HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-02-26_STUDY SESSION51
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor & City Council Members
FROM: Cary Teague, Director of Planning
RE: . Additional Regulations Regarding Massing
DATE: February 26, 2008
Introduction
The City Council directed staff to study the massing issue and bring back
recommendations on how to further regulate new homes being built in the City,
should such additional regulations be desired,
To assist with this study, staff hired the Collaborative Design Group to build a
three dimensional computer model of three existing neighborhoods to assist in
developing ordinance provisions to address the issue. The specific homes
selected were recently torn down and rebuilt. They are: 5617 Chowen; 5308
Oaklawn; and 5504 Halifax. (See these three homes on pages A8 —A18.) The
Collaborative Design Group will be at the work session to run the model,
including how ordinance amendments would impact these homes.
Existing City Code Tools
As you recall, the current zoning ordinance does have some good tools that
already address the massing issue. The city's 25 -30% building coverage
requirement, and increased setback of 6 inches for every foot over 15 feet in
height, does limit building size. Also, the city's median lot width and size
requirement keep new subdivisions in areas with lots that are larger than 9,000
square feet and wider than 75 feet, consistent with the existing neighborhoods.
Additionally, recent amendments work to further reduce building size; those
amendments include: measuring height from the existing grade rather than the
proposed grade; limiting first floor elevation to no more than one foot above the
previous homes first floor elevation; increasing the side yard setback
requirements for narrow lots; and eliminating bay window encroachments into the
required setbacks. The effect of these recent amendments is somewhat
unknown.
As a reference, staff has attached the previous survey of cities to compare how
other communities regulate single - family homes to address the massing issue.
(See pages A1—A7a.) This survey suggests that Edina's regulations are among
the most restrictive in the metro area.
Potential Ordinance Amendment
Despite our current regulations, there is still a concern that Edina's Ordinance
does not go far enough to restrict the size of new homes. Two amendments
could be considered to further restrict size. First is a provision that Edina
currently does not use for regulating single - family homes, which is floor area ratio
(FAR). The second is a height limitation to the ridge line of a home.
1. Floor area ratio
Floor area ratio (FAR) may be the most direct tool for dealing with this issue,
since it regulates house mass based on lot size. FAR's are defined in the zoning
code as "the gross floor area divided by the lot area." The use of FAR for single -
family dwellings is rare. Minneapolis is the only surveyed City with such a'
requirement.
Establishing a uniform FAR across the city is difficult due to the large variation of
lot sizes, including a wide variety of lot sizes within very close proximity of one
another. See the Halifax neighborhood on page A11. The varying lot size is due
primarily to lot depth. The depth of lots can vary from 100 feet to 250+ feet.
The City of Minneapolis recently instituted an FAR requirement of .5, however, lot
sizes in Minneapolis are generally uniform; they do not have the varying lot
depths and lot widths that Edina has. (See Edina /Minneapolis code comparison
on page A7a.)
In an effort to create a uniform FAR, staff suggests consideration of a sliding
scale FAR based on lot width, and for FAR calculation purposes, only, calculate
the depth to a maximum of 150 feet. This would bring homes into more of a
uniform size in neighborhoods with varying lot widths and depths.
The following is an example of a sliding scale FAR to consider:
2
Lot Width
FAR
50' and below
.50
51'
.50
52'
.50
53'
.49
54'
.49
55'
.49
56'
.48
57'
.47
58'
.47
59'
.46
60'
.46
61'
.46
62'
.45
63'
.45
64'
.45
65'
.44
66'
.44
67'
.44
68'
.43
69'
.43
70'
.42
71'
.42
72'
.41
73'
.41
74'
.40
75' and above
.40
Staff suggests that the FAR would include only finished floor area space above
the basement and would include garage space. However, an exception for
detached garages in a rear yard could be considered.
Impact on existing homes
To determine the impact that this type of ordinance would have, staff first ran the
calculations for the three homes modeled by the Collaborative Design Group.
5308 Oaklawn Avenue. Based on the above FAR requirement, the home on
Oaklawn would have to be reduced by 391 square feet, which is essentially the
size of the garage. The square footage of the home and garage is 4,163 square
feet. The home and garage would be limited to 3,772 square feet based on the
proposed FAR. (See pages A8 —A9.)
5404 Halifax Lane. Based on the above FAR requirement, the home on Halifax
Would have to be reduced by 440 square feet. This is because the lot is 190 feet
deep: Therefore, the back 40 feet would not be included for FAR purposes.
Please note that the recent zoning ordinance amendments regarding measuring
building height and side yard setbacks would also require that the home be
reduced 5 feet in heiqht and reduce the setbacks by 1.5 feet on each side. (See
pages A10 —A14.)
3
5617 Chowen Avenue. The above FAR requirement would not impact this lot.
However, the new side yard setback requirements based on lot width would have
required this home to increase the side yard setback by 6 inches on each side.
(See pages A15 —A18.)
The Collaborative Design Group will show us what these homes would look like
as a result of the existing and suggested zoning ordinance amendments.
Staff has also run examples of what the impact would be on other homes within
the City that have been recently torn down and rebuilt:
5908 Code. This home would have to be reduced by 574 square feet based on
the proposed FAR requirement. This lot is 104 x 307 feet or 31,928 square feet in
size. Based on the above, the FAR calculation would be based on a 104 x 150 or
15,600 square foot lot. An FAR of .40 would be required, therefore a 6,240
square foot home, including garage, could be built. A 6,814 square foot home,
including the garage, was built. The garage is 875 square feet. (See pages A19—
A22.) The new ordinance on how height is measured would also require this
home to be reduced by 4.8 feet.
7000 Antrim. There would be no changes required to this home. This lot is 245 x
248 feet or 60,760. A home as large as 14,700 square;feet could be built on th.is
site, using a .40 FAR based on a 245 x 150 foot lot. This home, is 40.7 feet to the
ridge line of the home, and 30 feet to the mid point of the roof. .(See pages A23—
A26. )
4005 Grimes. This home would have to be reduced-by 249 square feet based on
the .proposed FAR. (See pages A27 —A29.) Under the new side yard setback
rules, this home would have to increase its side yard setbacks 1.8 -2.7 feet.
4212 Crocker. There would be no changes required to this home, despite the
200 foot lot depth. (See pages A30 —A31.)
4601 Drexel. This home would have to be reduced by 767 square feet based on
the proposed FAR, which based on the 60 -foot wide lot; an FAR of .46 would be
required. The garage in this home is 671 square feet. (See pages A32 —A34.)
4608 Bruce. This home would have to be reduced by 274 square feet based on
the proposed FAR, which based on the 50 foot wide lot; an FAR of .50 would be
required. (See pages A35 —A36.)
4505 Wooddale. This home would have to be reduced by 710 square feet
based on the proposed FAR. The calculation is based on the 71 foot wide lot,
0
which would require an FAR of .42. The lot is 71 x 179 in size. Only the front 150
x 71 is used for the FAR calculation. (See pages A37 —A38.)
Country Club — West Side. Staff randomly selected an area of the west side of
the Country Club district between Browndale and Wooddale along Bridge Street.
(See page A39.) Please note that the FAR shown does not include attached
garages. Of the 63 homes.included, roughly 19 would become nonconforming
under the suggested ordinance.
Country Club — East Side. Staff randomly selected an area of the east side of
the Country Club district between Casco and Arden along Bridge Street. (See
page A40.) Of the 104 homes included, roughly 8 would become nonconforming
under the suggested ordinance.
The country club district includes some of Edina's smallest lots, with some it's
larger homes.
Parkwood Knolls - Vacant Lots. Edina's last vacant lot subdivisions would not
be significantly impacted by the proposed ordinance. The last addition of
Parkwood Knolls has lots that exceed 100 feet in width. The finished square
footage of new homes in this area could be between 6,900 — 13,200 square feet,
under the suggested FAR requirement. (See page A41.)
Additional Considerations
• The FAR could be uniform for all lots rather than a sliding scale.
• Certain areas could be excluded for FAR purposes such as detached
garages, porches, etc.
• Dwellings being remodeled could be allowed a nominal increase in FAR
(such as 10 %) even if they are at the maximum FAR.
If the City Council wishes to consider these types of additional regulations, we
would recommend that the matter be referred to the Planning Commission for
consideration of a specific ordinance.
2. Building Height — Ridge Line
A continued complaint about new homes being built is the overall height of a
home. The Council could consider establishing a maximum height to the ridge
line or top of a home, similar to the City of Bloomington, which requires a
maximum of 40 feet.
5
Staff would recommend consideration of a 35 -foot maximum from the front of a
home. This would likely prevent the latest trend of homes being built with a steep
roof pitch, such at the home at 5504 Halifax. (See page Al 3.) From the top of the
roof to the eave measures 20 feet. The total height to the top is 40 feet. The 35-
foot requirement would require a 5-foot reduction to the ridge line.
Survey of Cities
Single- family residential home & lot standards
At
A.. —I— \hllev
nNNIW n can`
Zoning
R-5
R -2
R -3
Min. lot area
15,000
18,000
11,000
Min. side setback
10' (5' detached
10' (20' detached
10' (10' detached
Max. building
height*
garage)
garage)
garage)
Min. rear setback
30' (10' detached
30' (10' detached
30' (10' detached
None
garage)
ara e)
garage).
Max. building
35'
35'
35'
height*
FAR
None
None
None
Max. building
None
None
None
coverage
Max. impervious
None
None
None
surface
* Measured from the first above - grade, habitable door to the nignest point of a tiaL ruin, vi LI,C;
highest gable of a pitched roof. (Top of pitched roof)
vIanoc
Zoning
R -1
R -1 A
R -1 AA
Min. lot area
10,000
12,150
10,800
Min. side setback
10' (5' detached
10' (5' detached
10' (5' detached
Max. building
height*
garage)-
ara e)
garage)
Min. rear setback
30' (5' detached
35' (5' detached
30' (5' detached
None
garage)
garage)
garage)
Max. building
30'
35'
30'
height*
FAR
None
None
None
Max. building
None
None
None
coverage
Max. impervious
None
None
None
surface
* Measured from the grade of the building to the cornice of a fiat roof and the mean UlAdliu; Ul
the highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. (Mid point of pitched roof)
v WWI II " wig
Zoning
R -1
RS -1
Min. lot area-
11,000
33,000
Min. side setback
10' (5' detached garage)
10' 5' detached garage)
Min. rear setback
30' 10' detached garage
30' 10' detached garage)
Max. building
height*
19 -40 feet depending on setback
(2-story limit )
19 -40 feet depending on
setback (2-story limit
FAR
None
None
Max. building
coverage
None
None
Max. impervious
surface
35%
35%
* Measured from the lowest existing ground elevation prior to construction that is fmmedfately
adjacent to the structure to the highest point on any part of the structure, including rooftop
equipment. (Top of pitched roof)
ha 2
Burnsville
Zoning
R -1
Min. lot area
10,000
Min. side setback
10' (5' detached
garage)
Min. rear setback
30' (8' detached
garage)
Max. building
hei ht*
30'
FAR
None
Max. building
coverage
None
Max. impervious
surface
None
* Measured from the average elevation of the adjoining ground level to the top of a flat roof and
the mean distance of the highest gable on a pitched roof. (Mid -point of pitched roof)
Eanan
Zoning
R -1
R -1 S
Mini. lot area
12,000
8,000
Min. side setback
10' (5' detached
garage)
6' (5' detached
garage)
Min. rear setback
15' (5' detached
garage)
_ 15' (5' detached
garage)
Max. height*
35'
35'
FAR
None
None
Max. building
coverage
20%
25%
Max. impervious
surface
None
None
* Measured from the average elevation of the highest and lowest points within a five foot
horizontal distance from the exterior building foundation to the highest point of a flat roof, or the
average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. (Mid -point of pitched roof, from
average elevation.)
