district In which it is located? "es ( ). No (,X1. if no. specify each non - conforming use: C S ,i /4 /S �e e-+- o - _IZ�� {��-�e, _ 2. Do the existing structures comply with all are j, height. bulk. and setback regulations for the Zoning district in which it is located? Yes (�). No( ). if no, specify each non - conforming use: _ - _ 3. Which unique physical characteristics of t! sub property prevent Its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil • ( > too small ( ) drainage ( ) sub - surface ( ) too shallow ( ) shape other: specify Pei 4. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests In the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) . No 06. If Yes, explain__ 5. Was the hardship created by any other man -made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes 00, No ( ). If yes. explain 3091 VARIANCE APPLICATION 9q L Case No. 0 6. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ( )• No (7(1. If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? 7. What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area. bulk, and setback regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify. using maps, site plans with dimensions and writ- ten explanation. 8. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property In the same zone or to the enforcement of this ordinance? • N4 // PART III J. SITE PLAN INFORMATION: All supporting documents such as sketch plans, attachments, etc., must be submitted in 8 -1/2 "x11" size If larger drawings are submitted, one must be 8- 1 /2 "xll ", and 15 larger size cQPIes must be provided. For each requested zoning variance procedure, a site plan must be attached at a scale large enough for clarity show- ing the following information: 1. Location, area, and dimensions of existing and proposed: (Lot(s), building(s), drIveway(s) /street access, off - street parking, and utilities. L. Existing and proposed elevations. 3. Distance between: building and front, side and rear lot lines; principal building and accessory buildings; principal building and principal buildings on adjacent lots. 4. Location of: signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. 5. Indicate "north" compass direction. 6. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by th� city staff and applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 3 1gZ- 1 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION November 26, 1990 Case No. 90 -94 1: D 8 _Ju 1 i e_ W i 1 cox, �i'�ti 3 Ct7c�stnut _ koad� Lists 25, 2 6 i 27 2 K s __ ?.nd Addition L P1D{I4 I17 - 24 __ - _ 0046 & 0 047. VAR l ANCE : __ _ --_ -- � I NADE_ DATE STREE T I- RONTA(jE �det art ied garac��_ 4.-- - . _. Building Official, Jon Sutherland, reviewed his recommendation. The subject property does not have adequate street frontage, 40 feet of street frontage is required by the Zoning Code, there- fore, this lot is non- conforming. The applici -ift is requesting a variance to allow construction of a 28' x 28' detached garage. Sutherland explained that a building permit was issued on 11-9- 90 and a stop work order was then issued on 11 -14 -90 after dis- covering the permit was issued in error. Considering the possible extension of Chestnut Road, staff recom- mended approval of the variance reque,,t subject to the proposed garage being moved an additional 12 feet to the south and main- taining all other required setbacks. City Engineer, John Cameron, also recorranended that due to the Possible extension of Chestnut Road the variance be granted, however, the proposed garage be moved solrth a minimum of 12 feet from its present proposed location or reloc,ited elsewhere on the property in an approved location which would not interfere with the proposed extension of Chestnut Road. The Commission clarified staff's recommFsndations to mean the garage should be setback a minimum of 32 feet from the north property line. Applicant, David Wilcox, commented ttiat dtie to the topography and retaining wall, it would be more difficult 'and more expensive to move the garage back. He explained th,-jt he h, already invested $800 into excavating, and i F r-he I nr_, i on is ctu _jnged, he may run out of funds before the got can be finished. The Commission questioned the location of the gar,:3ge doors, and treating an insufficient driveway w�3s a concern for some commis- sioners. Koegler suggested that if the cKirage is requirea to be setbar.k 32 feet from the north property line, the g<;rage doors should f -ace the west prc .erty I ins ; or if thr garage doors face the north property 1 i ne, the garage �A c,u I d be setback 40 feet from the no -th. MOTION made by Weiland, Seconded by Clapsaddle to ap- prove the 25' lot frontage variance to allow r_ons truc- tion of a 28' x 28' detached garage, upon the condition that the garage be constructed to meet one of the following: 1) The garage be setback 32 feet from the north property line with the garage doors facing the west property line. 2) The garage be setback 40 feet from the north property line with the garage doors facing the north property line. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City t:ounciI on November 27, 1990. • 3lq� P13 t of survey L1 i1 Y�►a ror R1 cF,% D. y. . FU d a Ko -sh19rl s CMStnvt s "inn .Ald,tion to MuLgId 2 Odd .g a5 � � 'a � -laf'.ne�in �u'..nLy !1ntleeot8 J TO R EpVwED a1fn f ' u Va. . thrt a Lrud era C.)rra,�L rePl'""ntation of dl , e It Burvvy Of tho trot; W&ri*# of Lots �t 2 =' and 26, Kobhler's S000ral Addi- .. +.. , • 4� i h tion t4n ►k au: Lrj,;, 1nctiLion of .r? ; PU:',AJ;' i!a will o i f - orov .-r.ts o- + +ncnJKChAm.t?, o , v F 1 0 Q ti N y O P ti 4GorrdonK. y , A M a+ Coffin �. ��►,,; 5 ,I S ,-vovor brK Flaculer , 5' i Solo i 1• = 5 �� DRte : 4 - -T! • Ir ,n me ^gar found eat • 3lq� BLVD - - — ( Co f�d No. t5 ) - v 1 �A1 w V r .ti ti cam 1 + (s a . 1.. r TONING REQUIREMENTS ADDRESSs f;9 a Q CNles* iu+, P, APPL I CANT s D aWe i. W 1 l r Q X �"+•�• _ LOT: BLKs ADDN: S 7 ymh W' 1tr� ZONE: - REQUIRED LOT AREAL EXISTING LOT AREA: REQUIRED SETBACKS P& laic • FRONT: , SIDE: SIDE: , REAR: 15 -fe LAKESHORE: SO feet EXIST & PROPOSED SETBACKS FRONT: ; SIDE: , SIDE: , REAR: E LAKESHORE: L K DATE: _�_� BY s 95000 CBD LOT ACOUISITION (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) 02) (13) 50-50 split CUST. EMP. % OF % OF 1990 % OF COST COST COST PARK. PARK. SPACES TOTAL TOTAL MARKET TOTAL x .7 x .15 x .15 REO'0. REO'D PROV. (1+2-3) OF (4) FRONT OF (6) VALUE OF (8) x (5) x (7) x (9) (10+11 +12) 13- 117 -24 33 0066 FIRST MINNESOTA 8 6.5 6 8.5 2.79 147.00 6.66 239000 6.26 1856.32 949.72 892.47 3698.51 14- 117 -24 44 0001 SNYDER DRUG 19 2 8 13.0 4.27 50.00 2.2 133100 3.49 2839.08 323.04 497.02 3659.14 14- 117 -24 44 0002 MEISEL'S 16 4 20 0.0 0.00 98.40 4.46 119000 3.12 0.00 635.73 444.37 1080.10 14- 117 -24 44 0003 SHERBURNE BUILDING 40 10 45 5.0 1.64 50.00 2.27 313500 8.22 1091.95 323.04 1170.67 2585.65 14- 117 -24 44 0004 KOENIG 24 5.5 16 13.5 4.43 51.60 2.34 141500 3.71 2948.28 333.37 528.39 3810.03 14- 117 -24 44 0006 SHERBURNE PARKING 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 50.00 2.27 26200 0.69 0.00 323.04 97.84 420.87 13- 117 -24 33 0004 CODDEN BLDG. 10 5.5 5 10.5 3.45 50.00 2.27 63000 1.65 2293.10 323.04 235.25 2851.39 13- 117 -24 33 0005 HOUSE OF MOY 30 22 5 47.0 15.44 95.00 4.31 400000 10.48 10261.37 613.77 1493.67 12371.81 13- 117.24 33 0006 CURTIS JOHNSON 8 7.5 9 6.5 2.13 55.00 2.49 81200 2.13 1419.54 355.34 303.22 2078.09 13- 117 -24 33 0007 CENTURY AUTO 12 6 4 14.0 4.60 85.00 3.85 106500 2.79 3057.47 549.16 397.69 4004.32 13- 117 -24 33 0008 CENTURY AUTO 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 50.00 2.27 18100 0.47 0.00 323.04 67.59 390.62 13- 117 -24 33 0011 POST OFFICE 16 19 14 21.0 6.90 175.00 7.93 