85-03-19 CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1985
CO.~CIL CHAMBERS
· PUBLIC HEARING: Delinquent Utility Bills for March
PUBLIC HEARING; To ,Conditional Use Permit
consider
to Operate a Major Auto Repair
Business at 1632 Commerce Blvd.
'/CASE ~8~-~10:
Pg.
Pg.
Tim White, 2137 Centerview Lane, Lots
29 & 30, Block 6, Abraham Lincoln Add'n
to Lakeside Park
Request: Setback Variance Pg.
Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present.
Set Date for Year XI Urban Hennepin County CDBG Progrm
for April 9, 1985, at 7:30 P.M. Pg.
Accept Quotations for Bare Root Trees for Spring
Planting - Total 100 Trees - Total Cost $3,460. Pg.
Amend Section 37.37 of the City Code Pg.
Proclamation for VFW Poppy Day Pg.
Payment of Bills Pg.
10. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
744-745
746-758
759-764
765-766
767
768
769
770-778
A. Memo on Employee Right to Know Act of 1983
Pg. 779
Explanation of Governor Perpich's Property Tax
Proposal
Pg.
7 BO-7 96
C. Legion Post #398 Gambling Report for February
Pg. 797
D. Thank You Letter from Kenneth Brooks
Pg. 798
E. MWCC Press Release
Pg. 799-802
F. First Draft of Revised Subdivision Ordinance
Pg. 803-816
G. Met Council Review - March 1, 1985
Pg. 817-818
H. League of Cities Action Alert
Pg.' 819
Page 743
3-15-85
Delinquent water and sewer
22 232 z301 32 Thomas Simon
-22 23~-48~4~6-t~- R.J .Martin
22. 238~. 4856.,*,~4 R.E. Ma rt i n
~ 2Z-4~38~'~4860~' 3~t R.J. Ma rt i n
22 238 5020 31 Elma Jensen
22 244 5019 31 Ronald Hayes
22 259 5901 03 Tom Daniels
22 259 6070 31 Perry Ames
22 268 5909 41 Dick Janke
~2,~_2~_,58~+~) ~ ~ 61 Selmar Olson
22 280 5846 31 G.M.T.Ent.
22 ~280- 5883' 61 Donald Horner
22 286 5915 32 Tim Bell
22 286 5971 61 Gary Schmidt
,22-~ ~rI 6040 9-1~" '~ e r S o 1 s tad
22 292 6023 31 Tim Gleasen
22 295 3185 61 L.D.Clifford
22 295 3186 41 L.D.Clifford
~2-2r~¢~31 Ned Podany
22 310 2676 21 Robert La Bresh
22 310 3148 13 Sonja Schmidt
22 310 3152 35 Jack Katchmarek
22 310 3160 63
22 313 6216 71
22 316 2725 42
22 317 3016 51
22 ~ ~.8~.2~1
22 337 5881 81
D. Blackoviak
Richard Nalnory
D. Hertenstein
Chester Pirk
M. Beinert
Dean Reis
Paid
Paid
Paid
Paid
Paid
$133.67 2301Fairview Ln.
~ 4854 Edgewater Dr.
q41~75 ~ 4856 Edgewater Dr.
98.81 ,4860 Edgewater Dr.
61:62. 5020 Edgewater Dr.
117.55
207.68
124.56
72.46
5019 Rosedale Rd.
5901 Bartlett Blvd.
6070 Bartlett Blvd.
5909 Glenwood Rd.
'86.74 5840 Idlewood Rd.
65.9O
75.26
52.50
5846 Idlewood Rd.
5883 Idlewood Rd.
5915 Hawthorne Rd.
5971 Hawthorne Rd.
Paid ,11~,~_ 6040 Hawthorne Rd.
87.04 6023 Cherrywood Rd.
Paid $61.94~ff 3185 Priest Ln.
;'7~;'00
Paid -2~.~
98.6~
154.23
139.34
Paid $36.63
113.09
Paid $66.59-~
Paid
3185 Priest Ln.
6177 Sinclair Rd.
2676 Westedge Blvd.
3148 Westedge Blvd.
3152 Westedge Blvd.
3160 Westedge Blvd.
6216 Bayridge Rd.
2725 Halstead Ln.
3016 Highview Ln.
~ 2871 Pheasant Circle
152.80 5881 Beachwood Rd,
22 343 2068 31
22 364 2571 21
22 388 5049 51
~ ~ oc~ ~] ,,
22 404 5533 31
42 343 2631 41
11 082 1779 31
Tom Lindner
R. Boerner
R. Hawks
Thomas Helget
Carroll Evans
Jeff Cole
Richard Pugh
Century Auto
Steve Hesse
R Schoenfeld
Paid
Paid $50.00
Paid
Paid $35.66
Paid $20.00
6137 Beachwoo~ R~
2045 Commerce Blvd.
2068 Commerce Blvd
5579 Auditors Rd.
86.63
353.56
431.21
330.03
2571 Lakewood Ln.
5049 Avon Dr.
2524 Emerald Dr.
5533 Commerce Blvd.
2631 Commerce Blvd.
1779 Wildhurst
$5218.31
$3516.86
3-15-85
22 232 2301 32
22 238 4854 61
22 238 4856 11
22 238 4860 31
22 238 5020 31
22 244 5019 31
22 259 5901 03
22 259 6070 31
22 268 5909 41
22 280 5840 61
22 280 5846 31
22 280 5883 61
22 286 5915 32
22 286 5971 61
22 286 6040 91
22 292 6023 31
22 295 3185 61
22 295 3186 41
22 307 6177_;31
22 310 2676 21
22 310 3148 13
22 310 3152 35
22 310- 3160 63
22 313 6216 71
22 316 2725 42
22 317 3016 51
22 318 2871 21
22 337 5881 81
22 337 6137 41
Delinquent water and sewer
$~33.67
258.80
141.75
98.81
61 '62.
117.55
207.68
124.56
72.46
86.74
65.90
126.30
75.26
52.5O
110.62
87.O4
104.03
238.57
98.61
154.23
139.34
61.80
98.44
113.09
174.93
17o. o6
152.80
78.10
22 343 2145 11
22 343 2068 31
22 355 5579 01
22 364 2571 21
22 388 5049 51
22 397 2524 11
22 404 5533 31
43 343 .2631 41
11' 082 1779 31
$ 59.14
170.06
61.74
128.74
86.63
117.94
353.56
431.21
330.03
$5218.31
CASE NO. 85-409
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT TO OPERATE A MAJOR AUTO
REPAIR BUSINESS AT 1632 COMMERCE
BOULEVARD - PID # 13-117-24 22 0016
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, March 19, 1985,
at 7:30 P.M. at the Mound City Hall, 5341Maywood Road, Mound,
Minnesota, the City Council will hold a public hearing
on the application for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a
Major Auto Repair Business at 1632 Commerce Boulevard and on site
legally described as follows:
The north 100 feet of the west 200 feet of Lot 26
subject to road, Lafayette Park, Lake Minnetonka.
PID Number 13-117-24 22 0016
All persons appearing at said hearing will be given an
opportunity to be heard.
Francene C. Clark, City Clerk
CASE NO. 85-409
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
Planning Commission Agenda of February ll, 1985:
Board of Appeals
Case No. 85-409
Location: 1632 Commerce Boulevard
Legal Desc.: Part of Lot 26, Lafayette Park
N. 100 ft. of W. 200 ft. subj.
to road (PID 13-117-24 22 0016)
Request: Conditional Use Permit
Zoning District: B'2
Applicant
Paul Kroening
5190 Lynwood Boulevard
Mound, MN. 55364
The applicant is requesting to operate a major automobile repair business in the
existing 40 by 80 foot steel building at the east side of Commerce Boulevard and
south of the Minnetrista border. The existing storage building had a Conditional
Use Permit under Resolution No~ 79-411. The applicant is proposing to leave the
.parking area with a gravel surface, improve the building, install signage, provide
an 8 by 10 foot storage shed for parts refuse, and install outdoor parking area
lighting. Mr. Widmer, property owner, intends to do some grading and landscaping.
The B-2, General Business 'District, Section 23.630.3, allows Major and Minor Auto
Repair by Conditional Use. The B-2 District requires a setback of 50 feet from
the side or rear, if abutting residential. The use of the property to the north
is a grandfathered auto repair, but Minnetrista has zoned the proPerty Residential.
Comments:
In granting a conditional use permit, we need to consider the effects
of the proposed use upon the health, safety, morals and general welfare
of occupants of surrounding lands.
The present site to the north does not have a positive effect on ad-
joining businesses from the exterior. The City of Mound would like
to see a positive impact to the community even with the limiting effect
the neighboring business has on the area. PDQ and the vacant property
to the south will be effected by the operation at this site.
The applicant has submitted very little in the way of definite plans.
Recommend: The Conditional Use Permit could be granted upon the condition that:
1. Landscape plan be approved by the City Planner.
2. Grading, lighting and utilities plans for the site be approved by
the City Engineer.
3. Required permits be approved, if applicable, from Hennepin County
D.O.T., Watershed District, Minnetrista or other governmental
agency.
4. Submit sign application for approval prior to placing any signage
on the property.
5. Place (5) foot high screening fence or shrubs along the north prop-
erty line adjacent to the residentially zoned property.
6. Provide bumper curbs not less than three (3) feet from property lines
along the head-in parkin? area with grass and/or plantings i'n reouir(
30 foot front setback area.
CASE NO. 85-409
Planning Commission Agenda of February ll, 1985
Case No. 85-409 - Page 2
14.
,15.
7. No parking area within the 30 foot front setback area.
8. No vehicle or boats on the site for a period exceeding 30 days.
9. The permit is to be limited to auto repair to the main engine
and drive trane components; no body rebuilding and/or spray
painting operation without additional Conditional Use Permit
approval.
10. Registered land survey to be submitted with,construction plans.
11. Refuse shall be contained within a dumpster enclosure as per City
Code Section 15.08.
'12. A performance bond in the amount of 115% of the estimated site
improvement costs shall be placed with the City until the work is
completed and approved by the City Planner and City Engineer.
13. The Certificate of Occupancy for the building will not be issued
until the applicant has completed the required construction
improvements to the building.
No outside storage.
Provide 18 parking stalls by 325 square feet or 5,850 square feet
of land area.
Minnetrista and property owners within 350 feet have been notified.
Bertrand
JB/ms
*Parking Requirements:
Retail Sales: 1 space per 150 square feet or 22.3 stalls
Automotive Service Station:' 2 spaces + 4 for each service station stall
(4 stalls + 2 or 16 + 2 : 18 stalls)
CASE NO. 85-409
Handout from City Planner
at meeting 2-25-85
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use
Permit for Paul's Auto and Marine Repair subject to the following:
Grading, lighting and utilities plans for the site be approved by the
City Engineer.
Any grading activities will .require review and approval from the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
3. The applicant shall complete a sign variance application consistent with
- - the si~na~ depclted on the site plan and pay the required fee.
4. No parking area within the 30-foot front setback area.
5. No vehicle or boats on the site for a period exceeding 30 days.
The permit is to be limited to auto repair to the main engine and drive
.train components; no body rebuilding and/or spray painting operations
without additional Conditional Use Permit approval. Additionally, the
building shall not be sub-leased to any other type of business without
amendment of the Conditional Use Permit.
7. Registered land survey to be submitted with construction plans.
Refuse shall be contained within a dumpster enclosure as per City Code,
Section 15.08.
A performance bond in the amount of 115 percent of the estimated site
improvement costs shall be placed with the City until the work is
completed and approved by the City Planner and City Engineer.
