The URL can be used to link to this page

86-12-09 CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING '7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1986 COUNCIL CHAMBERS Approve the Minutes of November 25, 1986, Regular Meeting Pg. 2575-2583 PUBLIC HEARING: CASE ~86-550: Vincent D. Forystek, Lots 5,6,7,8,9,25, 26,27, and part of 15 & 16, Block 8, Pembroke REQUEST: Proposed Subdivision of Land Pg. 2584-2605 CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING: Communications Cable Television Pg. 2606-2623 CASE #86-561: Angela Hingos, 4797 Northern Road, Wly 1/2 of Lot 27. Subdivision of Lots 1 & 32 Ravenswood Request: Variance to Remodel & Expand an Existing Nonconforming Structure Pg. 2624-2643 CASE ~86-562: Ronald & Odessa Griffiths, 4947 Crestview Road, Lot 18 & the west 1/2 of Lot 19, Block 25, Shadywood Point Request: Fence Variance to Allo~ the Finished Fabric Side Toward the Applicant's Property Pg. 2644-2653 CASE ~86-56~: Ed & Melanie Freidlund, 4909 Island View Drive, Lots 12 & 13, Block 14, .Devon Request: Variance in Setback to the Side and Front Property Line Pg. 2654-2660 7. Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present Water Service Request & Agreement for Lot 14, Halsteds Park, Minnetrista Pg. 2661-2666 9. Payment Request: Lynwood Blvd. Imp. Proj. & Tuxedo Blvd. Safety Project, Preferred Paving, ~ '~ g~ ~.~ Pg. 2667-2678 Page 2573 10. Request to Sell Pull-Tabs, Northwest Tonka Lions - to be done at Captain Billy's (Application will be handed out at the meeting) 11. Payment of Bills Pg. 2679-2682 12. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS Ae November Monthly Reports as Prepared by the Department Heads Pg. 26 83-2713 Be Ce Notice for the LMC of New Development in the League's Property/Casualty Program Pg. 2714-2722 Park Commission Minutes - November 13, 1986 Pg. 2723-2724 D. Planning Commission Minutes - November 24, 1986 Pg. 2725-2727 Ee REMINDER: City of Mound Christmas Party - December 12,'1986 Page 2574 · 179 November 25, 1986 MINUTES - MOUND CI1"/ COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 25, 1986 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, November 25, 1986, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 5341Maywood' Road, in said City. ' ThoSe present were: Mayor Bob PolSto~, Councilmembers Phyllis . Jessen, Gary Paulsen,".Russ' Peterson and Steve Smith. Also. present were: City Manager:Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk · .~'- Fran Clark, City Attorney'Curt Pearson, City Engineer John Cameron, City Planner Mark Koegler', Building OffieXal :Jan Bertrand, Cable T. V. Consultant Mark Ayotte, and the following interested citizens: Paul & Julie Boorsma, Kenneth & Dianna Neukireher, James Roseen, Mark Rodrique, Don Peterson, Gordon Wolf, Roy Westergaard, Ben Malinski, Mary Smith (Dow-Sat of Minnesota) and Councilmembers Elect Liz Jensen and Skip Johnson. ' The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Paulsen to approve the Minutes of the November 12, 1986, Special Meeting as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC H£ARING: DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS The Mayor opened the public hearing. The Mayor closed the public hearing. There were no comments. P%terson moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION '~86-168 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,509.59 AND AUTHORIZING THE STAFF TO SHUTOFF WATER SERVICE FOR THOSE ACCOUNTS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: CABLE TELEVISION COMMUNICATIONS o The City Manager explained that Dowden Communications, Inc. is in the process of restructuring its organization and forming a Limited Partnership. They are requesting transfer approval from the City of Mound, as required by the Cable T.V. Franchise Ordinance. Cable T.V. Consultant, Mark Ayotte, explained the congerns about 1 8O November 25, 1986 and recommendation for the Cable T.V. Committee and the Council to review within the next week. The Lake Minnetonka Cable Communications Commission has also retained a consultant to do a financial analysis of Dowden Cable Partners, L.P. This report will also be available for review· Jim Kutzner, Cable Committee Vice-Chairman, stated that the '" ........ Committee Would like time'"before the next Council Meeting to -'"'.review the Consultant's report and make'.a recommendation to the Mary Smith, Dow-Sat of Minnesota,: was present to expiai~ in ffurther detail the request and to answer any questions that might arise in the public hearing. The Mayor opened the public hearing. MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Smith to continue this public hearing until the December 9, 1986, Council Meeting for any additional public comments and to allow the Cable T.V. Committee to review the consultants report and make a recommendation on the request. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF CERTAIN STREET EASEMENT LYING BETNEEN LOTS 4~ & 44 IN KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO The MaYor opened the public hearing. The Mayor closed the public hearing. There were no comments· Jessen moved and Peterson Seconded'the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-169 RESOLUTION VACATING CERTAIN STREET EASEMENT LYING BETWWEN LOTS 43 & 44, KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND, P & Z CASE ~86-548 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE #86-551: PAUL & JULIE BOORSMA. 2021 HIGHLAND BLVD.~ LOTS & 4. BLOCK 2~ THE HIGHLANDS. WAIVER OF SUB? DIVISION REGULATIONS FOR MINOR LOT SPLIT' The Building Officical explained the request. Smith moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-170 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE THE FINAL SUBDIVISION OF LAND FOR LOTS 3 & 4, BLOCK 3, THE HIGHLANDS, PID 123-117-24 41 181 November 25, 1986 0015 (3021 HIGHLAND BLVD.), P & Z CASE 186-551 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE ~86-552: KENNETH-& DIANNA NEUKIRCHER~ 4qq7 TUXEDO BLVD.~ LOT lq~ BLOCK 15. ARDEN. RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING UNDERSIZE LOT & SETBACKS TO PROPERTY LINE The Building Official explained the request. Smith moved and Jessen SeConded the following resolution:.. RESOLUTION ~86-171 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE LOT SIZE AND RECOGNIZE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR LOT 19, · BLOCK 15, ARDEN, PID #24-117-24 43 0018 (4997 TUXEDO BLVD.), P & Z CASE ~86-552 The.vote was unanimously in favor· Motion carried. CASE ~86-~5~: JAMES ROSEEN~ 155~ BLUEBIRD LANE~ LOTS 7 & ~07 BLOCK 6~ WOODLAND POINT~ VARIANCE TO ALLOW UNEN- CLOSED' DECK IN REOUIRED REAR YARD SETBACK The Building Official explained the request. Paulsen moved and' Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-172 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A FIVE FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR LOTS ? & 30, BLOCK 6, WOODLAND POINT, PID ~12-117-24 43 0061 (1555 BLUEBIRD LANE), P & Z CASE ~86-553 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE t86-~54: KELE HOMES? ~2XX LyNWooD BLVD.. METES & BOUNDS DESCRIPTION. BLOCKS I & 2. REARRANGEMENT OF BLOCK 10~ ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK? VARIANCE FOR ACCESS TO PUBLIC STREET FOR PROPOSED The City Planner explained the request. The City Engineer asked that the City Attorney review the u~ility easements in vacated Laurel Street. Smith moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-173 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ESTABLISH A BUILDABLE LOT FOR PART OF LOTS 1, 2, 3 & 4, IN BLOCKS 1 & 2, November 25, 1986 REARRANGEMENT OF BLOCK 10, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK, (PID #13-117-2q 31 0070, P & Z CASE ~86-55q The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE #8§-5c]5: DON PETERSON. :t018 DEVON LANE. LOTS 17 & 18. BLOCK .'.., 11_. pEMBROKE; 'VARTANCE OF RETAINING ~/ALL ON PUBLIC - :-/'' ' RIGHT-OF-WAY [/('....,'The.:: Building Official" exPlaine~' the request. The Counct[~' discussed the* retaining wall being on public Councilmember Smith suggested that ~he wall be dedicated to*the City. The City Attorney agreed and suggested adding the following to the proposed resolution: "approving the front yard variance subject to the City Engineer inspecting the wall determine that it' ls constructed properly and then allowing it to. be dedicated to the City". The Council.agreed that this ~hould be included in the resolution of approval. Pau'lsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION t86-17~1 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVE A FRONT YARD VARIANCE FOR LOTS 17 AND 18, BLOCK 11, PEMBROKE, PID '~19-117-23 33 0202, P & Z CASE ~86-555 (3018 DEVON LANE), SUBJECT TO THE CITY ENGINEER INSPECTING THE .WALL TO DETERMINE THAT IT*IS CONSTRUCTED PROPERLY AND THEN ALLOWING IT TO BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE t86-~6: GORDON WOLF~ ~610 KILDARE LANE~ LOT ~q~. BLOCK 11. SETON, VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING UNDER- SIZED LOT & SETBACKS TO PROPERTY LINE The City Planner explained .the Planning Commission recommendations and the 4 conditions for approval. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-175 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COHMISSION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW STRUCTURAL MODIFICATION FOR LOT 39, BLOCK 11, SETON, PID ~19-117-23 21 0033 (4610 KILDARE LANE) P & Z CASE ~86-556 Gordon Wolf was present and stated that he did not agree to combining Lot 39 and Lot 40 into one tax parcel. Mr. Wolf then withdrew his variance request. The maker and seconder of the proposed resolution withdrew it. No action, was taken. November 25, 1986 -- CASE. #86-~57: JRI~ PROPERTIES (COMMERCE SOUARE): COMPREHENSIVE The City Planner explained the comprehensive signage plan that was submitted by JRW Properties for Commerce Square. He reported that the Planning Commission recommended approval. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #86-175 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COMPREHENSIVE 'SIGN PLAN FOR COMMERCE SQUARE, 2200-2206, . 2210-221q, 222q-2238 COMMERCE BLVD., P & Z CASE #86-557 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE ~86-~8: VFTN POST #~11t? 25q~ COMMERCE BLVD.~ LOTS 26-~07 ~2. AND PART OF ~. AUDITOR'S SUBD. ~167. PARKING VARIANCES FOR NEN BUILDING The City Planner explained the request. The City Engineer stated that the site plan and the survey need to be combined to determine that the wetlands are not included in the parking area. Also that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District needs to approve this plan. MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Paulsen to table this item until the December 9th Council Meeting allowing the combination of the site plan and the survey to determine'that the wetlands do not overlap in the parking area. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE ~86-'~':;q: BEN MALINSKI (HARRISON BAY UNION 76); q8'~1 SHORE- LINE BLVD.. LOTS 1: 2: 2: q: 21 & PART OF LOTS ~ & 20: BLOCK 1. SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A: FENCE HEIGHT ItaLIZlL , The Building Official explained the request. Smith moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-176 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR I~ITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR PART OF LOTS 1 THRU ~, 20 &.21, BLOCK 1, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A, PID ~13-117-2q q~OOlq (q831 SHORELINE BLVD.) P & Z CASE 86-559 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1 85 November 25, 1986 DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT: KEN LARSON & BONNIE CORNELL~ 1959 SHORE- The Building Official explained that a Development Contract has now been drawn up for the above property. It requires a Performance Bond of 125% of the total estimated cost ($5,500) and allows 3 years for completion of the frost footings and roof 'i,:,~;,. repair. Ms. Cornell was present and stated she would like to ~'~, ..... hav. e her 'attorney 'look over the contract before signing .it. ..... '~>~ ...... n ~m; d and'sm th :,:.~' -.'~/:~/ ~ Peterso ve i seconded the following resolution: - -' '- RESOLUTION ~86-177 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE HA~OR 'AND :THE .: - CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A D~OPMENT CONTRACT (EXHIBIT A) NITH KEN LARSON AND ~.. . BONNIE CORNELL ON PROPERTY AT 1959 '"' ' SHOR~OOD L~E The vote was unanimously in favor. Mo~ion ~a. rried. MAI'NTENANCE PERMIT REOUEST: ROSEEN. 1555 BLUEBIRD LANE FOR WAWONASSA COMMONS. MR. JAMES The City Manager reported that Mr. Roseen would like to have a professional tree trimmer trim the brush and trees on the Commons in front of his home. The Park Commission has recommended approval. MOTION made by PaUlsen, seconded by Jessen'to authOrize the issuance of a Maintenance Permit to trim brush and trees on Wawonassa Commons in front of 1555 Bluebird Lane. Work to be performed by a professional tree trimmer and paid for by Mr. James Roseen. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. RELEASE OF CASH'IN LIEU OF PERFORMANCE BOND FOR GRADING PERMIT. ASPEN EXCAVATING The. City Engineer recommended releasing all but $i,000.00 of the money. This money to be retained for seeding 'of the area. MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Paulsen to release $9,000.00 of the money deposited by Gustafson & Associates in lieu of a performance bond, for grading work at the old Metro 100 site. $1,000.00 to be retained to guarantee seeding of the area in the Spring. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. RESIGNATION OF JUN ELAM FROM LMCD BOARD The City Manager stated that a letter of resignation from the LMCD Board has been received from Jon Elam., effective December 31, 1986, The asked the City Manager to send a let~ter to Mr. 1 86 November 25, 1986 Elam thanking him for the time and effort he has put in on the LMCD Board representing Mound. The new City Council will fill this position at the first meeting in January. LOST L~gE ~TUDY The City Manager reported that the Planning Commission recommended that the Council ask the Maxfield Research Group to provide an 'addendum to the Lost Lake Report commenting on the Ortenblad Project in Spring Park and the potential impact of- Advance Machine leaving the area. ~. The Council also questioned how the Maxfield Group cam~ up:the recommendation of a 30 unit Country Inn and would like to .know the impact of rental units on the Central Business District. MOTION made by Peterson, seconded by Smith to concur with the ... Planning Commission's recommendation above and the other questions asked. The City Manager to proceed. The. vote was 'unanimously in favor. Motion carried. GAMBLING PERMIT; NATIONAL M.S. SOCIETY (NORTH STAR CHAPTER). TO BE OPERATED AT CAPTAIN BILLY'S The City Manager reported that the applicant has withdrawn the request due to a local service organization wanting a permit at Captain Billy's. That application, will be forthcoming. No action was taken. PAYMENT OF BILLS The bills were presented for considerat[on. MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Jessen to approve the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list, in the amount of $201,628,O1, When funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELANEOUS October 1986 Financial Report as prepared by John Norman, Finance Director. Be Planning Commission Minutes of November 10, 1986. REMINDER: City of Mound Christmas Party - December 12, 1986. Update from the City Manager regarding proposed subdivisions in Minnetrista and Westedge Blvd. upgrade. The Council complimented the Public Works Department on the wonderful job they have done decorating the Central Business District for Christmas. 