160100 4.20 4586.21 1130.62 597.84 6314.67 13- 117 -24 33 0014 KEN PERBIX BUILDING 4 2 0 6.0 1.97 23.50 1.07 48000 1.26 1310.34 151.83 179.24 1641.41 13-117 -24 33 0015 LAUER 9 2 9 2.0 0.66 86.40 3.92 75500 1.96 436.78 558.21 281.93 1276.92 13- 117 -24 33 0016 LONGPRE 7.5 3 2 8.5 2.79 70.94 3.22 88400 2.32 1856.32 458.32 330.10 2644.75 13- 117 -24 33 0017 LONGPRE 7.5 5 0 12.5 4.11 74.00 3.36 58800 1.54 2729.89 478.09 219.57 3427.55 14- 117 -24 44 0046 MEISEL'S 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 70.00 3.17 15000 0.39 0.00 452.25 56.01 508.26 13- 117 -24 33 0064 COAST TO COAST 37 10.5 47.5 0.0 0.00 100.00 4.53 178900 4.69 0.00 646.07 668.04 1314.12 13- 117 -24 33 0073 TONKA WEST 40 15 55 0.0 0.00 220.00 9.97 387400 10.15 0.00 1421.36 1446.62 2867.98 14- 117 -24 44 0036 BEN FRANKLIN 36 6 13 29.0 9.52 58.00 2.63 224800 5.89 6333.33 374.72 839.44 7547.50 14 -117 -24 44 0037 RUST IOUE 11 4 0 15.0 4.93 32.50 1.47 85800 2.25 3275.86 209.97 320.39 3806.23 14- 117 -24 44 0038 WAYZATA BANK 10 0 6 4.0 1.31 102.50 4.65 51000 1.34 873.56 662.22 190.44 1726.23 14- 117 -24 44 0039 WEST. SPORTS 26 3 0 29.0 9.52 54.00 2.45 153500 4.02 6333.33 348.88 573.20 7255.41 14- 117 -24 44 0041 KOENIG 9 7.5 10 6.5 2.13 50.00 2.27 171100 4.48 1419.54 323.04 638.92 2381.49 14- 117 -24 44 0042 NETKA 17 2 3 16.0 5.25 27.00 1.I2 96000 2.52 3494.25 174.44 358.48 4027.17 13-117 -24 33 0047 WEST. DENTAL (BORG) 4 6 7 3.0 0.99 29.30 1.33 65900 1.73 655.17 189.30 246.08 1090.55 13- 117 -24 33 0049 BIG A 15 10 9 16.0 5.25 79.81 3.62 105500 2.76 3494.25 515.63 393.96 4403.84 13-117 -24 33 0050 REYNOLD A. LINGGUIST 15 2 6 11.0 3.61 120.69 5.47 101300 2.65 2402.30 779.74 378.27 3560.31 13- 117 -24 33 0054 MOUND LODGE 14 3 10 7.0 2.30 50.00 2.27 108000 2.83 1528.74 323.04 403.29 2255.06 445 169 309.5 304.5 100.00 2205.64 100.50 3816100 100.00 66500.00 14250 14250 95000.00 REVISED 11 -27 -90 Alt d 104500 CBD LOT ACQUISITION (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) 45 -55 split OUST. EMP. % OF % OF 1990 % OF COST COST COST PARK. PARK. SPACES TOTAL TOTAL MARKET Tn "L x .7 x .15 x .15 REQ'D. REQ'D PROV. (1 +2-3) OF (4) FRONT OF (6) VALUE OF (8) x (5) x (7) x (9) (10+11+12) 13- 117 -24 33 0066 FIRST MINNESOTA 8 6.5 6 8.5 2.79 147.00 6.66 239fOO 6.26 2041.95 1044.70 981.72 4068.37 14- 117 -24 44 0001 SNYDER DRUG 19 2 8 13.0 4.27 50.00 2.27 133100 3.49 3122.99 355.34 546.72 4025.05 14- 117 -24 44 0002 MEISEL'S 16 4 20 0.0 0.00 98.40 4.46 115000 3.12 0.00 699.31 488.80 1188.11 14- 117 -24 44 0003 SHERBURNE BUILDING 40 10 45 5.0 1.64 50.00 2.27 317500 8.22 1201.15 355.34 1287.73 2844.22 14- 117 -24 44 0004 KOENIG 24 5.5 16 13.5 4.43 51.60 2.34 141500 3.71 3243.10 366.71 581.22 4191.04 14- 117 -24 44 0006 SHERSURNZ PARKING 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 50.00 2.27 26200 0.69 0.00 355.34 107.62 462.96 13- 117 -24 33 0004 CODDEN BLDG. 10 5.5 5 10.5 3.45 50.00 2.27 63000 1.65 2522.41 355.34 258.78 3136.53 13- 117 -24 33 0005 HOUSE OF MOY 30 22 5 47.0 15.44 95.00 4.31 40000': 10.48 11290.80 675.14 1643.04 13608.99 13- 117 -24 33 0006 CURTIS JOHNSON 8 7.5 9 6.5 2.13 55.00 2.49 81200 2.13 1561.49 390.87 333.54 2285.90 13- 117 -24 33 0007 CENTURY AUTO 12 6 4 14.0 4.60 85.00 3.85 106500 2.79 3363.22 604.08 437.46 4404.75 13- 117 -24 33 0008 CENTURY AUTO 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 50.00 2.27 18100 0.47 0.00 355.34 74.35 429.69 13-117 -24 33 0011 POST OFFICE 16 19 14 21.0 6.90 175.00 7.93 160100 4.20 5044.83 1243.69 657.63 6946.14 13- 117 -24 33 0014 KEN PERSIK BUILDING 4 2 0 6.0 1.97 23.50 1.07 48000 1.26 1441.38 167.01 197.16 1805.55 13- 117 -24 33 0015 LAUER 9 2 9 2.0 0.66 86.40 3.92 75500 1.98 480.46 614.03 310.12 1404.61 13- 117 -24 33 0016 LONGPRE 7.5 3 2 8.5 2.79 70.94 3.22 88400 2.32 2041.95 504.16 363.11 2909.22 13- 117 -24 33 0017 LONGPRE 7.5 5 0 12.5 4.11 74.00 3.36 58800 1.54 3002.87 525.90 241.53 3770.30 14- 117 -24 44 0046 MEISEL'S 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 70.00 3.17 15000 0.39 0.00 497.47 61.61 559.09 13- 117 -24 33 0064 COAST TO COAST 37 10.5 47.5 010 0.00 100.00 4.53 178900 4.69 0.00 710.68 734.85 1445.53 13- 117 -24 33 0073 TONKA WEST 40 15 55 0.0 0.00 220.00 9.97 387400 10.15 0.00 1563.49 1591.28 3154.77 14- 117 -24 44 0036 BEN FRANKLIN 36 6 13 29.0 9.52 58.00 2.63 224800 5.89 6966.67 412.19 923.39 8302.25 14- 117 -24 44 0037 RUSTIQUE 11 4 0 15.0 4.93 32.50 1.47 85800 2.25 3603.45 230.97 352.43 4186.85 14- 117 -24 44 0038 WAYZATA BANK 10 0 6 4.0 1.31 102.50 4.65 51000 1.34 960.92 728.45 209.49 1898.85 14- 117 -24 44 0039 WEST. SPORTS 26 3 0 29.0 9.52 54.00 2.45 153500 4.02 6966.67 383.77 630.52 7980.95 14- 117 -24 44 0041 KOENIG 9 7.5 10 6.5 2.13 50.00 2.27 171100 4.48 1561.49 355.34 702.81 2619.64 14- 117 -24 44 0042 NEIK% 17 2 3 16.0 5.25 27.00 1.22 96000 2.52 3843.68 191.88 394.33 4429.89 13- 117 -24 31 0047 WEST. DENTAL (BORG) 4 6 7 3.0 0.99 29.30 1.33 65900 1.73 720.69 208.23 270.69 1199.61 13- 117 -24 33 0049 BIG A 15 10 9 16.0 5.25 79.81 3.62 105500 2.76 3843.68 567.19 433.35 4844.22 13 -117 -24 33 0050 REYNOLD A. LINGQUIST 15 2 6 11.0 3.61 120.69 5.47 101300 2.65 2642.53 857.72 416.10 3916.35 13-117 -24 33 0054 MOUND LODGE 14 3 10 7.0 2.30 50.00 2.27 108000 2.83 1681.61 355.34 443.62 2480.57 445 169 309.5 30'.5 100.00 2205.64 100.00 3816100 100.00 73150.00 15675 15675 104500.00 REVISED 11 -27 -90 Alt A 114000 CBD LOT ACQUISITION 40-60 split 13- 117 -24 33 0066 FIRST MINNESOTA 14- 117 -24 44 0001 SNYDER DRUG 14- 117 -24 44 0002 MEISEL'S 14- 117 -24 44 0003 SHERBURNE BUILDING 14- 117 -24 44 0004 KOENIG 14- 117 -24 44 0006 SHERBURNE PARKING 13-117 -24 33 0004 COODEN BLDG. 13-117 -24 33 0005 HOUSE Of MOY 13- 117 -24 33 0006 CURTIS JOHNSON 13-117 -24 33 0007 CENTURY AUTO 13-117 -24 33 0008 CENTURY AUTO 13-117 -24 33 0011 POST OFFICE 13- 117 -24 33 0014 KEN PERBIX BUILDING 13- 117 -24 33 0015 LAUER 13-117 -24 33 0016 LONGPRE 13-117 -24 33 0017 LONGPRE 14- 117-24 44 0046 MEISEL'S 13-117 -24 33 0064 COAST TO COAST 13- 117 -24 33 0073 TONKA WEST 14- 117-24 44 0036 BEN FRANKLIN 14- 117 -24 44 0037 RUSTIQUE 14- 117 -24 44 0038 WAYZATA BANK 14- 117 -24 44 0039 WEST. SPORTS 14- 117 -24 44 0041 KOENIG 14- 117 -24 44 0042 NETKA 13- 117 -24 33 0047 WEST. DENTAL (BORG) 13- 117 -24 33 0049 BIG A 13- 117 -24 33 0050 REYNOLD A. LINGQUIST 13- 117 -24 33 0054 MOUND LODGE (1) (2) (3) OUST. EMP. PARK. PARK. SPACES REQ'D. REQ'D PROV. 8 19 16 40 24 0 10 30 8 12 0 16 4 9 7.5 7.5 0 37 40 36 it 10 26 9 17 4 15 15 14 6.5 2 4 10 5.5 0 5.5 22 7.5 6 0 19 2 2 3 5 0 10.5 15 6 4 0 3 7.5 2 6 10 2 3 6 8 20 45 16 0 5 5 9 4 0 14 0 9 2 0 0 47.5 55 13 0 6 0 10 3 7 9 6 10 445 169 309.5 (4) (5) (6) % OF TOTAL (1+2-3) OF (4) FRONT 8.5 2.79 147.00 13.0 4.27 50.00 0.0 0.00 98.40 5.0 1.64 50.00 13.5 4.43 51.60 0.0 0.00 50.00 10.5 3.45 50.C" 47.0 15.44 95.00 6.5 2.13 55.00 14.0 4.60 85.00 0.0 0.00 50.00 21.0 6.90 175.00 6.0 1.97 23.50 2.0 0.66 86.40 8.5 2.79 70.94 12.5 4.11 74.00 0.0 0.00 70.00 0.0 0.00 100.00 0.0 0.00 220.00 29.0 9.52 58.00 15.0 4.93 32.50 4.0 1.31 102.50 29.0 9.52 54.00 6.5 2.13 50.00 16.0 5.25 27.00 3.0 0.99 29.30 16.0 5.25 79.81 11.0 3.61 120.69 7.0 2.30 50.00 (7) % OF TOTAL OF (6) 6.66 2.27 4.46 2.27 2.34 2.27 2.27 4.31 2.49 3.85 2.27 7.93 1.07 3.92 3.22 3.3o 3.17 4.53 9.97 2.63 1.47 4.65 2.45 2.27 1.22 1.33 3.62 5.47 2.27 (8) 1990 MARKET VALUE 239000 133100 119000 313500 141500 26200 63000 400000 81200 106500 18100 160100 48000 75500 88400 58800 15000 178900 387400 224800 85800 51000 153500 171100 96000 65900 105500 101300 108000 (9) (10) % OF COST TOTAL x .7 OF (8) x (5) 6.26 2227.59 3.49 3406.90 3.12 0.00 8.22 1310.34 3.71 3537.93 0.69 0.00 1.65 2751.72 10.48 12317.24 2.13 1703.45 2.79 3668.97 0.47 0.00 4.20 5503.45 1.26 1572.41 1.98 52x.14 2.32 2227.59 1.54 3275.86 0.39 0.DO 4.69 