Eden Prairie
Zoning
R1 -22
R1 -13.5 _
R1 -9.5
Min. lot area.
22,000
13,500
9,500
Min. side setback
15' (10' detached
garage)
10' (10' detached
garage)
5.' (5' detached
ara e
Max. building
height*
40' (1 o' detached
garage)
40' (10' detached
garage)
40' (5' detached
garage)
FAR
None
None
None
Max. building
coverage
None
None
None
Max. Impervious
surface
None
None
None
* Measured to the mid point of the highest pitch of the roof. Measurement is from the highest
grade. If grade drops more than 10 feet, the measurement is taken from the lowest grade, and 10
feet is added to the 40 -foot requirement. (Mid -point of pitched roof)
A3 3
Edina
Zoning
R-1
Min. lot area
9,000
Min. side setback
10' (3' detached garage)
5' if lot is less than 75' wide
Min. rear setback
25' (3' detached garage
Max. building height*
30'
FAR
None
Max. building
coverage
25%
30% if lot is less than 9,000
square feet
Max. Impervious
surface
None
* Measured to the mid point of the highest pitch of the roof. Measurement is from the front or
street elevation.
Hnnkinc
Zoning
R -1A
R-1 B_
R -1 c
Min. lot area
6,000
8,000
12,000
Min. side
1 story = 8 feet
1 story = 8 feet
1 story = 10 feet
setback
2 story = 8 feet
2 story = 8 feet
2 story = 12 feet
30'
3 story 10 feet
3 story = 10 feet
3 story = 14 feet
Min. rear
25'
30'
35'
setback
FAR
None
None
Max. building
35'
35'
35'
height*
None
None
Max. impervious
surface
FAR
None
None
None
Max. building
35%
35%
35%
coverage
Max.
None
None
None
Impervious
surface
* Measured to the mid point of the highest pitch of the root. Measurement is from the average
front or street elevation.
I nkpvillp
Zoning
RS -1
RS -2
RS -3
RS -4
Min. lot area
20,000
15,000
11,000
9,375
Min. side setback
15'
15'
10'
7'
Min. rear setback
30'
30'
30'
30'
Max. building
height*
35'
35'
35'
25'
FAR
None
None
None
None
Max. building
coverage
None
None
None
None
Max. impervious
surface
None
None
None
None
* Measured from the mean ground level to the top of a flat roof, to the mean distance of the
highest gable on a pitched or hip roof. (Mid -point of pitched roof)
At 4
IVMa le Grove
Zoning
R -1
R -2
R -21B
Min. lot area
20,000
10,000
10,800
Min. side setback
5' 30' aggregate)
5' 15' a re ate
5' 15' aggregate)
Min. rear setback
30'
30'
30'
Max. building
height*
35'
35'
35'
FAR
None
None
None
Max. building
coverage
None
None
None
Max. impervious*
surface
None
None
None
* Measured from the mean ground level to the top of a flat roof, to the mean distance of the
highest gable of a pitched or hip roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the uppermost
point on all other roof types. (Mid -point of pitched roof, from average elevation.)
Minnetonka
Zoning
R -1
Min. lot area
22,000
Min. side setback
15' (15' detached
garage
Min. rear setback
40' (15' detached
garage)
,Max. building
height*
35'
FAR
None
Max. building
coverage
None
Max. Impervious
surface
None
* Measured to the mid point of the highest pitch of the roof. Measurement is from the highest
grade. If grade drops more than 10 feet, the measurement is taken from the lowest grade, and 10
feet is added to the 35 -foot requirement. (Mid -point of pitched roof.)
New Brighton
Zoning
R -1
Min. lot area
10,000
Min. side setback
5'
Min. rear setback
5'
Max. building
height
30'
FAR
None
Max. building
coverage
30%
Max. Impervious
surface
50%
* Measured from grade to the highest point of a flat roof, or to the average height of the highest
gable of a pitched or hipped roof. (Mid -point of pitched roof.)
AS 5
Plvmnuth
.Zoning
RSF -1
RSF -2
RSF -3
Min. lot area
18,500
12,500
7,000
Min. side setback
15' (6' detached
garage)
10' (6' detached
garage)
8' (6' detached
garage)
Min. rear setback
25' (6' detached
garage)
25' (6' detached
garage)
25' (6' detached
garage)
Max. building
height*
35'
35'
35'
FAR
None
None
None
Max. building
coverage
30%
30%
35%
Max. impervious
surface
None
None
None
* Measured from the average of the highest and lowest point of grade for that portion or the lot
covered by the building to the highest point of a flat roof and the mean height between eaves and
ridge for a gable, hip and gambrel roof. (Mid -point of pitched roof, from average elevation.)
St. Louis Park
Zoning
R -1
R -2
Min. lot area
9,500
7,200
Min. side setback
9' one side and 6'
Tone side and 5'
10' (5' detached
garage)
on the other (2'
on the. other (2'
Min. rear setback
detached garage)
detached garage)
Min. rear setback
25' (2' detached
25' (6' detached
40'
garage)
garage)
Max. building
30'
30'
height*
30%
20%
FAR
None
None
Max. building
35%
35%
coverage
Max. impervious
None
None
surface
* Measured from the highest elevation between the building and the curb to mid point of a
pitched roof. .
WaV7ata
Zoning
R -3A
R -2A
R -2
Min. lot area
9,000
25,000
15,000
Min. side setback
10' (5' detached
garage)
15' (15' detached
ara a )
10' (5' detached
ggarage)
Min. rear setback
20' (5' detached
garage)
20' (5' detached
garage)
20' (5' detached
garage)
Max. building height*
30'
40'
30'
FAR
None
None
None
Max. building
coverage
30%
20%
20%
Max. impervious
surface
None
None
None
* Measured from the highest adjoining sidewalk or ground surface within a five foot distance
from the exterior wall to the.highest point of a flat roof or the average height of the highest gable
of a pitched or hipped roof. (Mid -point of pitched roof.)
tip
Wnodbury
Zoning
R-4
Min. lot area
10,000
Min. side setback
10' (5' detached
garage)
Min. rear setback
25' (5' detached
garage)
Max. height
40' 3- stories
FAR
None
Max. building
coverage
35%
Max. impervious
surface
None
* Measured to the mid point of the highest pitch of the roof. Measurement is from the highest grade. If
grade drops more than 10 feet, the measurement is taken from the lowest grade, and 10 feet is added to the
40 -foot requirement. (Mid -point of pitched roof.)
V
Minneapolis vs. Edina Zoning Ordinance Comparison
Ordinance Provision
Edina
Minneapolis
Height .
30 feet
30 feet (reduced from 35
Side Setback
5 -10 feet depending on lot
width. Setback must be
increased based on height
5 feet (R -1)
6 feet (R -1A)
no matter the height
Building Coverage
25% - lot over 9,000 s.f.
30% - lot under 9,000 s.f.
50% (reduced from 60 %)
Impervious Surface
No requirement
65% (reduced from 75 %)
Floor Area Ratio
No requirement
*50% see exceptions)
Minimum Lot Size
9,000 s.f. (or median lot size
of neighborhood)
5,000 s.f (R -lA)
6,000 s.f. (R -1)
*In order to encourage traditional building features, certain portions of
homes are not counted toward the FAR, including the following:
1. Detached garages
2. Attached garages that are 250 sq. ft. or less (one parking stall). Attached
garages size in excess of 250 sq. ft. will be counted toward the total size
of the home.
3. Half stories. This is area under a hip or gable roof that is half the square
footage of the floor below. Half stories can be livable space, such as
bedrooms.
4. Basements that do not project more than 4 ft. from grade.
5. Open porches
Additional Exceptions. The FAR requirements include two types of exceptions
to the FAR. The first allows for up to a 500 sq. ft. building addition for homes
that exceed the FAR or would exceed the FAR with that addition. The other
exception allows for the FAR and height to be increased when a minimum of
half the homes within 100 ft. of a site also exceed the FAR or height
requirements.
k7i
LOGISMap Output Page
m
5201
5300
5305
5200
5209
5308
5213
5212
5217
5216
5221
5220
5329
5224
$237
5332
5337
5228
5241
5348 _ ,0
5412
5232
5245
5236
5301
5300
5305
5304
5309
5308
5313
5312 .
5317
5316
5320
5324
5325
5329
5328
5333
5332
5337
5336
4502 4500 5401 5400
5403 5404
GQLF TER 5409 5408
4501 5413 5412
5417
Almcc Jain A-d%IS• CmpgoCl -O +S G!SMS
A
r�
5201
5200
5211 5216
521 a D1 5220��0
5221 ( 5224
2,t a
a 5228�Op o 52� '
5225 5224
e2�4 5232 aa 0 5222 0
5233 5232a r
5237 5240 5241,
3 5236 1
Y 1e
5MSTW
5301 a
3�
5300 ?3
i�
530;�tp
5304 °
5307
52 8
ao
5313 ��
5318_�p/
5325.,
532aaa4
!0
5331
5328 ,, 0/
0
5337,0)
5332af�
5341 7f
5336a�0/
534 9�
5346,1%
0
$351
5348 _ ,0
A
m
35 %01
4430000 0 1
dO 05
1IV(o
53jjf
310",
52 8
ao
A °l,9
(4I o
5400
5405
53e2P
7b
5316
0 /a
53 f
D
5331
6 D
X45 °D
3�32/0
5
°j 0 5328
41r 13 °r
O
5336
a53��p a0 °%
�
i AI �Lol SIZE ��X X351/
24
A
m
Page 1 of I
5230
E
Q4,Q
�.� 24
00
5404
5412
5417 5416
(CALCvLATNkS 0114 AMT ATTA40, eAaQl Ylpaml)
54TH
ST W
5401
5400
5401
5400
5405
5404
5405
5404
5409
5408
5409
5408
5413
5412
5413
5412
5416
5417
5416
�
i AI �Lol SIZE ��X X351/
24
A
m
Page 1 of I
5230
E
Q4,Q
�.� 24
00
5404
5412
5417 5416
(CALCvLATNkS 0114 AMT ATTA40, eAaQl Ylpaml)
3. Site area - 8,114 square feet = 0.186 acres
PEAK HT. _ _,
T �� - - - - -- -40.1 --- - - - - -�
ELEV.=923.9
EXISTING BUILDING -� — — — — — J
FINISHED FLOOR
ELEV.=899.72 --.