1 87 November 25, 1986 The City Manager submitted a letter from the University of Louisville naming Police Chief Len Harrell a "Dean's Scholar". He carried an "A" or 4.0 average in all courses at the-Southern Police Institute. MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Smith to adjourn at 9:15 P.M. The'vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Fran Clark, CMC, City Clerk BILLS--."--NOVEHBER 25,.1986 Batch 86~ 111 Batch 85~112 Batch 86~ 113 SuperAmerica computer Run dated 11/18 Computer gun dated 11/21 Computer Run dated 11j21 October gasoline 158,~85.35 23,91o.o7' '-;18,52~.88 200,925.30 702.71 TOTAL BILLS 201,628.01 CITY OF HOUND Hound, HInnesota NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON SUBDIVISION OF LAND TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: . NOTICE IS HE, REBY GIVEN that there will be a publlc hearing at the City Hall, 53/tl Heywood Road, Hound, HinneSota, at 7:30 P.H. on TUes- day,..'December 9[' t986, to consider the subdlvlslon of land located west of Inverness Lane and south of Paisley Road described as follows: Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9,-25, 26 and 27'and the N°rtheasterly 1.15 feet of Lots 15 and 16, all.in Block 8, Pembroke, Hennepin County', Hinnesota PlO Numbers 19-117-23 33 oo70/oo6q/0057/o058/oo59/o060 Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the above will be heard at this meeting. Francene C.-CiaPk, City cl~rk ' CASE NO. 86-550 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553.1950 TO: City Oomcil and Staff FRO4: Mark Koegler, City Planner ~ DATE: November 12, 1986 SUBJECT: Preliminary Plat - Inverness Heights As follow-up to discussion at the Planning Commission meeting on November 10, 1986, I have further reviewed two aspects of the Inverness Heights preliminary plat; park dedication requirements and lot arrangement. Each is discussed as follows: Park Dedication Requirements: The proposed plat for Inverness Heights involves the conversion of six parcels of land into six lots. The original parcels ranged from 6,000 sq. ft. to approximately 30,000 sq. ft. By combining the small lots with the larger parcels, all lots within the plat meet the minimum 10L000 SqU~foot ~9~_z~i~eme~_t. In keeping with the subdivision ordinance, Section 23.37, such plats are not required to provide park dedication. Hence, it is not required that a park charge be levied a~ainst any of the lots within the plat. Lot A~-k--~ngement: The proposed plat contains two nonconforming lots. Lot 6 is nonconforming due to a lack' of public access. As a result, the Planning Commission recommended that Lot 6 be combined with Lot 5 creating one large parcel. If the applicant can secure additional property in the future to provide access to Lot 6, it can be split to accommodate construction of a home. In conducting a more detailed review of Lots 4 and 5, it is possible to plat the property so that both are conforming. In doing so, the proposed stacking of the two lots can be avoided. Exhibit A contains an example of how this can be achieved. Under this scheme, both lots contain adequate frontage, area and setbacks to construct two conforming housing ~qits. Lot 5A as it is called on this plan, can be part of Lot 5 until such future time as it becomes developable due to the acquisition o~ additional property. CASE NO. 86-550 As a result of this review, the modified staff recommendation is to approve the preliminary plat for Inverness Heights subject to the following conditions: Lots 1-3 are approved consistent with the applicant's original preliminary plat drawing dated September 22, 1986. That the preliminary plat be modified in General concurrence with Exhibit A to make Lots 4 and 5 conforming. 3. That Lot 6 (5A on Exhibit A) be combined withLot 5. Grading, drainage, utility and streets shall be in conformance with the City Engineer as recommendations dated October 13, 1986. The preliminary plat shall be reviewed and approved by the Watershed District. The applicant shall provide a fire hydrant in the proposed Paisley cul-de-sac or shall supply the city with a letter from the fire chief stating that existing fire protection is adequate and no additional hydrants are necessary. Attached are two resolutions, one reflecting the outcome of the Planning Commission recommendations and one reflecting the modified staff recommendations. CASE NO. 86-550 Exhibit A 6" PLUG "---, ~' PAISLEY ' >~' ROAD o,~ HYDRANT l ~~~. ' 6'~ 6"~6" TEE O~" ~.v. -, RURy ,~ ® · ~ ~' ~-~E~ ~ 6"~6"'6" TEE , ' H II- /-'s" ~6 BEND . ~X'~ X~I~ /' . X~ ~ ~ ~~_~6 VI6 BEND ~ i~~'' ~ ~.4~ ~.4 ~1-' RDON ROAD- .................. ~,0.....:..900 ................................... :.~ ....................................... :. 7:i:::::::~ .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. . ............................................................................................... ! ............................................................................................................... ~ .......................................................... ¢8 I. 2 ................ ................. ...... ........ 960. .......... 080i · ............................... ~ ........ . .................................................. ~ ..... .................................................... ....................................................................................... i ................................ "'~' ;7: ........................... O~ ........... :iiiTZ:7'Ziiiiiii ...... : ........ [~o0 .......... 9'70 .......................................................................... : ......................................... ] ....................................... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :': 2':-.--..2 .................................. ,~ ....................................................................................................................................................... : .......... ~ ........... ~..m ......................... ~ ........... ..2....:::__.'. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::"'": ........................................................................................... ,- ...~ - --.~ ..'. ................................ .>.... ..... ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: .............. i~40 ......... :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::======================:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ZZZ'i' ZZFiT"iZZZZ7 iZ2Z"ZZZ .... ' ................................ "' ~i~iZ~i ............................................. y~ ......... .............................. : .............. i ............................. ~ION NO. 86- RESOLUTION APPROVING A Pi~.Tm~/qARY P~AT AND LOT VARIANC~ FOR LOT 5, BLOCK 1, iNVERNESS HE!~t4TS FOR ~INCENT FORYSTEK~ CASE NO. 86-550 WHEREAS, The City Council on December 9 ~, 1986 held a Publle Hearlng pursuant to Section 2200, Chapter 22, Mound Code of Ordinances, to consider approval of a preliminary plat and lot area variances for the establishment of six residential lots described as Lots 1-6, Block 1, Inverness Heights; and WHEREAS, during review by the Planning Commission, the applicant and the Commission agreed to combine Lot 6 and Lot 5 thereby establishing a plat containing five lots; and WHEREAS, the revised plat is consistent with the exception of lot width with the Mound Comprehensive Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Mound, Subdivision Code #422; and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a 38 foot lot width variance for Lot 5 and such variance has been reviewed by the Planning CommiSsion who has recommended approval due to the unique shape of the property and topographic constraints which meets the zoning ordinance criteria for the granting of a variance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND: The preliminary plat and variance (case number 86-550) are approved upon compliance with the following requirements. me Per plat on file at Mound City Hall dated September 22, 1986. Lot 5 is granted a 38 foot lot width variance subject to the combination of Lots 5 and 6 into one building lot. Furthermore, any home constructed on Lot 5 shall be placed within the boundaries of Lot 5 as shown on the preliminary plat dated September 22, 1986 and shall, as a minimum, observe the setbacks as shown on the plat. ® Grading, drainage, utilities and street plans shall be reviewed and approved by the city engineer. The preliminary plat shall be reviewed and approved by the Watershed District. Se The developer shall provide a fire hydrant in the proposed Paisley cul-de-sac or shall supply the city with a letter from the fire chief stating that existing fire protection is adequate and no additional hydrants are necessary. Failure on the part of the applicant to submit a final plat per Section 22.13 within one year from the date of this approval shall deem the prelimiDmryapproval null and void. RESOLUTION NO. 86- RESOI/71~ON ~NG A PRELIMINARY PLAT AND LOT VARIANCE FOR LOT 5, ~ 1, INVERNESS HEIGHTS FOR VINCENT.FOR~STEK P & Z CASE ND. 86'550 WHEREAS, The City Council on December 9,~' 1986 held a Public Hearing pursuant to Section 2200, Chapter 22, Mound Code of Ordip~nces, to consider approval of a preliminary plat and lot area variances for the establishment of six residential lots described as Lots 1-6, Block 1, Inverness Heights; and WHEREAS, during review by the Planning Commission, the applicant and the Commission agreed to combine Lot 6 and Lot 5 thereby establishing a plat containing five lots; and WHEREAS, during review by the City Council, it was shown that the proposed preliminary plat could be modified to make all lots conforming thereby eliminating ~ need for the proposed lot width variance; and WHEREAS, the modified plat is consistent with the Mound Comprehensive Plan and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and ordinances of the City of Mound, Subdivision Code #422. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OFT HE CITY OF The preliminary plat (case nUmber 86-550) is approved upon compliance with the following requirements. The applicant shall sutmit a revised preliminary plat drawing showing-the combination of Lots 5 and 6 and the modification of Lots 4 and 5 to make them conforming. The revised preliminary plat shall be reviewed and approved by the city planner and city engineer. Grading, drainage, utilities and street plans shall be reviewed and approved by the city engineer. 0 The preliminary plat shall be reviewed and approved by t~eWatershed District. .The developer shall provide a fire hydrant in the proposed Paisley cul-de-sac or shall supply the city with a letter from the fire chief stating that existing fire protection is adequate and no additional hydrants are necessary. Failure on the part of the applicant to sutmit a final plat per Section 22.13 within one year from the date of this approval shall deem the prelimiparyapproval null and void. December 4,1986 Dear City Council, I am writing this letter concerning a final decision on the proposed development of a land-locked lot 6 which boarders Paisley Rd. and our property at 3162 Drury Ln. I am unable to attend the meeting, but wish to repeat our concerns expressed at the Planning Commission meeting. This particular lot is partly on a hill and we will be very concerned about water run-off should a house be built there. We already have problems which required that a swale be dug. Second, we already have a long up-hill driveway to the east of our home which causes traffic problems due to freezing rain and snow. Neighbors usually end up in our driveway because parking is not feasible on Drury which is a hill at this end. A second long driveway may duplicate the problem on the other side should that property become available. Third, we feel it is a ridiculous place to put a house because it increases the already cluttered look of the Island. Finally, for what it is worth, we are all losing wildlife and trees for the sake~of devlopment, which is a real shame, because that is what drew me from Minneapolis twelve years ago. We realize since we have no real say about the property we will seriously consider moving if a house should be built there. My husband has lived in Mound all his life and is greatly saddened by how much it has been built up. It no longer is a child's paradise in harmony with nature, but a somewhat typical suburban neighborhood. Sincerely yours, Frank and Roxanne Mcgill 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 TO: Planning Commission and Staff FR(I~: Mark Koegler, C~ty Planner ~/ DATE: November 3, 1986 SUB3ECr: . Preliminary Plat - Inverness Heights.. CASE NO:' 86-550 VHS FILE NO.: 86-310-A35-Z0 APPI/CANT: Vincent D. Forystek ZONII~: R-1 . · ~$IVE PLAN: Single Family Residential ~: The applicant is'proposinG to divide 1.4 acres into six lots, all of which are at least 10,000 square feet in area. Three of the proposed lots will face eastward and front on Inverness Lane, two lots will take. access from a proposed cul-de-sac along Paisley Road and the sixth lot as shown on the proposed plat will be landlocked and presumably will take access from an easement connection to Gordon Road. Lots 1-4 conform to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. Lot 5 will require a 38 foot lot width variance since the proposed frontage on Paisley Road is only 22 feet wide. In order for Lot 6 to be approved, a variance will be necessary since it does not have frontage on the public street. REOOMMENDATION: The proposed Plat is a collection of lots which 'front on two public streets. Topography in the area is steep. Lots 1-4 meet the minimum ordinance requirements for access, lot area and width. Lots 5 and 6, however, do not meet current standards. A 38 foot variance is appropriate for Lot 5 since the shape and terrain of the area make access difficult. Since Lot 6 does not contain access to a public street, variance approval is not recommended. Due to the shape of the parcel and the topographic constraint, five lots are appropriate for the plat rather than six. Staff recommends apprOVal of the .preliminary plat' for Inverness Heights subject to the following conditions: 1. Lots 1-4 shall be approved since they conform to ordinance criteria. A 38 foot lot width variance for Lot 5 is approved due to the shape of the overall parcel and topographic constraints. Approval of Lot 6 is denied since it does not have access to a public street. The lot~ area from Lot 6 should be distributed to the other lots as appropriate. Grading, drainage, utilities and streets shall be in conformance with the City EnGineer's recommendations dated 'October 13, 1986. e The preliminary plat shall be reviewed and approved by the watershed district, Jf applicable. Park dedication fee shall be collected consistent with current ordinance requirements~ In .no case less than $300.00 per lot. McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS I PLANNERS October 13, 1986 Ms. 3an Bertrand Planning and Zoning City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota SUB3ECT: Dear 3an: 55~4 Proposed Plat Inverness Heights Case No. 8~-550 NKA ~7479 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 As requested, we have reviewed the mate:iai submitted for the preliminary piat of Inverness Heights and have the foilowing comments and recommendations. PRELIMINARY PLP,? 1) FToposed ~ot 5 will need a lot width ya~iance, since it does not meet the minimum lot width as required by the zoning ordinance. 2) Lot 6 cannot be allowed because it does not front on a public right-of-way as required by the platting regulations. 