0.00 10.15 0.00 5.89 7600.00 2.25 3931.03 1.34 1048.28 4.02 7600.00 4.48 1703.45 2.52 4193.10 1.73 786.21 2.76 4193.10 2.65 2882.76 2.83 1834.48 (11) COST x .15 x (7) 1139.67 387.64 762.88 387.64 400.05 387.64 387.64 736.52 426.41 658.99 387.64 1356.75 182.19 669.85 549.99 573.71 542.70 775.29 1705.63 449.67 251.97 794.67 418.65 387.64 209.33 227.16 618.76 935.69 387.64 (12) (13) COST x .15 x (9) (10 +11 +12; 1070.96 4438.22 596.42 4390.96 533.24 1296.12 1404.80 3102.79 634.06 4572.04 117.40 505.05 282.30 3421.67 1792.41 14846.17 363.86 2:93.71 477.23 480.19 81.11 468.75 717.41 7577.61 215.09 1969.69 338.32 1532.30 396.12 3173.70 263.48 4113.06 67.22 609.91 801.65 1576.94 1735.95 3441.57 1007.33 9057.00 384.47 4567.47 228.53 2071.47 687.84 8706.49 766.70 2857.79 430.18 4832.61 295.30 1308.66 472.75 5284.61 453.93 4272.38 483.95 2706.07 304.5 100.00 2205.64 100.00 3816100 100.00 79800.00 17100 17100 114000.00 REVISED 11 -27-90 Alt A 123`_00 CBD LOT ACQUISITION (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) 35-65 spilt OUST. EMP. % OF % OF 1990 % OF COST COST COST PARK. PARK. SPACES TOTAL TOTAL MARKET TOTAL x .7 x .15 x .15 REQ'D. REQ'D PROV. (1+2 3) OF (4) FRONT OF (6) VALUE OF (8) x (5) x (7) x (9) (10 +11 *12) 13- 117 -24 33 0066 FIRST MINNESOTA 9 6.5 6 8.5 2.79 147.00 6.66 239000 6.26 2413.22 1234.64 1160.21 4808.07 14- 117 -24 44 u001 SNYDER DRUG 19 2 8 13.E 4. ?7 50.00 2.27 133100 3.49 3690.80 419.95 646.12 476.88 14- 117 -24 44 0002 MEISF.L'S 16 4 20 0.0 0.00 98.40 4.46 119000 3.12 0.00 826.45 577.68 1404.13 14- 117 -24 44 0003 SHERBURNE BUILDING 40 10 45 5.0 1.64 50.00 2.27 313500 8.22 1419.54 41V.95 1521.86 3361.35 14- 117 -24 44 0004 KOENIG 24 5.5 16 13.5 4.43 51.60 2.34 141500 3.71 3832.76 433.38 686.^0 4953.05 14. 117 -24 44 0006 SHERBURNE PARKING 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 50.00 2.27 26200 0.69 0.00 419.95 127.19 547.13 13- 117 -24 33 0004 COODEN R'.DG. 10 5.5 5 10.5 3.45 50.00 2.27 63000 1.65 2981.03 419.95 305.83 3706.61 13- 117 -24 33 0005 HOUSE OF MOT 30 22 5 47.0 15.44 95.00 4.31 400000 10.48 13343.68 797.90 1941.77 16083.35 13- 117 -24 33 0006 CURTIS JOnrSON 8 '.5 9 6.5 2.13 55.00 2.49 81200 2.13 1845.40 461,94 394.18 2701.52 13.117 -24 33 0007 CENTURY AUTO 12 6 4 14.0 4.60 85.00 3.85 106500 2.79 3974.71 713 91 517.00 5205.62 13- 117 -?, 33 0008 CENTUP' AUTO 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 50.00 2.27 1E100 0.47 0.00 419.95 87.87 507.81 13- 117 -24 33 0011 POST OFFICE 16 19 14 21.0 6.90 175.00 7.93 160100 4.20 5962.07 1469.81 777.19 6209.08 13- 117 -2. 33 0014 KEN PtIBIX BUILDIWG 4 2 6. 1.97 23.50 1.07 48000 1.26 1703.45 197.37 233.01 2133.84 1 3- 111 33 0015 LAUER S 2 2.0 0.66 86.40 3.92 75500 1.98 567.82 72.67 366.51 1659.99 1 3- 117 -24 33 0016 LON(�PRE 7.5 3 2 8.5 ?.79 70.94 3.22 88400 2.32 2413.22 595.32 429.13 3438.17 3 17 33 017;1' ,0'4GPRL 7.5 5 0 12.5 4.11 1 4.00 3.36 58800 1.54 3548.85 621.52 285.44 4455.81 . 117 -24 44 0046 MEISEL'S 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 70.00 3.i7 15000 0.39 0.00 587.92 72.82 660.74 '3- 117-24 33 :)0164 COAS1 TO COAST 37 10 -5 47.5 0.0 0.00 100.00 4.53 178900 4.69 0.00 839.89 868.46 1708.35 '73 uEtiT 40 15 55 0.0 0.00 220.00 9.97 387400 10.15 0.00 1847.76 1880.61 3728.37 OG36 BEN FRANKL!N 36 6 13 29.0 9.5- 58.00 2.63 224800 5.89 8233.33 487.14 1091.7^ 9811.75 S-!G.;E 11 4 0 15.0 4.93 32.50 1.47 85800 2. ?5 4258.62 272.96 416.5^ 4948.10 » »» f, ;38 4Ar174,-A 6ANK 1 6 4.0 1.31 102.50 4.65 51o00 1.34 1135.63 860.89 247.58 2244.10 » » V; WEST. S =:IRIS 26 3 0 29.0 9.52 54.00 2.45 153500 4.02 8233.33 453.54 745.16 9432.03 K?fN!G C 7.5 0 6.5 2.13 50.00 2.27 171100 4.48 1&45 -40 419.95 830.59 3095.9 NE? +A _ 3 16.0 5.25 27.00 1.22 96000 2.52 4542.53 226.77 4-6.03 5235.33 .3 » wc5 ^= ?4, 7 3.1 0.99 29.30 '.33 65990 1.73 851.72 246.09 319.91 1417.72 A tS 9 i6.0 5,25 79.81 3.62 105540 2.76 4542.53 670 -32 512.14 5724 -99 A_ !N3Af1!S7 15 2 6 11.0 3.61 120.69 5.47 101370 2.65 3122.99 ' 5.67 491.75 4628.41 WX N. x.;17 » 3 i L, 7.0 2.30 50.00 2.27 1 08000 2.33 1987.36 419.95 524.78 1 931.58 4..5 169 3:,Q.5 304.5 10O.00 2205.64 1'uG.i)0 3,9'6100 100.00 8645 ",.r0 18525 18525 123500.00 95000 CBD LOT ACOUISIIION (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) 50 -50 split COST. EMP. % OF % OF 1990 % OF COST COST COST PARK. PARK. SPACES TOTAL TOTAL MARKET TOTAL x .7 x .15 x .15 REO'D. REO'D PROV. (1 +2-3) OF (4) FRONT OF (6) VALUE OF (8) x (5) x (7) x (9) (10+11 +12) 13. 117.24 33 0066 FIRST MINNESOTA 8 6.5 6 8.5 2.68 147.00 6.66 239000 6.26 1780.31 949.72 892.47 3622.51 14. 117 -24 44 0001 SNYDER DRUG 19 2 8 13.0 4.09 50.00 2.27 133100 3.49 2722.83 323.04 497.02 3542.89 14. 117 -24 44 0002 MEISEL'S 16 4 20 0.0 0.00 98.40 4.46 119000 3.12 0.00 635.73 444.37 1080.10 14- 117 -24 44 0003 SHERBURNE BUILDING 40 10 45 5.0 1.57 50.00 2.27 313500 8.22 1047.24 323.04 1170.67 2540.94 14-117 -24 44 0004 KOENIG 24 5.5 16 13.5 4.25 51.60 2.34 141500 3.71 2827.56 333.37 528.39 3689.32 14-117 -24 44 0006 SHERBURNE PARKING 0 0 C 0.0 0.0(1 50.00 2.27 26200 0.69 0.00 323.04 97.84 420.87 13- 117 -24 33 0004 CODDEN BLDG. 10 5.5 5 10.5 3.31 50.00 2.27 63000 1.65 2194.21 323.04 235.25 2757.50 13- 117 -24 33 0005 HOUSE OF NOY 30 22 5 47.0 14.80 95.00 4.31 400000 10.48 9844.09 613.77 1493.67 11951.53 13- 117 -26.33 0006 CURTIS JOHNSON 8 7.5 9 6.5 2.05 55.00 2.49 81200 2.13 1361.42 355.34 303.22 2019.97 13-117-24 0007 CENTURY AUTO 12 6 4 14.0 4.41 85.00 3.85 106500 2.79 2932.28 549.16 397.69 3879.13 13- 117 -24 33 0008 CENTURY AUTO 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 50.00 2.27 18100 0.47 0.00 323.04 67.59 390.62 13- 117 -24 33 0011 POST OFFICE 16 19 14 21.0 6.61 175.00 7.93 160100 4.20 4398.43 1130.62 597.84 6126.89 13- 117 -24 33 0014 KEN PERBIx BUILDING 4 2 0 6.0 1.89 23.50 1.07 48000 1.26 1256.69 151.83 179.24 1567.76 13- 117 -24 33 0015 LACIER 9 2 9 2.0 0.63 86.40 3.92 75500 1.96 418.90 558.21 281.93 1259.03 13- 117 -24 33 0016 LONGPRE 7.5 3 2 8.5 2.68 70.94 3.22 88400 2.32 1780.31 458.32 330.10 2568.74 13- 117 -24 33 0017 LONGPRE 7.5 5 0 12.5 3.94 74.00 3.36 58800 1.54 2618.11 478.09 219.57 3315.77 14- 117 -24 44 0046 MEISEL'S 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 70.00 3.17 15000 0.39 0.00 452.25 56.01 508.26 '3- 117 -24 33 0064 COAST TO COAST 37 10.5 47.5 0.0 0.00 100.00 4.53 178900 4.69 0.00 646.07 668.04 1314.12 13- 117 -24 33 0073 TONKA WEST 40 15 55 0.0 0.00 220.00 9.97 387400 10.15 0.00 1421.36 1446.62 2867.48 14- 117 -24 44 0036 BEN FRANKLIN 36 6 0 42.0 13.23 58.00 2.63 224800 5.89 8796.85 374.72 839.44 10011.01 14- 117 -24 u 0037 RUSTIOUE 11 4 0 15.0 4.72 32.50 1.47 85800 2.25 3141.73 209.97 320.39 3672.10 14- 117 -24 44 0038 WAYZATA BANK 10 0 6 4.0 1.26 102.SO 4.65 51000 1.34 837.80 662.22 190.44 1690.46 14-117-24 44 0039 WEST. SPORTS 26 3 0 29.0 9.13 54.00 2.4S 153500 4.02 6074.02 348.88 573.20 6996.04 14- 117 -24 44 0041 KOENIG 9 7.5 10 6.5 2.05 50.00 2.27 171100 4.48 1361.42 323.04 638.92 2323.37 14- 117 -24 " 0042 NETKA 17 2 3 16.0 5.04 27.00 1.22 96000 232 3351.18 174.44 358.48 3884.10 13-117 -24 33 0047 WEST. DENTAL (BORG) 4 6 7 3.0 0.94 29.30 1.33 65900 1.73 628.35 189.30 246.08 1063.73 13-117 -24 33 0049 BIG A 15 10 9 16.0 5.04 79.81 3.62 105500 2.76 3351.18 51S.63 393.916 4260.77 13- 117 -24 33 0050 REYNOID A. LINGOUIST 15 2 6 11.0 3.46 120.69 S.47 101300 2.65 2303.94 779.74 378.27 3461.95 13- 117 -24 33 00% MOUND LODGE 14 3 10 7.0 2.20 50.00 2.27 108000 2.83 1466.14 323.04 403.29 2192.47 "s 169 296.5 11173 100.00 2205.64 100.00 3816100 100.00 66500.00 14250 14250 95000.00 REVISED 11 -27 -90 Alt 6 104500 COD LOT ACQUISITION (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) 45 -55 split OUST. EMP. X OF % OF 1990 % OF COST COST COST PARK. PARK. SPACES TOTAL TOTAL MARKET