TOP BLOCK = 898.88
4. This survey was made on the ground. PEAK HT. _
ELEV. =919.3
5. No current title work was furnished for the I M1 PEAK HT.
preparation of this survey, legal description. SET xg9� -
ELEV. =919.9
recorded or unrecorded easements and IRON
encumbrances are subject to revision upon recelpt t I X897.1
of current title work.
- -- ��` N 89'58'29"
B. Elevation datum Is based on City of Edina data. —
Bench mark Is located Top of Nall (AS SHOWN ON I
SURVEY) �'I x�o,�
Elevation = 894.94 \
EXISTING BUILDING -� \J
LEGEND
FOUND
Found Property Monument Bg
LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
RAGE DETAILS��
Lot 3, Block 5, SOUTH HARRIET PARK, Hennepin
Minn. Reg. No. 23677
County. Minnesota.
TOP OF BLOCK - 89B.90 a Q'�
FIRST FLOOR - 900.06
BASEMENT FLOOR = 890.90
GENERAL NOTES:
GARAGE SLAB = 898.73
1. The bearing system used Is assumed.
*Assuming a full 8' basement, 1' -2' joist, and
O
two 8' steps Into the garage.
2. Th e location of the underground utilities shown
•Verify dimensions and elevations per latest
hereon, If any, are approximate only. PURSUANT TO house plan prior to construction.
MSA 216D CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT
1B
(612) 454 -0002 PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION.
-#
3. Site area - 8,114 square feet = 0.186 acres
PEAK HT. _ _,
T �� - - - - -- -40.1 --- - - - - -�
ELEV.=923.9
EXISTING BUILDING -� — — — — — J
FINISHED FLOOR
ELEV.=899.72 --.
TOP BLOCK = 898.88
4. This survey was made on the ground. PEAK HT. _
ELEV. =919.3
5. No current title work was furnished for the I M1 PEAK HT.
preparation of this survey, legal description. SET xg9� -
ELEV. =919.9
recorded or unrecorded easements and IRON
encumbrances are subject to revision upon recelpt t I X897.1
of current title work.
- -- ��` N 89'58'29"
B. Elevation datum Is based on City of Edina data. —
Bench mark Is located Top of Nall (AS SHOWN ON I
SURVEY) �'I x�o,�
Elevation = 894.94 \
EXISTING BUILDING -� \J
LEGEND
FOUND
Found Property Monument Bg
SET IRON
(et Property Monument
IRON
Minn. Reg. No. 23677
Concrete
Concrete Curb
Fence
—.. — W
Overhead Electric
—a
Gas
O
Electric Meter
0
Power Pole —
®
Air Conditioning Unit
1B
Deciduous Tree (Diameter In Inches)
-#
Light Pole
®
Gas Meter
Existing Contour FOUND
X 934.3
__
Existing Spot Elevation IRON
X 934.3TW
Existing Top of Wall
CERTIFICATION.
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report
was prepared by me or under my direct supervision
and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor
under the laws of the State of Minnesota.
Date: November B, 2007 G
omas E. Hodorff
Minn. Reg. No. 2367
F -d► M S- b 1A r )J'
FINISHED FLOOR
ELEV.=898.77
TOP BLOCK = 897.25
EXISTING BUILDING -�
PEAK FIT.
ELEV. =925.0 wo
34.9
�NOV 2 1 2007
61TY OF P-r)jN.A
b
e
BITUMINOUS
60
m
b
a
rHSJ BENCHMA < j
r-'TOP OF NAIL I
I 'ELEV.=894_94 lI
LU
:3
Ldb
Wc'b^
C
4�
4A'
7Y`
e/ -CC
`\
Cyr\
60 /
BITUMINOUS
-� E
ia; �E
50,0 a
N
d
0,00 000 °0 ao
cc 3 Z�0 p N N p
=]rnm°�1O:w3
W
L Z
J Z
zee
L
Z
Q= 2
S 0
Z g glow
� W
W .,
®3aa �X
" X
1
20 10 0 20
SCALE IN FEET
M
C.
2
CID
t�
O
0
N T
N LL
0
O d T
' 1 1�: .5• 1 t •.M �.
-'♦• M f��, •ri� i �rj fs,• f • t 7.t�rL lr �•• � r j, -•ice N
L r 1 �r.
jw
40 f
ASP
Ate:, .�T; v 'i r• ;.- •�i`•+ L ', .Q +�� ♦ ,� •SASAI
� _T rar+�.lYG �. �,T •Hy . � �T . " r i 1 - t � .��, — •
',r;,,�jr 'I���•I �.. a � i�. , I r • �^I I, .J'!'ti° � � f _ � 's►. ��. •J r �° r k ,rrT _ - ,.�«,,.r .��
ti •fit + . •�.1 _,, n �:. -"�._;_•,„,.
LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of I
It
4@L4Wl:Z
-A
L�,,j13 fj, {(o Mt
t -
HY - I
Proposed Top of Block SRI?. 1Z
�E 5504 Halffax
Proposed Garage Floor .8 $.77-
Proposed Lowest Floor . 15 - vation
1 Type of Building -` evation
' ' ` �V � I �4SEYMG Kt
HOMEBUILDERS
RETAINING SPLIT RAIL P NE 1 4 Sec. 19. Twp. 28. R. 24.
Iidyg. Dept. .,-WALL , - FENCE--- 43.42
\� W \ °11 888.11 EXISTNG MANHOLE
GRFOUND 165.32 EENHOUSE 891.8 RETAINING TOP= 895.3
EOW 7 / m IRON 896.79 WALL 896.37 INV= 886.98 872.75 887.43 889.98 T•v -� SdA e1so TC 865.44 8791 .
291 / / S 54.33 �. 32.47 896.61 X96 89s'7+F
� m� 46' -4" FROND A
ro I CO ^1 0 1 I -�� n in
z
/
�� Q Ld �n o I: c�
/ r
j W 33.0 D
149 � 1 I � Q v , i � 8 L 0 m
l5' -0" ��nST• 847. I
CLIP o N - - - - -- -
/ op- 9eoo 6 4'- 4" N
i r=2=3®54.33 1,- 36.92 �
1 2� 1.62 891 .37 596.26 899.01 } 01&74
FOUND
PICKET- � 89 •48 899.94 1 IRON Ili
� FENCE I
4 3, ELMWOOD TERRACE P. es /4-
I
,ty to the above named person or persons �, i i,,• � 4
wnere, mortgoges or title Insurer. �1}C
e or j� MANHOLE e from plate of record of Information provided by client.
wl'
.d floor elevations meet be verified by client. !) TOP= 898.24
31.12 � INV =B 8.29
his survey was prepared by me or under -
..;
and that I am a duly Registered Land
re of the State of Minnesota. Signed:
24th day of October 20 06 Revised: October 25th. 2006. MI ton E. Hyland, Minn. Reg. (W. 20262
�� 1■ jl •_ .�Btt6tr °a•�.r �e��so � -� -= ._.ML
_ .� i .. -�1�. ,I�
ttPA+R E+� t�PA
CONTRACTOR VERIFYALLINFORMATION
BEFORE STARTING CONSTRUCTION ado 1-78 C-
3
-3p _
Page 1 of 1
LOGISMap Output Page
A
5504
5508
5512
56 \ 5520
I � 11
5604 00 �-
-IS
_ _ shoe 4c . _ SETH Sr W- _..
- �. +5601 5600
5612 { J • 5601
`I 5605. �q 5605 5604
5616 O
5609 5604 5609 I I 5608
5620 5613 I I 5612
- � D 5613 5608 ` � � 1
5617 11 5616
5624
5612
aS
5621 b '5620
o� 1
13 5621 5616 ¢
ESM632 5618 • 13 5625 5620 t ` [ 3704 7700 5636 A 5629 5624 .J 5640 1 3 � 5633 5628 1 3612 3608 5644 • 5637 5632 577H Sr W
5700 O ` �p 5701 1 7 5701 5700 5701 5700
A �
® m
� 5705 •5705 5704 5705 5704
. \ISC ®a.:+N�\ISCmr^9R ?C:_ASGd 2115 - - -'
Page 1 of 1
55TH Sr W
3333
3329
3725
3321
?
3331
3328
i I
3314
3320
st17 CNbw��l cLOT ,=E_6oY1,3)
Z-1 iii V i iJ +Y 4- !J %W 4, 4, i ii •i K ii
I \
Property Address: 5617 Chowen Avenue S.
Edina, MN
Property located in Section
20, Township 28, Range 24,
NAnneoin County, Minnesota.
r
tai ("%40
4—
Denotes Surface
Drainage
NOTE:
Proposed grades
are subje
to results of soil
tests.
Proposed building
informati
must be checked
with app
building plan and
developm
grading plan before
excavc
and construction.
96�.g
Proposed Top of
Block
90r�
Proposed Garage
Floor
Proposed Lowest
Floor wo
space
• 89.2.5
Proposed Basement Floor
�i top
897.96 / 89 e • 3 898.1 898.3 898.61 foundation 'r � � � � Al
B So 898.4,
_ 132.00 plat
o 97.9131, 84
i
98. 35 / 90.x; 1 .9 898. 7 vi co � meas. 895.3
897.0
'►r; uj
1 24 �G• � � 895. .3
;. `' �;; .,:... „ _ 1 899:
LO 1 bituminous
O !
9.50
S% 90r CA_ SED T=5 I y 1
J '= F?ROp�'
of „ ' t h ;: RES I. ENCE " E -9
196 �� 50 ElR
+-
- —34.4- _�: , c7 1 0 x897.5 ash. i o' o
zi
/ 35.0 >- x
E I� I1 ^ 1 c
899. -9 ` Existing.
►� 1
;:.
I 1 9 sop.
' zs' 2" 1 i
CY
00 ` 9dl s %. SIM,,
899: ;Pj 1, 895.71
899.8 ,n ,n W 897.5 ....... _
t.66 R 1
900.9 00, o p 1 894. 9
I I top 900. 4 b°S'� 134.90 meas. a w�oreichor CIO)
1.901.45 on 135.00 plat +
U%
In
I
HOUSE Proposed window wells
No. 5621
900.
35 - - -,
h0
FIHtl+-
FINAL
PLUMBING, H VAC AND
ELECTRICAL PERMITS AND
INSPECTIONS REQUIRED
BEFORE FRAMING i
INSPECTION
Jl
oC`
REAR ELEVATION
SCALE. I/6' . V -o'
SOFFIT < FL
SUB - FASCIA
IARDIE LAP !
CULTUI
STONE
RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION
SCALE. 11p' . V -o'
OAIn1mum 4' hl9lN
bulldll 9 eddreas n —
. yigible Irom the atreelf.
, CQ(lA1T CI G \ /ATIlIAI - i _ �,eLw11W4t9 -
S.