3) Drainage and utility easements need to be added to all lot lines, 6 feet in width along the side and ~ear lot lines and 10 feet in width along the front. GRADING & DRAINAGE . Any grading done on this. proper~y.wii1 be very critical because of the steep slopes that exist. The final grading pian, when submitted, wiIi have to be compiete, including good erosion control measures. STREETS We have writtena number, of letters to the city on previous p~oposals submitted by the deveioper regarding portions of this property. Attached are copies of these review letters. The major concern we have is the proposed extension and cui-de-sac construction of Paisley Road. As you wiii note from the enclosed letters, we previously recommended that a portion of the existing street be removed and the grade changed to ailow drainage from the new cui-de- sac to flow southwesteriy down the existing street. This method wouId be much more economical than the other aiternates previousiy discussed involving storm sewer extensions. It will be the Council's decision as to whether the City wii1 pay for any of this reconstruction on the existing street as was suggested in our previous letter. Our other concerns are with the actual cui-de-sac. The City's platting reguiations require a 50 foot radius to the right-of-way iine. The pian submitted shows a 34 feet radius to back of curb and 35 feet radius to the right-of-way. We would aliow a 80 foot diameter cui-de-sac with 70 foot~ri~r improved street. This would stiIi ieave a 5 foot area between the curb and property iine for underground utiiities such as teiephone, gas and eiectricity. Ms. San Bertrand October 13, 1986 Page Two UTILITIES 1) 2) The sanitary sewer should be 8" dia. minimum and the water~ain will need to be 2" dia. minimum. The easement for the proposed sanitary sewer main on proposed Lot 2 needs to be wider. (15 feet minimum with 20 feet preferred) There are no existing services extended to the right-of-way line for the use of proposed Iot 2, which means new services wili be required from either the existing main in Inverness Lane or from the new mains in the easement. Elevations of both the proposed house and.of the sewer main extension wiI1 determine which main can be used for the sewer service. In conclusion, we would recommend preliminary plat approval subject to the following con~ition~. 1) Lot 6.be eiiminated and the area combined with Lot 5. · 2) Variances be granted for the undersized width of Lot 5 and the undersized cul-de-sac. 5) Addition of drainage and utiiity easements to the piat and an increase of 5 feet in width of the easement shown on Lot 2 for the sanitary sewer main. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Oohn Cameron Enclosures OC:tdv February 27, 1~ · ::' City I~anagez .' ..." .City of Hound ' ~41 Maywood R~ad Reply To: 12800 Indu~riml Park Boulevmd Plymouth. Minnesot~ 55441 {612 559- 7O0 · . .. As requested we have prepared cost es~ma~s-~6=cons~zuctton of a ~-de-sac and ex~s~ o~ u~L~es ~o se~e ~Jec~ y~can~ p~ope~y. EncZosed a~e ~ese estimates, ~e have no~ done any ~eZd ~o=k ~e=e~o=e no e~eva~ons a=e available aL ~s ~me. ~ d~d v~s~ ~e s~e ~d ~ appe~s an a=ea has a~eadY'been g=aded wh~e a ~-~-sac could be cons~c~ed, ~s p=ojec~ goes~y fu~e~, ~e d=a~age ~ ~e a~ea of'~e p~o~sed cul-de-sac needs additional study. ' The attached cost estimates fo= u~tl~ties inclUSe'~tn extensions ~e ~isley Road ~tght~f-way ?=om Inverness Lane to the p~oposed cul-de-~c. This would be ~ch cheape~ th~ extending the ware= and sew~ ?~ wh~e p~es~tly ends and have to ~eplace app~oximately 200 feet of existing O~eg and I have discussed the different metho~ ~at could be used to serve ~is p~ope~ty ~d have:.sett~ed.on ~e one estimated. ~e feel ~e wate~ should be a G" ~i~ with a hydrant at ~e p~o~sed cul-de-sac ?o~ ?i=e p~otection. At the p~esent time ~e closest hyd~t is at ~e inte~section o? ~u~y'and ~isley.. The cost estimate ?o= the sewe= shows an B" line, which could be ·educed to G" i? desired. ~e ~st savings would p~obably amount to only to SG~. The cost estimate also shes 2 ~oles even ~gh the length o? . eXtension would only ~equi=e one new m~ole at the p~oposed cul-de-sac. · ' .~ithout elevations ~ show ~e g~ound p~file it is impossible to dete~mine one ma~ole would be su??~ci~t.. iebruar¥ 27 ~ ge Two If you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. .Sincerely, HcCO4BS-KNUTSONASSOCIATES, Inc. Oohn Cameron oc:J City of Mound FebrUary 25, 1985 P~eliminary Cost Paisley Road 'Sewez 8" PVC Sewer 270 L.FJ .O0/LF $3,510.00 Hanholes ' 2 O.O0/EA 1,900.00 8"x4" Wye . 2 70.00~ / 1~0.00 4" sewer service 60 , ~~.../.L.~... .480.00 Con .tingenctes" .. " ' 600.00 Estimated Construction Cost ............... $6,630.00 · .... Watez ~- wate~main 270 L.F. $ $ xiO.OO/LF $2,?00.00 Service G~oups 2 EACH 8 80.O0/EA 160.00 1" copper service pipe 80 L.F..8 6.00/LF 480.00 Fittings ..300 LBS. ~ 1.50/EA 450.00 Gate valves 2 EACH · 350.O0/EA 700.00 Contingencies 550.00 Estimated Constzuction Cost ...................................... $6,040.00 Streets (70' Diameter Cul-de-sac) G=ading Concrete curb & gutter Bituminous base Bituminous wea~ Contingencies ~ Lump Sum 800.00 230 L.F; a 6.00/LF 1,~BO.O0 100 TON -8 28.00/TN 2,800.00 ~0 'TON · 26.00/TN 1,0~0.00 Estimated Construction Cost ...................................... $6,620.00 cCOMBS-KNUTSON AssOcIATES, INC. 3une 10~ 1~5 55,~7~ 3on F. iam City Hanage= ~ty of ~nd .. 5341 Ma~ood R~d M~nd, M1~eso~ 55~4 S~E~.- ~t~ey R~d E~ms~on . ~ ~equested, I ~ve rev~ the latest pm~s~ by V~e Fo~stek ~t~ ~ zeplac~ng the last ~ feet of ~e e~st~ng st~ ~clud~g eng~n~z~g ms~. ~s would ~ount to a~ro~atelY ~0.00. ~e zma~ndez of the deve~o~ent ms~ of app~mately ~4,200.~ w~ld be ~d'~ ~n ~sh by the deve~z ~d 5~ assessed beck to the p~o~y. ~ means the c~ty ~uld have ~ f~mn~ app~ately $12~1~.~. As ~ do not feel M~. Fozystek ~d be ~es~s~ble ~nst~uct~g the e~st~g ~zt~on 'o~ ~s~ey Rind, ~t we do th~nk ~ sh~ld be resp~s~ble for the a~ mg~n~ng ~s~ as~6~ated w~th th~s p~oject.. / s,~,y To: 12800 I ndustr~l ~Park .B'oulev~rd Plymouth, Mih~-esot~/55441 (612) One othe= item in Mr. Forystek's letter of Oune 3, does concern me. He mentions that he wouId Itke to create ~ butiding sites from the property tn. question, Lots 25, 26, 27, and the north il5 feet o..f..Lots 15 and 16, Block 8, Peru broke. Mound's ordinance, chapter 22 which, requiates the subdivision of 'property, contains a number of requlations which wouId not be met by dividing this property ~nto ~ buiid~ng sites. The two most obvious are the piatt~ng requirements and the mfn~mcm iot width fronting on a pubItc right-of-way. The city has in 'the .Pas~ usually waived the platting requirement when s parcel is divided into 2 butiding sites. In this case, depending, on the iocation of the new property I~nes and the iegaI descriptions of the new parceis, we may recommend a replat of the property. The iess than min~mu~ lot width wouid require a va~iance. If you have any questions or need additionai info,marion, piease contact US. Sincerely, MCCOqBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, Inc. 3ohn Cameron cCOMBS KNUTSON AS ClATE NC.' - SO S, I 12800 InduStrial Park BoulMrd Plymouth, Minnesota 155441 {612) 559-3700 City Manager . City of Hound 5~1 Naywood Road Mound, NN SLB3ECT: Paisley Road Extension File ~ 747~ Dea~ 3on: .. As requested we have done an additional study on problems in the a~e_a of the proposed Paisley Road cu3L - and also the portion of Inverness Road to the east which rec..ai, ves run off f~om the Paisley right of way. We looked at a number of different solutions, but from an economic standpoint we feel only one alternate ts feasible. Storm sewer could be extended to the proposed cul-de-sac from existing mains at two different locations. Alternate No. 1 would cost approximately ' $24,000.00 and involve extending, storm sewer from the intersection of D~uz? Lane and Paisley Road to the proposed cul-de-sac. This alternate will not solve the problems on Inverness Lane and the same results can be accomplished tn a much less expensive way. which will be discussed further on as alternate We also looked at extending the storm sewer from a main in Tuxedo Boulevard up Sterl/ng Road and Inverness Lane with the last section in the unimproved right-of-way of Paisley Road. Catch basins would be installed in Inverness Lane and also in the new cul-de-sac. Our estimated cost for this method would be approximately $35~- 000. 00. 'Both this alternate and alternate No: 1 aze very expensive because of the street restoration required. Alternate No. ~ would involve removing approximately the last 60 feet of inplace concrete curb and gutter and bituminous paving of Paisley road and reconstructing this section to drain westerly. By doing this the new cul-de-sac could also be constructed to drain westerly, thus eliminating the need for any new storm sewer tn the proposed cul-de-sac. We have estimated this reconstruction to cost approximately $~,700.00. Our previous estimate for the cul-de-sac construction was $6,620.00 which would bring the total street cost to approximately $i0,~20.00. As you can see this method is much cheaper than the two previousIy mentioned. The negative side of alternate No. ~ is that approximately one haif to two thirds of this hii1 wilI continue to drain overland easterly to Inverness Lane. The yard which suffers the most from this run off, was graded into the Mr. ,]on Eiam May Page Two hill and left much too flat with not' enough slope away fz~m the house. The only way to solve their water problem would be to completely :egrade the yard : on the west and north sides of the house. It may be possible to dive~c some of the runoff from the hill and keep tt in the unimproved R/W of Paisley by some zegradin9 at the same time santtazy sewer and ware:main are extended. In conclusion we would have the following recommendations: Alternate No.. ~ be considered as the method of handltng :un off f~om the proposed cul-de-sac. The cost'of zeconstructing ~0 feet of Patsley Road, approximately $~,700.00, will be paid for by the City." Mr. Fo~Tstek, the developer of the 2 p~oposed building sites, shouid' stand the cost of extending sewer and water from the mains in Inverness Lane and construction of the cul-de-sac. See estimated cost attached to our previous ietter dated Februazy 27, 1985. If the City agrees .to finance these .costs and assess them to the parceIs owned by Mr. Fo:ystek, the costs for engineering, ac~inist:ation, legal, etc. should also be included. If you have any questions o: need additional info~mation, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, McCOM~S-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. OC:cah cc: Vince Forystek 3ohn'Cameron Planning Commission Hinutes November 10, 1986 1. Case No. 86-550 Publlc Hearlng on Proposed Plat, 'l~r~-e~-~-~ight~--- Lots 5,6,7,8,9,25,26,27 and part of Lots 15 and 16, Block 8,'Pembroke Vihce Forystek was present. .. The City p'lanner, Mare Koegler, reviewed his. report. He is recommendlng'preT liminary p.~an approval with six conditions whi. ch include, due to the shape of the parcel and topographic constraint, a 38 foot variance'.for access width for Lot 5 and the limiting of number of lots for the'plat to 5 rather than 6 as Lot~ 6 has no access to a publ. ic right-of-way.' Jan Bertrand, Building'Officlal, commen~ed on the City Englneer~s report dated October 13, 1986 which also-included some background information. The Engineer is basically recommend.lng that the drainage be from the existing cul-de-sac ad- joining P.aisley Road. The water should flow SWly from the new cul-de-sac down the existing street..The grades of the new cul-de-sac with the grades of the street wi'll have to fit together. The Engineer is recormaendlng a 80 foot dedi- cated diameter wlth a 70 foot improve'd street foK the cul-de-sac. Sanitary sewer should be a 8 inch minimum diameter and-the watermain 2 inch minimum dia- meter..The'Englnee~ recommended preliminary plat app. roval with ~ conditions which incl.ude I) eliminating Lot 6; '2).variances be granted'for undersized width of Lot 5 and undersized cul-de-sac; and 3) addition of drainage & utility easements to plat and an increase of 5 feet in width of easement on Lot 2 for sanitary sewer main. CommisSioner Weiiand stated he~d like a 6 inch watermatn for fire protection. Applicant Forystek'stated that in 1~85 the Fire Chief stated fire protection was fine and that he wOUld provide a letter to that effect; also. Forys(ek'stated services to.Lot 2 are in the ground. He asked questions on what would be required to divide off Lot 6 iQ the' future and whether park dedication should be required when replatting legal lots. Koegler stated for now, Lots 5 and 6 would have to be comblned and if, at a later date~ addltlonal land can be acquired for street access for Lot the park dedication with applicant. The Chair opened'th& public hearing and t~e following persons had questions and corr~nts:.. DEL PFEIFER ROXANNE McGILL'.- questioned who owns' easement; feels putting additional traffic on ~he easementwouId be a hassl, e..in the w~nter because of its steepness and .congest-ioh; also: commented drain.age· is another problem; they had to put .swale in for their ~ouse to keep water away. The Building Official.noted Cameron stated drainage'~oul.d:be"cr.iti.ca'l.'and would, need very..specific'plans when.they go for fine] plat approval. .~ DEL PFEIFER questioned.why he was not' notlfled about ordinance change from "line of sight" on principal'dwellings front yard setback.' The Chal~ cl'osed the publl, c'hear'ing as there .were ~o other comments relative to this preliminary plat. The Planning Commission dlscussed the proposal. Reese moved and Wel.land'seconded.a motion to accept staff recommendations with the e~ceptlon'of clearing up whether park dedication is appropriate and comblning 'proposed Lots 5 and hydrant. The.Planning Commission discussed where house should be on' proposed new Lot Mark Koegler Stated that as Lot 5.1s.not conforming and needs a vari'ance, the Planning Commission'can .specifytbe building area'and recommended approving the p]at subject't~ ali the conditions with Lot 5 and 6 being combined into one building lot and tha't, the housing pad be loca. ted'on what is shown right.now as Lot 5 on the Tha) moved an"amendment to the motion to include recommendation of the staff on placement of'the house.. 'Steve Smith. seconded the motion. The vote on the amend- merit was Meyer, Hichae.1, Reese and Ken Smith opposed; Andersen, Steve Smith, '.'~ Thal, ~eiland and Jansen in favor. Amendment passed. The vote on the.motl0n as'amended'was unanimously in favor. The City Council'has been asked to set December 9, 1~86 for the.public hearing. __ .._ :. _APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND ~[~'¢ ~I VILLAGE OF MOUND FEE OWNER ~ ~ ~7 Location and complete legal descripti~ of pr~erty to be divided: A1 1 supporting'documents~ 'such as sketch plans~ .surveTs, attachments, etc. must Submitted'in"~"'X 1 !'~ size 'and/or. ih copies, plus' one 8~"'X 11~'. copy. '' {attach su~ey or scale drawi~ showing adjac~pt.stree~, dimensi~ ~ pr~ed building sites, 'square f~t area of each n~ parcel '~slgnated by number) New Lot No. 