10.
The Certificate-of Occupancy for the building will not be issued until
the applicant has completed the re~.uired construction improvements to the
building.
11. No outside storage.
12.
The advertised sale of cars, trucks, boats or other vehicles or equipmen{
on the property is expressly prohibited.
']3. The handicapped parking stall shall be identified with appropriate
--- signal,.
MINUTES OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
February 25, 1985
Present were: Chair Elizabeth Jensen; Commissioners Robert Byrnes, William Meyer~
Geoff Hichael, Thomas Reese, Kenneth Smith, Michael Vargo and Frank Weiland;
Council Representative Steve Smith; City Manager Jon Elam; City Planner Mark
Koegler; Building Official Jan Bertrand and Secretary Marjorie Stutsman.
Also present was Paul Kroening.
MINUTES
The minutes of the .Planning Commission meeting of February 11, 1985 were presented
for consideration. Mr. Easthouse's comment is incomplete and Reese asked that he
be called for his complete comment'and it be included in the minutes. Mr. East-
house advised that Investors' Diversified Services, several years after the 1965
tornado, came~out with a complete rebuilding plan for Navarre. An organization
was formed called "Save the lake" in opposition to the IDS plan and the first of
its meeting was held at Oran Powell's house. Easthouse's comment was that'Powell's
statement was a double-edged sword. Meyer stated he didn't understand Effertz'
comment. Effertz said he'd been refused rezoning of his property when he'd applied
previously. Reese moved and Weiland seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the
February 11, 1985 Planning Commission as corrected The vote was unanimously in
favor.
BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. 85-409
Conditional Use Permit for an Automobile Repair Business at 1632 Commerce Boulevard
N. 100 Ft. of the W. 200 Ft. subject to road, Part of Lot 26, Lafayette Park, Lake
Minnetonka. Paul Kroening was present.
The City Planner Mark Koegler.explained that Mr. Kroening was back with a site
.plan; it is similar to. before, but a little more formalized. It has the entrance
coming off of .Commerce, shows 19 parking stalls plus 1 handicapped stall; the
entrance into the building; a new 8 by 10 foot storage building in back and
some landscaping treatment is provided in front of the building and bumper curbs
(concrete barriers) along the lot line 3 feet in. The staff is recommending in-
corporating the original conditions and supplementing with Items 3, 6, 12 and 13
of his handout.
Reese asked about restricting the total number of vehicles to the total number of
parking stalls. Koegler stated the Commission might w'ant to make that a condition
also. Discussed this, signage and Items 9 and 12 briefly. Signage meets sign draft.
Weiland moved and Reese seconded a. motion to accept the staff's recommendation
as amended.'
The City Manager questioned how Widmer would get.to the rest of his property? and
if he'd need to put in a whole new driveway. Kroening thought theycould take away
1 or 2 parking spaces and extend drive. Kroenin9 stated his work takes.-from 2 to
5 days and then vehicle would be picked up; all work is done by appointment. He
has two employees and there will be 4 bays; they get the work out. He has a lease
with option to buy the building.
The vote on the motion is unanimously in favor.
The City Council will be asked to set the public hearing for March 26th. Note:
The Council will be meeting on March 12 and March 19; so public hearing has been
set for MarCh 19th.
CITY OF HOUND Fee Paid
-Date Filed /
APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMH'ISSION
(Please type the following information)
i. Street Address of Property //~ ~ 2
2. Legal Description of Property: Lot
Addition~~
·
Owner's Name
Address... ~
Applicant (if other ~han owner)=
~'L L/D
Block
Day Phone No. ~Z ?/ ~; ~4-.~'_~
Day Phone No. Z/~7,~- _~_-~
e
Address _~1 ~
Type of Request:
(' ) Variance (~) Conditional Use Permit
(~ Zoning Interpretation & Review
( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D.
( ) Sign Permit
( )*Other
*If other, specify:
Present Zoning District
Existing Use(s) of ProPerty
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use' permit or
other zoning procedure fo.r this property? V'Z-"~' If so, list date_(s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken and~prov-ide Resolution No.(s)
Collies of previ°[JS resolutmons snall accompany present request.
I certify 'that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required
papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true.and accurate. I consent to the entry in
or upon the premises described In this appllcatlon by any authorized officia! of the City
of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such
nOtices.as may be requir~~aw.~
Signature of Applican ~_____-<',',',',',~'~< Date !
Planning Commission Recommendation: Accept the staff's recommendations including the
supplemental items 3, 6, 12 & 13 of Koegler's handout.
Council Action:
Date 2-25-85
Resolution No.
?~"/ Date
Procedure. for Conditional Use Permi~ (2)
D.
E.
F.
Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
Indicate North compass direction.
Any additional information as may reasonably be. required by the Ci~y Staff"
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
III Request for a Conditional Use
A. All information requested below, a site plan as described in Part Il, and
a development schedule providing reasonable guarantees for the completion
of the construction must be provided before a hearing will be sCheduled.
B. Type of development for which a Conditional Use Permit is requested:
I. Conditional Use (Specify):
2. Current Zoning and Designation in the future Land Use Plan for Mound
IV. Effects of the Proposed Use
Development Schedule:
I. A development schedule shall be attached to this application providing
reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development.
2. Estimate of cost of the project: $ ?. ~'~P~ ~
Density (for residential developments only):
1. Number of structures:
2. Dwelling Units P~r Structure:
a. Number of type:
Efficiency 1 Bedroom
2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom
3. Lot area per dwelling unit:
4. Total lot area:
List impacts the proposed use will have on property in the vicinity, in-
cluding, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking,
and, describe the steps t~ken' to mitigate or eliminate the impacts.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 85-409
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR PAUL'S AUTO AND MARINE REPAIR AT 1632
COMMERCE BOULEVARD, PID~13-117-24-22 0016
WHEREAS, the City Council on March 26, 1985, held a Public Hearing
pursuant to Section 23.505 of the Mound Code of Ordinances, to consider the
issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for PID 13-117-24 22 0016, described as
the North 100 feet of the West 200 feet of Lot 26 subject to road, Lafayette
Park, Lake, Minnetonka, to operate a major auto and marine repair, to be known
as Paul's Auto and Marine Repair; and
WHEREAS, all persons wishing to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, the site consists of 19,300 square feet of land in the B-2
zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the B-2 zoning district provision found in Section 23.63n.5
require 20,000 square feet of total area for major and minor auto repair; front,
side and rear yard setbacks of 30 feet and side and rear yards of 50 feet when
abutting residential; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does
recommend approval upon staff recommendations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota does approve the conditional use permit and recognizes the
existing building setback variance to the north residential zone with a lot
area of 19,300 square feet for Paul's Auto and Marine Repair at 1632 Commerce
Boulevard, PID # 13-117-24 22 0016 and shown on Exhibit "A" made part of the
approval and upon the following conditions:
1. Grading, lighting and utilities plans for the site be approved by the City
Engineer.
Any grading activities will require review and approval from the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District.
The applicant shall complete a sign var]j~(nce application consistent with
the signage depicted on the site plan ~nd pay the required fee.
No parking area within the 30 foot front setback area.
No vehicle or boats on the site for a period exceeding 30 days.
J
The permit is to be limited to auto repair to the main engine and drive
train components; no body rebuilding and/or spray painting operations
without additional conditional use permit approval. Additionally, the
building shall not be sub-leased to any other type of business without
amendment of the Conditional Use Permit.
7. Registered land survey to be submitted with construction plans.
8. Refuse shall be contained within a dumpster enclosure as per City Code,
Section 15.08.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 85-409
Page 2
10.
A performance bond in the amount of ll5 percent of the estimated site
improvement costs shall be placed with the City until the work is completed
and approved by the City Planner and City Engineer.
The Certificate of Occupancy for the building will not be issued until the
applicant has completed the required construction improvements to the
building.
ll. No outside storage.
12. The advertised sale of cars, trucks, boats or other vehicles or equipment
on the property is expressly prohibited.
13.
14.
15.
The handicapped parking stall shall be identified with appropriate signage.
Parked vehicles on the site not exceed the total parkin9 stalls as shown on
the site plan as Exhibit "A".
Escrow fund of $250 minimum be established to cover legal and engineering fees
per Section 23.505.3(ll)of the Zoning Code.
Conditional use permit is subject to. annua! review under provisions of Section
23.505.3(8) of the Zoning Code.
/
/
-i
~ E OF APPLICA~T p~ ~
'APPLICATION .FOR SIGN PERMIT
CITY OF MOUND
/cfi ~'~'N /~/ ~;
ADDRESS
Street Number
' ' City Zip
SIGN LOCATION
LOT
PLAT
WALL AREA
EXISTING SIGNAGE
PLEASE DESCRIBE REQUEST
AND REASON FOR REQUEST
BLOCK ADDITION ~ ~.~ ~/(
BY" ~ .... FT. = TOTAL %~0 ' ZONING ~
~l~ ~NUHBER OF SlSNS 'j
'S~. FOOTASE OF SI~S
~ I
..~" ~. _ ~_ ~ ~ ~.. ~' x ~ 2 ~~ ..
HEIGHT OF SIGN
SIGN SIZE
BEING REQUESTED
~YPE OF SIGN:
WALL MOUNT '~<
R GTH OF TIME SIGN TO BE ERECTED:
MANENT ~ ....
TEMPORARY
(Temporary sign not to be for period
in excess of two months)
PYLON
FREE STANDING
PORTABLE
OTHER
Does it conform to al~ setback and other requirements relating to the Zoning Ordinance?
Is sign for a community organization and does it meet all,, the standards(Ord. 440)?
If additional information is attached, please submit 8½" X 11" maximum sized drawings..
Recommenda t i on:
Approved:
City Manager
168
CASE NO. 85-410
CITY OF MOOND
Mound, Minnesota
Planning Commission Agenda of February 1I, 1985:
Board of Appeals
Case No. 85-410
Location: 2137 Centerview Lane
Legal Desc.: Lots 29 & 30, Biock 6,
Abraham Lincoin Addn. to Lakeside
Park
Request: Setback Variance
Zoning District: R-2
Applicant
Tim White
2137 Centerview Lane
Mound, MN. 55364
Phone: 934-6640
The applicant is requesting approval for a deck to be constructed. O foot to an
accessory building and ii to 17 feet from the alley right-of-way. The deck con-
struction plans wiil be modified from what is presently on the site such as garage'
'door is to be removed, windows/doors are to be removed, additional treated beams
and supports, etc. The applicant is proposing to construct the deck 8 to 9 feet
from the ground.with solid roof covering of EPDM rubber membrane; no guardrails or
access to the deck area has been shown on the applicant's pians.
The Zoning Code Section 23.302 requires the principal structure t° be 5 feet or
more from an accessory structure or the accessory building is considered part of
the princlpal building. The setback of the existing shed is 2½ feet to the west
property llne. The Zoning Code Section 23.408(5) requires front yard setbacks.of
20 feet minimum to each street.
Comments and recommendation:
The Zoning Ordinance does not define a setback to an alley or secondary
access. The appjlcant, at the time of my inspection, was using the struc-
ture as a garage. If the applicant wants to restrict the use only to a
deck and is willing to modify his structure:'
Staff would recommend that the 9 foot aJiey variance be granted condi-
tloned upon submitting a registered land survey or locating the Jot
corner monuments, the use of the structure be llmited to an above ground
deck, and the structure may be placed 5 feet setback from the existing
accessory shed.