TOTAL x .7 x .15 x .15 REO'D. REO'D PROV. (1+2-3) OF (4) FRONT OF (6) VALUE OF (8) x (5) x (7) x (9) (10+11 +12) 1 1- 117 -24 33 0066 FIRST MINNESOTA 8 6.5 6 8.5 2.68 147.00 6.66 239000 6.26 1958.35 1044.70 981.72 3984.76 14- 117 -24 44 0C:)1 SNYDER DRUG 19 2 8 13.0 4.09 50.00 2.27 133100 3.49 2995.12 355.34 546.72 3897.18 14- 117 -24 44 0002 MEISEL'S 16 4 20 0.0 0.00 98.40 4.46 119000 3.12 0.00 699.31 488.80 1188.11 14- 117 -24 44 0003 SHERBURNE BUILDING 40 10 45 5.0 1.57 50.D0 2.27 313500 8.22 1151.97 355.34 1287.73 2795.04 14- 117 -24 44 0004 KOENIG 24 5.5 16 13.5 4.25 51.60 2.34 141500 3.71 3110.31 366.71 581.22 4058.25 14- 117 -24 44 0006 SHERBURNE PARKING 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 50.00 2.27 26200 0.69 0.00 355.34 107.62 462.96 13- 117 -24 33 0004 CODDEN BLDG- 10 5.5 5 10.5 3.31 50.00 2.27 63000 1.65 2419.13 355.34 258.78 3033.25 13-117 -24 33 0005 HOUSE OF MOY 30 22 5 47.0 14.80 95.00 4.31 400000 10.48 10828.50 675.14 1643.04 13146.69 13- 117 -24 33 0006 CURTIS ,JOHNSON 8 7.5 9 6.5 2.05 55.00 2.49 81200 2.13 1497.56 390.87 333.54 2221.97 13-117 -24 33 0007 CENTURY AUTO 12 6 4 14.0 4.41 85.00 3.85 106500 2.79 3225.51 604.08 437.46 4267.05 13- 11 -24 33 0008 CENTURY A 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 50.00 2.27 18100 0.47 0.00 355.34 76.35 429.69 13- 117 -24 33 0011 POST OFFICE 16 19 14 21.0 6.61 175.00 7.93 160100 4.20 483x.27 1243.69 657.63 6739.58 13- 117 -24 33 0014 KEN PERBIX BUILDING 4 2 0 6.0 1.89 23.50 1.07 48000 1.26 1382.36 167.01 197.16 1746.55 13- 117 -24 33 0015 LAUER 9 2 9 2.0 0.63 86.40 3.92 75500 1.96 460.79 614.03 310.12 1384.94 13- 117 -24 33 0016 LONGPRE 7.5 3 2 8.5 2.68 70.94 3.22 88400 2.32 1958.35 51X1.16 363.11 2x25.61 13- 117 -24 33 0017 LONGPRE 7.5 5 0 12.5 3.94 74.00 3.36 Sx800 1.54 2879.92 525.90 241.53 3647.3S 14- 117 -24 44 0046 MEISEL'S 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 70.00 3.17 15000 0.39 0.00 497.47 61.61 559.09 13-117-24 33 0064 COACT TO COAST 37 10.5 47.5 0.0 0.00 100.00 433 178900 4.69 0.00 710.68 734.85 1445.53 13- 117 -24 33 0073 TONKA WEST 40 15 55 0.0 0.00 220.00 9.97 3117400 10.15 0.00 1563.49 1591.28 3154.77 14 -117 -24 44 0036 BEN FRANKLIN 36 6 0 42.0 13.23 58.00 2.63 224800 5.89 9676.54 412.19 923.39 11012.12 14- 117 -24 44 0037 RUSTIOUE 11 4 0 15.0 4.72 32.50 1.47 85x00 2.25 3455.91 230.97 352.43 4039.31 14- 117 -24 44 0038 WAYZATA BANK 10 0 6 4.0 1.26 102.50 4.65 51000 1.34 921.57 728.45 209.49 185931 14- 117 -24 44 0039 WEST. SPORTS 26 3 0 29.0 9.13 54.00 2.45 153500 4.02 6681.42 383.77 630.52 7695.70 14- 117 -24 44 0041 KOENIG 9 7.5 10 6.5 2.05 50.00 2.27 171100 4.48 1497.56 355.34 702.81 2SS5.71 14- 117 -24 44 0042 NETKA 17 2 3 16.0 5.04 27.00 1.22 96000 2.52 3686.30 191.xx 394.33 4272.51 13- 117 -24 33 0047 WEST. DENTAL (BORG) 4 6 7 3.0 0.94 29.30 1.33 65900 1.73 691.18 208.23 270.69 1170.10 13-117 -24 33 0049 BIG A i5 10 9 16.0 5.04 79.81 3.62 10SS00 2.76 3686.30 567.19 433.3S 4686.84 13- 117 -24 33 0050 REYNOLD A. LINGOUIST 15 2 6 11.0 3.46 120.69 5.47 101300 2.65 2534.33 857.72 416.10 380x.15 13- 117 -24 33 0054 MOUND LODGE 14 3 10 7.0 220 50.00 2.27 108000 2.83 1612.76 355.34 443.62 2411.72 445 169 296.5 317.5 100.00 2205.64 100.00 3816100 100.00 73150.00 15675 15675 104500.00 REVISED 11 -27 -90 Alt B 114000 CBO LOT ACQUISITION (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) 40-60 split COST. EPP. x OF x OF 1990 % OF COST COST COST PARK. PARK. SPACES TOTAL TOTAL MARKET TOTAL x .7 x .15 x .15 REQ'D. REQ'D PROV. (1 +2-3) OF (4) FRONT OF (6) VALUE OF (8) x (5) x (7) x (9) (10*11 +12) 13- 117 -24 33 0066 FIRST MINNESOTA 8 6.5 6 8.5 2.68 147.00 6.36 239000 6.26 2136.38 1139.67 1070.96 4347.01 14- 117 -24 " 0001 SNYDER DRUG 19 2 8 13.0 4.09 50.00 2.27 133100 3.49 3267.40 387.64 596.42 4251.47 14- 117 -24 44 0002 MEISEL'S 16 4 20 0.0 0.00 98.40 4.46 119000 3.12 0.00 762.88 533.24 1296.12 14- 117 -24 44 0003 SHERBURNE BUILDING 40 10 45 5.0 1.57 50.00 2.27 313500 8.22 1256.69 387.64 1404.80 3049.13 14- 117 -24 44 0004 KOENIG 24 5.5 16 13.5 4.25 51.60 2.34 141500 3.71 3393.07 400.05 634.06 4427.18 14- 117 -24 44 0006 SHERBURNE PARKING 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 50.00 2.27 26200 0.69 0.00 387.64 117.40 505.05 13- 117 -24 33 0004 CODOEN BLDG. 10 5.5 5 10.5 3.31 50.00 2.27 63000 1.65 2639.06 387.64 282.30 3309.00 13- 117 -24 33 0005 HOUSE OF MOY 30 22 5 47.0 14.80 95.00 4.31 400000 10.46 11812.91 736.52 1792.41 14341.84 13- 117 -24 33 0006 CURTIS .JOHNSON 8 7.5 9 6.5 2.05 55.00 2.49 81200 2.13 1633.70 426.41 363.86 2423.97 13- 117 -24 33 0007 CENTURY AUTO 12 6 4 "4.0 4.41 85.00 3.85 106500 2.79 3518.74 658.99 477.23 4654.96 13- 117 -24 33 0008 CENTURY AUTO 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 50.00 2.27 16100 0.47 0.00 387.64 81.11 468.75 13-117 -24 33 0011 POST OFFICE 16 19 14 21.0 6.61 175.00 7.93 160100 4.20 5278.11 1356.75 717.41 7352.27 13- 117 -24 33 0014 KEN PERBIX BUILDING 4 2 0 6.0 1.89 23.50 1.07 48000 1.26 1508.03 182.19 215.09 1905.31 13- 117 -24 33 0015 LAUER 9 2 9 2.0 0.63 86.40 7 .92 75500 1.96 502.68 669.85 338.32 1510.84 13- 117 -24 33 0016 LONGPRE 7.5 3 2 8.5 2.68 70.94 5.22 88400 2.32 2136.38 549.99 396.12 3082.49 13- 117 -24 33 0017 LONGPRE 7.5 5 C 12.5 3.94 74.00 3.36 58800 1.54 3141.73 573.71 263.48 3978.93 14- 117 -24 44 0046 MEISEL'S 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 70.00 3.17 15000 0.39 0.00 542.70 67.22 609.91 13- 117 -24 33 0064 COAST TO COAST 37 10.5 47.5 0.0 0.00 100.00 4.53 178900 4.69 0.00 775.29 801.65 1576.94 13- 117 -24 33 0073 TGWKA WEST to 15 55 0.0 0.00 220.00 9.97 387400 10.15 0.00 1705.63 1735.95 3441.57 14-117-24 44 0036 BEN FRANKLIN 36 6 0 42.0 13.23 58.00 2.63 224800 5.89 10556.22 "9.67 1007.33 12013.22 14- 117 -24 44 0037 RUSTIQUE 11 4 0 15.0 4.72 32.50 1.47 85800 2.25 3770.08 251.97 384.47 "06.52 14- 117 -24 44 0038 WAYZATA BANK 10 0 6 4.0 1.26 102.50 4.65 51000 1.34 1005.35 794.67 228.53 2028.55 14- 117 -24 44 0039 WEST. SPORTS 26 3 0 29.0 9.13 54.00 2.45 153500 4.02 7288.82 418.65 687.84 8395.31 14- 117 -24 44 0041 KOENIG 9 7.5 10 6.5 2.05 50.00 2.27 171100 4.48 1633.70 387.64 766.70 2788.04 14- 117 -24 44 0042 NETKA 17 2 3 16.0 5.04 27.00 1.22 96000 2.52 4021.42 209.33 430.18 4660.92 13- 117 -24 33 0047 WEST. DENTAL (BORG) 4 6 7 3.0 0.94 29.30 1.33 65900 1.73 754.02 227.16 295.30 1276.47 13- 117 -24 33 0049 BIG A 15 10 9 16.0 5.04 79.81 3.62 105500 2.76 4021.42 618.76 472.75 5112.92 13- 117 -24 33 0050 REYNOLD A. LINGOUIST 15 2 6 11.0 3.46 120.69 5.47 101300 2.65 2764.72 935.69 453.93 4154.34 13- 117 -24 33 0054 MOUND LODGE 14 3 10 7.0 2.20 50.00 2.27 108000 2.83 1759.37 387." 483.95 2630.96 445 169 296.5 317.5 100.00 2205.64 100.00 3816100 100.00 79800.00 17100 17100 114000.00 REVISED 11 -27 -90 Alt B 123500 CBD LOT ACOUIS RIO4 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) 35-65 split COST. EMP. X OF % OF 1990 % OF COST COST COST PARK. PARK. SPACES TOTAL TOTAL MARKET TOTAL x .7 x .15 x .15 REO'D, REO'D PROV. (1+2-3) OF (4) FRONT OF (6) VALUE OF (8) x (5) x (7) x (9) (10+11 +12) 13- 117 -24 33 0066 FIRST MINNESOTA 8 6.5 6 8.5 2.68 147.00 6.66 239000 6.26 2314.41 1234.64 1160.21 4709,26 14- 117 -24 44 0001 SNYDER DRUG 19 2 8 13.0 4.09 50.00 2.27 133100 3.49 3539.69 419.95 646.12 4605.76 14- 117 -24 44 0002 MEISEL'S 16 4 20 0.0 0.00 98.40 4.46 119000 3.12 0.00 826.45 577.68 1404.13 14- 117 -24 44 0003 SNERBURNE BUILDING 40 10 45 5.0 1.57 50.00 2.27 313500 8.22 1361.42 419.95 1521.86 3303 -23 14- 117 -24 44 0004 KOENIG 24 5.5 16 13.5 4.25 >1"51.6$ 2.34 141500 3.71 3675.83 433.38 686.90 4796.11 14- 117 -24 44 0006 SNERBURNE PARKING 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 50.00 2.27 26200 0.69 0.00 419.95 127.19 547.13 13- 117 -24 33 0004 CODDEN BLDG. 10 5.5 5 10.5 3.31 50.00 2.27 63000 1.65 2858.98 419.95 305.83 3584.75 13- 117 -24 33 0005 HOUSE OF ROY 30 22 5 47.0 14.80 95.00 4.31 400000 10.48 12797.32 797.90 1941.77 15'36." 