'From ' ~uare feet TO ~uare feet Reason: APPLICAN ~ [si~na~e) ~ TEL. NO. iI Applicant's interest in the prope6y: ~I ' This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of the property, or an explan- 'ation given why this is not the case. I PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: DATE 7Z PATRICK J. O'CONNOR DIRECT DIAL NUMBER TO- FROM: DATE: RE: DAVID KANTOR THEODORE K. F'URGER LAWRENC£ E, MZUWISSEN RICHARD g EVANS KEVIN bt. BUSCH JULE M. HANNA~ORD IV PETER L. COOPER RO~IERT A. SCHMELZER RANDOLPH J MAYER JOHN W. FITZGERALD O'CONNOR & HANNAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3800 IDS CENTER 80 SOUTH EIGHTH STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTa 5540~-2254 {612~ 341-3800 TELEX P9-0584 TELECOPIER {612) 343-1~56 F~T~R iM~NKGj .TO~, C O N N O R TIMOTHY M. HAAKE' DENVER INCLUDING THE FORMER FIRM MACINTOSH & COMMERS MARTIN Mm GCRLINE:R' ARNOLD R. KAPLANe LARRY D. GALLEOOG' JAMES A. NATIONS' MARIANNE K. LIZZA' MEMORANDUM Thomas D. Creighton/~_ ~~/~ Mark J. Ayotte Legal Counsel November 26, 1986 Request for Approval of Transfer of Ownership in Cable System and Transfer · of Cable Franchise Please find below a summary and analysis of the proposed transaction regarding a request from Dow-Sat of Minnesota, Inc. ("Dow-Sat") to the City of Mound ("City") to approve the.sale and transfer of its cable system and cable tele- vision franchise to Dowden Cable Partners, L.P. ("Dowden Partners"). The purpose of this report is to provide the City with an understanding of the transaction and the standard for reviewing whether to approve it. I. INTRODUCTION At the time of awarding the original cable communica- tions franchise, the City considered and approved the tech- nical ability, financial capability, and legal qualifi- cations of Dow-Sat, as well as other appropriate factors. These same qualifications are to be considered and reviewed as part of the transfer request as they relate to Dowden Partners. The sources of information used in examining these factors include a Private Offering Memorandum dated October 24, 1986 and other supplemental information provided by Dow-Sat and D0wden Partners dated November 8, 1986. II. DESCRIPTION OF TRANSACTION Dowden Communications, Inc. ("DCI"), the parent company of Dow-Sat, has entered into an Asset Purchase Agreement dated October 24, 1986 with Bariston Cable Investors, L.P. ("Bariston Investors"). Under the Asset Purchase Agreement, Bariston Investors will acquire from DCI, on the terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement, substantially all of the business and assets used or useful in connection with the ownership and operation of the cable system. Our review of the Agreement shows no adverse terms or conditions as it relates to the City's interests. The Agreement provides for a closing date of not later than December 16, 1986. The primary question presented by a review of the trans- action is to whom the syste~ and franchise are being trans- ferred. As presented, the transferee will be Dowden Cable - 2 - Partners, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership. Do'den Par'tners has two general partners. The first general part- ner is Bariston Cable Investors, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership. The other general partner is Dowden Communica- tions Investors, L.P., ("Dowden Investors") a Georgia limited partnership and successor to DCI. Dowden Partners will also consist of various limited partners, who will merely be investors and who will not have authority to make business decisions for the entity. Dowden Inve~tors is stated to be the managing partner which will be responsible for management of the cable sys- tems by virtue of a management agreement. Bariston Investors will provide investment banking and financial services to Dowden Partners. All fundamental decisions, including those with respect to financing, refinancing, acquisition or sale of cable television systems, and liqui- dation of Dowden Partners will require the concurrence of each of the general partners. The ultimate transfer of the.system and franchise to Dowden Partners will encompass a number of steps. Prior to the consummation of the transaction, either the assets of Dow-Sat will be transferred to DCI or Dow-Sat will be merged with and into DCI. Subsequently, DCI will transfer all of its assets to Dowden Partners and Bariston Investors will contribute money to Dowden Partners. After the transaction, Dow-Sat's and DCI's corporation existence will be termi- nated. - 3 - To facilitate an understanding of the transaction, it should be kept in mind that each of the organizations is a separate and distinct entity. Dowden Partners, Bariston Investors, ann Dow~en ~nve~kor~. are enk~k~eg which havo been or will be created for the purpose of accomplishing this transaction. III. STANDARD OF REVIEW The City's task in this process is to review the infor- mation provided regarding the transaction and to determine whether to approve or deny the transfer of the franchise and system. The franchise and state law provide the City with the express right to approve or disapprove a transfer of ownership in its franchise and system as a result of a fundamental corporate change. The standard of review is that the City's consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. For the purpose of determining whether it will consent to the change in control and transfer the system and franchise, the City has made inquiry into the legal, tech- nical and financial qualifications of Dowden Partners, as well as other appropriate factors. In analyzing the transaction, the City must consider whether Dowden Partners meets all of the criteria originally considered in initially granting the franchise to Dow-Sat. Note, however, that this analysis is not a comparison between Dow-Sat and Dowden Partners to determine which is more qualified. Rather, the analysis is an application of - 4 - the same factors to determine whether Dowden Partners satis- fies the standards to the reasonable satisfaction of the City. The City should focus upon the following factors in determining whether to approve or deny the transfer to Dowden Partners: 1. Legal qualifications of Dowden Partners; 2. Technical ability of ~Dowden Partners; 3. Financial stability of Dowden Partners; agd 4. Other appropriate factors. IV. ANALYSIS Each of the factors will be analyzed separately, although they are not necessarily exclusive. A. Legal Qualifications The legal qualifications standard relates primarily to an analysis of whether the entity involved in the trans- action is duly organized and authorized to own the cable system and franchise. Certain entities, such as certain television broadcasting stations, national television net- works, and certain telephone companies, are prohibited by federal law from owning, operating, or controlling a cable television system. Although these restrictions are p~i- marily a concern of the companies involved, we have reviewed the federal cross-ownership prohibitions and have determined them to be inapplicable. - 5 - We have been provided with an unexecuted copy of the Amended and Restated Limited Partnership Agreement of Dowden Partners. We must be presented with evidence showing that it is duly organized and authorized to own a cable system and franchise before approving its legal qualifications. The final execution of the draft of the Limited Partnership Agreement would likely be sufficient. Any approval of the transfer to Dowden Partners would a~ this point need to be conditioned upon this requirement being satisfied. In this regard, principals for Dowden Partners have advised us that the Limited Partnership Agreement would be executed prior to the closing. Consequently, it would appear that the City could not reasonably withhold approval of the transfer to Dowden Partners based upon the legal qualifications provided legal counsel is presented with legally sufficient organizational and creation documents of the Limited Partnership prior to the actual closing and transfer taking place. B. Technical Ability The technical ability factor relates to the technical expertise and experience of Dowden Partners in operating and maintaining a cable system. This analysis focuses upon the current and former experience of the proposed Transferee. Since Dowden Partners is a newly-created entity, it has not directly owned or operated any cable systems. Therefore, the ability of its managing principals must be reviewed. - 6 - Information has been provided showing that Dowd~n Investors will be the managing general partner and will have responsibility for managing Dowden Partners. The details of Dowden Investors' authority and control of the partnership are set forth in Article VII of the proposed Limited Part- nership Agreement. It appears from the structure of the transaction that Dowden Partners will enter into a Manage- ment Agreement with Dowden Investor-s, pursuant to which Dowden Investors will furnish management services to the Dowden Partners~ With the consent of Bariston Investors, the Management Agreement may be entered into with, or may be assigned to, an affiliate of Dowden Investors controlled by Thomas C. Dowden. It appears from the information which we have reviewed that the management of your system by Dowden Investors under the proposed transaction will be in substance the same as it currently exists. In other words, DCI and Dow-Sat's experi- ence in the engineering, construction and marketing of your cable television system will remain substantially intact as Dowden Investors under the agreements between the general partners of Dowden Partners. The only concern identified as part of the technical qualifications standard is whether the current technical expertise of Dowden Investors will always remain under the proposed transaction. The Management Agreement and proposed Limited Partnership Agreement provide for certain occur- - 7 - rences by which the authority to manage the cable systems may be transferred from Dowden Investors to some other entity. We have requested and received an acknowledgment and agreement by the principals of Dowden Partners addressing this concern. Certain of the contingencies which may give rise to a change in the authority to manage your system are situations involving a transfer of ownership or control of Dowden Partners, which requires your approval under the current franchise. Additionally, Dowden Partners has repre- sented that any change in the management authority over your system would require your reasonable consent under the terms of the current franchise. This acknowledgment by Dowden Partners should insure that the technical expertise cur- rently enjoyed by DCI and Dow-Sat will not be changed with- out your consent. Based upon our review of the information provided and the acknowledgment by Dowden Partners, it would appear that the City could not reasonably withhold approval of the transfer based upon the technical ability of Dowden Partners or its principals. C. Financial Stability The financial stability factor relates to whether Dowden Partner's financial condition is equivalent to that which currently exists with DCI. ~he City has engaged Mr. Kevin P. Cattoor, Financial Communications Consultant, to under- - 8 - take the review of this factor. Mr. Cattoor has reviewed the financial plans of Dowden Partners to compare the finan- cial stability of the proposed Transferee to the current company. Be has prepared an independent report of his analysis, and the City is referred thereto. D. Other Relevant Factors Other appropriate factors which have been reviewed for the purpose of determining whether ~o approve or deny this transaction relate primarily t° whether the cable franchise will be transferred intact and whether Dowden Partners will agree to comply with all existing franchise requirements. The information which we have reviewed indicates that Dowden Partners is not currently requesting any franchise modifications as a condition of the transfer. In other words, the system is to be sold and the franchise trans- ferred "as is". Consequently, Dowden Partners will agree to receive transfer of the franchise without any modifica- tions. Dowden Partners will be required to execute the existing franchise between Dow-Sat and the City and ~o comply with all terms and conditions of the franchise. A concern has been identified relating to a guarantee of performance of the franchise. The current franchise is held by Dow-Sat and guaranteed by DCI, which is the parent not only of Dow-Sat, but also of various other subsidiaries holding cable television franchises in Iowa, Arizona, Illinois, and Wisconsin. Under the Asset Purchase Agree- - 9 - ment, all of the systems held by DCI subsidiaries will be transferred to and assumed by Dowden Partners as the primary obligor. Dowden Partners has stated that there will be no parent corporation which will guarantee the performance and obligations of the franchise. Dowden Partners originally proposed that its obligation as a separate partnership would be without recourse to any of its general or limited partners or their properties. After discussion with the principals of Dowden Partners, they have agreed to remove the condition of no recourse to the general partners. Consequently, Dowden Investors and Bariston Investors would be liable as general partners for any obligation of Dowden Partners. Based upon our review of the information constituting other appropriate factors, it does not appear that there is any legally justifiable cause to withhold approval of the transfer to Dowden Partners. V. CONCLUSION The City may approve the transfer of ownership and transfer of the franchise to Dowden Cable Partners, L.P. The approval should be conditional subject to the finalization of the Limited Partnership Agreement prior to closing. A resolution which will effectuate the approval is included with this memorandum. Following the closing of the transaction, the City will ~eed to initiate a process to formally transfer the franchise ordinance through an ordi- nance amendment process. , - 10 - KEVIN P. CATT00R FINANCIAL COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANT ~4 ~ COURT NORTH Bua ($1~).~1'f0-0~88 TO: FROM: DATE: MEMBERS OF THE LAKE MINNETONKA CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION. Kevin P. Cattoor November 26, 1986 RE: Financial Analysis of Dowden Cable Partners, L.P. Members of the Lake Minnetonka Cable Commnnica.tions Commission ("Commission") have requested through 'its legal counsel, Mr. Mark Ayotte, of the O'Connor & Hannan law firm, a financial analysis of the proposed transaction which would result in the sale of the Dowden Communications Inc. ("DCI") cablesystems to Dowden Cable Partners, L.P. ("Dowden Partners"). The purpose of the financial analysis is to give the Commission comfort as it relates to the Dowden Partners' forecasted financial condition compared with that of DCI. In performing the financial analysis, the Dowden Partners' offering document Submitted to the Commission was reviewed. For purposes of the analysis, primary emphasis was placed on Exhibit 1 (Financial Forecast), Exhibit 5 (Pro Forma Balance Sheet of Dowden Partners) and Exhibit 6 (Financial Statements of DCI). In assessing the financial condition of Dowden Partners, the following criteria were addressed: 1. How does the Dowden Partners' pro forma balance sheet compare with the DCI unaudited balance sheet dated December 1, 19867 2. Do the forecasted operating results of Dowden Partners appear reasonable and provide for ~otential return on investment? 