The abutting neighbors have bee~ notified.
JB/ms
CITY OF HOUND
APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMHISSION
(Please type the following information)
Fee Pald ~'-5'O. ~ o
Date Filed .2 -G o.~,~--
I. reet Address of Property t~iSr
2. Legal Description of Property: Lot
' I
Addition . ~ L~.
~. Applican~ (if other ~han o~ner)
Name
Block ~c)
Day Phone No.
Address -"
Type of Request: (~) Variance ( ) Condltional Use Permit ( )'Amendment
' ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Sign Permit
( )'Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( )*Other
*If other, specify:
6 ..sent Zoning District /~ ~i5~''
7. Existing Use(s) of Property .~+ Y)Yr~)¼ .
8. Has an application ever een m.a e or zoning, ,var ance or conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for th~s property? VJ~t,~ If so, list date(s) of
list date(s) of application, ~ction taken and provide Resolution No.(s)
Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request.
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required
papers or'plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in
or upon the premises described in this a~ation, by any authorized official of the City
of Mound for the purpose of inspecti~g / or Ot~ posting, maintaining and removing such'
nOtices as may be required by law.~...-~¥..'~.~ ~'
Signature of Appl'icant ~ ~X~,__~ .... Date~
Planni6. Case No. 85-410 Setback Variance - 2137 Centerview Lane
Lots 29 & 30, Block 6, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park
Applicant was not present.
The applicant's request was to construct a deck 0 feet to an accessory building,
and II to 17 feet from the alley right-of-way. The deck is proposed to be 8 to~---
9 feet above the ground. At the time of.the Building Official's inspection,
4/82
.C
the structure was being used as a garage; no guardrails, or access to the deck ~--
was shown on applicant's plan. The Commission discussed request briefly;
several members had been o'ut to the site. ' .
' F--
Byrnes moved and Wei)and seconded a motion to deny the request. 'The vote
was all in favor of the denial except Kenneth ~mith abs.tained.
Request for Zoni.ng Variance P~ocedure '(2) Case # ~--~-~0
D. Location of: Signs, easements~ underground utilities, etc.
E. Indicate North compass direction
F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
III. Request for a Zonin~ Variance
A. All information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general
application must be provided before a bearing'will be scheduled.
B. Does the present use of. the property conform to all use regulations for
the zone district in which it ls located? Yes ()<~') No ( )
If "no", specify each n~n-conforming use:
Do the existing structures comply with all area helgh~ and bulk regulatlons
for the zone district in which it is located? Yes ~Z~) No ( )
If "no", specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its
reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) .Too narrow ( ) 'Topography ( ) Soil
( ) Too. small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface
( ) Too shallow (;~) Shape ( ) Other: Specify:
Ee
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 (~) If yes, explain:
F. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (~.) If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for whl.ch you request a variance peculiar
only to the property described in this petition? Yes (Y~) No ( )
If no, how many other properties are slmilarly af[ected?
H. What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations
that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using
maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional
sheets, if necessary.) ~ (/q,~ ~~
, bI. ! - ,
I. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the
same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
LEC~L
SITE AREA ~q. Ft. AREA OF SITE OCCUPIED BY BUILDINR$
INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT
This form need not be used~hen plot plans drawn to scale of not less than
1'-20' are filed with permit application. (Each building site must have a
separate plot plan.)
For new buildings provide the following information: Elevation of existing
& adjoining yard grades, location of proposed consturctton and existing improve-
cents; show building, site, and setback dimensions. Show easements, finish ..
contours or drainage, first floor elevation, street elevation and sewer
service elevation. Show location of water, sewer, gas and electrical .service
lines. Show location of survey pins with elevations. Specify the use of
each buildng and major portion thereof. To be completed by a registered
land surveyor.
#103
12/83
INDICATE NORTH IN CIRCLE GRAPH SQUARES ARE 5' X 5' OR I"=20'
I/We certify that the proposed construclion will conform 1o the. dimensions and uses,~hown above and that no changes will be made without
{ir~ obtaining approval. ,_ . ~1 ~- , ' /1 , ' ' ' '
o · .' ..... ·
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 85-410
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE REQUEST
FOR LOTS 29 & 30, BLOCK 6, A. LINCOLN ADDN.
2137 CENTERVIEW LANE
WHEREAS, Tim White, the owner of property described as Lots 29 and
30, Block 6, Abraham Lincoln Addition PID#13-117-24-31 0046, (2137 Centerview
Lane), has applied for setback variance to the north street front at
Pike Road and recognize the existing setback to Centerview Lane in order
to construct a deck eight feet above the ground with a privacy 6 foot
fence (stockade) underneath the deck to enclose personal belongings; and
WHEREAS, Exhibit A has also been submitted to indicate
the requested setbacks with modification of request to construct the
deck 5 feet setback from the existing storage shed; and
WHEREAS, the City Code requires a 20 foot setback to property
lines on corner lots in the R-2 zoning district under section 23.408 (5); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and
does recommend denial.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Mound does hereby approve a 3 foot to 9 foot variance to the
north property line to construct a 12 ft. by 17 ft. by 8 ft. deck with
a stockade 6 foot privacy fence underneath and in line with the deck
above due to the shape of the lot and making Exhibit A part of the
approval under the condition that the survey monuments be located or
a registered land survey be submitted.
· 3. ~'-I t'VC)3O i,,
CITY OF MOUND
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
YEAR Xl (1985) URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM
Notice is hereby given that Hennepin County and the City of Mound, pursuant
to Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act o~ 1974, as amended,
are sponsoring a public hearing on April 9, 1985, at 7:30 P.M., in the
Council Chambers, at 5341Maywood Road to obtain the views of citizens on
local and Urban County housing and community development needs and to provide
citizens with the opportunity to comment on the Urban Hennepin County State-
ment of Objectives/1985 and the City of Mound's proposed us of its Year XI
Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant planning allocation
of $76,581.O0.
The City of Mound is proposing to fund the following activities with Year XI
Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds starting July 1, 1985.
Downtown Improvement Financing
Rehab of Private Property
Economic Development Financing
Downtown Commercial Rehab Design
Commercial Fix-Up/Paint-Up
Tonka Building Incubator Design
20,000
20,000
25,000
2,500.
1,OOO
8,O81
76,581'
For additional information on proposed activities, level of funding and
program objectives, contact the City of Mound, 5341Maywood Road, Mound,
MN. 55364, 472-1155.
The public hearing is being held in accord with the Urban Hennepin County
Joint Cooperation Agreement pursuant to M.S., 471.59.
Francene C. Clark, City Clerk
Publish in The Laker March 25', 1985
0
0
X
X
I
X
I
0 O~
CD ~, 0'~ CD 0
~.l CD
-~
0
X
0
0
0
X
0 0 CD
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
DATE: March 7, 1985
TO: Jon Elam
FROM: Chris Bollis
Below are the quotes from Swenson Nursery and Ot~n Brobhers Nursery
for Bare root trees fon spring planting
SWENSON NURSERY
ST. BONI - 446-1255
Curt
1½ Diameter Silver Maple $ 22.00 ea.
" Norway Maple 32.00
" Sugar Maple 41.O0
" Hackberry 42.00
" Marshall Seedless Ash 36.00
20 trees each variety=
$3,460.00
OTTEN'BOTHERS NURSERY
LONG LAKE - 473-1960
M~rk
1½ Diameter Silver $ 23.OO~ea.
" Norway 32.50/
" Sugar 43.50/
Hackberry 44.00/
Marshall Ash 37.50/
20 trees each variety =
$3,610.O0
We can get them later in April but the order should be confirmed.
before that.
March 15, 1985
CITY of MOUND
534t MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY CLERK
We have a person who has expressed interest in applying for a Peddler's
License to be a Good Humor ice cream man, going thru various neighbor-
hoods in the Summer.
The problem is the 'lringing of a bell" Section 37.37 of the City Code
reads as follows: I'Practices Prohibited. No person, licensed under this
ordinance, shall call attention to his business, or to his merchandise,
by crying out, by blowing a horn, by ringing a bell, or by any loud or
unusual noise."
If the Council wishes, we could delete "by ringing a bell".
fc
A PROCLAMATION
WHEREAS: The annual sale of Buddy Poppies by the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United
States has been officially recognized and endorsed by governmental leaders since 1922; and
WHEREAS: V F W Buddy Poppies are assembled by disabled veterans, and the proceeds of
this worthy fund-raising campaign are used exclusivel~ for the benefit of disabled and needy veterans,
and the widows and orphans of deceased veterans, and
WHEREAS: The basic purpose of the annual sale of Buddy Poppies by the Veterans of Foreign
Wars is eloquently reflected in the desire to "Honor the Dead by Helping the Living"; therefore
I, , Mayor of the city of
do hereby urge the citizens of this community to
recognize the merits of this cause by contributing generously to its support through the purchase of
Buddy Poppies on the day set aside for the distribution of these symbols of appreciation for the
sacrifices of our honored dead.
I urge all patriotic citizens to wear a Buddy Poppy as mute evidence of our gratitude to the men
of this country who have risked thier lives in defense of the freedoms which we continue tO enjoy
as American citizens.
Signed
Mayor
Attested
City Clerk
BILLS MARCH 19,'1.985
Computer run dated 3/13/85
Computer run dated 3/14/85
page 2
page 6
Holly Bostrom--cleaning services
Jon Elam meeting expenses
Len Harrell Govt Conf expenses
Wm Hudson meeting expenses
Govt Training Service---Registration fee
NW Bell Tele Siren and computer line charge-March
Total Bills
41,418.O1
56,734.55
78 .O0
25.44
5.00
6.97
75.0O
27O.O5
98,613.O2
0 rq
"7
ILl
! I
?
o;
I
ti:
'~ C C~C'
U
r~
x
X
)-
II11111
v
,,_)
!
u.u.u-
¸UU
121:
,.J
0
W L~
-J
g
77F
A. TNOMA$ WURST, P.A.
CURTIS ,~. PEARSON, P.,~.
,.JOSrpH E~o HAMILTON, ~ A.
THONA5 ~, UNDERWOOD,
LAW OFFICES
WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, I_ARSON & LJND£RWOOD
I100 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST
Iv'IINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5540~'
March 8, 1985
Mr. Jon Elam, City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, M2~ 55364
Re: Minnesota Employee Right to Know Act of 1983
Dear Jon:
I recently received a letter from Health EduTech indicat-
ing that the Minnesota Legislature passed a Minnesota Employee
Right to Know 'law which requires all employers to train their
people about the dangers of hazardous substances. I .am enclos-
ing a copy of that letter dated January 29, 1985.
This concerned me because I did not know of this law and I
contacted the. Minnesota Department of.Labor and Industry and
obtained certain information. You may have this information and
I am not aware of it but I am sending you a copy of the basic
document outlining what the law requires. I am also enclosing a
copy of the regulations promulgated by the Department of Labor
and Industry.
If something is not already being done, I think you will
want to converse with your department heads, particularly ~the
street department, park department and any other department
that works with chemicals. You have the responsibility to advise
these people about the chemicals they are ~orking with and the
various hazards that apply.
If I can be of further help give me a call.
Very truly yours,
CAP/ej
Enclosures
???
CITY of
MOUND
5341 MAYV,;OOD ROAD
;,/,OUr',iD, Mif",'NESOTA 55364
(612) 472~'1,155
March 11, 1985
TO: ,CITY.COUNCIL
FROM: CItY MANAGER
Enclosed is a more detailed plan for Governor Perpich's proposed reorganization
of property taxes. In summary, what it does is significantly increase State
assistance to public schools. In order to do that, it eliminates a number
of State assisted credit programs of which, within Mound,. the Homestead Credit
is the most well-known and used.