HE TRIM
SOFFIT t HARDIE
WB- FASCIA
E LAP SIDING
TRIM
.ED
I ON A
O'
BASE
owl
�J
Allum
Ov
c
Page 1 of 1
1 ; � 1
hil
file: /\ \ed -ntl \citvwide\PD Simages \Photos\3311721320015001.JPG 2/19/2008
5809 5808 5807 5808
5812
5813 5812 5813 ,
5817 5816 �• 5817
5208 5204 5200
5821 5300 _ 5216 5212
SEWONAVE
5301 I 5900
5215
5904
6000
5109
5908
5205 _
5201
$309
5305 5301 5213 5209
5213
5209
5116 5112
5108
9R
5YT14STW
5125
5905
5113
5912
5124
5904
6005
5112
5108
5916
307
6008
•, r
5312
5304
-- — ° -- - -- --
5909
5908
5300
era �eraa •., n- nrs c-r 9% c: _!Ylrs 1-45 a'a5
5215
6001 -
6000
5109
24
5205 _
5201
$309
5305 5301 5213 5209
5213
5209
5116 5112
5108
5YT14STW
5125
5905
5113
5109
5124
5904
6005
5112
5108
6001
307
6008
— - -'—
-- — ° -- - -- --
5909
5908
5308 5304 5300
era �eraa •., n- nrs c-r 9% c: _!Ylrs 1-45 a'a5
cg�gi
a
m
6009
5913
5912
5917
5916
o
z.
0921
5212
5208
5204
5200
BOTH ST w
6001 -
6000
5109
5121
5313
$309
5305 5301 5213 5209
5205 5201
5120
5116 5112
5108
5YT14STW
5125
6004
5113
5109
5124
5120
6005
5112
5108
6001
6000
6008
— - -'—
-- — ° -- - -- --
6009
5308 5304 5300
era �eraa •., n- nrs c-r 9% c: _!Ylrs 1-45 a'a5
cg�gi
a
56TH S7 w
5121 5117 5113 5109
m
A
M 5116 5112 5108
5120
� 1
Coo Choi 5�2� = 104- x 307
;04 � 4Sc� ^. ►s; boo
At .4 6,240 fit. he-se. loll be 611
�aa
5117
5115
5109
5121
5120
5116 5112
5108
5YT14STW
5125
5121
5113
5109
5124
5120
5116
5112
5108
6001
6000
0
6005
6004
cg�gi
m
6009
6008
6012
z.
5908 Code Ave.. Under the current code existing height =
home would have to be 4.8 ft shorter. There would be no change
in side yard setback.
It should be noted that the lot is quite large, (32,187 sq ft). The house is
approximately 4% of the lot.
concrete I". u6d' utter
x --�
+
ry
104.6'6\ (plat)
Lot 9, Block 1,
I
r
according to ti
I I
I
1
Hennepin Count
9 X 945.0
rec
'
CN
•
1
I
a°DU I
• g�. .
House
IN +O
I .o°. c
n
to ;,
C
O 3 building
1
1 '^
alp• ,a.
9,T
u
I LO
Lot Area
c
O
+ci
d'
0
941,8
G FOUI
.1
U-RL
SAM
yin >`'``' GI1nGAS
a.'•'.
CO
04MG- concrete ewb bl na
'tQ4.4T(M
x --�
+
941.5
104.6'6\ (plat)
Lot 9, Block 1,
I
r
according to ti
I I
I
1
Hennepin Count
9 X 945.0
rec
Drive and side%
CN
Stoop on south
OC
CN
M ; + 1 a o Or
House
i
I .o°. c
n
O
C
O 3 building
a
0 ,
j° c
Hardco%er
Total
setback line
ode Ave o, n
.°. o 935.5
o° = `o O� a
x 934.7 �.� OR
O Proposedhouse I O
0 (,e.' dhl)
\ r�
�ry o o `�
dock,,
al
Corr
♦i
a
r� I
0 0 °
�i ll))
;,:`
/O c I
��/od °'� o
Cb
10
II.a Obi �J
f + r
IS 00
/ li
H
4g.3_
t.
house
• Proposed dr
I
L - - - - --
L�/// /
937.8
—937--
— ttJ-- -93 &-- r
Cb
�� -934 GRAPE
CO
x933 —�- -_ 0
Y � 932 —
—93 Scale: 1 I
Descrip't'ion, a
rOrylb
+
(As provided b
r� r
Lot 9, Block 1,
according to ti
Hennepin Count
9 X 945.0
rec
Drive and side%
Stoop on south
/
House
Shed
tiTotal
of
Hardco%er
Total
,y
Lot Area
ry1'
Percent Hardco
+ci
a
LEGENI
G FOUI
0 IRM
U-RL
SAM
yin >`'``' GI1nGAS
BUV Taq 6904 6905 *,G
5813
6009 6005
6025 6021 6017 6011 6908 6909
5809
6911 _ A
a
6003 1
6004
6000 0
5920 5911
5900 5820 5816 5812 5808
6005
6001
70TH 5T W
i
r - 7001
j 7000
7000 i. .. V70
7001 5905
i
r i
7005 7004
7008 7008
c ,
7017
m
g 7009 7016
7000 7013
7021 7016
7020
7079
7101 7020 7021
7024
O^
pO 7012
7023 8
7101
Qp
7105
- o,Q
oo#- } L0 -F S Z
A""TRIM
C
A�3
. 3LI }.rf
IS
A • ` a �' L3tl:
' Iftr.(I11 IF01'IL(I ��63 � � b -
I�
$l jl T
, Of
- .jam% ,1 1. ' � l y +� {,, {t l i�4�ry,y F,' • � F �v+ ' ���,' '
S `. st• 1 4.
' -1 � �K�kn .�ff.�1 ►sji�l.�c.ill lI''tsT� - -�s lr � r. , ' {'� � +�i
r 7000 Anti Under the current code existing height =
755. 5 it neignr , home would have to be�.5 feet shorter There would be no VAR
change in side yard setbacks. — 9
It should be noted that the lot is large, (60, 300 s ft
1
REA
\ J P� � cp I 86
\ (n � n
\o { t %
EALL — 1.2 — • P R
_ d
57 Q 30.0 �1 .0 0 16. 986.) Q
9 ` 17.5 r` 96 cn044 TFE= 993.25
0 N EXISTING;
e
OUSE
o P5 PROPOSE �9$� -0 .° X 9 sq I
W/CKMAN 5.0 es �(
` 4 9 S�DENCE �9LFE =984.4 n
c�
r
6.94 pn �.2
A.
7.5 I
h a. �� �L!
.
94.0 X Pia �
O 2 ^�.— — — —
5 R
ob 994.0)X , Ps�J((9 2.0) CD
X y \
99 9� I POOL
s (X(994. I o
O I
$ 92.
ti
5.7 (s 2.5)X s8.o�°' W I 9 1 �� 90 o bf
Lj
4 P I O jO LL III O- 9 O� `1 rP ?`� OrO
r°ri 199y TENM C U T11 1 aQ`'Pe�0 ,� - I
R T. BALL { OO P� / O a l� J
T 96.0 X0,9"'' I I P 9�. b O,a' .Q� �� Ice
I �tE =992.5 9 `< + ! I t992.5 )X �1ti 1
pp�1 / �� /
g ' D
1 �<
9ryp • , � . �� 7 � ZREES � - f
_ SILT FENCE
87017'41 •• E 25� t1 pL,q i -'-- m
J 1254.3 �EA S
CT
TRANS
ILTO I
A
gas
LOGISMap Output Page
40TH ST W
4000 ..21 1 I. a 1 4001
4004 )d .,J-7 4003
4006 .� 3 4009
4010 a� I ([ 4011
4012 ,r
4013
4014 36
a a .4015
4016 3�
.l}� 4017
4018
4019
4020
d 4021
4022
4024
4023
4026
4025
0
t 4001 6 4000
4000
a3 4003 • 4002
4004 ')
4005 4004
4006
a�
q .a3 4007 `2 4006
4008 .3
33
4010 ,`�1 4011 1
33 4012
4016
4016 •� ( l
4020
4020
4022 .13
4024
4100
4101 4021
p ' l9tf
\Im vovd•w +n MGUS rm�;,�rC::�6G52315
FAR
•��' 1 •�'� C C.� I S I ZC = —70 x 13S
°l �`�-� s.f • k of
Page 1 of 1
4015
FII 'ED FLOOR _
V.= 899.82 ��\ _FOUND
SET IRON
IRON
Found Property Monument
Set property Monument
(Minn. Reg. Na 23677)
Concrete
9, Retaining Wall
FINE HED FLOOR _ ` 0 Fence
O�,rirnac� Under the current code existing height
would have t er under new code
requirements. increas r living space above the
garage on the north side and the new se ac .wou d require an additional 1.87 ft
on the south side. The home would not fit on the lot given setbacks.
r INtJritU FLUUR
E L E V. = 89 5.53 - ��
.lvi4 ` __
v' �''r �. X(694.1)
�•op o EI®vaUOn -
Proposed Drainage Arrow
®� K
Existing Dralno a Arrow
C' `s
EXISTING BUILDING
.r
o,`O
.�
41_3 - -��, ;
1
�`
8 t �1°
SET
�� - - -, -IRON
89'36'22" `°I
0.0
C,
'.
10o �9S
892 M vii
�j 1.2
A _ A
SET _ J --' - - - -- 39.7 1b -
RON
ti v �ro
X a 5g
FINIS ED FLOCK
FLEV.= 891.41
ABOVE GROUND BUILDING -'
FINISHED FLOOR _
ELEV.= 882.88
jw/�l/// /ifs "o SHED
`� i _ FINISHED FL.0 OCR
ELEV.= 8952 8.2
_ 19-QO
C�IM S AVENUE Q, PROPQ RET. WALL
OR�UILDING � TONE g3� / 886.5$ 85.0
6 FO PRINT AREA /"' AVER °� $ 901
1,9 SQUARE FEET j 2 o, 0.0) F_
BIUILDIN i CO
12.0 ��'� 97.6 w� O
jr -0tK• O 890.0)_
/N -T A9
R7r / e ��� •6� �A
7 /1J �
RS
8
.. ':
885.7 X89 -J6'2 2 W 135.28 �
:XISTIN BUILDING �S I � FOUL
L -WOOD STEPS IRON
�- PROPOSED RET. WALL � A % ,
:v S,.-'7- D FLOCK
I _EV. =891.36 '`� _ 1�6k ►�
L _ CONC. r J.
/ STEPS r i�
"
0 `
20 10 0 20
AA SCALE IN FEET
CONC.
_
STEPS::::
C,
FINISHED FLOCie
ELEV.= 896.92 5g2
- --
co
n8
8®
1
a.�" V h•
n;
SET _ J --' - - - -- 39.7 1b -
RON
ti v �ro
X a 5g
FINIS ED FLOCK
FLEV.= 891.41
ABOVE GROUND BUILDING -'
FINISHED FLOOR _
ELEV.= 882.88
jw/�l/// /ifs "o SHED
`� i _ FINISHED FL.0 OCR
ELEV.= 8952 8.2
_ 19-QO
C�IM S AVENUE Q, PROPQ RET. WALL
OR�UILDING � TONE g3� / 886.5$ 85.0
6 FO PRINT AREA /"' AVER °� $ 901
1,9 SQUARE FEET j 2 o, 0.0) F_
BIUILDIN i CO
12.0 ��'� 97.6 w� O
jr -0tK• O 890.0)_
/N -T A9
R7r / e ��� •6� �A
7 /1J �
RS
8
.. ':
885.7 X89 -J6'2 2 W 135.28 �
:XISTIN BUILDING �S I � FOUL
L -WOOD STEPS IRON
�- PROPOSED RET. WALL � A % ,
:v S,.-'7- D FLOCK
I _EV. =891.36 '`� _ 1�6k ►�
L _ CONC. r J.