3. Is the market value of the DCI systems affected as a result of the Dowden Partners' transaction? The above three criteria are discussed in this memorandum. As a result of this review a conclusion will be reached as to whether the financial condition of Dowden Partners is equivalent to that of DCI. I. BALANCESHEET ANALYSIS Included in the offering document as Exhibit 5 is a pro f°rma balance sheet which documents the projected financial condition of Dowden Partners subsequent to the transaction documented to take place on December 1, 1986. The purpose of this pro forma balance sheet is to document the adjustment required to the DCI balance sheet as a result of the proposed transaction. Page Two In the notes to the pro forma balance sheet it is noted that Dowden Partners is purchasing the DCI systems for a price of $43,437,915. The purchase will be financed as follows: Barist°n Cable Investors, L.P. contributions Dowden Communications Investors, L.P. contributions Senior debt TOTAL $11,550,000 4,500,000 29,000,000 $45~050,000 As a result of this transaction, it is projected that the total assets of Dowden Partners' will equal $48,140,117.. Total assets under the DCI balance sheet total $25,204,083. In comparing total assets of each of the balance sheets, it is noted that Dowden Partners has approximately twice the capitalization of DCI. Included in this Capitalization it is noted that the Dowden Partners' balance sheet will show total equity of $16,050,000 compared to a deficiency of $2,131,009 for DCI. This comparison alone indicates that the financial condition of Dowden Partners is stronger than that of DCI due to the partnership contributions made by the Dowden Communications Investors, L.P. and Bariston Cable Investors, L.P. totaling $16,050,000. This significant l~vel of equity contributions has resulted in the Dowden Partners' balance sheet showing a stronger cash position than that of the DCI balance sheet. The Dowden Partners' pro forma balance sheet indicates that $925,860 of cash will be on hand for operations compared to $13,775 for DCI. The Dowden Partners' balance sheet also indicates a lower debt/equity ratio when compared to that of DCI. Subsequent to the transaction it is projected that with $29,000,000 of senior debt and $16,050,000 of equity a debt to equity ratio of 1.8 will exist. Debt to equity ratios in many cable companies approximate three to five to one. Using this ratio, it appears that the financial condition of Dowden Partners~ is favorable compared to industry standards and more favorable than DCI's debt to equity ratio which approximates at least 3.3 when factoring out the accumulated deficits of $9,521,472. Based upon the analysis of the Dowden Partners' pro forma balance sheet dated December 1, 1986 (unaudited) disclosed in Exhibit 5 of the offering document, it appears that the financial condition of Dowden Partners will be better than that of DCI due to the following: 1. Total assets of Dowden Partners are twice that of DCI. 2. The debt to equity ratio for Dowden Partners approximates 1 8 which is under the norm for the cable industry and is lower that the ratio of DCI ( even when factoring out accumulated deficits to date). __ ~ ~ Page Three 3. The proposed cash balance of Dowden Partners which approximates $925,860 is significantly higher than .the cash balance shown in the DCI balance sheet totaling to $13,775. II. FINANCIAL FORECAST Included as Exhibit 1 in the offering document is a financial forecast and accountant's report of the Dowden Partners, for the period December 1, 1986 through December 31, 1994. Review of the Dowden Partners' financial forecast and summary of significant forecast assumptions and notes to financial forecasts revealed no unusual items when compared to financial forecasts assumptions made in other cable transactions and actual industry experience. The financial forecast is the basis upon which an investor most often determines whether a business plan is worthwhile' of an equity investment. In the financial plan it is anticipated that between the. Dowden Communications Investors, L.P. and Bariston Cable Investors, L.P. that approximately $16,050,000 of equity will be contributed to Dowden Partners. As a result of making this equity investment, it is forecast that distributions of operating cash flow to partners will be made in the years 1987 through 1994. In calculating a return on the partners' investment totaling to $16,050,000 it is appropriate that the discounted cash flow method be used. Under this method it is assumed that the $16,050,000 represents a cash outflow and that the distribution of operating .cash flow to partners represents the cash inflow. In the year 1994 it is further assumed that Dowden Partners would have a market value of approximately $114,561,000. This amount reflects the cash proceeds due on sale based on the hypothetical sale price for the systems equal to ten times forecasted operating cash flow for 1994 before management and investment banking fees. The factor of ten times forecasted operating cash flow is .appropriate for establishing the market value of the systems in the year 1994. Schedule A attached to this memorandum illustrates the i $16,050,000 investment along with the distributions of operating cash flow to the partners. It has been calculated on Schedule A that based upon the $16,050,000 equity contributions made by the partners of Dowden Partners that a 32.152% pre-tax internal rate of return will be experienced assuming the forecasted cash flow~ become reality. Assuming that the partners are able to utilize tax losses during the earlier years of the business plan, it is likely that the rate of return will be higher to the partners. Exhibit 1 documents that the financial forecast as prepared by Dowden Partners has been reviewed by certified public accountants and management consultants. This should provide the Commission with comfort as to the assumptions used in preparing the financial forecasts. Additionally, as indicated Page Four on Schedule A, it is calculated that based upon the partners' equity contribution a favorable rate of return is expected. III. MARKET VALUE OF SYSTEMS In calculating the market value of a cable system the factor most often used by investors in the cable-industry is a multiple of cash flow. As disclosed in the offering documents, the purchase price for the DCI systems approximates $45,000,000. In comparing the operating cash flow before management and investment banking fees forecasted in 1987 per the Forecasted Statement VI in Exhibit 1 ($4,578,000) it is calculated that the purqhase price approximates 10 times 1987 operating cash flow. This factor is consistent.with the market value of cable systems in the cable industry. In assessing the market value of the systems from 1987 through 1994 the Commission can assume that the value will always approximate 10 times each year's forecasted operating cash flow before management fees and investment banking fees. The market value of the systems being acquired by Dowden Partners approximate $45,000,000 currently increasing to a forecast value of approximately $115,000,000 in 1994. IV. CONCLUSION The Commission is reminded that the basis for reviewing the financial condition of Dowden Partners' compared with the current condition of DCI is based solely on the offering document which the Commission has received. Most specifically, Exhibits 1, 5 and 6 were reviewed. This analYsis in no shape or form represents a review of the legal or technical qualifications of Dowden Partners. Additionally, this analysis does not address the tax implications facing Dowden Partners as a result of this transaction and the recently passed Tax Reform Act of 1986. Based upon the financial analysis of the pro forma balance sheet of Dowden Partners compared to the balance sheet of DCI, the forecasted operating results and potential rate of return on equity investment, and the market value of the systems being acquired by Dowden Partners, it appears that the financial condition projected for Dowdeh Partners subsequent to the transaction and in future years is at least equivalent to that of DCI. A ee CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA RESOLUTION NO. APPROVING THE SALE AND TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP IN CABLE SYSTEM AND TRANSFER OF CABLE FRANCHISE OF DOW-SAT OF MINNESOTA, INC. TO DOWDEN CABLE PARTNERS, L.P. WHEREAS, Dowden Communications, Inc., a Georgia corporation, (hereinafter "Dowden"), by and through Dow-Sat of Minnesota,. Inc., a Minnesota corporation, (hereinafter "Dow-Sat"), a wholly-owned subsidiary, owns, operates and maintains a cable television System in the City of Mound, Minnesota (hereinafter "City") pursuant to the terms and conditions of a Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City has the authority and responsibility to adopt, coordinate, administer and enforce the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance and the right to approve any transfer of said Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance; and WHEREAS, Dowden and Dow-Sat desire to sell and otherwise transfer substantially all of its business and assets used or useful in connection with the ownership and operation of the System and Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance to Dowden Cable Partners, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (hereinafter "Dowden Partners") and thereby transfer ownership of Dow-Sat to Dowden Partners; and . WHEREAS, Dow-Sat may be completely liquidated or merged with and its assets transferred to Dowden, which in turn will transfer said assets to Dowden Partners as part of the acquisition; and WHEREAS, Dowden Partners agrees to continue to manage, operate, and maintain the System in substantially the same manner as Dow-Sat; and WHEREAS, Dowden and Dow-Sat have requested the consent from Commission to a sale of the System and transfer of the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance of Dow-Sat to Dowden Partners; and WHEREAS, the City considered Dowden Partner's technical ability, financial condition, and legal qualifications in a full public proceeding after due notice and a reasonable opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the City finds no reasonable basis to deny the request for transfer to Dowden Partners under the terms and conditiOns set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of-the City of Mound: 1. That the City hereby approves the transfer of the System and transfer of the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance of Dow-Sat of Minnesota, Inc. to Dowden Cable Partners, L.P. conditioned upon a review by City legal counsel as to the legal sufficiency of the organizational and creation documents of the limited partnership prior to closing and subject to an actual closing of the transaction on or before December 31, 1986 pursuant to the terms and conditions as evidenced by the information submitted by Dowden and Dow-Sat to City. 2. That the City consents to and approves the transfer of the System and transfer of the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance of Dow-Sat to Dowden Partners subject to the following conditions: a. D~wden Partners shall accept the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance in a form and substance acceptable to City and thereby agree to perform all of the terms and conditions of the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance, within thirty (30) days of such transfer and assignment, unless the time for acceptance is extended by City. b. With its acceptance, Dowden Partners shall furnish to City and in accordance with the requirements of the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance, the performance bond, evidence of insurance, letter of credit, and such other items required by the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance. c. Dowden Partners shall agree that the remaining provisions of the Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance remain in full force and effect following the completion of the transfer and assignment. d. With its acceptance~ Dowden Partners shall pay all costs and expenses of City, including legal and other 'consulting fees, incurred as a result of this process and to the extent such costs and expenses have not previously been reimbursed. 3. That Dowden Partners shall, within sixty (60) days after the closing, file with City a copy of the deed, agreement, mortgage, lease or other written instrument evidencing such transfer of ownership and assignment of said Cable Communications Franchise Ordinance, certified.and sworn to as correct by Dowden Partners. 4. That in the event Dowden Partners fails to comply with any of the above requirements within the time specified, unless the time is extended by City, this Resolution and any and all approvals set forth herein shall be null and void. The above listed resolution was moved bY Council Member , and duly seconded by Council Member The following Council Members voted in the affirmative: The following Council Members voted in the negative: Passed and adopted this Attest-. day of , 1986. Mayor City Administrator 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 TO: Planning Commission and Staff FRC~: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: November 18, 1986 SUBJECT: Potential Rezoning At the present time, the city has received two variance applications along Northern Road. This area has been the site of previous variance applications and during their review, the validity of the B-2 zoning status of the area has been questioned. The B-2 area includes approximately 1.9 acres on the north side of Shoreline Boulevard. The area has access from the west and it is virtually totally screened from Shoreline Boulevard due to' the railroad tracks and a differential in elevation. The fact that the property is isolated from both visual and access perspectives lend credence to the argument that it is not an appropriate business location. If the Planning Commissi°n has interest in reviewing the potential of rezoning the area fro~ business to residential, the next logical question is; What category of residential is appropriate? The area presently contains a variety of nonconforming uses, all of which complicate the identification of a new zoning category. Currently, all lots in the area are nonconforming due to inadequate lot area since none contain the 20,000 square feet required by the B-2 ordinance provisions. The uses and their lot areas are shown below along with potential corresponding minimum lot requirements as per the existing Mound Zoning Code. Use Lot Area Minimum 'Ordinance Residential Marina Residential Four-plex Residential Residential Residential Residential Res ident ial Residential Residential 8,100 sq. ft. 15,070 sq. ft. 9,180 sq. ft. 15,200 sq. ft. 5,100 sq. ft. 4,200 sq. ft. 3,300 sq. ft. 7,000 Sq. ft. 4,500 sq. ft. 3,400 sq. ft. 6,500 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft. (R-2) 20,000 sq. ft. (B-2) 6,000 sq. ft. (R-2) 18,000 sq. ft. (R-4) 6,000 sq. ft. (R-2) 6,000 sq. ft. (R-2) 6,000 sq. ft. (R-2) 6,000 sq. ft. (R-2) 6,000 sq. ft. (R-2) 6,000 sq. ft. (R-2) 6,000 sq. ft. (R-2) As you can see from the above information, rezoning the area to R-2 woUld bring four residential lots into conformance but would still result in five nonconforming residential lots, a nonconforming four-plex and a nonconforming marina (business) use. If the area were rezoned to R-4, the four-plex would still be nonconforming since it contains inadequate land area. Other rezoning scenarios are also possible. For example, the marina on Lots 20-22 as well as Lots 23, 24 and 25 could remain B-2. Although this would not eliminate existing nonconforming situations, the four-plex and the marina as uses would be conforming. If this were done, the assumption would be that Lots 20 and 23 would eventually convert to either business or' multi-family uses o Since the second Planning Commission meeting of the month is typically a discussion session, staff felt that this issue shouldbe addressed as part of the review of the variance applications that have been received. 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 TO: Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler ~ DATE: November 18, 1986 SUBJECT.