The next part of 'this is that the total tax bill will not change, but the
ratio of who gets the tax dollar will, i.e. the School District presently
levies about 48% of the property tax bill and the City 17%. Under'this
proposal, the school will do down.to about 20% and the City and County (minus
Homestead Credit) will go up to make up the difference.
As you read it over, you will probably find it hard to follow and understand.
The whole system of State Governmental Assistance is very complex. This
revision does not seem to simplify it.
The arguement for all of this is that it will increase Local Government
Accountability. Iguess because, in Mound's case, the property tax ends
up only covering about 47% of the City Budget, they feel that by increasing
that percentage it will bring on greater budgetary pressure and thus 'keep
taxes down.
In the nine years or so that I have been doing City!Budgets, I have never
heard a City Council argue to increase the Budget because the State will be
paying more. Generally, expenses are critiqued first and revenue second.
The budget plan's weakness is its complexity.
· may well fly.
If it can get over that,
JE:fc
John Haynes-296-5900
Fin. Dept. 309 Admin
215/85
PERPICH PLAN FOR THE REORGANIZATION OF PROPERTY TAXES
In the period since 1967, Governors and Legislatures have made
large numbers of changes in local aid and property tax law.
These changes have produced major improvements in Minnesota's
state and local fiscal system: property taxes have been lowered
and their regressive impact reduced, school financing has been
placed on a more equitable basis, and local governments are less
dependent on property taxes. However, these changes have also
produced a system which is larger ~omDl x and ill-unde t~od.
It has also become clear tha~he=~rr~nt~r~~m-s~s
serious problems. The ~hief problem is in ~ccount~bility. .But
the system is also ~.-~ t~-instabil~ty.an~ prese~t~%-h-~ Stat~
with budgetary difficulties due to the difficulty of accurately
pr~-6~i~ing' Custs. '--
ACCOUNTABILITY
The current state and local fiscal system places the state in a
difficult position.. .L°cal ov~~overnments spend between 70% and 75%
~ al! public 'funds in the state, but local taxes raise only 2~%
to- 30% o-~-'~ pub----~i6' ~ax~s (~e~ p-~ 3). This large gap between who
spends money and who raises it means that those who spend have
few pressures to hold down spending. Further, it has become
clear that severa~ state programs designed to reduce .local
property taxes unintentionally encourage property tax increases.
The present formulae determining homestead credit for homeowners
and agricultural school credit for farmers has the unintended
results of providing an incentive for local propert__~_~, ax
~ncrea_~_~. -These credi~s PreSently are designed so t~at maximum
state aid to a local jurisdiction is achieved when property taxes
are increased to a very high level. If a ~ocal jurisdiction
should decrease local taxes, the current formulae for these
credits reduces state aid, thus providing a disincent'ive for
property tax cuts.
The evidence that homestead credit, which is intended to lower
property taxes, actually stimulates tax increases is strong.
When property taxes rose in the middle 1960's, Minnesota state
government responded in 1967 by creating the homestead credit.
And, indeed, property taxes fell in 1968. But, in 1969 property
taxes began to rise, increasing on homes and farms by 74% in
three years. By 1971 most homeowners and farmers were paying
h~gher taxes than before the creation of homestead credit.
In 1971, Governor Anderson proposed and the Legislature adopted a
major change in state aids and property tax relief programs,
known collectively as the "Minnesota Miracle." Due to suspicions
that homestead credit had inadvertently stimulated tax increases,
the program adopted in 1971 deemphasized homestead credit as the
primary vehicle of delivering property tax relief. Instead,
state government directed greatly increased aid into local
schools, lowered and partially equalized school property taxes
and placed strict limits on school property levies. Aid to
cities and counties was also increased and levy 'limits placed on
these units of government as well.
In 1974, a state Tax Study Commission (chaired by Alec Olson)
criticized the homestead credit program for several failings,
including encouraging property tax increases and urged its
replacement by a "circuit breaker" system. In 1975, Governor
Anderson agreed and recommended abolishing the entire homestead
credit program and replacing it with a broad "circuit breaker"
system which, it was hoped, would avoid the homestead credit
program's unintended tendency to increase property taxes. The
Legislature, however, rejected the recommendation, increased the
homestead, credit program, and added a circuit breaker system as
an addition to the homestead credit program rather than as a
replacement.
In 1979, the Legislature enacted major increases in the homestead
program. The credit had been figured as a state refund of 45% of
the tax up to a maximum of $325. However, this was drastically
~ncreased to 50% with a $550 maximum for 1980 and to 58% up to a
maximum of $6.50 in 1981. (The 58% figure was trimmed to 54% in
1984.) The large increase in homestead credit enacted in 1979
lowered taxes on homes for two years. But property tax increases
in 1982 an hereafter wiped out the reductions.
In 1983 an extensive study of property tax relief programs by the
Legislative Auditor noted that although the homestead credit
program was designed to hold down property taxes, the program
"can work to encourage a higher local property tax levy than
would otherwise be approved." Due to this flaw and others, the
Auditor's study urged that the homestead credit program be
redesigned or replaced.
More recently, a statistical study of Minnesota proper{y tax
relief programs led the Minnesota Tax Study Commission (Latimer
Commission) to state that "results indicate that property tax
credits paid to cities (homestead, wetlands, native prairie, .and
taconite credits) and local government aids, on average, tend to
stimulate additional local own-source spending, i.e. own-source
spending is higher than would nave Deen expected it there were no
intergovernmental aid programs. The results also suggest that
credits, on average, are more stimulative than local government
aid payments. Various alternative specifica~tions of the model
produce results consistent with these findings and confirm the
~ importance of the stimulative impact of credits vis-a-
v'is lump-sum local government aids." (Final Report of the
Minnesota Tax Study Commission (1985), ch. 15). The Commission
recommended replacing homestead credit and agricultural credit
with different methods of delivering state aid.
-3-
Property Tax Instability
The current Minnesota property tax system has not been stable.
The combination of local~spendin~ increases, rapid chanses.~in
taxable values, and f~_e~uent state intervention in Property.~t. ax
_oduced a markka "zi9---.=9" pa~ern in property taxes
on~6es and ~-~rms.-(~ p. 5).
There has been little relationship between taxes on homes and
farms and inflation. In 1977 property taxes on homes and farms
rose +20% when inflation was only at +7%. In 1980,. inflation hit
+14% but Minnesota property taxes actually declined -4%. In 1981
prices in general rose another +10% but Minnesota property taxes
dropped another -2%. But then in' 1982 inflation had slowed to
+7% and Minnesota property taxes on homes and farms exploded by
+30%.
One of the sources of year-to-year instability has been the
school aid formula. This formula sets a fixed mill rate for
basic school taxes, a provision which would appear to be a source
of stability. However, the basic millageo (currently as 23.5
mills) is a Source of instability because it is applied to a
~ighly volatile tax base (equalized property values or EARC
values). As shown on page 6, EARC values are not stable and have
caused major year-to-year swings in local taxes.
!
09'f:-
-0
~9'l
-9
-9I
-81
986I -
Y~D~HO& QIY ~OOHDS
8L6I SHY~X ~YDSI&
S,~Y~S ~H~ HO QHSD
('D'H'Y'a)
The. Reorganization Plan
The property tax reorganization plan redirects the bulk of state
property tax relief funds into the scho~ and
'eliminates the tendency of the curre~{ homestead credit and
agricultural credit to stimulate tax increases by making these
credits neutral toward local tax changes. The value of these two
credits to homeowners and farmers is retained.
As a matter of design, the reorganization plan does not
significantly shift tax burdens between geographic areas or
between classes of property. The plan spends the same amount of
funds as the current programs. The plan does not in the short
run significantly change property taxes. What it does do is to:
--increase 'local accountability for property tax changes,
--change the mechanism by which state funds reach local
areas and local taxpayers so that the state's primary
responsibility is confined to basic educational costs,
--eliminate incentives for property tax increases,
--eliminate several sources of instability in property taxes.
Over the long run, the reorsanized system should give progerty
pwners a more. satis~-~-~ry pr6perty tax system th~n-the current
system.
How It Works
STEP 1. (STATE FUNDING OF BASIC EDUCATIONAL COSTS) The state
will pay 100% of the costs of'the basic foundation formula for
education. Governor Perpich has recommended that the basic
foundation amount for the school year 1986-87 be set as $165_6_~r
. Under our current formula, state aid to a district
655 times the number of pupil units m~L~ what a local
levy of 23.____5 equalized mills raises in property taxes. Under the
new formula, state aid will be $1655 times the number of pupil
units in a district. The cost of this provision is approximately
$717 million. (These steps are presented in summary on p. 12)
Current school aid provisions for the categorical aids'for
special education, vocational education, transportation, and the
discretionary "tiers" remain basically unchanged. The authority
of districts for referendum levies, bond issues, and capital
outlay levies will not be changed.
Due to total state funding of the foundation figure and to the
abolition of the required 23.5 mill levy, all school districts
w'ill be "on the formula." Under current law, 50 to 60 districts
raise more than the foundation figure from the 23.5 mill levy and
receive no foundation aid.
Further, the end of the 23.5 mill levy will end the necessity
that the state adopt a foundation expenditure figure for 1987-
1988 duri'ng the 1986 legislative session, and thus lock in a
major share of the state's budget for the biennium 1988-89 before
that budget is considered in total. Adopting the foundation
figure a year early is currently required because the local levy
must be set in the fall of 1986 for the. year 1987. (The $1E§5
pupil unit foundation figure for the school year 1985-1986, which
was adopted by the 1984 Legislature, effectively locked in
educational expenditure levels for the first year of the budget
which Governor Perpich is.only now submitting and the Legislature
considering.)
STEP 2. (STATE BUDGET BALANCE) The funds to finance the total
state assumption of the foundation formula are not new state
dollars; rather, funds are redir6cted from other state property
tax relief programs. Approximately $654 million is made
available from homestead credit, agricultural school credit,
native prairie credit, power line credit, supplemental taconite
credit (but not the regular taconite credit) and wetlands credit.
(These credits are not abolished, but they are merged and their
funding is changed. See STEP 4 below)
The differenc~ between the costs of full assumption of the the
foundation formula (+$717 million) and the restructured aids (-
$654 million) is taken from the $660 million available in state
categorical education aids to school districts (transportation
aid, social security and Teacher Retirement Association aid,
special education aid, and foundation "tiers" aid).
STEP 3. (GEOGRAPHIC BALANCE) In every district the amounts of
funds gained by the district by the state assumption of the
foundation formula differs (more or less) from the state funds
received in that district from the old homestead credit and
agricultural credit. This difference must be balanced or some
areas will gain state aids and some areas will lose state aids
compared to the old arrangements. ·
As with STEP 2, this balance is achieved through the categorical
state aids. For example, using estimated 1986 figures for
illustration, in Duluth state assumption of the full foundation
formula will provide the school distr, ict with' an additional $9.4
million in aid (and eliminate the 23.5 equalized mill levy of the
same amount). However, ..Duluth will lose $12.3 million in
homestead credit funds under the new homestead credit formula.