/ STEPS r i�
"
0 `
20 10 0 20
AA SCALE IN FEET
P2 1 Ell
Mil
, PC
1w,
, IP
Jijllh'�
kA
r . im . wl
pwal
LOGISMap Output Page Page I of I
24
4116 4117 4120
V4406
4120 4121 4124
W �
a
s
4404 4130 4324 4308 4304 4300 4224 4125 4212 4202 4200
42ND ST W
4201 1
4317
4200
4309
4407
4301
4205
4221
4212
4206 '
t0
4211
4229
4215
4216
4216 ,
• 4217
2
4119
4120
—�
4223
4224
4227
4228
4226
4231
4132
UrTLE 5T
24
49-1 4234
4321
4317
4313
4309
4305
4301
4211
4221
4223
4206 '
t0
c _ 4213.y!
4229
'T
4212
4215
4216 ,
• 4217
4220
4219
4224 _
4221
4226
4223
4228
- 4225
4230
4227
4232
4231
4234
4233
4236
K
4221 4217
4215 421:
4109
4213
4175
4217
4219
4221
4223
4225
4127
4229
4231
4233
f31
4208
4212
4216
4218
4222
4224
4226
4230
4232
Page 1 of 1
OREXEL
0- -
i
file: //\ \ed- ntl \citywide\PDSImages \Photos \1802824120144001.JPG 2/19/2008
401 CRE*L AY
Established in 1962 INVOICE NO. 73055
(apationso
ZVEYS COMPANY, INC. F.B.NO. 1006-64
64stal at SILT FENCE MUST BE AND SURVEYORS SCALE: 1 " = zo' sh" post r
post or O Denotes Iron Monument
INSTALLED PRIOR'I'O [DER THE LAWS OF STATE OF li1NNESOTA
ANY INSPECTIONS i 709
� ) 590 -9083 p Denotes Wood Hub Set
ape Minneapolis, Minnesota 55429 Fax No. 590 -3522 for excovoli
Fabric aa" rape only
�� x000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation
rurkw an. t PgIIrs TertifiratP (90 ) Denotes Proposed Elevation
r
))a- tu rsl .r ; :'rti �1 •d 1rrU rrsrWm --adf-
Denotes Surface Drainage
IPANIES
sea NOTE: Proposed grades are subject
• t2'BTIFICATE OF PROPOSED IPSROV gNM to results of soil tests.
•.•�••: Ymh rrin6rsm Proposed building information
cated in Section must be checked with approved
mote. Depending span conronaner4 ease fable to sift MashINh p Zd. Range Z4, building pion and development or
oprYga,11it"Poals-11lftlawls arraoodpoefesaMSlapae, grading plan before excavation
ounty, Minnesota and construction.
Rp-0i•2. ryPIr 6r.la salon for am wrfoe 6153' Proposed Top of Block
BENCHMARK: M5S,O Proposed Garage Floor
Top Nut Hydrant at the Northeast 8B3•b Proposed Lowest Floor
corner of Wooddele Ave. and
Bridge Street 897.23 Type or Building
��tlbaser►1e�F
Note: Existing improvements on Lot 37 not shorn.
Bridge Street
-7, NO s. r LOT
+11Ga S.F. FW
Af?A
.s�
FAR
I
•5�
- /SO
2N�� /�o�l_����
`i l/
-++b/e M Lrncrate
TC
-C CuRi3cul
I TC cu-cur
893
E93.50 893.49 893.:/
3 892.97
- -
34.04
60.00 _- i
a3
0'
893.03
C
!
I
'a
Iti
V' T'
li'O• b 91 -8•
I
„
S
p'
\
• - :°
'"
Proposed b
t
O
T
Res tdenc e 'i
2'0-
--
V
n Ta
`U CuRACl/T
•q
O
45'6• P
12 6
I
! l
899.9: N
O0- : 1
v
P
t P
892. 7
3369 -
�on�;.te• Dr;o.� °y
.. 70 Boa •$
e•..
I
892.1
4 5%
Lil.RSCuT
"A
783 20.0
3
89:.42
3.8
6.2-
895.0 ..F
..9ht O'D
:-sta
No. X03
q'
-� ,.� °• °• -_
-. -�
Front Setbacks of Homes 95.0
Ra t R'.e a 4
i
t
�� FENCING
alon); Drexel Avenue
LS
�QUIREI3
�- 36.0 ft.
ToB
4605 42.0 ft.
4607 .9 4609 35.3
Approved Grading and
ft.
4611 30.0 ft.
s
Drainage Pian
ft
t00v
4613 30.6 ft. q .
required prior to
4615 35.3 ft 334sq. ft.
altering any grades
4617 30.6 ft.
and/or drainage
4619 30.3 ft.
4621 35.0 ft.
4623 35.5 ft. ; Lut 37, Block 8, COUNTRY CLUB DISTRICT FAIRWAY SECTION
4625 32.8 ft.
,L I_bl ^T. AL)eA3LF_
4627 35.4 ft.
4629 36.3 ft. {�
'3 G 2 /
4633 31.3 ft..
The only easements shown are from plots of record or inf,
provided by client. -d. or information
We hereby certify that this is o true and correct represents
o survey of the boundaries of the above described land
--
anepresentation of
location of all buildings and visible encroachments, if any, I land and the
said land.
•
if any, From or on - - J ,/-
Juive,�ed by us this 74th day of July 2005.
Rev
Drawn B Y
Sig ned
prawn BY 9. .Al..,ee,t.
File Name
Charles F. nderson, Minn. Reg. No. 21753 or
le Name yT_Nrot006E�ir. ?JUSS.dwg
Gregory R. Prosch, Minn. Reg. No. 24992
a
-7, NO s. r LOT
+11Ga S.F. FW
Af?A
.s�
FAR
I
•5�
- /SO
2N�� /�o�l_����
`i l/
2� c" zuv cwO2.
t �.SY fSAGIl
I I
V701E WYT.2E[71JGYtOA
iI I c mF,4ANC",-
Rmo me'A -mm- r4 _
PZaC"= iNG_: wrrA C6AFe� IToN —� - 8 -! I: -�• CuiNU6`(:
6 4!W -L->ES CWI7A AW OPr :OfJ
C-F FPUK S=ATE IF CGSCfALwJIJ \ 11! SIf±rDJ1T�IM GOM PoSi1E 7TLA4
1 'l + 5.'�aa`7i8c7
-rr OF wimr_ 4--_LaypTIdJ 924.Oh'"� `�1r I �61D11Jr1.- MpTCil --n(I?
1 - \ — .LIGt75E'Witl'SrNARbIPW 6L
� � � _... IIAdl71 BDpRb'GMFlPSrr$ �1
..
I CeMPd�rt7OU $1- 11Nf�bt l7bF e�vice Eu= YATraN�41G.a; b-
-epp2 6YZAG_ETS,Q, -T'.l :. I!�\ "Fr.w AA.
zsLw-rt�Crc�) --- - — — - -
E MUSIC frN, StpE
GARArzA GE
H A/2i71 PAN Ef-; cOM POSI'r� I
_"fTZiMFr 'NpOYL gA'1f�u.__ •- i - E _ � .�^
COMPOSITE BMrzr�j fi`(P�. _ I � A��
NA- n -)YZ4L
Wtwlx!#1 lnotil I2aL.,t4
�TATFJf =D �beD" Fird.1T5
`t(O G I
F'izOFosc— ' }Jtp-rUJ
Cpl 1` �i�UC t la!�l
y�p O�7
EYIST hIG -'�uG T7JIZ�
•C?t2Exr
L_ AN NJUT
L_ t--- vd—\—rlvN
iS" sR' /411_
011
Y1LJI�r'
!�i✓ =trJ I2>v_- ,Ir���.JC�_ tN ��•IN�.,- G,G.G, , '� -601 �}2��C�L �V� g.2.o5
J H ��c�;�.k C4 r--- 0 �l=r
i
CV
Erls('iN?�
6RA r,E
i
v {
Established in 1982 INVOICE NO,. 73414, 74 54
LOT SURVEYS COMPANY, INC. F•B•NO. 1013 -49
LAND SURVEYORS SCALE: 1 " = 20'
REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF S'L'ATE OF i)UNNESOTA 0 Denotes Found Iran Monument
7801 73rd Avenue Noah 1783 1 880 -9003 O Denotes Iron Monument
1. No. 580 -SM
MinneapoW, Minnesota 55UB O De a :eovoto only Set
3ururgers T ertifiratP x000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation
��t $� 000.0 Denotes Proposed Elevation
1MS CUSTOM HOMES CONCEPT �_ Denotes Surface Drainage
1 �l 1 NDTE Pro posed g1des are subject
Properly located in Section APPROVED to results of Boil tests.
Proposed bupppp�Idingg inlonnotion
18, Township 2B, Range 24, / must be cheeked with approved
Hennepin County, Minnesota Date /113/4x building plan and development or
grading plan 1 before excavation
Ely Benchmark: Top nut hydrant Bridge Street and construction.
and Bruce Avenue. Lily Ol Eddla �(�' Ut:D1• 800.0 Proposed Top o1 Block
Elevation = B91.58 (City Datum) 041,0 Proposed Garage Floor
?
�
Note: Top of Foundations Not Accessible. Proposed Lowest Floor
Type of Building
Fall DOHA" k
3g8z -� -r avg4w IWAlf
Dalotea pnaposed retaining wall e *;,,yv App'OVCd Grading and
on d ✓✓ ,� (�// Dr= in��.e Pict
required prior to altering any grades
n
�'� siege El9v i3nd/01- drainage
i 1
2 -5- stucco
No. 460b
W ova FFEl-
v
�rLkl�Ri�-Ryn ea6.TOPOF NEW i =�
3 $psE 1b ` P 7 899.3 91E7.VJAL -4. >
cw -Et rV - 8qqS :
0 ��"Q, hNI1Y fb
sn Y
-r a wnes ! v
a n
S,u E✓2Z /05 � i i
Nu .c
solo ►is`� . rr ems. 0 1 1a� : M
�:•w _
-
6 - .212. .. •. "�4' - , .. t. fit q1 ! T
o 6210• Z ]'3.... :: ; 6�. 94, 1! I 1.
90 25, 0
"a n eso9 Proptr3ed 1,2; l 34.,
L
Sea, Residence
o u ;.Yi� ,0 -Piro =4.P
96 .- eC s3. 1. M1
!
0 'e.i -lJ / + C
2 rc , xr i r U �5 if • b 97 1 Y
O q- -- w
�a1aa.E n
r4
�SSi ..... 410• { ; . -.>3 I 2 o C
"11�888:rr' ....•... ..... p . J7' Tree ;
�.