- Variances and Nonconforming Uses The variance applications recently received from Mr. Hasch and Ms. Hingos in the Northern Road area present a complicated issue. As a part of the review of these requests, a brief review of variances and nonconforming uses may also be appropriate. Section 23,506 of the Mound Zoning Code allows variances to "provide relief to the land owner in those zones where the ordinance imposes undue hardship or practical difficulties to the property owner in the use of his land. NO use variances may be issued." Nonconforming uses, those which do not comply with all of the regulations of the current ordinance, are governed by Section 23.404 of the Code. In cases involving the upgrade of an existing structure, the key provision .typically becomes 23.404 (2) which essentially precludes repairs and improvements that constitute more than 50% of the fair market value of the structure. Nonconforming use provisions also preclude alterations which extend or intensify the nonconforming use. Nonconformities occur in three basic types. Nonconforming uses are uses which are not allowed in their current district such as a grocery store in a residential zone. Nonconforming structures are those which do not meet the setback provisions of the current o~dinance. Finally, nonconforming lots are those which do not contain the total area stipulated in the existing code. Nonconforming lots can be troublesome, particularly in developed areas where adjacent property is unavailable for expansion of the lot area. In cases of this type, it is not uncommon for the courts to allow the owner reasonable of the property which may involve rehabilitation of a structure. Regardless of the type of nonconformity in existence, the purpose of zoning ordinances is to enforce regulations that will eventually force the use to disappear and be replaced by a conforming one. During the period of amortization, however, a key issue seems to be reasonable use of the property. If the owner is afforded reasonable use of the property under current conditions, improvements which intensify or extend a nonconforming use may be denied. An example may further clarify the issue of reasonable use. Within the past year, Mound received a variance application to upgrade or tear down and reconstruct an existing residence in the R-2 zone. The house was nonconforming due to setbacks and had a total lot area of 3,200 sq. ft. The city denied both variances and subsequently, the decision was challenged by the applicant in court. In its findings, the court directed the city to either; issue the variance to rehabilitate the existing structure, issue a variance to tear down the existing house and construct a new one or acquire the property. In this case, denial of the request to use the structure as a residence precluded reasonable use of the property. A key point in this case was the fact that %he structure, as it existed was uninhabitable as a residence. Both of the structures which are the subject of current variance applications are inhabited. 3030 Hafl3or lane North, Suite 104 MinneaPOlis, Minnesota 55441 6121553-1950 'lC)= Plannir~ O~mmizsion and Koegler, c. ity Planner DATE: November 18, 1986 ~: Variance Applicatio. C~SE ~: 86-561 V~S FIEE [~): 86-310-A40-~0 X&~(L~TION: 4797 Northern Road EXLglTNG ~ING: B-2 ~ PLAN: Business PROPOSAl: The applicant has applied for a variance to remodel and expand-an existing nonconforming structure. The house is nonconforming' due to its location in a business zone and the fact that the lot is underSized. The B-2 provisions call for 20,000 sq. ft. of lot area and do not allow residential structures as permitted uses. The applicants lot area totals approximately 3,300 sq. ft. This property has been the subject of previous variance applications, one involving exactly the improvements that are now being proposed. In 1985, Mr. Kary Peterson who owned the property at the time, applied for a variance for an existing carport, fence and expansion of the existing structure. In Resolution 85-49 which was approved by the Mound City Council on April 27, 1985, the city approved the variance for the carport and fence but denied the variance for expansion of the structure. The current application contains the same building plans which were reviewed in 1985. The proposed expansion of the existing structure does not comply with the criteria for granting variances or the provisions regarding nonconforming uses. Both the Planning Commission and City Council previously reco~nend denial of the same variance that is currently being proposed. ~ATION-. Staff receamner~s denial of the variance to remodel an~ exlmr~ the house at 4797 Northern Road since it does not meet ordinance criteria for variances nor does it comply with the provision g:~vernin~ nonconformin~ uses. Cases of this nature are typically emotional and difficult. They place the City Council an~ Planning Commission in the position of reaffirmin~ their co~nitment to long-range planning as stated in both the cemprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance. Long-ranGe plannfn~ ar~ short-term use are typically difficult to balance. Approval of the variance for F~. Hin~os will have an imlmct on City policy ar~ the integrity of the zoning ordinance. From a planning perspective, the' variance does not meet ordinance criteria. Therefore~ if it is approved, consideration should be Given to modifing the zoning ordinance to allow development on any existing lot~ regardless of overall size or existing setbacks. Such a decision will impact all areas of the City of Mound. Planning Commission Hinutes November 24, 1986 Case-No. 86-561 Variance Appllcation to remodel and expand an existing non- conforming structure at ~798 Northern Road; ~ly ½ of Lot 27, Subdlvision of Lots i. & 32 Ravenswood Angela Hlngos was present. ' " .The Planner, Hark Ko,gl,r, reviewed his report. .Hs. Hingos stated~.she wants to 'remodel and change',.not ex~and;, the roof line, for a A type thralling to-give her more headroom...Basically it is the same plan former owner'had denied in.- t985.~Chair stated that would be extending the life of the house. Hs. Hingos stated the .house is In good'condition and'sh~ had no intention of changing the roof until' problem came Up with the.mortgage requiring more headroom. Re,se'moved and Ken 'Smith seconded a motion .that request be denied. The vote -Was Andersen and Steve.Smith against the denial;.all others in favor of denial. Hotion carried. Andersen stated h6 feels she wants to. improve her living conditions/not extend life of the home. This will be on the City Council Agenda of December 9, 1986. Ms. Hingos dis- cussed possibly withdrawing her request. '2. Case No. A~'~ CITY OF HOUND Fee Paid ~-~.o~ Date Filed' //o/~ APPL I CAT I ON TO PLANN I NG & ZON I NG COHH I SS I ON (Please type the following InfOrmation) Legal Description of Property: Lot~t~ ~t~ o~ ~~ ~ ~ , PID No. Day Phone No,~ 1~. Applicant (If' other than owner): Name Day Phone No. Address · Type of Request: ('~(0 Variance ( ) ~ondltlonal Use Permit ( ) Amendment ". (~') Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Sign Permit ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.~;' ( )*Other e *If other, specify: Present Zohlng District (~" 'c'~ ~ E..~.~¥'~ '. R~~ - Existing Use(s) of Property ~~ ~~L~ ~,~~. kN~ O~E- e Has an appllcat[on ever been made for zonlnq,E~rlance, or conditional USe permlt or other zoning procedure for this property?. ~ ' If so, list date(s) of .ll'st date(s) of appllcatlon, action taken and p~v~soletlon No.(s) CopJe~ of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that all of the aEove statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submltted herewlth are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premlses described In thls appllcation by anymuthorlzed official of the City of Hound for the purpose of Inspectlng, 9r of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be req~l-r~d by ~pw. ~, ~ ~ · ~lgnature of Appllcan ~ '--c~v'/~ P lannlng Commlsslon Recommendation': Date Council Action: Resolutlon No. Date Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) Case 'yD. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilitles, etc. ~. Indicate North compass'direction F. Any addltlonal Information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. III. Request for a Zoning Variance A. A11 Information below, a slte. plan, as described In Part I1~ and general appllcatlon must be provlded before a hearlng w111 be scheduled. B. DOes the present use of. the Property'conform to all use regulatlons for the zone dlstrlc~T~'n whlch it is located? Yes ( ) No (~) If "no"", specify each non-conforming use: C. Do the existing structures comply, with all area height and bulk regulations for the zone dlstr~whlch It Is located? Yes ( If ~'no~ specify each non-conforming use: D.' Which unlqu~ physical charac~erlstlcs of' the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted In that zoning dlstrlct? (~ .Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Sol1 Too sma11 Too shal low () Orainage () Sub-surface ( ) Shape ()~) Other: Specify: . Was the hardshlp d~s~ribed above c~eated by the action of anyone havlng property Interests In the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No (~>~) If yes, explaln: E® F. Was the hardship created by any o.ther man-made change, such as the reloca- tlon of a road? Yes .( ) No(Y~.) If yes, explain: G. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance pecullar only to the property described In this petitlon? Yes ( ) No (~(~). If no, how many other properties are slmllarly affected? OWhat is the "mlnlmum'~ modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations that w111 permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify~ using maps, site plans wlth dlmenslons and written explanatlon. Attach additional sheets, If necessary.) I. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property In the same zone, or to the enforcement of thls ordinance? Angle Hlngos 4?9? Northern road Mound. Minnesota 55364 11/12/1986 To whom it may concern: Although economic hardship Is not considered a valid hardship, I feel It Important to mention my unique situation. I have owned and lived at this property since August 198.5. Original financing consists of an assumable mortgage and a Contract for Deed (CD) with the previous owner· The purpose for the CD was to speed up the closing until financing could be secured. I was assured by certain bankers that they would be able to find a financial package to fit my needs before the CD balloons in two years. Since that time I have tried repeatedly to seek financing to no avail. The attached will document my efforts. Mortgage companies and banks will not consider financing because the present structure does not conform to their lending standards,, which is the purpose for this request for ~ variance. Another' reason for this request is to attain more comfortable living space while.keeping or enhancing the' aesthetics of the neighborhood. I plan to. make Mound my home for hopefully the rest of my life. Sincerely, ~ .... Hlngos~' · ' 71 April 23, 1985 RESOLUTION NO. 85-49 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COHHISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE OF LOT SIZE, SETBACK AND TO RECOGNIZE A NONCONFORMING USE OF PROPERTY AT 4798 NORTHERN ROAD, WEST 1/2 OF ~ · LOT 27, SUBDiVTSiON OF LOTS I AND 32, SXARP J.~6 WHEREAS, Kerry Earl pe'tersOn, the owner'S/'/' /-~"!" ~.oscribed as the West 1/2 of Lot 27,-Subdivision ofv-gots/~ and 308 A~ua~f~t wit~/a '}:,?arty line, the lot sizetialif 3,st~Gtur~~is in a~.S-2 General :, ~dth, and the res~den ~,.,lness District; end : requires a 20,000 square foot lot WHEREAS, the C~ty Code ..... ~ ~ ~----~ '~str~ct, and residential uses are not ~:,rm~tted in ~he dSs~rie~, and the structure has nonco,form~ng ...backs, and . · . ' - ....... ~ .... ~n- a variance to allow a deck i~~'~=t tO extend above the first floo~ ~ sec~ac~.o~ ~__~=~t 'e. o eft line excenoln~ +:.iwcy fence st the west s~de pr p Y ~'use to within 8 feet of the front property l~ne, and. does no~ ~'[-o~m~nd the second story nddit~on, nor allow the en~osu[e o~- ::~e roofed a~en (ca~port only) 9 to ~0 feet. from the :'ope~ty line and 5. feet from the east p~operty l~ne. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of ]::e City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve a variance '~uest to-construct a carport.' (open on two or 'more sides) · :cared 9 feet to 10 feet from the front p~operty line and 5 feet :r0m the east property line, allow the deck 0 feet to the west :~0perty line not be extend, above the first floor elevation of' ::.e structure, within 38 feet (plus or minus) from lakeshore, ~ilow the privacy fence enclosure along the west property line f~om the structure to within 8 feet of the front property line, ~:d shown on Exhibit "A" and "B". The foreEoin~ resolution was moved by Councilmembe~ :~Ulsen and seconded by Councllmember Paterson. The following Councilmembers voted in the ~ffirm~tive: Jessen, Paulsen, Paterson, Polston and Smith., CITY OF HOUND Fee Paid Da:e Filed APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COH~ISSION (Please type the following inforniation) Street Address of Property ~'/7~ Legal Description of Property: Addition~PID~ No. Phone N ~~~ Owner's Name~ ..... Day . Address~ .... Address /~-'L/ ' ~/ Type of Request: (X) Variance ( ) Conditional Us~/er~J~ ( ) Amendment ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) 5ign Permit ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( )*Other If other, specify: Present Zoning DJ'strict ~-_ '--('~,IA~_J~. L~IJRIR~5_ Use(s) of Propertyl~'~..,' Existing Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use-permit or other zoning procedure for this property? ~_._~ If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken affd provide Resolution No.(s) Copl~els' o~ previous-resolut'~elns 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 here~ith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized officlaI of the City of Hound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such Da te~ Date Council Action: Resolutlon No. Date .equest for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) ~ase ~ O. Loc~tion of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction F. Any add|tional Information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. III..~equest for a Zoning Variance A. Ali lnformatlon below, a site plan, as described In Part II, and genera1 application must be provided before a hearing wlll be scheduled. B. Does the present use of the property conform to all use reaulations for the zone district inwhlch It Is located? Yes ()Ho (~) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: Bo the exlstlng structures comply with all area height i~lnd ~~'~guii ' If '~no", specify each non-conforming us_e: ( - - D. 14hich unique phy~ical characteristics of the subject property prevent Its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? (~X:) Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil (2)?-,) Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface (.~ Too shallow ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify:.· .... E. 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 r'eloca- tion'of a road? Yes ( ) No (~ If yes, explain: ;L&36 G. Are the conditions 9f hardship for which.' you request a variance peculiar only to the propert~ described in this petition? Yes ( ) No (~) I.f no, how many other propertles are similarly affected? H. %Vhat Is the "minimum't modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimenst sheet~,~ ~[~w~i f necessary. ) I. ~i11 granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the sa~e zone, oC to the enforcement of this ordinance~ ' H BULK SIZE TO BE INCREASED BY APPROXIMATELY 250 ~-' 300 SQ. FEET. HEIGHT WOULD INCREASE BY APPROXIMATELY 6 - 8 FEET. LENGTH AND WIDTH WILL NOT CHANGE. NO OBSTRUCTION OF VIEW WILL OCCUR. N 2_1. I horel~ oortt..fy thet tltt. ia a t~ ~ o~ ~t 27, 8u~sion o~'~to 1 and ~2) S~rp ~ ~ndq~otos hveno- ~ ~ld~nge, If ~ thegn. It pr~e~nts or enc~ac~nte. A¢¢nvt. 1" = 20' Iron marker C~rdon R. Coffin l~g. Bo. 6064 Alvin R. l~Mer Reg. 14o.13295 Land Surveyors and Planners Long Lake, Ntnnesot~ I i 'I 380 Ivo °oo '25 "b ~:. 