The $2.9 million difference between the two figures will be
eliminated by providing Duluth with $2.9 million in additional
categorical school aids to be used to reduce the transportation
levy, discretionary "tiered" levy. Thus, the total amount of
state funds flowing into Duluth remains unchanged under the new
system when compared to the old. There is no cha~ge in the total
net property levy applied to property owners. (see p. 13)
8
In a second illustration, using estimated 1986 figures,
Minneapoli~ would gain $68.3 million in additional foundation aid
from the state takeover of the 23.5 equalized mill levy. It
would lose $48.3 million under the new homestead credit system.
In this case balance is restored by reducing categorical school
aids.by $20 million. The school district will levy for the
· reduced categorical aids. Once more, the total state funds
flowing into Minneapolis are the same under the new plan as under
the old and total net property taxes are unchanged. (see p. 14)
In almost all areas of the state, the balancing required in STEPS
2 and 3 will be done entirely within school funds. Consequently,
there will be, after all balancing, a net increase in school aids
of $654 million. In a few rare cases, the balancing amount
required to be added to school categorical aids may exceed the
categorical levies or the balancing amount required to' be
subtracted from school categorical aids may exceed the aids due
the district. In those cases, any remaining balancing will be
done by adding to or subtracting from Local Government Aid to
city and town governments.
STEP 4. (BALANCE HOMES AND FARMS) Homestead credit, agricultural
school credit, native prairie credit, power line credit,
supplemental taconite credit (but not the regular taconite
credit) and wetlands credit are merged and restructured into two
new credits; a new homestead credit and a new agricultural
credit. These new credits have the same value to homeowners and
farms as the old credits, but the formulae to determine the
credits work through the mill rate system and constitutes a form
of property classification rather than through the state aid
system. These new credits are computed as mill rate
differentials and resemble the school agricultural mill rate
differential which was the predecessor program to the current
agricultural school credit.
In one sense, the new credits can be said to be financed locally
rather than through state aid because the classification system
works by shifting tax burdens within a local taxing area.
However, in another sense, the state can be said to continue to
indirectly fund these credits because, remembering STEP 3 above,
the state is continuing to deliver to the local area the same
amount of state funds. Thus, net property taxes are unchanged
and the new locally financed credits do not increase the taxes of
other classes of property.
The existing homestead credit is 54% of the tax on the first
$67,000 of market value of a homestead, but not more than $650.
The new credit will be determined as follows:
County auditors will receive from the state a "homestead credit
determination amount." This will be the amount of the old
homestead credit received in a local taxing area, plus an
inflationary increase, plus an increase to reflect any change in
the number of homesteads in the district. (In those two school
districts where the supplemental tac0nite credit is received, it
is merged into the new homestead credit by havihg the amounts of
that credit added to the old homestead credit amounts in fig6'ring
the new homestead credit determination figure.)
Auditors will divide into this amount the assessed value of the
Homestead base value. (The homestead base value changes with
average home values and is currently at $64,000 in market value.)
This division yields a mill rate. In spreading property taxes,
the auditor will then give each homestead a homestead credit
which is equal to that millage times the assessed value of the
homestead but not exceeding the homestead base value. In total,
this would give all classes of property the same net taxes as it
would have had under the old homestead credit. Total-mill rates
are unchanged, and mill rates for cities, counties and towns are
unchanged. (see p. 15 for a mill rate example, detailed examples
of changes in aids and levies in three districts are available.)
Although the new homestead credit reproduces the relief enjoyed
by homestead property under the old credit in total, within the
homestead class there are minor changes from the old homestead
credit. The n. ew credit does not have a $650 maximum as did the
old, and in high tax districts homes that run into the old $650
maximum wfll receive a few dollars, more and, consequently, those
homes'not at the maximum in those districts will receive a few
dollars less. For example, in Minneapolis the new homestead
credit will be worth ~.! m__ills. An $85,000 home now receives $650
under the old homestead--c~edit. Under the new, the credit will
be $655, a $5 increase. A $55,00 home, which receives $602 under
the old credit, will receive $597, a $5 decrease. (see p. 16)
The existing agricultural school credit provides that the state
will pay 33% of the taxes on the first 320 acres of a homestead
farm (excluding the house, garage, and one acre) and 15% of the
taxes on the first 320 acres of a nonhomesteaded farm, and 15% of
the taxes of a lake cabin. The state also pays 15% of the taxes
on the next 320 acres of a homesteaded farm and 10% of the taxes
of the second 320 acres of a nonhomesteaded farm. The state also
pays 10% of the taxes on all land over 640 acres of a homesteaded
farm and 10% of the taxes on all .land over 640 acres of a
nonhomestead farm. The credit cannot exceed $4,000 for a farm or
$100 for a cabin. Timberland receives a lb% credit without
limit. ~
The new agricultural credit is figured in the same fashion as
that described for the new homestead credit. The new
agricultural credit also has three tiers (first 320, second 320,
and everything over 640 acres) as does the existing credit. It
also applies td cabins and to timberland. However, there are no
dollar limits to the credit. Further, the native prairie,
wetlands, and power line credits are merged into the new
agricultural credit by having the amounts for those programs
added to the agricultural credit determination amount in any area
where those credits are received.
10
The new homestead credit and agricultural credit are neutral
toward local tax changes. Under the existing.credits, when a
local area increases taxes, increased state aid is automatically
generated by these credits. If a local government cuts taxes,
the formula for the existing homestead credit and agricultural
credit trigger a reduction in state funds.
For example, in 1984, the the formula for agricultural credit was
changed to assist farms. At that time, the cost of the more
generous formula was projected to be $114.1 million. However,
farm land values fell more rapidly than anticipated, and property
levies fell more than anticipated. Because property levies
(before credits) on farms declined, the present method of
computing the agricultural credit resulted in a reduction in
state aid. State agricultural credit for 1985 is currently
estimated at $105.8 million. Consequently, net farm taxes will
fall $8.3 million less than they would have had the amount of
state agricultural credit been a fixed amount as provided by this
proposal. (For the same reason, state homestead credit for farm
homesteads has been cut. In 1984, farm homestead received $61.5
million in state homestead credit. In 1985, farm homesteads are
projected to get only $60 million in homestead credit because
propertY taxes before credits on these homes fell.)
Under current law, taxes on farms will fall -7.5% this year. If
the agricultural credit formula had been that proposed here, the
drop would have been -10.2%. If the homestead credit had been
that proposed here, the drop would have been even greater.
Under the new homestead and agricultural credit, the value of the
credits is not changed, up or down, by a change in local taxes in
a particular district. Local officials and local property owners
pay the full costs of increased local taxes and receive the full
benefit of decreased local taxes. (The values of the new credits
are indexed, will increase each year, and, consequently,
inflation will not erode the new credits.)
STEP 5 (LOCAL FISCAL INDEPENDENCE) Local accountability also
requires that State government relax its regulations over these
governments. Having withdrawn state funding, through homestead
credit and agricultural credit, of part of the property tax
levies of towns, cities, and counties, the State will also
abolish its general levy limits on these units of government.
Local elected officials and local voters will gain the authority
to set property taxes at the level which is to their taste.
Several other recommendations (See taconite taxes, deed and
mortgage registry taxes, and local option sales taxes) complement
this item by t~ansfering revenue sources to local governments and
providing local governments with greater options in revenue
raising.
11
Changes
How It Works
State
Budget
(.in $ millions)
Local Property
Taxes
(in $ millions)
STEP 1.
State assumption of
23.5 mill property
levy. Full funding
of foundation formula.
Local school districts
reduce property taxes
by 23.5 mills.
+$717
-$717
STEP 2.
State transfers cost
of property tax credits
to local jurisdictions.
State reduces share of
of school categorical
aids.
~tep 3.
Local school districts
increase levies to offset
reductions'in categorical
aids.
-$654
-$63
· +$63
Step 4.
New property tax credits
are financed within the
local taxing jurisdiction
through increased levies.
+$654
NET CHANGE
$0
$0
12
Changes
How It Works
(Duluth)
State
Budget
(in $ millions)
Local Property
Taxes
(in $ millions)
STEP 1.
State assumption of
23.5 mill property
levy. Full funding
of foundation formula.
Local school district
reduce property taxes
by 23.5 mills.
+$9.4
-$9.4
STEP 2.
State transfers cost
of property tax credits
to local jurisdiction.
State increases share of
of school categorical
aids.
Step 3.
Local school district
reduces levies to offset
increase in categorical
aids.
-$12.3
+$2.9
-$2.9
Step 4.
New property tax credits
are financed within the
local taxing jurisdiction
through increased levies.
+$12.3.
NET CHANGE
$0
$0~
13
7?3
Changes
Mow. It Works
(Minneapolis)
State
Budget
(in $ millions)
Local Property
Taxes
(in $ millions)
STEP 1.
State assumption of
23.5 mill property
levy. Full funding
of foundation formula.
Local school district
reduce property taxes
by 23.5 mills.
+$68.3
-$68.3
STEP 2.
State transfers cost
of property tax credits
to local jurisdiction.
State reduces share of
of school categorical
aids.
Step 3.
Local scho61 district
inulase levies .to offset
reductions in categorical
aids.
-$48.3
-$20.0
+$20.0
Step 4.
New property tax credits
are financed within the
local taxing jurisdiction
through increased levies.
+$48.3
NET CHANGE
$0
$0
14
· MILL RATES UNDER THE REORGANIZATION PLAN
DULUTH - 1984
CURRENT SYSTEM
REORGANIZED SYSTEM
City
County
School
Other
Credit Cost
45.500
52.014
64.140
0.376
0.000
45.500
52.014
26.133
0.376'
Total
162.030
162.030
15
7fT"
Residential Property Tax Examples
City of Minneapolis
1984,.Homestead Base Value $60,000
Market Value
Mill Rates
Up to $60,000
Over $60,000
Tax Before Credit
Homestead Credit (Old)
Tax After Credit
Current
Law
Proposed
Law
Difference
$ Amount
$55,000
113.079
113.079
$.1,114
$602
$512
$55,000
52.439
113.079
$517
$0
$517
$0
(New Homestead Credit)
-$597
-$602
$5
Market Value
Mill Rates
Up to $60,000
Over $60,000
Tax Before Credit
Homestead Credit (Old)
Tax After Credit
Current
Law
$65,000
113.079
113.079
$1.,391
$650
$741
Proposed
Law
Difference
$ Amount
$65,000
$0
52.439
113.079
$736
$0
$736
(New Homestead Credit).
-$655
-$650
-$5
Market Value
Mill Rates
Up to $60,000
Over $60,000
Tax Before Credit
Homestead Credit (Old)
Tax After Credit
Current
Law
$85,000
113.0.79
113.079
$2,069
$650
$1,419
Proposed
Law
$85,000
52.439
113.079
$1,414
$0
$1,414
Difference
$ Amount
$0
(New Homestead Credit)
-$655 '
-$650
-$5
16
American Legion Post 398
DATE FEB, 28. 1985
GAMBLING REPORT
CURRENT MONTH
YEAR TO DATE
' ~6~oo.oo
GROSS: ~760.00
EXPENSES:
SUPPLIES
., SALES TAX
~356.16
212.82
PAYOUT AS PRIZES:
,6568.98
2100.00
~1o?~.55.
35oo.oo
PROFIT: ~1091.02 ~1825.
DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS:
A.F.S.
A.F.S. PLAQUE
HILL%OP SCHOOL
SCHOLARSHI P
ALANO
PLANT FOR VET
CUB SCOUTS
STATE GAMBLING PERMIT
435o.oo
30.A~O
175. O0
70.00
25.oo
25 ,oo
95.oo
100.00
~7o.oo
~12A8.~0
CHECK BOOK BALANCE
[
~6136.76
WA£.TEMETROPOLITAN
CONTROL
COMMISSION 'x
Jean Bergal
222-8423
MWCC Chair Endorses Reco~menda'tions
In Just-Released Management Study
March 7, 1985
The chair of the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) today
outlined a series of steps he will urge the com:nission to take to continue
improvements begun in recent months in its internal structure and cperat!ons'.