•P' .ease �........ .. I
r°'."1 sea/ c e900 Pra oese Drivsieay � se
• pp �-we w �. -��
`• tf., I �� li
tl
b'n ali�..,wwval+i1 4t��r ..r. /_�i'9I01._�e�+i ".�7�7!'. �1,',j°sr' "..:_- �r>r4a3. ?., :i ti;,'+`^z: 'Iea'J : �,.•.' i
�C i
I 949 949
P /laic Cosloosting Wood 11/ ; a1
9tructvre Q. Lat LO.r 7moe.. I I N
! i n
cc'r8erve 1
�i
4600 30.3 NO. 4610
4602 36.1 Average Setback Distance 35 g.,uc_gr�� • j v w
4604 35.0
4606 33.7
4608 34.9
4610 34.6
4612 35.0
4614 35.0
4616 35.3
4618 35.2
4520 34.6
4622 35.3
4624 37.5
4526 35.1
4628 35.0
4630 35.2
4532 35.6
4634 35.3
Note: Setback distances shown a
main building wall and doe o
include covered stoops or 11 ev .
- ., -.__; .• � rwsrrrah rebde,�,y,y
..I J tag
i r -. • t ; � II { i i[ l 131p1neerhlp IBbda
. ' 1 i /�misrr9s
' dasl «etalm
894.4
Lot 5, Block 9, COUNTRY CLUB DISTF
The only easements shown are from plats of record or information
provided by client.
We hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of
o survey of the boundories of the above described land and the
location of all buildings and visible encroachments, if any, from or on
said land.
Surveyed by us this 21st day of December 2005.
awn By g Jf_
e Name
cf- 5- 91b101349inv74184.dwg .
4 DapdMpn pf
Dams now
SILT FENCE MUST B
INSTALLED PRIOR T
ANY INSPECTIONS
Fabrlb mlCwraOe -
bsnea baaldla rah
Unpad nah.W son
�.'r �7r�s aeruretnn
ft �'° w
plows &341, 7"dow ballwallnn b am tents
Signed
Charles F. F. Anderson. Minn. Reg. No. 21-753 or
Gregory R. Prosch• Minn. Reg. No. 24992
4
C,M s.F L6-
3�s 1' I St F Roo,,
A irtl
.s4 FAK
.-r r
ty
A 3Y"
w
`P(kv\ 3-IS -C)(o
�nk ��eU0.�i4`n
r�� �.... _.... _ _ ... _ ..._ .... . _ ............ ..
LAVE,
wa hL t 00041,. ,,Y-,,Ai tit,
Page 1 of 1
*n'7 wooeoeLE
A3`7
file: //\ \ed- ntI \citywide\PDSImages \Photos\ 1802824210091001.jpg 2/19/2008
'I" CNUETIibf�N
v r�
�o
18' 7RC
0
0
14' A5l�
F. DoT-
IO,�sd DoT CF ®c KAR
113 5,P. Ftoor
-- Arre'
au.�- rur��ti►
4IS. S. F team1 .
03-�
�3�
r
4501 4503 4502
507 i3
4506
4509
4502
4 -
4 504 505 �
450
4511
4503 4504
4509 T
_
� �
4513
4506
4507 2� .
4505 N
4506
4511
4510
1(-
d f
4515
4508
45Q91;,* _
`T V
,
4512
12
TD
4507 45
4510
451,,311'*
517
4511 3 3
4509 4510 ��"
4515 •
4514
-1
J•
45 9
f
4512
45f3
'I _
�`�
•3d
4516
4521
4
1 1
4512
451111
. } `
ll
4514.o,
4517 `
-3�
? �.
f+ �
4�f 5 _
451 ,
4523
4
�r 24 ti
4513 4514 3j 1
X1
4516•aq
4519
1r
p
`
4517
4516 . , a3
1
yi
4515
460}
--
y SIEGE S7
4601
4600
/
/ _
46r01
4600 • 4 J
4600
1 U. 3d
O l
/ '
.3 6
4602
4603
460 ,35
46Q3
3 f
4520
4603
4602 . 3 �
460
40
4602
: 3 S
� D
4604
4605
1
R 4605
•3
46
4600
5 4605
4604�Jf)
A -94
4605 4604 3 � 1*
� �"
�
b 4607
4606
a3
4609
4602
C 4607
4607 33 n L�3
4606
•3
lot
y
4608 y
M
4q609
,i
4611
4609
4608 _
3S
a l
4609 4608 �i^
4604 •
4611
4610
3
4613
0
3
4611 4610 4611
a6
4612
4615
4613
4612
4613 4612
4610 4615
4615
4614
4617
asra
4619
4615 4614
4617
4616
4612
EbGESRppKFL 4617
4621
4617 4616
4619
4624
4614
4616
4619
4623
ni:u,r�rv,J....,ncras
� ._ = •3i5Gk;'�.1i
�
� n
NIJEST
COUNTK7, Ctttd-
CrypoL
1 Z.oT
`60 x !3t'
�3�
4504
4506
4508
4510
4512
4514
4516
4518
4520
4522
4524
4526
4505
4507
4509
4511
4513
4515
a4517
4519
4521
4523
4525
4527
1600
46003 3
4601
4600
4605
4602
4603
4602
4504
4604
4605
4502 440
4503
4502 , 30
4503
.3+
4609
4506
3
.mc
al
4504 2
4505 3 I
4504-33
7
05
2
J
4614
4508
J
T �C
4507 �3
4506 . ,41 =
4507 J4•
4506 Z�
4507
4 0
3 � D
4509
4508 D3
4509 46
4508 3 7
4509
4512 1
4511 31
4510 T�
tT 1
4511
4510 .13
4511
�$
4514
��
4513 31
4512 3♦
4513
4512 �<
4513
4516
dr 1
4515 38
4514 6^9
4515 .2,v
4514 ,3V7
4515
A3
4518
34 l
G
4517 ¢3
4516 3�
4517 -35'
70
4516 3
4517
14
4520
41 G
4519
40 -
45 }8
4519
.33
4518
.3s
4519
at
4522
J
4521 3�
4520 ,I-
4521 All-
4520 3S'
4521
1 `
4524
.
4523 43
4522 . -
4523 1
4522. 2/
4523
31
4526
;S
4525
4524.2^
4525 �1
4514 aJVj
4525
a7
4528
�g
4527 pel
4526
4527 :3?
4526 �Q1
4527
�p
8
4530
-
4529 3 7
1
4528
4529 �OJ
4528 �6
4529
�7
532
s
4531
4530
45 31 .3
4530 r
U
4531
6RDGE 57
SRJnf
1600
46003 3
4601
4600
4605
4602
4603
4602
4604
4604
4605
4606
4606
4607
4608
4608
4609
4610
4610
4611
4612
3612
4613
4614
4616
4614
4615
4618
46116
1
;18
4617
4620
0
4619
4622
4601
46003 3
3
4602 1j
4605
.3S
4607
4606
4609
4608
4611
4610
46f3
4612
4615
4614
46f7
4616
4619
4618
4621
4620
4623
4622
n
m
A
m
4601 Z
4600 a7
4603 .30
4602 JO
4605 ZS
4604 34
(p
4609
4608
4611
4610
4613
4612
4615
4614
4617
4616
4619
4618
4621
4620
4623
4622
daacm _•J x-s.ird�15 _ ._:•�6 GG Jah I - ..__.. �.
EAST CO NTRI Ctu (TO W cof Si2E=
A�
CCRCU LR i !tl N S no Jv67- INCLUDE A-- '7-hct+c -,6 oQMF sPAce)
4601
4603 3 F 9
605 .34
4607 41
4609 41
4611 41
4615 41
4617 61
4619
4.
4621
4.
4623
i . " I I v ' \ ...` :�•::�:5� 79.4a'
/
T""'2. OO I o R T. DOC. NO._
-_ 5 00'r '11' E 219.]7 NO '28'56'E 216.11 �>fi / !7 �y to +/• 1 .
T PARKVA/®®® KIV ®LLS
119117 Wd 1090E (OOC /S U9 'P'1VldltlNidZ99l [\6MP \H1LZ SIIONM ANtld 2991 1\009T1 \ ?%
Zmop,
ad
27TH
ADDITION
'-6
30VUHU
OD T
1,000
s1 4.0'1i E175.12
90
•..m ' '7: %� ` '•�8
1,: 7 r
8T0.0 �
�;..._. 05
i
510'Ja
',°°•L�• S 'I'tir� _ ai• .
S
ar— —
D.NN11C( AND UTILITY [•YY RM ARE 9.ONT Ous
F c
Z N
DI
I a I ` i •s` g j - 517'p016 E
✓ LI
NOT 7O SCME
YNG 9 RV M MT aDLIBaNO E UN(S AND 9UNO 10 E(ET a
Om .D,.waNC mmr- o. -N.. ux(s uN(css D1NE9rY iNaurzD.
9EAIMNM 9TOrM AR •SaOU(0
c�
'' EJ
II e1
I _ 'P'
` '
_- , +J..
i` 0 aI .TrD
J
•g OAND N•nMiED B rU % NO. 20]90xON[Nr
NOO'OO OO•E 196.27 N00•I5'26'N h=I,
..... .....: !f±�` 1 , j✓
YNl W R[l
-
' xOR9 lwro 1/r — ivM Y p01 1
i a
_
Anderson Engineering o£Mimesota, LLC
LIrIE rxalx rcprxc xD [ nn aux vcr
119117 Wd 1090E (OOC /S U9 'P'1VldltlNidZ99l [\6MP \H1LZ SIIONM ANtld 2991 1\009T1 \ ?%
Zmop,
Is
I
F�& �-, a oo 8
01/30/08 03:16 PM COUNSEL
BB/RER
�
QS'�' 1, c-) / A
SC5769 -1
1.1 A bill for an act
1.2 relating to municipalities; authorizing municipalities to establish street
1.3 improvement districts and apportion street improvement fees within districts;
1.4 requires adoption of street improvement plan; authorizes collection of fees.
1.5 proposing coding for new law in Minnesota Statutes, chapter 435.
1.6 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
1.7
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
1.8 Section 1. (435.391 MUNICIPAL STREET 1WROVEMENT DISTRICTS.
1.9 Subdivision 1. Definitions. For the purposes of this section, the following terms
1.10 have the meanings given.
1.11 (a) "Municipality" means a home rule charter or statutory city.
1.12 (b) "Governing body" means the city council of a municipality.
1.13 (c) "Municipal street" means a street, alley, or public way, as to which the
1.14 municipality is the road authority with powers conferred by section 429.021.
1.15 (d) "Street improvement district" means a geographic area designated by a
1.16 municipality within which street construction, reconstruction, facility upgrades, and
1.17 maintenance may be undertaken and financed in accordance with this section.
1.18 (e) "Construction" means acquisition and opening of a municipal street by
119 constructing pavement, gutters, curbs, and vehicle parking strips of anv material, includin
1.20 impact mitigation and including street lighting, traffic signals, bridges, storm sewers or
1.21 other street drainage, and connections from sewer, water, or similar mains to curb lines.
1.22 (f) "Reconstruction" meani paving, grading, curbs and gutters, bridge repair,
123 overlays, drainage, base work, subgrade corrections, street lighting, traffic signals, and
1.24 boulevard restoration.
Section 1.
I
01/30/08 03:16 PM COUNSEL BB/RER SC5769 -1
2.1 (g) "Facility upgrade" means traffic signals, street lighting, turn lanes, medians,
2.2 street approaches, alleys, rights -of -way, sidewalks, retaining walls, fence installation,
2.3 additional traffic lanes, and fixed transit infrastructure.