239. '% .S // / cASE'NO; 86-562 TO: Planning COmmission, Applicant and Staff £ROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official Planning Commission Agenda of November 2~, 1986 'CASE NO. 86-562 APPLICANT: Ronald & Odessa Grlfflths LOCATION: qgq7 Crestview Road LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 18 and the West ~ of Lot 19, Block 25, Shady~ood P°int, PI'D # 13-117-24 11 0]09 SUBJECT: FenCe.Variance.to allow the finished fabric side toward the applicant's property. EXISTING ZONING: 'R'I Single Family Residential The applicant, Mr. & Mrs. Ronald Griffiths, are ·requesting that the Planning Commission and the City Councl] allow the exist!:ng fence in the rear yard as constructed. The Zoning Code Section 23.415(4)g "If the material used in fence Construction is not finished on both sides, the finished side of the material shall be on the outside facing the abutting property."" The applicant'misunderstood the wording of that Zoning Section and has constructed the finished fabric of the fence faci. ng ins!de toward his property. · RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the fence could be approved as constructed with the understanding that all abutting property owners sign approval of the constructed fence. The property to the south is currently "for sale" and is being constructed. Possibly the contractor who is constructing the home coul,d sign for approval of the fence. This would afford the owner reasonable use of his property. The abutting neighbors haVe been notified. Refer for Council act.Ton on the City Council agenda for December 9, 1986. JB/ms Planning Commission Ninutes November 24, 1986 Case'No. 86-562 Fence Variance to allow.the finished fabric side toward applicant's property at 49q7.Crestvlew Road; Lots 18 and N. ½ of 19, Block 25, Shadywood .Point Hr. and:MrS, Ronald G.riffiths was present. The Building Official, Jan-Bertrand~ reviewed her repOrt. Applicant stated the neighbors were not in disagreement with way the fence was constructed. He interpretated ordinance to-mean boards, not construction of fence as a whole. The Commission questioned Why fence facing street was correct, but not the sides. They suggested he.change every other board to make it look ............ o the. same on both sldes. Grlfflths wanted the flnished look on the inside .where hers landscaped.. He stated herd looked at alternating boards, but felt that would be unacceptable and would be $3000 down the drain. Steve Smith moved and Ken' Smlth seconded a motion for approval of the staff recommendation. The'vote was tied with Steve Smith, Ken Smith, Andersen and Mlchael-.in.favor and Meyer, Reeve; Thal and Jensen were opposed. Re,se. stated he voted agalhst as itSs bad to set a precedent. This' w111 be.on'the City Councl'l Agenda of December 9, 1~86. Case NO. Fee Pald .s-~ ? Date Flied ~lo PID No../J- /17-.~¥ /! o/ ,~' Day Phone No.~ ~-~'~- IDg(~ /~. Applicant (if' other than owner): Name ~ a~ Day Phone No. 'Address % 5. Type of Request: (~)'Varlance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Amendment :- ( ') Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Sign Permit '~ ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.~:' .( )*Other *If other, specify: P~esent Zohlng O'Istrlct 7. Existing Use(s) of Property 8. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permlt or other zoning procedure for this property? /~rO · If so, list date(s) of · list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that all of the'a6ove statements and the statements Contalne~ 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 applicatlon by any~uthorized officla'l of the City of Hound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Signature of Applicant ' ' Date //-~'-~6 Planning Commission Recommendation: , Da t e Council Action: Resolution No. Date Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) Case D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilit|es, 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. I!!. Request for a Zonln~ Variance A. All info~matlon below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. B. Does the present use of the property conform to all use regulatlons for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (/) No ( ) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: Do the existing structures comply with all area height and bulk regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (~). No ( ) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: D.' Which Unique physlcal characteristics of'the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zonipg district? ( ) .Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil ( ) Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface ( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape (u/) Other: Specify= u E. Was the hardship described above c~eated by the action of anyone haVing property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No (~) If yes, explaln: 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 which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (~-) No ( ) If no, how many other properties are similar]y affected? 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.) I. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? November 5, 1986 _ I request a variance on the fence that is presently constructed around my backyard. The fence was constructed this summer of red cedar and is a solid fence· The material used (red cedar board lx6 is finished on both sides). When I obtained a permit and read the ordinance pertaining to a fence in Mound, I assumed the manner of construction · "If the was in accord 23.415 number 4 letter g says, material used in fence construction is not finished on both sides, the finished side of the material shall be on the outside facing the abutting property." My under- s~anding was that the definition above applied to the material and not the fence as a whole. My fence has material finished on both sides, but I constructed it with the boards facing inward. My neighbors do not object. I request a variance so as the fence does not need to be reconstructed. Thank you. Ronald L. Griffiths Neighbors on each side of me have read the above. Note signatures. TO: MOUND CITY COUNCIL Decembgr 5, 1986 I contend that a wood fence constructed around my yard at 4947 Crestview Road, Mound is in accordance with city Fence Ordinance Section 23.415 and particularly point five, item g. Item g. states, "If the material used in fence construction is not finished on both sides, the finished side of the material shall be on the outside facing the abutting property." When I obtained a permit and read the ordinance, the fence was planned and constructed according to what the ordinance says. -Red cedar first grade 1 x 6 material finished on both sides was used. -Ail supporting material was red cedar first grade finished on all sides. Item g. was read and interpreted to literally mean what it says. The sentence twice refers to "material" not the 'fence as a whole. I contend that my fence as constructed is in conformity with item g. Supporting claim two above I consulted a professional in communications and language. Dr. Woodworth earned his Ph.D from the University of Northern Illinois and presently teaches English composition at a college level, edits a newspaper and is a free lance writer. Note his remarks in the attached letter which was notarized. Two other authorities, Dr. P. Stokes, Ph.D. and Mr. Stan Larson, both professional writers with degrees in language will support the conclusion of Dr. Woodworth. Chandler and Mason, Ltd. of St. Paul, Minnesota were consulted as legal counsel to me. Mr. Bob Chandler, attorney in business law supports the above conclusion of item g. of the ordinance and believes legally and technically that a neutral party would find judgment in the favor of the claim to be correct. On the Planning Commission agenda of November 24, 1986, case no. 86-562 should be noted that "staff recommends that the fence could be approved as constructed with the understanding that all abutting property owners sign approval of the constructed fence." On my original request of November 5, 1986, neighbors had signed indicating their approval. 7. At council meeting I shall provide pictures of the fence from various exterior angles. The fence as constructed will be shown as attractive and appropriate for the area. The fence has not been treated so that it will grey to blend with the wooded area. Therefore, I seek a ruling of approval of the fence as constructed already complying with the ordinance. I further ask that the variance request be nullified and the $50.00 returned as a variance was not necessary. Sincerely, Ronald L. Griffiths Bible College, Minnesota 55375 Telephone (612) 446-1411 December 4, 1986 I have read section 23.415 (4g) of the Mound City Code and understand it to refer only to the material from which a fence is constructed and not to the fence itself. Sincerely, Ralph L. Woodworth, Ph.D. Chairman Communications Department Vision · Training · Service · CASE NO. 86-563 TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff FROH: Jan Bertradd, Building .Official planning Commission Agenda of November 24, 1986 CASE NO. 86-563 APPLICANT: Ed and Helanle Freidlund LOCATION: q909 Island Vlew Drive LEGAL DISC: Lots 12 & 13, Block lq, Devon PID#25-117-2q 11-0042 SUBJECT: side yard setback variance and front yard EXISTING ZONING: R-2 slngle family residential · The applicant has requested a variance in setback to the side and front property line to allow an attached 22 by 22 ft. garage and entry way of 7.6ft. by 22ft. +. The existing garage has been removed wlth' the hole being dug from t--he addition, when the project was stopped due to the. locatlon. The zoning ordinance requires a 6 ft. side yard and a 20 foot. front yard setback for the principal structure in the R-2 district. The structure proposed has a 4 ft. to 3 'ft. side yard and a 17.7 ft. front yard setback. . The site has a raised area in the front yard to the east (left) side of the driveway with a wind row of trees planted along the front property llne. The west side property line has an eight foot + retainlng wa11~ The lot is wide at the 'right-of-way and narrows to the south. -- RECOHHENDATION: The staff recommends that the addition could be narrowed by two feet without affecting the applicants irequest for a t~o stall garage with the size of vehicles and the present entry~ay plans. I would also recommend that a'surveyor loCate the setback for the homeowner · which would mean a revised survey of the property. The existing survey appears to show a'3 to.a foot setback to the west; it shows a 17.7 foot setback to-the north. The hardship is due to the shape of the lot and the topography of the property. The abutting neighbors have been notified. Refer for Council action on the City Council agenda for December 9, 1986. Planning Commission Minutes November 24, 1986 Case No. 86~$63 $ideyard and 'Front Yard Variances for ~909 Is]and..View~Orlve Lots 12 ~ 13, Block l~,.Devon - Ed Freldlund and ~eighbors, Jane' Hetchler and Ron Burns were present.. The Bulldlng'Official,'dan Bertrand, reviewed her report and stated that the' survey submitted states a 6 foot slde yard, but on the construction site, it, did not appear tha't way - It 'is closer to ~ to 3 ft from the side. property lineL The 8 loot'.high retaining wall makes .' it difficult to see and she was concerned about thelr buildlng that close. ~all has failed twice'In the past. Also'needs a 2.3 front yard variance. T~e Planning Commission 'discussed whether making garage and ~reezeway sma11~r, .it could be built without variances. This would limit storage. Thal mo~d and .Reese seconded a motion to approve-staff rec°mmendatlon wlth 2.3 .'front yard variance and garage be 'no closer than 6~-feet at the northwest' corner and q .feet at the souttnvest corner of the property.. The vote.was Jensen.agalnst; all others in.favor~ Motion carried. 3ensen bel!eves-lt can be'built within the sideyard setbacks. Mrs. Hetchler stated she~s in favor of the variance; she plans to be back with request for variance. This will be on the Ci'ty'Council.Agenda for December.~, 1~86. CITY OF HOUND Case No. ,?/. -~3 Fee Pa I d 4-~. ,o o APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COHHISSION (Please type the following Information) 1. Street Address of Property '2. Legal Description of Property: Lot /~/~ Add i t I on ~ v~ ~ . Address ~a ~ - ~S/-~ ~/'~ D.ate Filed //~/ Block / C// PlO No. ~.-//?-,,,2~///-c~of"A Day Phone Applicant (if' other than owner): Name Day Phone No. Address · % Type of Request: (t~Varlance ( ) Conditionai Use Permit ( ) Amendment - · ( ') Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Sign Permit ( ) Vetland Permit ( ) P.U.~;' ( )*Other *If other, specify:, .Present Zoning District e Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or ' other zoning procedure for this property? ,~x;_.; 4_A,t ,.,.,/z'-'.-"--,',..-'rm'"'~f'-<n--, llst date(s) of list date(s)of ap~lcation, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions ~all accompany present request. I certify that a11 of the a6ove statements and the state~nts contaln&d In any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry In or upon the premises described In this application by any~uthorized official of the City of Hound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and re~ving such Oat. notices as may be requlre~d by law... ,,,.-..~..._~ ~ ~ ,,,? · Signature of Applicant . Planning Commlssion Recommendation: Date Council Action: Resolution No. ~'~ Date Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) Case D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilitles, etc.. E. Indicate North compass dlrection F. Any addltlonal information as may reasonably be required by the Clty Staff .. and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance· III. Request for a Zoning Variance A. All information below, a site plan, as descrlbed In Part II, and general appllcatlon must be provided before a hearing w111 be scheduled. B. Ooes the present use of. the propertyconform to all use regulatlons for the zone district In which It Is located? Yes (~) No ( ) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: Ce De Oo the existing structures comply with all' area height and bulk regulations for the zone district In which It Is located? Yes ~ ) No ( ) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physlcal characteristics of'the subject property prevent Its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted In that zoning district? f~) .Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soll ( ) Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface ( ) Too shallo~ ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Speclfy: Was the hardship des~rlbed above c~eated by the action of anyone ha~Ing property interests In the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No (~(~) If yes, explaln: Was the hardship created by any o~er man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No'(~) If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a v@~lance pecullar °nly to the property described in this petition? Yes (~)~) No ( ) If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? He What Is the 'lmlnimum'~ modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations that w111 permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimen[ions and written explanatlon. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) ~111 granting of the variance be materlally detrimental to property In the same zone, or to the ~orcement of thls ordinance? "" :": '"' '> ' Phone HA. $-:2181 k y " ', · - ..',: .... a eland Ave:.(Breekl ,~ Park),:P. O, O~seo, A,~n.' ,~ . .... ....~.. ..:.. .. '~ ..: .~. '~;,. .... '.:L" ..... ".:' '" .."~"[:,,'~....' .... · ........ .".~,".