Peter Meintsma, who was named commission chair last summer, made the
statement in response to a just-released management study Of the MWCC by Touche
Ross & Co.
The'report makes 75 recommendations'in 19 areas related to agency
organization, management and operations, but does not rani: the issues in orOer
of importance.
"While we'll Be responding to all the recommendations, there are five
major priority areas where we're going to move most quickly," Meintsma
said. "These are changes in our organizational structure, improved
communications with the communities we serve, improved long-range planning,
evaluation of our rate structure, and implementation of a data processing
system for the commission."
The MWCC hired the consulting firm to conduct the study in response to a
recommendation in a !983 report on the agency. Known informall9 as the "Do!an~
Report," it was done by a commission established by Gov. Perpich ~nd chaired by
former Metropolitan Council Chair John Boland.
more
"This study confirms that we do an excellent job of operating one of the
largest and most effective wastewater treatment plants in the country, and it
recognizes the improvements we've made in recent months," Meintsma said. "At
the same time, it points out areas where change is needed--and in many cases,
where it already has begun."
"There was enthusiastic support for the study among commission members, our
staff and the communities we serve," Meintsma said. "I have no doubt we'll
build on the report's recommendations to make a good agency stronger and I'm
also confident the report's findings will help build wide community support for
the changes we're making."
The work of the consulting firm in conducting the study was directed by an
11-member special task force chaired by Judith Fletcher, an MWCC member. Other
members included Boland and Vern Peterson, executive.director of the
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities.
A complete impl'ementatibn plan for dealing with the report's
recommendations will be presented to the MWCC at its March 19 meeting. But
at a workshop for commissioners held today to discuss the report, Meintsma
outlined the following actions in the five priority areas. The actions include
those already under way and those planned for the future.
The areas are: ,
Organizational structure. The.report recommends a reorganization at the
commission aimed at correcting problems, including fragmentation and a lack of
focus in some areas. Meintsma said some important changes already have been
made, including hiring of a chief administrator and deputy administrator. An
internal auditor will be hired by April 1 and an internal audit committee will
begin operation May 1. A review of the MWCC's organizational structure already
is under way, he said, and it's expected a reorganization will be complete by
July 1.
more ~ O0
Communications with Communities Served. The report recommends that the
commission's relationships with the 102 communities that use its services be
improved, and Meintsma said the process already is under way. Some actions
being planned include sending a newsletter from the MWCC chair to the
communities, and setting up a mechanism for regular meetings with groups of
communities, Meintsma said.
"Both these actions will provide a forum for us to answer questions-
communities may have--and give us valuable feedback about what we're doing," he
said. Already, Meintsma said, he and other commission members have. increased
their contacts with community officials.
Data Processing. The report says the commission's current data processing
systems are inadequate and recommends a series of changes. 'Meintsma said the
commission is in the process of converting to a fully automated mana§ement
information system. A decision will-be made by May 1, he said, whether to hire
a permanement systems analyst to supervise the change, or to'contract ou~ the
work. The overall change to a new system could take three years, but "will
greatly enhance our effectiveness and efficiency,"'he said.
Long-Range Planning. Traditionally, much of the MWCC's planning has been
focused on capital projects and a one- to two-year time period. The report
recommends that more long-range work be done and coordination with the planning
of the Metropolitan Council be improved. A decision on where in the agency the
long-range planning function will be carried out will be made--and the new
process will begin--by July 1, Meintsma said.
Rate Structure. The report recommends that a comprehensive study of the
way in which rates for MWCC service are cUrrently set be undertaken to resolve
structural problems, reduce the complexity and broaden the involvement and"
understanding of communities. Meintsma said such a study will be done and will
involve communities closely in the process. A new rate structure should be in
place by Jan. 1, 1987, he said.
mnr~
"These actions, which IIll be asking the commissioners to support, will
take us a considerable way toward resolving some of the major issues in the
report," Meintsma said.
"Certainly, there's a lot of work to be done and we're excited about
doing the job. At the same time, I hope people don't overlook the goQd things
we're already doing."
He cited as an example the awards the MWCC received this week at the ninth
annual Energy Saver's Award of Excellence Competition sponsored by the state
Department of Energy and Economic Development. The commission was recognized
for a $4 million energy savings at the metro treatment plant in 1984.
30
MOUND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
Major Sections
1. Purpose
2. Definitions
3. Procedure
4. Classification of atgivisi~s
5. Pr~applicationProceo%~al Requirements (Sketch Plan)
6. Procedure - PreliminaryPlat
7. Procedure - Final Plat
8. Preliminary Plat Requirements
9.. Final Plat Requirements
10. Design Standards
11. Park Dedication
12. Required Improvements
13. Required Improvements - Payment for Installation
14. Required Improvements - Financial Guarantee
15. Variance
16. Violation - Penalty
SECTION 100 - SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
Section 100:01 Purpose. The process of dividing raw land into home sites, or
separate parcels for other uses, is one of the most important factors in the
orderly growth of ar~ community. Few activities have a more lasting effect
upon its appearance and envirorment. Once the land has' been subdivided and
the streets, 'homes and other structUres have been constructed, the basic
character of this permanent addition to the community has become firmly
established. It is then virtually impossible to alter its basic character
without substantial expense. In most subdivisions, roads and streets must be
~aintained and ~arious public services must be provided. The welfare of the
entire community is thereby affected in many important respects. It is,
therefore, to the interest of the general public, the developer and the future
owners that subdivisions be conceived, designed and .developed in accordance
with sound rules an~ proper standards.
All subdivisions of l~nd hereafter submitted for approval shall fully comply,
in all respects, with the regulations set forth herein. It is the purpose of
these regulations to:
®
encourage well planned, e~ficient and attractive subdivisions by
establishing reasonable standards for design and construction;'
provide for the public health, safety and general welfare of residents by
requlrir~ properly designed streets, park land and adequate Sanitary
sewer, storm sewer and water service;
place the cost of improvements against those benefiting financially from
their construction: and
4. secure the, rights of the public with respect to public lands and waters.
The Council of the City of Mound deems these regulations to be necessary for
the preservation of the health, safety and general welfare of this community.
These regulations have been developed under the authority contained in Section
462.358, Minnesota Statutes Annotated (M.S.A.), and are supplemented by
apDropriate sections of Chapter 505, M.S.A., as indicated.
~ · pqng
l .pqn~
· s~oI aouaoo o~
u@@~oq poqwooI '~ooIq e jo puo oqq q'e sloI Jo qoI .~uv - ~o~I ~$n~
9 "pqns
g · pqn~
· pu~ Da~ $o ~aodoad eIgeac~ ao ~Ieg~qo '~I~ '~uo~aod jo
oansoIouo Jo aegIeqs '~oddns eq$ aoj ~Ilnq ear~onags ~r~ - ~ulpIIr~
~ 'pqn~ .
· ou~ ~i~aodoad eq~ pu~
· ~otqI'~dloIurm jo ~OutI F,a~punoq ao
Jo sOUtlOaOqS 'R~a-$o-ssq~Ia p~Oalt~a 's~a~d Ollqnd pu~
~o uolq~.~tqu~o ~ Kq, Jo 's~ooa~a Rq p~puroq pu~I Jo ~o~a~ ¥ -
~ .pqn~
~ · pqn~
· oou~tpao ~tq~ jo qu~@oaojuo q~I~ po~a~qo pu~
I ' pqrk~
~olgItrI$~KI EO:OOI uoI~ooS
Subd. 9
"Final lat" is the final map, drawing or chart on which the
subdivider's plan of a subdivision is presented to the City 0ounctl .
for approval and which, if approved, will be submitted to the County
Register of Deeds or Registrar of Titles.
Subd. 10 "Lot" is a parcel or portion of land in a subdivision or plat of
land separated from other P~rcels or portions by description, as on
a subdivision or record of survey map, f6r the purpose of sale or
lease or separate use thereof.
"Owner" is any individual, firm, association, syndicate,
co-partnership, corporation, trust or any other legal entity having
proprietary interest in the land being subdivided under this
ordinance.
Subd. 12 "Planning Commission" is the PlaDning Commission of the City of
Mound.
Subd. 13 "Pedestrian Way" or "Walkway" is a public right-of-way across or
o
within a block to provide access for pedestrians.
Subd. 14 "Preliminary Plat" is a tentative map, drawinE or'chart of. a
proposed subdivision meeting requirements herein erumerated.
Subd. 15 "Reverse Frontage Lot" (Double Frontage Lot) is a lot extending
between two streets with vehicular access potentially limited to one
street.
Subd. 16 "Streets and Alleys;'
'.'Street" is a public way for vehicular traffic whether
designated as a street~ highway, thoroughfare, collector,
collector parkway, minor collector and minor collector parkway,
throaghway, road, arterial, minor arteris1, avenue, lane, place
or however otherwise designated. The width of a street is
measured between right-of-way Lines.
3
(2)
(3)
(q)
(5)
(6)
(7)
"Collector.Street" is a street which .carries through traffic
fram subdivision streets to arterial streets. It includes the
principal access streets to a residential development and
streets for circulation withiu such a development.
"Cul-de-sac" is a short, minor street having only one outlet
.and a vehicu~ turnabout.
"FrOntage Road" is a'mfnor street which is somewhat 'parallel
and 'adjacent to a minor arterial or higher functional
classification and which provides access to abutting properties
and protection fram through traffic.
"Subdivision Street" is a street of limited continuity used
primarily for access to the abutting properties and the local
needs of the neighborhood.
"Private Street" is'a street serving as vehicular access to two
ob more parcels of land which is not dedicated to the public
but is owned by one or more private parties.
"Alley" is a minor way providing secondary vehicular access to
the side or rear of two or more properties abutting on a
street.
(8)
Minor Arterial and Collectors" are streets designated on the
Comprehensive Plan and used 'primariIy: by fast moving traffic at
heavy volumeS, as traffic arteries for intercommunication
between and among neighborhoods and other large areas. These
streets are so designated for the purposes of applying the
s~fodivision design standards found in Section of
this code.
(9) "Commercial/Industrial Street" is a street designed for the
prSmary put. se of ser'vSng industrial or commercial proper~y.
4
Subd. 17 "Subdivider" is any person commencing proceedings under this
ordinance to effect a subdivision of land for himself or for others.
Subd. 18
"Subdivision" means the separation of an area, parcel or tract of
land into two or more parcels, tracts, lots oF long-term leasehold
interests where the creation of the leasehold interests necessitate
the creation of streets, roads or alleys for the residential,
commercial, industrial or other use or any combination thereof,
except those separations when'a ne~ street is involved, any division
of a parcel of land. The term includes resubdivision and, when
appropriate to the context, shall relate to the process of
subdividing or to the land subdivided or adjustment of boundary
lines.
Section 100:03 Procedural Requirements. Before dividing any tract of land
into two or more lots or parcels, or adjusting any boundaries not covered by
MI 462.352, Subd. 12, or the procedures set forth in Section 100.04 et seq.
shall be followed.
Section 100:04 General Procedure. Whenever any subdivision of land is
proposed, before any contract is made for the sale of any part thereof and
before any permit for the erection of a structure on such proposed subdivision
shall be granted, the subdividing owner, or his authorized agent, shall apply
for and secure approval'of such proposed subdivision in accordance with the
following procedure which includes two steps for a minor subdivision and three
steps for a ma,lor subdivision.