2.4 (h) "Maintenance" means striping, seal coating, crack sealing, sidewalk maintenance,
2.5 signal maintenance, street light maintenance, and signage.
2.6 Subd. 2. Authorization. A municipality may, by ordinance, establish municipal
2.7 street improvement districts, and may defray all or part of the total costs of municipal
2.8 street construction, reconstruction, facility upgrades, and maintenance by apportioning
2.9 street improvement fees to all of the parcels located in the district. .
2.10 Subd. 3. Uniformity. The total costs of municipal street construction,
2.11 reconstruction, facility upgrades, and maintenance must be apportioned to all parcels or
2.12 tracts of land located in the established street improvement district on a uniform basis as
2.13 to each classification of real estate.
2.14 Subd. 4. Adoption of a plan. Before establishing a municipal street improvement
2.15 district or authorizing a street improvement fee, a municipality must propose and adopt a
2.16 street improvement plan that identifies and estimates the costs of proposed construction,
2.17 reconstruction, facility upgrades, and maintenance for the following five years and
2.18 identifies the location of the municipal street improvement district. Notice of a public
2.19 hearing on the proposed plan must be given by mail to all affected landowners at least
2.20 ten days before the hearing and posted for at least ten days before the hearing. At the
2.21 public hearing, the governing body must present the plan, and all affected landowners in
2.22 attendance must have the oDnortunity to comment before the governing bodv considers
2.23 adoption of the plan .
2.24 Subd. 5. Use of fees. Revenues collected from property in a district from the
2.25 fee authorized in this section must be placed in a separate account and be used only
2.26 for projects located within that same district and identified in the municipal street
2.27 improvement district plan.
2.28 Subd. 6. Collection; up to 20 years. The ordinance adopted under this section must
2.29 provide for the billing and payment of the fee on a monthly, quarterly, or other basis
2.30 as directed by the governing body. The governing body may collect municipal street
2.31 improvement fees on all street improvement district projects up to a maximum of 20 years.
2.32 Fees that, as of October 15 each calendar year, have remained unpaid for at least 30 days
2.33 must be certified to the county auditor for collection as a special assessment payable in
2.34 the following calendar year against the affected property.
Section 1. 2
01/30/08 03:16 PM COUNSEL BB/RER SC5769 -1
3.1 Subd. 7. Notice; hearings. A municipality may impose a municipal street
3.2 improvement fee provided in this section by ordinance. The ordinance must not be voted
3.3 on or adopted until after a public hearing has been held on the question.
3.4 Subd. 8. Special assessments; bonds; property tax levies. The use of the
3.5 municipal street improvement fee by a municipality does not restrict the municipality
3.6 from imposing other measures to pay the costs of local street construction, reconstruction,
3.7 facility upgrades or maintenance such as levying special assessments, issuing bond debt,
3.8 or levying property taxes.
Section 1.
League of Minnesota Cities 2008 Transportation Funding Policy Statement
Issue: The League of Minnesota Cities recognizes that all Minnesota residents and businesses
benefit from a sound transportation system that offers diverse modes of travel. Current funding
for roads, bridges and transit systems across all government levels in the state is inadequate, and
Minnesota's transportation system is failing to meet needs pertaining to public safety, population
growth and economic development.
Due to funding challenges, the state has delayed regionally significant road construction and
reconstruction projects. Urban areas are experiencing growing congestion and are lagging behind
other regions in making transit investments. Rural roads are riot being upgraded to meet modern
safety'standards and are not serving the needs of industries that depend on the ability to transport
heavy loads.
Local roads, bridges, sidewalks and trails are critical components of Minnesota's transportation
infrastructure. Cities, like the state, have inadequate resources to preserve and reconstruct aging
transportation infrastructure, and to build transportation infrastructure to serve new development.
Existing funding mechanisms such as municipal. state aid (MSA), special assessments and
bonding have limited applications, making it difficult for cities to address growing needs.
Further, as the state funding shortfall has grown, the trunk highway project cost participation
requirements imposed on local units of government have increased dramatically. This burden
has been exacerbated by the state's use of trunk highway bonds as a funding source, because
under Minnesota's constitution, trunk highway bond dollars cannot be spent on local components
of trunk highway projects, and the bond dollars are not distributed through the Highway User
Tax Distribution Fund formula. Cost participation requirements put added pressure on local
budgets, contribute to property tax increases and divert local resources from the over 39,000 lane
miles in Minnesota under municipal jurisdiction.
Response: More resources must be dedicated to all components of the state's transportation
system, and local units of government must have access to resources and funding tools to
meet growing needs. The League of Minnesota Cities supports the following:
• acceleration of the phase -in of the constitutional dedication of 100 percent of the
motor vehicle sales tax (MVST) to transportation purposes;
• MVST distribution of 60 percent for roads and bridges, and 40 percent for transit;
• dedication of the sales tax on leased vehicles to transportation purposes;
• a permanent increase in the gas tax;
• indexing of the gas tax, provided there is a limit on how much the tax can be
increased for inflation in a given amount of time;
• increases in vehicle registration taxes (tab fees);
• trunk highway bonding, provided the Legislature implements reasonable
restrictions on the amount of debt service the state will incur, and provided the
Legislature appropriates funding to assist with local costs related to projects funded
with trunk highway bonds;
• general obligation bonding for local roads and bridges, particularly for routes of
regional significance;
• a sales tax increase to fund transportation needs;
• funding to assist cities burdened by cost participation responsibilities imposed by
improvement projects on the state's principal arterial system and on the county
state aid highway (CSA7) system;
• funding for transportation components of economic development and
redevelopment projects of regional significance;
• full funding for all components of state highway projects, including related
stormwater management systems, through state sources;
• funding to build roads to standards that can accommodate the year -round
transport of heavy loads;
• a sales tax exemption for materials purchased for state and local road, bridge,
sidewalk, trail and transit construction projects;
• authority for cities to impose development impact fees; and
• local funding options that would allow cities to raise revenues for roads, bridges,
sidewalks, trails and transit.
Adopted by League of Minnesota Cities Board of Directors on November 29, 2007
Contact: Anne Finn, Assistant Intergovernmental Relations Director, 651- 281 -1263 or e-mail
a nn0)Imc.org.
2
V
r +.
2008 MLC Legislative Agenda Summary
I. Target Property Tax Relief Directly to Individuals
A. Enhance the circuit breaker program with additional tax relief funding
B. Support having Department of Revenue report annually on property taxes paid
as a percentage of income (Voss database study)
C. Support directing payment of Market Value Homestead Credit to homeowners
D. Support phase out of limited market value in 2008 for property tax payable
2009 (current law)
II. Promote Accountability in the State and Local Fiscal Relationship
A. Reexamine Fiscal Disparities — support study
B. MLC opposes levy limits
C. MLC supports examining the sales and use tax — opposes sales tax that
local governments pay on goods and services
III. Fund Transportation Comprehensively
A. MLC supports a long term transportation funding plan including revenue
raising options to meet regional and state highway, bridge and transit
needs, such as:
1. Dedicated metro -wide sales tax
2. . Gas tax increase
3. Dedication of sales tax revenues from leased vehicles
4. Adjust license tab depreciation schedule
5. County wheelage tax option
6. Additional authorization for trunk highway bonding
2008 MLC LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
GENERAL PHILOSOPHY & GUIDING PRINCIPLES
The Municipal Legislative Commission (MLC) was established in 1984 and now provides a
voice for the more than 753,000 residents and over 495,700 employees who work in our
fourteen suburban communities. Our communities aren't all the same: some are growing
rapidly while others are fully developed; some are primarily residential communities while
others contain significant commercial developments. Despite those differences, we share
common demographic, economic and tax base characteristics. We also face similar
challenges associated with development and maintenance of public infrastructure, and
increasing demand from residents and businesses for effective public services. Finally, our
communities share a common philosophy with respect to the relationship between the state
and local units of government. We believe that:
The Legislature must constantly strive to develop policies promoting greater
stability and predictability in the fiscal relationship between the state and local
units of government.
When it is possible and efficient to do so, public services should be provided by
the level of government closest to those affected.
The system created by the State to finance city services must be equitable,
accountable and straight forward.
Our communities pledge their support of a comprehensive approach to addressing ongoing
challenges such as public safety, transportation, economic development, and affordable
housing. In order to succeed in these endeavors, local governments must be, provided with
effective tools (including financial) and the flexibility to use them without unfunded mandates
from other units of government.
The MLC urges its legislative delegation to be mindful of the following guiding principles
when deliberating on tax, finance or regional growth initiatives:
• In order to promote accountability, local government finance should demonstrate a
strong relationship between taxes paid and benefits received;
• Unfunded state mandates, levy limits, property tax freeze and reverse referenda
significantly limit the predictability necessary for local governments to plan with
financial confidence.
• Cities characterized with high property values are not universally populated with high -
income residents. Populations in all of our cities include retirees on fixed incomes,
single parents and apartment dwellers. The number of seniors in our communities is
rising. Policies that ignore such diversity are not equitable; and
• Any tax reform creates burden shifts on individual taxpayers and potential revenue
shortfalls for communities and should be recognized and addressed by the state in
order to maintain the stability of our local governments.
2008 LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES
The top three priorities of the Municipal Legislative Commission for the 2008
legislative session are:
I. Target Property Tax Relief Directly to Individuals
II. Promote Accountability in the State and Local Fiscal Relationship
III. Fund Transportation Comprehensively
1) TARGET PROPERTY TAX RELIEF DIRECTLY TO INDIVIDUALS
The MLC believes that on a long term basis, the State should target property tax relief to
individual taxpayers instead of local units of government. Our organization understands that
some communities will need State assistance. However, we believe the focus of providing
property tax relief should be directed at those who need it most regardless of where they
reside. Such a policy would provide equitable tax relief to all property tax payers in
Minnesota.
A) ENHANCE THE CIRCUIT BREAKER PROGRAM
The MLC supports providing property tax relief to individual homeowners with the
greatest need by directing additional dollars to the circuit breaker program. The circuit
breaker "income adjusted" property tax relief program provides direct assistance to
those homeowners in greatest need whether or not those local homeowners reside in
a city which receives direct aids from the State.
B) IMPLEMENTATION OF A PROGRAM THAT WOULD ANNUALLY REPORT
PROPERTY TAXES AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME (VOSS DATA BASE
STUDY)
The MLC believes policy makers should have access to statewide data (clusters or
averages) that provide information as to how much of a homeowner's income is being
paid toward their property taxes. Updating the Voss database would accomplish that
goal. With this information, policy makers could determine which individuals or
communities have the greatest need and allocate resources accordingly. Currently,
this information is not available, and as a result, adequate comparisons regarding
property taxes paid and household income cannot be made. Thus, MLC supports
updating the Voss database and with this new information, requiring the Department
of Revenue to produce an annual report that compares property taxes paid as a
percentage of income on a statewide basis.