13-117 -24 33 0006 CURTIS jOHNSON 8 7.5 9 6.5 2.05 55.00 2.49 81200 2.13 1769.84 461.94 394.18 2625.96 13-117 -24 33 0007 CENTURY AUTO 12 6 4 14,0 4.41 85.00 3.85 106500 2.79 3811.97 713.91 517.00 5042.87 13-117 -24 33 0008 CENTURY AUTO 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 50.00 2.27 18100 0.47 0.00 419.95 87.87 507.81 13- 117 -24 33 0011 POST OFFICE 16 19 14 21.0 6.61 175.00 7.93 160100 4.20 5717.95 1469.81 777.19 7964.96 13-117 -24 33 0014 KEN PERSIX BUILDING 4 2 0 6.0 1.89 23.50 1.07 48000 1.26 1633.70 197.37 233.01 2064 09 13-117 -24 33 0015 LAUER 9 2 9 2.0 0.63 86.40 3.92 75500 1.98 544.57 725.67 366.51 1636.74 13- 117 -24 33 0016 LONGPRE 7.5 3 2 8.5 2.68 70.94 3.22 88400 2.32 2314.41 595.82 429.13 3339.36 13- 117 -24 33 0017 LONGPRE 7.5 5 0 12.5 3.94 74.00 3.36 58b00 1.54 3403.54 621.52 285.44 4310.50 14- 117 -24 44 0046 MEISEL'S 0 0 0 0.0 0.00 70.00 3.17 15000 0.39 0.00 587.92 72.82 660.74 13- 117 -24 33 0064 COAST TO COAST 37 10.5 47.', 0.0 0.00 100.00 4.53 178900 4.69 0.00 839.89 868.46 1708.35 13- 117 -24 33 0073 TONKA HEST 40 15 55 0.0 0.00 220.00 9.97 387400 10.15 0.00 1847.76 1880.61 3728.37 14- 117 -24 44 0036 BEN FRANKLig 36 6 .8_ 42.0 13.23 58.00 2.63 224800 5.89 11435.91 487.14 1091.28 13014.32 14- 117 -24 44 0037 RUSTIOUE 11 4 0 15.0 4.72 32.50 1.47 85800 2.25 4084.25 272.96 416.51 4773.73 14- 117 -24 44 0038 WAYZATA BANK 10 0 6 4,0 1,26 102.50 4.65 51000 1.34 1089.13 860.89 247.58 2197.60 14- 117 -24 44 0039 WEST, SPORTS 26 3 0 29.0 9.13.1 u1 4 ee 2.45 153500 4.02 7896.22 453.54 745.16 9094.92 14- 117 -24 44 0041 KOENIG 9 7.5 10 6.5 2.05 50.00 2.27 171100 4 43 1769.84 419.95 830.59 3020.38 14- 117 -24 44 0042 NETKA 17 2 3 16.0 5.04 27.00 1.22 96000 2.52 4356.54 226.77 466.03 5049.33 13- 117 -24 33 0047 WEST. DENTAL (BORG) 4 6 7 3.0 0.94 29,30 1.33 65900 1.73 816.85 246.09 319.91 1382.85 13- 117 -24 33 0049 BIG A 15 10 9 16.0 5.04 79.81 3.62 10550J 2.76 4356.54 670.32 512.14 5539.00 13-117 -24 33 0050 REYNOLD A. LINGOUIST 15 2 6 11.0 3.46 120.69 5.47 101300 2.65 2995.12 1013.67 491.75 4500.54 13-117 -24 33 0054 MOUND LODGE 14 3 10 7.0 2.20 50.00 2.27 108000 2.83 1905.98 419.95 524.28 2850.21 445 169 296.5 317.5 100.00 2205.64 100.00 3816100 100.00 86450.00 18525 18525 123500.00 REVISED 11 -27 -90 Alt B 17 1, ir C t i t s ,.._ _. � ,' t= ..:�.'�..- ... y ' , +. C a., � � y - ^ . .. cam... .. '� i • n Q f i e 17 1, ,.._ _. � ,' t= ..:�.'�..- ... y ' , +. C a., � � y - ^ . .. cam... .. '� onte.1 to thy mumhcI N o the l:oun(1 i ty Counci 1 •1t the meetint; or, 1u(; We the undersigned aR , ,rFf- wi th the unanimous riecisi -n of th.� Ill anning Commission on August 1). 1990. to reconcmend the denial of the minor subdivision And variance at 5012 Tuxedn. The deteriorating condition of this property is a constant eyesore and is lowering tho value of our property. We want the property cleaned up and the 11 -1 single family zoning status enforced. Name Address Date MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION August 13, 1990 b. Case No. 90 -926: Melvin Zuckman, 5012 Tuxe Blvd., RLS 1150, Tract A. PID #24- 117 - 43 0034. MINOR SUBD A VARIA City Planner, Mark Koegler, hreifly reviewed the history of this request. In 1989 the City filed a complaint in District Court seeking removal of the fire damaged structure and removal of a second illegal dwelling unit located nezr Tuxedo Blvd. Another portion of the complaint was based on information received in 1989 that the structure abutting Tuxedo Blvd. had been converted to a two - family residence without rezoning approval or issuance of any building permits. if this issue cannot be settled as part of the current subdivision /variance request, the City will cer- tify the case as being ready for trial and will proceed with litigation. Koegler then reviewed the current request for a minor subdivision and three variances: l) to construct a house on property which does not abut a dedicated public street, 2) a 15.5 foot front yard setback variance for the house on Parcel B. and 3) a 5.5 foot side yard setback variance also for the house on Parcel 8. The proposed Parcel A has a lot area of 11,600 square feet and Parcel 8 has a total area of 10,015 square feet. The applicant is proposing to reconstruct the driveway with an average slope of 20% along the eastern property line which is in- consistent with City provisions. The driveway is proposed to be 10 feet wide on Parcel A. however, all access drives are required to be 12 feet wide. A tuckunder garage is proposed on the north side of the building which is both unorthodox and unacceptable. The City Planner commented that both himself and the City Attor- ney feel that the proposed subdivision is a reasonable way to resolve this issue since it finally accomplishes the City of Mound's major objective which is to remove the fire damaged structure. Staff recommended approval of the minor suvbidivsion establishing parcels A and 8 as per the survey dated 8 -6 -90 prepared by Coffin b Grondberg, Inc. including the following variances: a lot fron- tage variance for Parcel A. recognition of a 15.5 foot front yard setback variance for the structure on Parcel B, and recognition of a 5.5 foot side yard setback variance for the structure on Parcel S. This approval is subject to the full compliance by the applicant with the conditions listed on the attached EXHIBIT A. . Mr. Zuckman's attorney, Gary Phleger, informed the Commission that the tuckunder garage Is no longer being proposed. He ex- plained that the applicant does not intend to construct a garage, however, are aware that a garage site must be indicated. They plan to propose an alternative garage site. Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1990 Page 3 Weiland expressed a concern with the access drive /easement and the safety for emergency vehicles. Koegler confirmed that the closest point from the proposed ho to the Ordinary High Water is 54 feet. Mr. Phleger spoke on s behalf in responding the the City Planner's recommendation. In relation to Condition #2. Phleger stated that the Zuckman's want to use some material from the ex- isting building, such as plumbing fixtures, and therefore, would prefer to leave the existing structure standing during construc- tion of the new. The Planner stated that due to the City Attorney's opinion, Condition #2 should stay as written. Phleger asked the Commission to consider allowing the "two - family" use for the structure on Parcel B. He explained that this structure was previously used for a Dentist office with an apartment above. The City Planner recommended that no change be made. • Cheryl Dale of 5024 Tuxedo Blvd. has lived next door to the Zuckman's since they purchased the property. Mrs. Dale exten- slvely review the history of the subject property. She stated that both her and her husband, John Dale, are opposed to the sub- division, and beiieve the structure on Proposed Parcel A should be removed. Mr. Mel Zuckman breifly reviewed the history of his case. He stated that he wants to do the right thing. Mr. Mike Perrine of 5006 Tuxedo Blvd., a neighbor to Mr. Zuckman's property, is opposed to the subdivision request. Mr. Perrine and Mrs. Dale expressed a concern regarding the notifications to the adjoining neighbors, notices were not received until the day of the meeting. They would like property owners within 350 feet notified for the City Council meeting. Mr. How-rd Barrett of 5000 Tuxedo Blvd. commented that he is In favor of the subdivision. The Commission expressed concern about how they can enforce single family occupancy in the house on propose Parcel B. Sharon Zuckmar, confirmed that there is a single I rson living upstairs, and one couple living downstairs. Meyer commented on the configuration of the proposed subdivision line and the issue of setting a precedent for dividing lakeshore lots and allowing access via easement (bottle neck lots). Phleger argued that this case Is different since there are exist - Ing structures on the parcel, it was determined that precidence Is history. Planning Commission Minutes August 13, 1990 Page 4 MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Smith to recommend denial of the City Planner's recommendation for the fol- lowing reasons: 1) Parcel A does not abut a dedicated public way, 2) the slope and topography of the proposed driveway is questionable, 3) a future garage site has not been determined, 4) the proposed driveway on Parcel A is too narrow for emergency vehicles, and 5) due to the shape and topography of the property, the best "use" would be as one parcel. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be reviewed by the City CouncII on August 28, 1990. 11 0 EXHIBIT 'A' (p. 1 of 2) Zuckman Planning Report August 8, 1990 Page Four 1. Prior to this issue being reviewed by the City Council, the applicant shall file a variance application for the above identified variances and submit the appropriate application fee. 2. No building permit for the nev structure on Parcel A shall be issued until the applicant has obtained a demolition permit for the boat house /summer cottage and removed all portions of the old structure except as modified herein. Further, the applicant shall obtain any required building permits and inspections to convert the illegal two - family residence on Parcel B to a single - family structure. Such conversion shall occur prior to the City Clerk's release of the resolution approving the minor subdivision for recording with Hennepin County. 3. The proposed retaining wall utilizing two foundation walls from the boat house /summer cottage shall be permitted if it complies with building code requirements. If required by the Building Official, certification by • a registered structural engineer and details of the fencing along the top of the wall will be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit for the new structure on Parcel A. 4. The applicants survey shall be revised to remove the tuck under garage and driveway along the north side of the property and replace it either with a south facing tuck under ;arage and required retaining walls, an attached garage, or the identification of a detached garage site on the property as required by City Code. 5. The applicant shall submit a grading and erosion control plan for review and approval by the city engineer prior to receipt of any building and /or demolition permits for either Parcels A or B. 6. The applicant shall provide the City of Mound with a performance bond, letter of credit or other acceptable financial guarantee in the amount of $5,000 to guarantee removal of the boat house /summer cottage structure within one year of City Council approval of the minor subdivision. The financial guarantee shall be in a form acceptable to the city attorney. The City Clerk shall not be authorized to release the resolution approving the • minor subdivision for recording with Hennepin County prior to receipt of the financial guarantee. ®IDIT 'A' (p. 2 of 2) I * luckman Planning Report August 8, 1990 Page Five 7. New utility services to Parcel A shall be installed within the identified driveway easement area. Plans for the utility services shall be reviewed and approved by the city engineer and public works department. This requirement will be waived if the applicant can demonstrate that utility services serving Parcel A complying with current city standards presently exists within the proposed easement area. • Pursuant to Section 23.506.2 (5) of the Mound toning Code, the variance approval shall expire one year after the date of City Council approval. • • PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: August 8, 1990 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision with Variances APPLICANT: Melvin Zuckman CASE NUMBER: 90 -926 VHS FILE NUMBER: 90- 310- A24 -LU LOCATION: 5012 Tuxedo Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: Single Family (R -1) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant and this property have a long history of interaction with the City of Mound dating back to 1966. At that time, Mr. Zuckman applied for and received a variance ( Resolution 66 -77) to allow the subject parcel to contain two principal structures. the approved structures included a single- family residence abutting Tuxedo Boulevard and a modernized boat house /suminer cottage on the north end of the site approximately l; feet from the ordinary high water level of Lake Minnetonka. The property contained two lawful, non- ctnfor 1966 until 1978 when a fire severely house /cottage. After the fire, Mr. reconstruction of the building without dewol it ion or bui 1 4 n permits. After work found Building Official, Mr. Zuckman applied building perinit to reconstruct the building. variance were subsequently denied since it was 50% of the structure was damaged by the fire Ming structures fro damaged the boat Zuckman initiated obtaining require] was stopped by the for a variance and The permit and the found that more than (Resolution 79 -213). • On April 24, 1989, the Mound Building Official observed that the Zuckman boat house /summer cottage was again being rebuilt vithout obtaining required building permits. Work was .Irdered sto ed by 3030 Harbor Lane North Bldg, 11, Suite 104 Minns a0olia, MN. 55447 -2175 612/553 so Lockman Planning Report August 8, 1990 Page Two the Building Official an on May 24, 1989, Mr. Zuckman filed for another variance application to allow reconstruction of the dwelling. In a staff report dated June 5, 1990, denial of the request was recommended consistent with the actions taken by the City of Mound in 1979. When the item came before the Mound City Council on June 27, 1989, legal counsel for Mr. Zuckman requested that the item be tabled. No further action on the 1989 variance request occurred. Over the past 10 years, this case has involved both the City Attorney and the City Prosecuting Attorney. In July of 1989, the City filed an amended complaint in District Court seeking removal of the fire damaged structure and removal of a second illegal dwelling unit in the structure located near Tuxedo Boulevard. The second portion of the complaint was based on information received in 1989 that the structure abutting Tuxedo Boulevard had been converted to a two - family residence without rezoning approval or issuance of any buildiny permits. Answers to the City's complaint were served in 989. Since that time, the City's legal staff has been working with Mr. Zuckman and his legal counsel to attempt to settle this issue. If it can not • be , ettled as part of the carrent subdivision /variance request, the City will certify the case as being ready for trial and will proceed with the litigation. CURRENT REQUEST: As per the survey drawing dated 8/6/90 prepared by Cut fin & Gronberg, Inc., Mr. Zuckman is proposing to divide the property into two parcels and construct a new residence on Parcel A. Under the proposal, the existing boat house /summer cottage will be removed with the possible exception of two of the old foundation walls which will be utilized as a retaining wall. Parcel A has a iot area of 11,600 square feet and Parcel B has a total area of 10,015 square feet. Approval of the subdivision as proposed will involve the issuance of three variances. City Code, Section 23.408 (8) states that "no building permit shall be issued for any lot or