Minor SubdivisiOn~
1. Sketch plan
2. Final subdivision plat
Be
Major Subdivision
1. Sketch plan
2. Preliminary plat
3. Final subdivision plat
5
Section 100:05 Classification of Subdivisions. Any .division of land that is
subject to these regulations shall be considered either.a major subdivision or
a minor subdivision. The classification shill be determined under the
following criteria:
Subd. 1
Minor Subdivisions.
subdivisions:
The following shall be considered minor
'A.
Residential. Any subdivision of land creating not more than
three residential lots. ~uch lots must conform to all of the
following:
1. Nave frontage on an existing public road.
2. Not require the construction of any new public facilities
or public improvements. -
3. There will be no adverse effect on remaining or adjoining
.. prope.rty.
There is no conflict with the Comprehensive Pla~, Zoning
Ordinance or Official Map. '
Subd. 2
B. Minor Boundary Adjustments. The relocation of the boundary
line between two abutting, existing parcels of property; such
relocation not causing the creation,,of a new parcel or parcels
and such relocation not violating the Zoning Ordinance.
Major Subdivision. Any division of land regulated by this ordinance
shall be considered a major subdivision unless specifically defined
as a mi.nor subdivision in Subd. 1.
Section 100:06 Pre-application Procedural Requirements. Prior %o the
preparation of a preliminary plat, the subdividers or owners shall meet with
the BUilding Official and/or Planning Staff in order to be made fully awa. re of
6
I ' pqrkg
- q~I8 ~awtr~Ugiea8 'eanp~ooa8 LO: OOI uoIgo~S
o~ $~Id.f~uP~Iaad @q$ $o s~tdoo a@j~a Iln~qs l~O~JJO ~u~pltn~t
II$
Subd. 3
The Building 0f£lcial shall refer copies of the prellminar~ plat to
the City Engineer. An engineering review will be made and a written
report attached prior to forwarding to the Planning Cc~vnission.
Subd. 4
The Building Official shall refer copies of the preliminary plat to
the Parks and Recreation Department. A park and recreation staff
review will be made, as needed, and forwarded to the Building
Official prior to forwarding an overall staff report to the Planning
CommissiOn.
Subd. 5
Subd. 6
The Building Official shall refer copies of the preliminary plat to
the Planning Ccmmission. The Building Official shall arrange for a
public hearing to be held within forty-five (45) days of the filing
date. The required legal publication shall be made and notices
shall be sent to all property owners of record within three hundred
fifty (350) feet of the exteriOr boundary of the proposed' plat.
The subdi, vider or duly authorized representative shall attend the
Planning Ccmmission meetings at which this proposal is scheduled for
consideration.
Subd. 7
The Planning Commission and City Council shall .study the
practicability of the preliminary plat taking into consideration the
requirements of the City. Particular attention shall be given, but
not limited to, the arrangement, location and width of Streets,
their relation to the topography of land, floodplain, wetlands,
water supply, sewage disposal, drainage, l~t sizes and arrangement,
the present and future development ofi adjoining lands and the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Planning Commission and City Council shall study and the
Planning Ccmmission shall make recommendations on the following:
(1) whether the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable
specific area plans or the Comprehensive Plan;
(2)
whether the design is consistent with applicable development
plans or policies;
9 8'/.,%
(3)
whether the physical chamacteristics of the site including, but
not limited' to, topography, vegetatio,, susceptibility to
erosion, siltation, flooding (per Section B64.23, Flood Plain
Regulations) and water storage or retention are suitable for
the type and/or density of development or use contemplated;
(4) ' the environmental impact of the'subdivision design or proposed
improvements;
(5) whether the design of the subdivision or the type of
improvement is consistent with easements of recomS or easements
established by Judgment of a cou~t;
(6) traffic considerations; and
(7) any other aspect affecting-the public'health, safety or
welfare.
The Planning Oommission may recommend and the City Council may
approve reasonable conditions on the plat to negate any problem
areas.
Subd. 8
All persons interested in the proposed plat shall be heard at an
advisory public hearing held before the Planning Commission. The
Planning Ccmmission shall, within thirty (30) days of the closing of
the hearing, recouwend approval, modify apd recommend approval or
recommend disapproval of the preliminary plat or waiver of platting
and submit to the Ci.ty'CouncL1 t~eir findings and recommendations.
Failure to act withi~ thirty (BO) days of the closing of the hearing
shall be deemed as an approval of the preliminary plat by the
Planning Co~mission.
The City Council shall hold a public hearing and act upon the
preliminary plat and send written notification of their action to
the applicant. Failure of the governing body to act within one
10
hu~~ty (~9-) days of the close of the public hearing is
deemed approval of the plat. The grounds for any refusal to approve
a plat shall be set forth by the Council in a resolution and
reported to the applicant in writing. Should the subdivider desire
to amend the preliminary plat, as approved by the Council, he shall
submit the amended plat following the original procedure set forth
except for the public hearing and fees, ~unless the Planning
Commission considers the score of the revisions to constitute a new
plat, then the hearing and fees shall be required.
Subd. 9
The subdivider may request a one-year time extension at least 45
days prior to the expiration of the preliminary plat as approved by
the City Council. This request shall be reviewed by the Planning
Commission and a recommendation forwarded to the City Council
addressing such items as potentia% conflicts with the C~,prehensive
Plan or specific area plans, potential conflicts with policy
changes, changing transportation conditions, sidewalk policies or
applicable changes to any City ordinances. The City staff may
recompute p~rk dedication fees and other financial guarantees as
listed in section to reflect current cost estimates
unless street, utility, grading or other substantial c. onstruction
has begun. These revised costs shall be included in the time
extension resolution.
Section 100:08
Subd. 1
Procedure, Final Plat
The subdivider, within one year, unless~extensions are granted and
noted in the prelimina~ plat resolution, after t~e approval of the
preliminary plat, shall file with ~~y
~~ (10) copies of the final plat prepared by a land
surveyor duly registered in the State of Minnesota. Failure of the
subdivider to submit the final plat within those times designated on
the preliminary plat resolution shall cause the preliminary and
final plats to become null and void.
11
Subd. 2 · .The subdivider shall also submit to the City Attorney, at the same
time, an up-to-date certified abstract of ~itle or registered
property report and such other evidence as the City Attorney may
require sh. owirg title or control of the land by the subdivider.
Subd. 3
The subdivider shall have incorporated all changes or modifications
required by the City Council but in all other respects, the final
plat shall conform to the preliminary plat.
Subd. 4
If the subdivider requests that any special assessments which have
been levied agsinst the property described be divided and allocated
to the respective lots in the proposed plats, the City Engineer
shall estimate the clerical cost of preparing a revised assessment
roll,' .filing the same with.the COUnty Auditor and making such
division and allocation and upon approval by the City Manager of
such estimated cost, t~e same Shall~be paid b.y the subdivider to the
City Treasurer from the subdivider's escrow account.
Subd. 5
The required utility layout shall be submitted by the subdivider to
the City Engineer for his cost estimate. A copy of the Engineer's
report shall be submitted to the Building Official 'for the
preparation of the contract required in Section if this
code.
Subd. 6
The Building Official, upon receipt of the fi~sl plat, shall retain
one copy of the. final plat for' review and ,shall:
(1) refer copies of the final plat to the City sta£f and City
Council who shall review the final plat with respect to its
conformance with the. approved preliminary plat; ~
(2) refer the current abstract of title or registered property
report to the City Attorney for his examination and report.
The City Attorney's written report shall be submitted to the
Building. Official within fifteen (15) days of its receDpt by
the Attornsk.
D
Subd. 7 The City Council shall, by resolution, authorize the Mayor and
Manager bo si~ the final ~lat.
If a report from the Building Official indicates there is a
substantial deviation in the final plat from the approved
preliminary plat, the City Council may determine if the submission
do~s represent a new plat. If the submission does represent a new
plat, .the City Council.may deny the final plat and direct the
subdivide~ to resubmit his'Proposal following preliminary plat
requirements.
The subdivider shall, if the final plat is signed by the Mayor and
City Manager, record the final plat with the County Recorder or the
Registrar of Titles within 60 days after signing. Any final plat
not filed and recorded within 180 days of the date of the Council
resolutions approving the final plat, or within 150 days after the
plat is considered approved by reason of the City Council's failure
to act within 120 days of the filing of the final' plat with the
Building Offici. al, shall become nnll and void.
Subd. lO No changes, erasures, modifications or revisions shall be made in
any final plat after approval has been given by the ~ity ~ouncil and
endorsed in writing on the plat, unless the said plat is first
resubmitted to the City Council and such body approves and
modifications. In the event that any such final plat is recorded
without complying with this requirement, the same shall be
considered null and void and. the City Council shall institute
proceedings to have the plat stricken from the records of the City.
300 Metro Square Bldg., St. Paul, MN $5101
General Office Telephone (612) 291-6359
' REVIEW
Metropolitan Council Bulletin for Community Leaders
'HR;"JON-"EI~AR
MANAGER
CITY OF MDUND
53~t MAY~00D 8LVD
MOUND MN 55~6~
For more information oh. items in this pub#cation, call ~he Communications .Department at 291-6464.
March 1,1985
RECENT COUNCIL ACTIONS (Feb. 18-March 1)
Parks--The Metropolitan Council approved a regional parks
capital improvement plan for fiscal years 1986 and 1987.
P.c~d: h:ve 31re3dy bee,"..~p?_ved f~r !9~6.
how ~e Council will allocate $25 million ;n new bending
authority it has requested from the legislature for COntinuing
· acquisition and development of the regional park system. The
Council said that if the legislyure approves less than that, the
project list would be revised..
As a resultof a January pubtic hearing, the Council has
revised the plan., including:
-- Adding $400,000 for acquisition at washington County's
South Washington County Regional Park.
-- Increasing :he development grant to Dakc~ta County's
Leoanon Hills Regional Park from $250,000 to $500,000 and
upgrading the project's priority.
-- Adding $100,000 for development in Dakota County's'-
Spring Lake Park Reserve.
-- Raising the priority of development grants for Anoka
County's Lake George Regional Park ($350,000) and Carver
County's Lake Minnewashta Regional Park
Motor Sports-LThe Council said it would take the lead
conducting a ~tudy of a proposed motor sports facility if the
legislature concurs and provides funding. The Council pro-
posed a three-stage approach: 1 ) a need and feasibility study,
costing an estimated $90,000; 2) an environmental impact
.~udy and site selection, costing an estimated S100,000; and
3) a major economic analysis of the proposed facilities, includ-
ing managerial alternatives, costing an estimated $100,000.
The Council said study funds should not come from the
CO, mci! or the Metrn~o!itan Park~ and Open Spa~ ~ommis.
sion, but from a seperate state appropriation.
Housing-.The Council said six proposals to build rental
housing financed by the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency
are consistent with Council policies. The projects are Park
Place, 8urnsviile; Parkside Apartments, Coon Rapids; Prairie
Village Apartments, Eden Prairie; Olivewood, Plymouth;
Ashland. Apartments, St. Paul; and GilleTte Senior Housing,
St. Paul.
Four of the projects, totaling 33:2 units, will rent to
families, and two, totalling 11~)'units, will be for older people.
Twenty percent of the units must be occupied by households
with annual incomes of not more than 80 percent of the
region's median income, currently $26,000.