C) DIRECT PAYMENT OF MARKET VALUE HOMESTEAD CREDIT TO HOMEOWNER
Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC) is a state funded program designed to
reduce the property taxes paid by qualifying homeowners. Under state law,
homeowners receive a tax credit on their, property tax statement equal to 0.4 percent
of the property's market value, up to a maximum credit of $304. The credit is reduced
for homes valued over $76,000 until the credit is fully phased -out for homes valued
over $414,000.
The MLC supports paying the MVHC directly to the homeowner and not using cities as
a conduit. Under the current MVHC program, the State acts like a property tax payer
by reimbursing the local units of government for the value of the MVHC (it is actually
part of the certified levy). Thus, if cuts are made to the program, it is the local unit of
government that fails to get reimbursed, not the homeowner.
The MLC believes that the State should fund its property tax relief program and be
honest with the property tax payer. Therefore, the MLC supports changing the
administration of the MVHC program by eliminating local units of.government from
implementation and providing for a direct credit or payment to the individual
homeowner. A direct payment to the homeowner would promote accountability for
MVHC funding and allow for a more truthful property tax statement.
D) LIMITED MARKET VALUE PHASE OUT
MLC supports current law which fully phases out limited market value in 2008 for
property tax payable 2009.
II) PROMOTE ACCOUNTABILITY IN THE STATE AND LOCAL FISCAL
RELATIONSHIP
MLC cities strongly believe that decision making is best when provided by the level of
government closest to those affected. We support policies that promote local control and
accountability. For example, the Truth in Taxation component of the annual budget process
promotes local accountability by providing residents with advance notice of property tax
impacts of proposed local budgets as well as an opportunity to express their concerns at a
public hearing.
We also recognize, however, that there is a partnership between the State and local units of
government which assists in providing essential services to our residents. When decisions
are made that impact local units of government, MLC urges the State to acknowledge
regional differences and be sensitive to changing demographics, particularly when examining
aid policies and formulas.
A) REEXAMINE FISCAL DISPARITIES
B)
In 1971, the state of Minnesota instituted a program of commercial - industrial tax base
sharing within the Twin Cities metropolitan area. In 1995, a parallel program was
established on the Iron Range of northeastern Minnesota.
The Twin Cities area fiscal disparities program shares 40 percent of the growth in the
commercial - industrial property tax base of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin,
Ramsey, Scott, and Washington counties. The program has two basic purposes: (1)
improving equity in the distribution of fiscal resources, and (2) promoting regional
planning objectives. Tax -base sharing serves to equalize the imbalance between
some local governments' public service needs and financial resources. The uneven
distribution of property tax base, primarily commercial and industrial properties, is a
major cause of this imbalance.
Many arguments used in support of the original fiscal disparities law in the early 1970s
may no longer be valid. After 35 years, MLC believes it is appropriate for the
legislature to reexamine the fiscal disparities program, specifically:
• How has the program affected property tax disparities across the area?
• Are the contribution and distribution formulas reasonable? (e.g., should the
same exemptions continue, should need be a measure, etc.)
• Does the program help promote orderly growth and sound land use?
• What is the effect of the program on competition for commercial - industrial
development between communities?
• Do contributions to the pool prevent local governments from generating
sufficient revenues from commercial - industrial development to cover the costs
of providing services?
• Could improvements be made in program administration?
Legislation studying the fiscal disparities program was passed as part of the Omnibus
Tax Bill by both the House and Senate in 2007 (along with a $150,000 appropriation)
but was vetoed and did not become law. The MLC supports the study language and
appropriation included in the 2007 Omnibus Tax Bill.
MLC OPPOSES LEVY LIMITS
The MLC opposes any additional state limitations on local decision making or
unfunded mandates that inhibit cities' ability to plan with financial confidence. Our
cities residents and property owners provide nearly all the revenue for city services
through property taxes and fees — no MLC cities receive local government aid (LGA).
Imposing artificial caps (i.e. levy limits) while limiting sources of revenue removes the
autonomy needed for city officials to make decisions in the best interests of their
fellow citizens.
r
C) MLC OPPOSES SALES TAX ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT PURCHASES
The MLC urges policy makers to repeal the tax on .items purchased by municipalities.
This policy has local governments paying state sales tax on purchases such as road
construction materials and public safety equipment, thereby increasing costs and in
the end driving up property taxes.
When examining the sales tax and its impact to municipalities, the. MLC urges policy
makers to look closely at the negative implications of taxing local government
services. Local units of government are prudent to contract for services such as legal,
auditing, engineering and computer programming' because in many instances, in-
house professional services are less cost - effective. To impose a sales tax on contract
services would discourage fiscally responsible decisions by cities and would simply
shift the burden from the State to the property tax payer.
The MLC also supports a provision that was included in the 2007 Omnibus Tax bill
which would create a joint legislative subcommittee to examine the sales and use tax.
The measure would also require the Commissioner of Revenue to report on changes
needed in the current sales tax system to move it to a true tax on` final consumer
consumption with no taxation of intermediate business inputs.
III) FUND TRANSPORTATION COMPREHENSIVELY
The MLC supports a comprehensive transportation funding package that considers and
plans for future local as well as State transportation and transit needs. Such a package
would:
• Ensure the safety of our roads and bridges;
• Reduce the necessity- for cities to use property tax revenue to pay for their ever -
increasing share of county and state road improvements;
• Reduce the burden on local streets caused by congested highways and county roads;
• Keep Minnesota economically competitive;
• Contribute to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by providing alternative
transportation options; and
• Improve the quality of life for our residents who spend increasing number of hours in
traffic.
Minnesota must have a sound roadway system to remain economically competitive in
agriculture, manufacturing, tourism and general commerce as well as an efficient and
affordable transit system that can deliver people to and from employment locations. Thus,
significant new investment in transportation funding is necessary.
Due. to lack of adequate State, resources over the last several years, more local property tax
dollars in suburban communities are being diverted to transportation and bridge
improvements normally funded at the state and county level because of safety and mobility
demands from residents. The passing of a comprehensive transportation bill will ensure our
roads and bridges are safe and efficient and could also result in property tax relief.
d
A) LONG TERM TRANSPORTATION FUNDING PLAN
1) TRANSPORTATION POLICIES
The MLC believes transportation funding legislation should provide a balanced
revenue collection system that addresses the needs of the entire transportation
system, and therefore supports the following policies:
• Increase in highway and bridge funding
• New County State Aid (CSAH) distribution formula that directs greater
construction dollars.to growing and congested counties
• Additional funding sources for an improved metropolitan transit system
• Accelerated removal of metro highway bottlenecks, existing highway
capacity expansion and completion of unfinished freeways
2) REVENUE SOURCES
MLC supports revenue raising options to meet regional and State highway,
bridge and transit needs, such as:
• Dedicated metro -wide sales tax
• Gas tax increase
• Dedication of sales tax revenues from leased vehicles
• Adjust license tab depreciation schedule
• County wheelage tax option.
• Additional authorization for trunk highway bonding
MUNICI'll League of Minnesota Cities Building
IPAL � 145 University Avenue West, Suite 450
L ISIAM
�(T��'T �T St. Paul, MN 55103
�MISSIO Telephone: (651) 228 -9757
Facsimile: (651) 228 -9787
UPDATE 2008 -01
MLC Recognizes Representative Ann Lenczewski
Pictured from left to right: Representative Ann Lenczewski (Bloomington); Mayor Bill Hargis (Woodbury).
Chair Bill Hargis presented Representative Ann Lenczewski with an award for her support of the
Municipal Legislative Commission's policies and principles at the December 13, 2007 MLC
Board of Directors Meeting.
Member Cities: Apple Valley, Bloomington, Burnsville, Eagan, Eden Prairie, Edina, Inver Grove Heights
Lakeville, Maple Grove, Maplewood, Minnetonka, Plymouth, Shoreview, Woodbury
The NEC Update is prepared by Emily Skidmore and Thomas J. Poul
Messerli & Kramer P.A., 145 University Avenue West, Suite 450, St. Paul, MN 55103
Telephone: 651.228.9757 Fax: 651.228.9787
E -mail: eskidmore @mandklaw.com and tpoul @mandklaw.com
a
Mark Your Calendar!
2008 MLC Regional Breakfast Receptions for MLC
Legislators, Metropolitan Council Representatives,
Mayors, Council Members, and City
Managers /Administrators
The breakfast receptions includes an introduction to MLC's
legislative initiatives and participant dialogue focusing on property
tax relief and transportation funding.
REGION 1
(Eden Prairie, Edina, Maple Grove, Minnetonka, Plymouth)
Date: Friday, February 15, 2008
Time: 7:30 — 9:00 a.m.
Location: Radisson Hotel & Conference Center, Plymouth
REGION 2
(Maplewood, Shoreview, Woodbury)
Date: Friday, February 22, 2008
Time: 7:30 -9:00 a.m.
Location: Shoreview Community Center
REGION 3
(Apple Valley, Bloomington, Burnsville, Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, Lakeville)
Date: Friday, February 29, 2008
Time: 7:30 -9:00 a.m..
Location: Embassy Suites — Airport, Bloomington
-2-
a
2008 MLC Legislative Agenda Summary
I. Target Property Tax Relief Directly to Individuals
A. Enhance the circuit breaker program with additional tax relief funding
B. Support having Department of Revenue report annually on property taxes
paid as a percentage of income (Voss database study)
C. Support directing payment of Market Value Homestead Credit to
homeowners
D. Support phase out of limited market value in 2008 for property tax payable
2009 (current law)
II. Promote Accountability in the State and Local Fiscal Relationship
A. Reexamine Fiscal Disparities — support study
B. MLC opposes levy limits
C. MLC supports examining the sales and use tax — opposes sales tax that
local governments pay on goods and services
III. Fund Transportation Comprehensively
A. MLC supports a long term transportation funding plan including revenue
raising options, to meet regional and state highway, bridge and transit
needs, such as:
1. Dedicated metro -wide sales tax
2. Gas tax increase
3. Dedication of sales tax revenues from leased vehicles
4. Adjust license tab depreciation schedule
5. County wheelage tax option
6. Additional authorization for trunk highway bonding
-3-
2008 2009:
Chair Jan Callison
Mayor of Minnetonka
Vice Chair Mark Bernhardson
City Manager of Bloomington
Treasurer Laurie Ahrens
City Manager of Plymouth
The MLC Welcomes Inver Grove Heights
Since its start in 1965, Inver Grove Heights has grown considerably. The supply of
vacant land which attracted the original settlers is still attracting people today. The
community is expanding rapidly with projections estimating a population that exceeds
44,000 by 2020.
Inver Grove Heights is home to approximately_ 30,000 residents who have chosen this
area whose boundaries expand over 28 square miles of rolling wooded terrain that
provides for an engaging mix of residential dwellings and commercial facilities.
Located in Northern Dakota County, Inver Grove Heights is in close proximity to the
Mississippi River Valley, which provides ,a beautiful natural setting and year -round
recreational activities. Lakes, ponds, and wetlands cover many areas of the city.
Residents have a wide choice of housing, ranging from apartments to large -lot estates.
Inver Grove Heights has seen an expanding commercial district as well, with the arrival
of several restaurants, a hotel, and a 16- screen movie theater all within an area
adjacent to Highway 52 and Blaine Avenue.
The MLC welcomes it's newest member in making the commission home to fourteen
Twin Cities suburbs.
ME