parcel which does not abut a dedicated public street." Parcel A is connected to tuxedo Boulevard by a 14 foot wide driveway easement end does not contain street frontage. The other two variances involve the existing residence abutting Tuxedo Boulevard. The provisions of the R -1 zone require s 30 foot front yard setback and a 10 foot side yard setback. The structure presently has setbacks of approximately 14.5 feet on the front aria 4.5 feet on the side resulting in respective variances of 15.5 feet and 5.5 feet. . According to the survey, the applicant is proposing to reconstruct the driveway along the eastern property line up to and around the home where a tuck under garage is to be located on the north side Zuc':man Planning Report August 8, 1990 Page Three abutting Lake Minnetonka. The propota d grade of the new driveway is approximately 231 for the firs' 50 feet, then the grade is reduced to 8V until the drive flattens as it approaches the structure. The driveway then drops along the e.st side of the home to the g�rdge urea with an average slope of approximately 20 . The proposed tuck unoer gd ge on the north side of the building is both uno, er,d ur.acLeptable. Section 23.409 of the Mound Zoning Code requires that all access drives hav:: d minimum width of 12 feet in order to accom,-iodate emergency vehicles. Since the proposed side yard setback is 10 feet, obviously a 12 foot wide drive can not be accommodated. Additionally, Section 23.711.1 of the Mound Zoning Code states "All development shall conform to the natural limitations pre by topography and soil as to rreate the best potent for preventing soil erosion." Creating two driveway areTs with slopes at, or exceeding ?Ob is incons':stenL with this provision. The driveway from Tuxedo Bnulev-�rd to the structure is nece!. , ,a.ry since it is the only means to provide access to the sits. It is also generally consistent with the existing driveway. Providing access via a 20% slope driveway along the east and north sides of the propert) is urine :essary in view of the alternatives of either constructing a tuck under garage with a southern entrance or locating an attached or detached garage along the southern end of proposed Parcel A. Access to Parcel A will be via a 14 foot driveway ever Parcel B. The easement - is being propos °d so that the lot area cf Parcel B does not ;crop below the 10,000 squa -e tout minimum rec,uired in the : oning Code for R -1 districts. COMMENT: This case has been active since 1979. Although the City stands ready to pursue the complaint fil,a in :989, both the city attorney and city planner feel thdt the proposeo subdivision is a reasonable wdy to resolve this issue since it finally accomplishes the City of Maund's major objective which is to remove the fire damaged structure. In doing so, it will also remove a situation which h.:S been tolerated by the neighboring properties for more than 10 years. RECOMMENDATI0N. Staff recumi,;end, approval of the m subdivision establishing P:.ce1s A an.i B as per nE survey dated 8/6/90 prepared by Coffin. & Gronberg, Inc. including the following variances- a lot frontage variance for Parcel A, recognition of ;, 15.5 foot front yard setback variance for the structure un Parcel B, and recognition cf a 5.5 foot side yard setback variance for the structure on Parcel B. f I -_ dpprova I is subject to the t,: 11 compliance by the applicdO with the following coodi *.ions: 0 �e�iscj Zuckman Planning Report August 8, 1990 Page Four 1. Prior to this issue being reviewed by the City Council, the applicant shall file a variance application for the above identified variances and submit the appropriate application fee. 2. No building permit for the new structure on Parcel A shall be issued until the applicant has obtained a demolition permit for the boat house /summer cottage and removed all portions of the old structure except as modified herein. Further, the applicant shall obtain any required building permits and inspections to convert the illegal two - family residence on Parcel B to a single- family structure. Such conversion shall occur prior to the City Clerk's release of the resolution approving the minor subdivision for recording with Hennepin County. 3. The proposed retaining wall utilizing two foundation walls from the ooat hour /summer cottage shall be permitted if it complies with building code requirements. If required by the Building Official, certification by . a registered structural engineer and details of the fencing along the top of the wall will be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit for the new structure on Parcel A. 4. The applicants survey shall be revised to remove the tuck under garage and driveway along the north side of the property and replace it either with a south facing tuck under garage and required retaining walls, an attached garage, or the identification of a detached garage site on the property as required by City Code. 5. The applicant shall submit a grading and erosion control plan for review and approval by the city engineer prior to receipt of any building and /or demolition permits for either Parcels A or B. 6. The applicant shall provide the City of Mound with a performance bond, letter of credit or other acceptable financial guarantee in the amount of $5,000 to guarantee removal of the boat house'summer cottage structure within one year of City Council approval of the minor subdivision. The financial guarantee shall be in a form acceptable to the city attorney. The City Clerk shall not be authorized to relPise the resolution approving the minor subdivision for recording with Hennepin County prior to receipt of the financial guarantee. Zuckman Planning Report August 8, 1990 Wage Five /. New utility services to Parcel A shall be installed within the identified driveway easement area. Plans for the utility services shall be reviewed and approved by the city engi and public works department. This requirement wt.l be waived if the applicant can demonstrate %'hat utility services serving Parcel A complying with current city standards presently exists within the proposed easement area. Pursuunt to Section 23.506.2 (5) of the Mound Zoning Code, the variance approval shall expire one year after the date of City Council approval. • • 'ell rr' w� 1 w`w L If•Y • f h••+. t e I ra Pi ^•'rj , 1 , �•–• I �I r K�rh ^/ am •� ' ,� , \ � _ /� �lol •t 1 T ow. i.wul I, 1 ` s I 1 11 � /N• , I i \ ! 4 1 B 1 f I^l•y I �! ( Al hr a WEIVED AUG 6 1990 SURVEY FOR: MELVIN ZUCKMAN 111 114a f�j AS( Illlpl Ir.[t A. ►.11n.rrd 414 S +np Yo IiD ^.. 1 - .1, c' I:, I:.p , F. ;'r t. wn.gle UY.p, nln.r l.0 t.rt ►at of In t A. b o 1,1 4 UM U y Yo I;$.. 1 cl pr,• ..... H I Il1•l, Il.nnrn (•,,.t! n1...... WO I .4.1!:•14 .' lolly. ^4 /11<fl load 11.1 114 III MI1.11! l.(In11M. C—Minj .l tM [eat...1{ [•ralr al 1[1/ lr,(t •. Inan1. en an a11u... M /rinett Y.rtA t /p.rr. IS .le.11l Il lKpndl Yl,l •Ipnq l.. Inl It. al ..10 Ir•<t A, . dl tlantl of IW 00 flat I. lI. pp7nl of 1 of Ill Ilea to M 4.... Iwo, Iloa.t. Sepl. 1 4.;• ... 14 11 1.1114! YW . 1111.141 !f If i! I..t Ir [n! .."lot, I IN of la Ill Ira(' . 11 laid it" ta". t.nl..tla, 1611 ►alt el ir.tl A, 4pl ttrrN 1. S. M 1:14 l,l.t of Al/Itl .l Ill :. a, I.:.1►1. C_'. IM AM I.Ia YdicP 11.1 1.. ur1i4 cl IM fll11.19 NICrI►N It..: C/ at lM lW IAI.It 1. !r[(1 A, to •a an . '.a. "orlat .f M•rlY 1 Ntr.•, IS al.0 1.1 SI 1•<o1 Yrlt •x,0^9 L...alt Ile... ln. talc' A, a /1 1lrnu ar Ipa de f•.t t. t.a rolnt of N91 nn Iw♦ er IM IIe1 {a N ernrlYrl. 14.1. So1,'a 1/ drq.r., it .1 n.11, 07 Ntonh Yen 11111 ant• d i{ H /nl 1. L• wtlola I... of Id 1/ Irr[I A 414 I.I4 IIM t.... t ... 