Health--The Council approved a request by Abbott
Northwestern Hospital, Minneapolis, to purchase a high-tech
diagnostic machine called a magnetic resonance imager. The
Council asked the hospital to give the Metropolitan Health
Planning Board annual data and analysis of use of the machine,
to cost the hospital an estimated 52.5 miliior~;
Citizen Participation-The Council adopted a new citizen
participation plan that seeks to ensure that regional planning
and development programs are consistent with the needs of
people affected by them. The plan includes s'crengthening
working relationships with local governments; increasing
public under~nding of regional issues; and increasing involve-
merit of business, labor, minorities, women, people with handi-
caps and people with Iow inCOmes in solving, regional problems.
For a copy of the plan, no. 07~4-171, call 291-6464.
Solid Waste-The Council granted Anoka County $17,000
to carry out landfill abatement planning activities, The funds
are the unspent remainder of an earlier Council grant to the
county. They will be used to help develop a resource recovery
project, analyze financial alternatives for a solid wa~e pro-
ceasing facility, analyze solid waste abatement processing
alternatives and determine solid waste quantity and
compOSition.
Comprehensive Plans--The Council said St. Mary's Point's
comprehensive plan is consistent with regional plans and
policies. The Council asked the city, located along the St. Croix
River, to maintain its goal of planning for a rural lifestyle,
recognize a proposed regional trail corridor, and include
procedures for managing on-site sewage, systems (septic tanks).
Minion Statement--The Council adopted the following
mission ~atement: "The mission of the Metropolitan Council
of :he Twin Cities Area is to plan and coordinate metropolitar
development cooperatively with citizens and communities in
order to make 1~e region a better place to live. The Council
analyzes information, li~ens to the public, and actively seeks
consensus in :he development and implementation of public
policy on regional issues."
The statement was developed as part of a long-range
organizational planning.process the Council has under way.
PUBLIC HEARINGS, PUBLIC MEETINGS
Long-Term Cam-The Council will hold a public hearing at
2 p.m., Thursday, March 7, to hear comments on its recom-
mendations to reshape the reqion's long-term cam system.
To obtain a free copy of the Council draft report, Reshaping
Long. Term Care in the Twin C/tie~ Metropolitan Area:
Recommendations for Change, no. 14-85~23, call the
Communications Department at 291-6464. If you wish to
speak atthe hearing, call Lucy Thompson, Planning Assistance,
at 291-6521. If you have questions about the report, call Aha
Stem, Housing, at 291-6601. :
Art,-The Council will hold an art town meeting March 8,
4 p.m., in the Council offices to hear public reaction to i1~
proposed arts plan for fiscal years 1986-1987. For a free copy
of the plan, call the Council at 291-6571.
NEW APPOINTMENTS
The Council appointed Benjamin F. Bryant, Belle Plaine,
to the Council's Developmental Disabilities Advisory Com-
mittee. Bryant is employed by the St. Paul Public Schools.
COUNCIL SEEKS APPLICANTS FOR
MINORITY ISSUES ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The Metropolitan Council is seeking applicants for i~s new
25-member MinoriTy Issues Advisory CommiTtee. It will advise
:he Council on the impact of its plans and policies on racial
minority communities in the region.
The committee's maior tasks ~re to identi~ barriers to
~nor~t-y particil3ation in regional decision-maklng and to
ge such participation among Twin Cities minority
groups.
The commi~ee also will identify resources and information
that minority communities need to take advantage of regional
services, and study major issues and trends developing in those
communities.
Eight members of the committee will represent metropoli-
tan commission districts (each made up of two Council
'districts). ,
Four members will represent the state's minority councils--
the Minnesota Indian Affairs Council, the Spanish Speaking
Affairs Council, the Council on Black Minnesotans, and a
group to be formed to represent the Asian community.
Twelve members will serve as at-large representatives of the
region's racial minorities. The committee will not consist
only of minority members.
Council Chair Sandra Gardebring currently is considering
persons to chair the committee. She will make a nomination,
to be acted on by the Council later in March. The committee
members will be appointed by the Council April 11.
For an application, call Sandi Lindstrom at the Council,
291-6390. The application deadline is March :29.
To nominate someone for committee membership, send
the person's name and address in a letter of application, care
of Bill Lester at the Council.
APPLICANTS SOUGHT FOR OPENINGS ON
HEALTH BOARD, METRO HRA ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The Metropolitan.Council is seeking applicants for two open-
on its Metropolitan Health Planning Board and one opening
on [ts Metropolitan Housing and Redevelopment Authority
(Metro HRA) Adviso~ Committee.
Openings on the board, made up of consumers of health
care services and health care professionals, are for consumer
members. A.Dplicants may live anywhere in the Metropolitan
Area, but are encouraged from Council districts 6, north and
northeast Minneapolis; 8, southern Anoka County;
11, St. Louis Park, Golden Valley, Robbinsdale and Edina;
and 16~ Dakota County and southern Washington County.
The H RA advisory committee helps the Council plan and
administe.r its H RA programs, including rental assistance
programs in more than 70 suburbs, housing rehabilitation
loans and an affordable housing fund. Applicants must live in
Council districts 15 and 16, including Dakota County, south-
ern Washington County and the Highland Park portion of
St. Paul.
The deadline for all applications is March 22. wil~h appoint-
monte to be made April 11. For information or application
forms, call Sandi Lindstrom at 291-6390.
· IEALTH VOTE' BEGINS TODAY
The war against skyrocketing health care costs is heating
up. An intense information and education campaign on ways
to contain soaring costs began March 1.
The campaign is called "Health Vote." It's a neutral, non-
partisan effort conducted primarily throUgh the news media
to help Twin Citians understand complex issues of cost and
effectiveness in health care. It will culminate with a region-
wide vote April 10 on ballots to be sent to about 8130,000
households.
More than 200 community meetings and three "town
hall" meetings will lead up to the vote. Ballots will be
delivered through the Minnear)oli$ $~ar and Tribune and
St. Paul Pioneer Pre.~ and D/soar. ch. The campaign is managed
by -dee Health Futures Institute and locally co-sponsored by
the Metropolitan Council and its Health Planning Board, the
Minnesota Coalition on Health Care Costs and the Minnesota
chaD:er of the American $0ciew of Public Adrnini~ra~r~,
National sponsors are the Public Agenda Foundation and.the
Domestic Policy Association.
Town hall meetings will be held as follows: March 13,
£rh/c$ and Economics of Hea/rh Care, 3:30-5 p.m., at the
First Unitarian Society, 900 Mt. Curve Av., Minneapolis;
March 20, Long-Term Care, 7q~:30 p.m., Landmark Center,
75 W. 5th St., St. Paul; and April 8, Competition in 'Hea/~h
Care, 3:30-5:30 p.m., keynoted by Sen. Dave Durenberger,
Northern States Power. Co. Auditorium, 414 Nicollet Mall,
Minneapolis.
NEW PUBLICATIONS
New Ini¢iative: I$ Ligh¢ Rail Tran$ir Coming? This reprint
of articles from recant Me,rD Mon/tor~ explains what light
rail transit (LRT) is and what role it would play in the regional
transit system. Gives estimated costs to build and operate
potential I_RT links, describes how it could be financed and
includes map of areas to be served. No. 0~-85q320; no charge.
COMING MEETINGS (March 11-22)
(Meeting~ are tentative. To verify, ceil 291-64~4.J
Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission, Monday,
March 11,4 p.m., Council Chambers.
Metropolitan Systems Committee, Monday, March 11,
4 p.m., Conference Room E.
Air Quali~ Committee, Tuesday, March 12, 10 a.m.,
Conference Room B.
Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee, ,
(tentative), Tuesday, March 12, 2 p.m., Council Chambers. ,
Metro Subcabinet of Governor's Cabinet (chaired by Sand~a
Gardebring), Wednesday, ~arch 13, 2:30 p.m., Conference
Room B.
Metropolitan Health Planning Board, W. ednesday, March 13,
4 p.m., Council Chambers.
Metropolitan and Community Development Committee'
Thursday, March 14, 1:30 p.m., Council Chambers.
Ms=opolitan Council, Thursday, March 14, 4 p.m., Council
Chambers.
Metropolitan Systems Committee, Monday, March 18,
4 p.m., Conference Room E.
Regional Transit Board, Monday, March 18, 4:30 p.m.,
Council Chambers.
· Waste Mana~emen~Advisory Committee, (tentative),
Tuesday, March 19, 2 p.m., Conference Room E.
Aggregate Resources Advisory Committee, Tuesday,
March 19, 3:30"p.m., Council Chambers.
Arl~ Advisory Committee, Tuesday, March 19, 5 p,m.,
Conference Room E.
Transportation Advisory Board, Wednesday, March 20,
2 p.m., Council Chambers,
Environmental Resources Committee, Wednesday,
March 20, 4 p.m., Conference Room E.
Governor's. Taxicab Commission (chaired by Sandra
Gardebring), Thursday, March 21,8 a.m., Con. ference Room E.
Metropolitan and Community Development Committee,
Thursday, March 21, 1:30 p.m., Council Chambers·
Management Committee, Thursday, March 21, 3 p.m.,
Council Chambers.
Metropo{itan River Corridors Study Committee, Thursday,
March 21,3 p.m., Conference Room E.
Advisory Committee on Aging, Friday, March 22, 9 a.m.,
Council Chambers.
Aviation Policy Plan Task Force, Friday, March 22, 9 a.m.,
Conference Rooms A and B.
league of minnesota oities
FROM: Diane Loeffler, Legislative Representative
March 10, 1985
RE:
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID
The League of Minnesota Cities is pleased that it has been able to unite an overwhelming
majority of cities behind a new local government aid formula. But member endorsement was
only the first step. Legislative support is necessary if it is to be adopted with
increaseH funding for citieS. While the League lobbyists and others are working hard,
it is critical that individual cities contact their legislators about local government
aid (LGA). Without that constituent contact, it is questionable whether we will have
the needed legislative support for increases in LGA. The Chairman of the House Tax
Committee indicated recently that he m~y consider cutting LGA to cit'ies in order to fund
increases in other programs. Schools, counties, and others are working hard to get
additional support. Cities must be just as aggressive.
PLEASE CALL OR WRITE YOUR LEGISLATORS AND EMPHASIZE THE FOLLOWING THREE POINTS:
1)
Your city.su?ports the new Lea~.ue of Minnesota Cities' local ~overnment aid
formula. That is: LGA = (.53 x BMX) x (SAAVPC/CAAVPC)
BMX = three-year average of basic municipal expenditures
SAAVPC = Statewide average adjusted assessed value per capita
CAAVPC = Individual city's adjusted assessed value per capita
Minimum aid of $25 per capita or one percent over previous year's LGA,
beyond that the maximum increase is ten percent per year. Cities must levy
2 mills to qualify for state aid.
2)
3)
Increased fundin~ for LGA is needed. LGA provides property tax relief and
· increased funding for LGA should be part of the overall tax reduction efforts of
the Legislature.
The Lea.~ue Technical Committee is the appropriate forum for the review and
resolution of issues related to the LMC formula.
For further information on the League's LGA proposal, see the information packet on LGA
that was mailed to all mayors, managers, and clerks two weeks ago. Your prompt response
is necessary. Thanks for your assistance and continuing support. Legislators.often
mention the contacts they have.had with local officials in their district. You have an
important role in our success.' If you do not know who your legislators are or need
address or phone information, call House Information (612) 296-2146 and Senate
Information at (612) 296-0504.
'i ~ c;niversitymvenueeast, sC. paul, minnesoCa55101 (B12) 227-5600