'awN, 111.1.119 •..urrno fl1 dn.r.,, wrpo,rl loll. ,ne a. reu u. elot a od Flat of l.. •b... d""'. prop:.', , .If t r •, r , en d -t C tr . tv i n�. r�i oi.n•4t•,,[ no s .., ... p•e,rrl c, .. .r l�no ..qo, w ar Cr l�e S l °:1 t r r '�'' : ":: 'er, 11 9 1 -If S. Land Sur rr 41:,5 p�Inn!•S lOnq Ill :. Y, nnr Srl. YO, ^r... st.l. I za Pe r•4,tY; e• ... la! , 1.!. .. 4 CITY OF MOUND 2 4 i9% Case No. Zb j 3Z r- .•+- -y - r = Date F i 1 ed T – C IO APPLICATION FOk SUBDIVISION OF LAND • FEES: Minor Subdivision Ma_ior Subdivision: Application SS 0 Preliminary Plat $150 Park Ded. _ Final Plat $100 Other Escrow Deposit :11000 Delinquent Taxes? yes / no Park Dedication Other • � r (P : ease type or print the f o l l o w i n g i nformat t tin .) App 1 i cant's Name if I V1 vC U �VY� cl vN Day Phone r z, - Appi( cant's Address 501 2 L) b Fee Owner (s) _ d ✓� (L. print name mailing address D 4 1 Signature of ee Owner This application must be signed by all the explanation given why this is not the case. Property to be divided: Address /Location " Addition R i l S D U print name mailing address . Signature of Fee Owner OWNERS of the property, or an Lot_ a► C.T Block P1D # �– A Plat U Name of proposed subdivision: Existing Use of Propert - oning District: �i 11 1 Application for Subdivision Page Two Case No. q p -1 Ito an application ever been made for zoning, varianc conditional use ermit, or other zoning procedure for this property? no If yes, list dates) of application, action taken, and provide lution number(s) (Copies of previois resolutions must accompany this application.) 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 ac- curate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Applicant's Signature Date FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: V nning Commission Recommendation Date Council Action: Resolution No. Date r� r7l G3 0 40 0 2i9 May 22, 1979 Councilmember Withhart moved the following resolution, RESOLUTION N0. 79 - 213 RESOLUTION DETERMINING THAT A STRUCTURE LOCATED ON TRACT A, RLS 1150, WAS 50t OR MORE DESTROYED BY FIRE b DENYING AN APPLICATION TO REBUILD b RE- CONSTRUCT A NON - CONFORMING USE WHEREAS, Melvin Zuckman is the owner of property located at 5012 Tuxedo Blvd. in the City of Mound, and WHEREAS, Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes authorizes the City Council with the aid and assistance of the City Planning Commission to carry out muni- cipal planning activities which guide development and improvement of our community, and WHEREAS, the City has adopted a zoning ordinance, Chapter 23 of the City Code, and the intent of said ordinance is to correct pas. errors in plattinq, build- ing and land use wherein much development took place in the City prior to the adoption'of any planning regulations or planning thought and to direct, aid and assist development on an equal basis throughout the community for present and future development, and WHEREAS, the City did provide in the Zoning Ordinance for non - conforming uses to protect existing property values and to meet constitutional requirements protecting the rights of property owners and to prevent the taking of lands or property without the payment of compensation, and WHEREAS, Courts throughout this country have uniformly recognized non - conforming uses as o method of protecting said property rights but Courts and treat- ises on zoning and planning have uniformly agreed that non- conforming uses may be lost for a variety of reasons, including destruction, and WHEREAS, Section 23.20 of the Mound Code of Ordinances relates to and provides re- gulations regarding non - conforming uses and Sec. 23.20, Subd. "g" of the City Code states as follows: "Any building which is partially damaged or destroyed by fire, earthquake, wind, water, or explosion may be restored to its former use, provided that no building which does not conform to the requirements of the use district in which it is located, and which is thus partially damaged or destroyed to the extent of fifty percent (50!) or more, may be rebuilt or reconstructed other than for purposes of conformity. EstifT)ate of the extend of damage or destruction shall be made by the City Council or its appointed agent." and WHEREAS, the property located at 5012 Tuxedo Boulevard and legally described as Teact A, RLS 1150 is owned by Mr. Zuckman and is a non - conforming use for the following reasons: a) Contains two principle structures (houses) on one parcel of land which is zoned Residential A -1 (Single Family); said structu­_s had 3 housing units in a single family district. 0 b) Building A on said parcel is the structure involved in the request and it is further non- conforriinq because of 1) a minor side yard set bark deficiency (1/4 of a font) 220 _ May 22, 1979 2) it is built 13 feet from the lake front and the ordinance requires a 50 foot setback - therefore the owner is requesting a 37 foot i • variance from the lake fr%- setback requirements. c) Building B is the other structure on this parcel and this has two setback violations 1) a deck is built 4.5 feet from the neighboring parcel and the or- dinance requires a ten foot setback 2) the structure is 16.7 feet from the street and the ordinance re- quires 20 feet as a setback, and WHEREAS, Building A was damaged by fire and the property owner failed to obtain any building permits as required by the City and State building codes and began reconstruction of the damaged home; the Building Inspector observed this con- struction and stopped work on the house because the owner had not obtained building permits and the property is a non - conforming use. The applicant has applied for a variance to the non- conforming use section of the ordin- ance, and has asked for variances from the setback requirements and has con- tended that Building A was not damaged by the fire "to the extent of 5V, or more ", and WHEREAS, the City's Planning Commission at its meeting of March 26, 1979, indicated it was very difficult to ascertain the percentage of structural damages caused by the fire because the owner had torn down and replaced portions of the structure before the Building Inspector stopped work; it was therefore im- possible to determine with certainty the before and after values of this structure, and therefore the Planning Commission reeomr•iended that this Council determine the question of damage to the property before considering the owner's request for variances, and WHEREAS, the City directed Lyle Swanson, a Professional Engineer, to examine the structure and to provide his professional opinion regarding darnagc­s, and he did examine the building on March 28, 1979, and stated as follows: "Virtually all of the structural members from the first floor level up were damaged beyond repair. Many of these have been replaced with ne:j members since the fire. There are stress fractures in the sub -level block walls, but these were probably not caused by the fire." A copy of said report is on file in the City Clerk /Treasurer's Office and marked Exhibit A, and WHEREAS, the City then contacted the Hennepin Couity Assessor who acts a, the assessor for the City of Mound, who reported and filed with the Council a report in- dicating that a member of the assessor's staff had inspccterd the premises after the fire and estimated the damage to the structure at 50" of its value; a cc,py of said appraiser's report and finding is on file in the City Clerk/ Treasurer's Office and marked Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, the City retained the servi :es of Home lnspection Consultants, a national firm, to examine this property and said report did riot specifically state the before value of the premises because they had not had an opportunity to examine the premises prior to the fire and were unable to give before and CITY COUNCIL PACKET - 1.1 -27 -94 #2