~'- .:-.' ":.'. "'. ~ :. ' . :'~?~:~'-~ *~; ,.'~Q:"~::~.:~. -Registered Professional Engineers and Land SurVeyors ~' .;.,.., .,. · . ~ '.,,;.;~' .~' o:?,:<..L ,. ," ~:""~'"W '" ~ ' ', '" ":;'":? "~-"'' '' ';':'~ L";""" "';" '' · ' ' ;' . ~. r...,~ :'.'. ,...,,~ ..::'.~, ::.:: .:.; ~..[ , . .", . .... . . , L '. :..: ~ · ' '"~ .',..~"..~ ~' :' .'~' ...::'.v-. ~.'.; . :" "': .... ' .'... :... ....~'. ,,...~, ~. ~ ..~,. ..?:~ ~..:..~.. ~ . . .... ~.~ .. "r~' '"~ ' :C ":;": ' .... -,-:..:':.::.: ',~;;:~ .:.,-..? :. .. ... ..:.. : ';. . L'~. - ~..,- 'T.L' "~'" · · x~', ~., ..:- · ........::. :..; ,,.'::..,. : ~" ...... . , . _+. .~:,:. ."~::: ~ ': ~ ..' ....... · ~...~ . , ......? ~ .~:,~-., ..... . ':.....: . ~...~ .: ..: .... ;./. . . ..... . *~ ~ ~ . . .... ~ '-:'~,-. ' ~'.'~; ~',~.- · ~ ~ · a. T~ .", .: ', ' . .~ .. . . . '.:.: .:. . . . . . ..... .':... ., · .-.'...- ~ . ,:~'... ':::?~".'..., · . . . abo~e and ~f the 10Cation'of :all bbildi~gs t~er~'o~, and bll 91sible e'n~6~c~e:n~s, if on~, f~om or on said land. ~s sur~eve~ b .~. ~..: ,.~_.,...~, ,' .. .... ., ';.,.. ~ ~'~ "-.:::.:~' ..~:...~.-:..~,' ~ ...... :., .~'~ ~e ~ S--~ ....... .... ~u~y ~ ..... ~.',"~':-' :: ......... ?"~J~:'~ ~'~'" · · · · . . · . ,..." ~:. ;' : '.A,.. ::' "~'." ' ':. ".' '~.'~':,, ~'' :l..J'.:' '" ' · ~ ' ' .. . ..-...:~, ....-... .~ ........... :,,: '~.,,,. . ,,,. .,~.,.,. , .,. t.. ... ...... · ...... ...; ~-~.~ ...... : . ,..,:. ..... ~...,s-,, · .... ,'. '-' '. :',.:. .' :;: ' ".. ". ':",":'.'.'. , ;.~',,'.".' ';.."." "."3.":'~ . '"~ASWELL ENG NEERING CO . ,. ... . , .............. . ~ // ........ ..... .... . ................ , , ~'.. . , . ,.. .p. :. ,. . . .~ .,, :,::. ~,,~'~ . ~ '?- ~; :.. .',' . ~ ~ x,' . ,_.. ,..... , ... : ',....: ..:., ~:.. :...., ..,::,..., .,:. '..:' ,,?,. ,,.. ..'~~ ROXBURY - LA TER PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 86-563 RESOLUTION NO. 86- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR LOTS 12 AND 13, BLOCK 14, DEVON PID # 25-117-24 11 0042 (4909 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE) P & Z CASE NO. 86-563 WHEREAS, Ed and Melanie Freidlund, owners of the property described as Lots 12 and 13, Block 14, Devon, PID # 25-117-24 11 0042, have applied for variances in setback to the front and side property lines in order to construct a 22 by 22 foot garage and 7.6 foot by 22 foot entry way to their dwelling; and WHEREAS, Exhibit A has been submitted to indicate the requested set- backs to the side and front property lines for (4909 Island View Drive); and WHEREAS, the City Code requires a 20 foot front yard setback and a 6 foot sideyard setback in the R-2 Residential Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval of the setback variances as modified on Exhibit A due to the shape of the lot. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve a 2.3 foot front yard setback and a 2 foot sideyard variance to the west property line to allow construction of an addition to the dwelling with the addition at the closest point a maximum of 4 feet at the southwest corner and 6 feet at the northwest corner of the attached garage for'Lots 12 and 13, Block 14, Devon Addition, PID # 25-117-24 ll 0042 (4909 Island View Drive) upon thefurther condition that the property monuments, be located at the northwest and the southwest corners of the property from the submitted survey and the neighbor's survey. A'(:'Lenl:.i. or~: MI~ . G~-~eg Si': innel~ F'r'oper"ty ]ocated at 66?5 l'lalsted Drive Lo~'. lq ,, I-tal steds Pal~k City oF Minnetl~ista November 14th, 1986 16603 l',lorwood Dr'ive Minnetonka, MN .... ~4.~ kle ar.e curT'.ent'iy ii'; the pl~ocess o~ negotiatinm_ the pupchase o4 'l:l'~e pr'ope;~'ty i-'eFer'.enced above with plans to build a new home in th~.:.', ,.,er'y near' 4:utur. e,, ]'he City c)~c Minne~'hr'is'~a has a sewer~ I :~ne in the ~tmeet however~ does not have city ~atep available. Since the pr'oper"ty line abutts the Mound city bopdep~ we ape inter'ested to leai-'r'~ i-F ~,,~e cou!d connect to the Mound city water- supply. We ~..'.'OL ]d sinc(.zr"e'ly appr"eciate a r'eview o.F this c'eques'~ wi'Eh a ,~..,r"i'Eten cor'~Fii'"ma'Eion i~ the pep] y is a~ipmative. ].F a cc)nr'~ec'~.ior~ is possible~ we would at so need the pr"ocedur-e to apply 'Fop a hookup: the appmoximate co_st~ usac.]e fate ~o~ the watem a-Ftem connection. pmoper' and the Sinc~.:9 ~e have included this r'equest as a condi'Lior~ o'F sa'i e, eal~'t 'i. est r'ep'ly ~,,ou]d be gr~eat'ly apppeciat'ed, Vel"y 'LPL~ ..... J.. ""~idec, ..Ir-.' bJor, l.:: phc)ne 1 ~c:,m~e phone y OLU~ ;":' -, l....al~'sor~,... - Pler"m j. .f ,~ L¥'nch Real ty ,', .rz~"harc~ .-. Ed:i. na Realty AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MINNETRISTA AND THE CITY OF MOUND RELATIVE TO PROVIDING UTILITY SERVICE TO A MINNETRISTA PROPERTY OWNER IN HALSTEDS PARK THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 1986, by and between the City of Minnetrista, a municipal corporation, of the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, hereinafter called "Minnetrista", and the City of Mound, a municipal corporation of.the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, hereinafter called "Mound", and John Steen and Ira J. Crider, Jr. , the owners of Lot 14, Halsteds Park, hereinafter called the "Owners", WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Mound has inplace a municipal water line adjacent to the Mound City limits along its boundary with Minnetrista; and WHEREAS, a buildable lot in Minnetrista described as Lot 14, Halsteds Park is isolated from a municipal water line in Minnetrista and is owned by the Owners who want to construct a home on said property; and WHEREAS, Mound has indicated that they will allow a municipal water connection to the Mound inplace line so that a new home on Lot 14, Halsteds Park in Minnetrista can be served by said service; and WHEREAS, the parties have mutually agreed that it is in the best interest of all parties to provide municipal water service from the Mound system to the Minnetrista property owner, and that Minnetrista and the owners of Lot 14, Halsteds Park will pay to Mound the following established. amounts and will abide by the rules and regulations established for the Mound system and as set forth in this Agreement, NOW, THEREFORE, in cons'ideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein described, IT IS HEREBY AGREED as follows: The entire cost of the service connection Shall be borne by the owners connection. Within the of Lot 14, Halsteds Park requesting the limits established in this agreement, the property owners in Minnetrista shall be allowed to connect to and become part of the Mound municipal water system and shall be subject to the same charges and regulations as property owners of Mound. 3. Prior to the time that the property owners connect to Mouhd's water system, said Owners shall pay to Mound the availability and connection charges as follows: CONNECTION C~IARGE: Trunk Water Main - Storage and Source - $2,000.00 Administrative, Legal and Engineering Expense 400.00 Total $2,400.00 QUARTERLY WATER USE C~ARGE To be determined by Mound's regular rate. The current rate for this type of service is $3.30 per quarter plus 88 cents per 1000 gallons. 4. The Owners in Minnetrista connected to the Mound system shall be billed usage charges on the basis of the same water rates applicable to users in Mound, said charges to be billed directly to the user by Mound. Minnetrista shall guarantee payment of these charges, subject to the cooperation of Mound in providing information to Minnetrista which will allow Minnetrista to specially assess unpaid water use charges against the Minnetrista property. Se The Owners in Minnetrista connecting to the Mound system shall be required to obtain a connection permit from Mound for a water connection and shall pay all connection fees in the same amounts and manner as Mound residents. Mound will perform all normal maintenance on the municipal water lines within the Mound corporate boundaries. Minnetrista or the Owners will perform all normal maintenance on the above described water line within the Minnetrista corporate boundaries, except that the Owners shall be responsible for the maintenance of said water line located within Owner's property. Construction of the service line shall be the responsibility of the Owners in Minnetrista and under the auspices of Minnetrista. All water line or service construction by Minnetrista and the Owners in Minnetrista shall meet the requirements of Mound's Municipal Water System Standard Specifications, and any special provisions deemed necessary by the Mound CitY Engineer. Mound agrees to cooperate and make available any and all records, plans, specifications, and other materials which may be necessary for Minnetrista. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto authorized and entered into this Agreement upon authority of the City Council of the City of Minnetrista and the City Council of the City of Mound. In The Presence Of: CITY OF MINNETRISTA BY. Mayor BY City Administrator- Clerk-Treasurer STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before.me this__day of , 1986, by and , the Mayor and City Administrator-Clerk-Treasurer of the City of Minnetrista, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the municipal corporation. In The Presence Of: CITY OF MOUND BY, BY, Mayor City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1986, by Robert Polston and Edward Shukle, the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the municipal corporation. In the Presence Of: OWNERS John Steen Ira J. Crider, Jr. STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this of , 1986, by John Steen and Ira J. Crider, Jr. day McCOMBS-KNUTSON 'ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS December 4, 1986 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Mr. Edward O. Shukle, Or. City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: Dear Ed: Lynwood Boulevard MSAP 145-104-03 Tuxedo Boulevard MSAP 145-101-05 Street Improvements MKA File #7193 & #5724 Enclosed is Preferred Raving's Payment Request No. 5 in the amount of $18,694.04 for work completed through December 1st on the above projects. Of this total $12,324.71 is for the Lynwood Boulevard project, $1,933.48 is for the Tuxedo Safety Improvement Project, and $4,435.85.is from change orders 2 and 4, which is the work being done for the ~RA. The amount of $4,435.85 for the HRA work will need to be paid to the Contractor by the City, but you should also bill the ~RA for reimbursement in that amount· These projects are complete, except for a few miscellaneous items to be completed in the sprlng. The enclosed Payment Request No. 5 shows a retainage of 1%, which we are recommending the Clty hold back to ensure that the mlnor items are completed next spring. We have reviewed this request, find that it is in order, and recommend payment to the Contractor in the amount of $18,694.04. If you have any questions, or need any additional information, blease contact us. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Oohn Cameron $C:jmj Enclosures cc: Sandy Woytcke, HRA RAc'TOR PAY ES1ZHAIE NO. O.S PAGE 1'193 CITY DF MOUND-LYNWOOD & TUXEDO BLVD-STREET IMPROVEHENTS 01 ENGINEER: McCOMBS-KNUTSON CONTRACTOR: PREFERRED PAVING ~P800 IND.PK. BLUD. ~4 SOUTH OLIVE PLYMOUTH, HN 5544.1. IIACONZA, HN ~5387 DATE: 1~./01/86 -- CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIMATE SUGARY -- MORK COMPLETED PART 1-H~P 145-104-03 LYNWODD BOLLEVARD PART E*-HSAP 14-~-101-0~ TUXEDO BOULEYAP~ HATERIALS ON SITE PART 1--HSAP 145-104-03 LYNId:)DD BOULE~RD PART E--HSAP 145-101-05 TUXEDO BOULEVARD THIS PERIOD ~,097.50 0.00 0.00 ADSUSTED TOTAL LESS RETAINAGE - 5Z PREVIOUS, IIIII!tl a69, 4 65.9~ 18,817. oo O. O0 0.00 7,5~.70 ;86,~8~.~ IZ CURRENl -11,154.L'~ E, 88~.B~ 18,694.03 -0. O0 TOTAL AMOUNT DLE FOR IIORI~ COMPLETED TO DATE LESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 18,694.04 EBS, 400..12 P66,706. OB ,1.8,694.04 -- SUMMARY DF PREVIOUS PAYMENTS -- ESTIMATE ND. DATE ! 06130/86 E 07/31/86 3 09/01186 4 10/20/86 APPROVED: / Z* - ~---- ~ ENGINEER: McCOMBS--~NUTSON AMOUNT TOTAL .tiro, 709.63 116,709.63 50,479. ~ .t67,189. OE 79,801.43 E46,990.45 · !.9, 7.15.63 E66, 70~. OB APPROVED: CONTRACTOR: PREFERRED PAVINg ] RACTOR PAY ES"~ :[MA]E NO. OE:, CITY DF HOUND-'LYNWOOD ~ TUXEDO BLVO-$TREET ~PRO~HEflT$ PAR,T I-HSAP 14~-104-03 LYNIJOOD BOULE~RD O2 ENGINEER: McCOMBS.-KNU'TSON COMTRACTDR: PREFERRED PAVING ,12.800 INO.PK.BLV~. E4 SOUTH OLIUE PLYHOUTH, HN S5441 WRCONIA, HN .r-~3S7 DATE.: /21011l~ -- PAYMENT SLIHMARY FOR IlORK COMPLETED TO DATE -- ITEM ITEM CONTRACT UNI,T .... THIS NO. DESCRIPTION QUAH,TITY UNIT PRICE QUANTITY I EOEI.SO1 MOBILIZATION 1.0 LS E,SO0. O0 0.0 2 E101.511 C & G ROADWAY 1.0 LS SO0. O0 0.0 3 ~103.50.1.BLDG. REHOVAL ~..0 LS E8,SO0. O0 0.0 4 E104.501 REH. ST.S.PIPE 870.0 LF 6.00 0.0 S E104.501 REMO~E CDN.C&G 150.0 LF 1.00 0.0 G E104.503 REMOU[ SIDEWALK 1,670.0 S;F 0.35 0.0 7 EZO4.SCE~ REMOVE MH OR CB 4.0 EA 1~.00 0.0 8 E104.509 I:L~MOq~. W~LLS 1.0 LS E,SO0. O0 0.0 · 9 ElO4.SE3 SALVAGE CASTING E.O EA 75.00 0.0 10 EIO4.E, E3 SALVAGE L.POLE 1.0 EA 110.00 0.0 L 06.r, O1 COMMON EXCAV. E,600. O CY 4.00 0.0 06.5E3 COMMON BORROid 0.0 CY 0.00 0.0 13 E106.BE5 TOPSOIL BORRO~ E30. O C¥ G.O0 0.0 14 E130.501 ~TER 25.0 GA 1.50 0.0 15 2El1.501 AI:;G. BASE CL.E 45.0 TH /2.00 0.0 16 2211.501 AI:;G. BASE: CL.5 1,3:GO.O TH 8.00 21.0 1'/ 2.':r31.504 BIT HA'T FDA MIX ES.0 TH 165.00 0.0 15 23'g1.514 BASE COURSE: MIX 5~:~5.0TN /~.BO 0.0 19 E341.504 BIT MAI FOR MIX 21.0 TH 165.00 20 ~'~1.508 ~AR COURSE MIX .c~:~O.O TH 1'/.00 0.0 21 2~7.50E BIT MAT - TACK /E5. O ~A 1.50 1/r`.O 22 2358.501 BI*[MAT - PRIME '~0.0 GA 1.50 0.0 23 2503.511 12' RCP ST.CL.5 '106.0 LF 20.70 0.0 24 2503.511 15" RCP ST.CL.5 63.0 LF 21.1~ 0.0 E52503.511 lB' RC;F' S,T.CL.3 BB.O LF 24.40 0.0 2r0 2~03. 51124 '. RCF'S~.CL.:-: 250.0 LF 29.90 0.0 27250~.511:-~7' RCP SI.CL.2 425.0 LF ~.00 0.0 28?_S03.511 30' RCF'ST.CL.2 35.0 LF 40.00 O.O PERIOD .......... TO DATE .... AMOUNT QUANTITY RHDUNT 0.00 1.0 E,SO0. O0 O. O0 1.0 SOO. O0 O, O0 1.0 ~B,SO0. O0 0.00 11~.0 1,110.00 0. O0 1.55.0 155. O0 0.00 l,lB?.O 415.45 O. O0 4.0 700. O0 0 · O0 1.0 2,500. O0 0. O0 .2.0 150. O0 O. O0 4.0 44 O. O0 0,00 2,600.0 10,400.00 O. O0 O. 0 O. O0 O, O0 150, 0 900. O0 O. O0 2S. 0 37.50 0.00 130.0 1,560.00 16B.00 1,6B7.0 13,496.00 0.00 2E.I 3,645.50 0,00 491.0 6,77~.B0 O. O0 2r`. 0 4,125. O0 0.00 459.0 7,803.00 17E.50 240.0 360.00 O, O0 0,.0 O, O0 O. O0 103.0 2,1~ · :LO O, O0 73.0 1,595.06 0,00 56.0 2,098.40 0.00 276.0 8,25~.40 0,00 428.0 15,405.00 0,00 :~,0 1,400.00 0.00 1.0 1,100.00 0. O0 IB. G 3,16E. O0 0.00 9.6' 0.00 G.O 1,0~0.00 O. O0 2 · 0 450. O0 O. O0 4.0 900. O0 O. O0 1.0 225. O0 0.00 9.0 540.00 O. O0 9.0 630. O0 O. O0 5.0 200. O0 0.00 3.0 54.00 0.00 4,227.0 5,917.80 CON]I'4.AC]OR PAY ESIlHATE NO. 0.?:~ PAGE 7193 CITY OF HOUND-LYN~ODD & TUXEDO BLVD-STRE£T IHPROUCHENTS PART 1-HSAP 145-104-03 LYN~DD BOLt.£UARD O~ -- PAYHENT SUHflARY FOR MORK COHPLETED TO DATE -- TTEH ITEH CONTRACT UNIT m. THIS ND. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE QUANTITY 4.1.E~1.501 C&,G DESIGN B61B 1,600.0 LF S.~ 0.0 42 ~31.507 6' APRONS 140.0 SY 20.00 43 2S45.511 INSTALL L.POLE 1.0 EA 110.00 44 2S4S.S15 LGT.B~SE, DES.E 1.0 EA .~.0.00 4S 2.~15.S21 3-1/E' CONDUIT 40.0 LF 11.7S 0.0 46 2545.55~ PULL BOXES E.O EA 700.00 0.0 47 2571.502 ?RE. ES - HAPL£ 4.0 TR ~.00 3.0 48 2571.502 TREES - ASH 4.0 TR ~.00 2°0 49 2571. S02 TREES-+IACI, O)£RRY 4.0 TR ')~,.00 2.0 SO 2575.501 ROADSIDE ~ED 0.3 AC 1,500.00 0.0 51 25~.5~ ~£D, HIXTURE S 15.0 LB 2.30 0.0 ~ ~.505 SODDING 1,000.0 SY 1.70 1,231.0 ~ 25~.511 HULCN HAT TYPE/ 0.6 1)l 300.00 0.0 64 SP CONCRETE STEPS 20.0 RI 115.00 0.0 ~S SP DRY RUBBLE HASON ~LL 0.0 SI:' 0.00 0.0 56 SP FEI 6' DIP ~qTERHAIN L:~.O LF 20.70 0.0 57 SP.F&I DIP FITTINGS E60,O LB 1,50 0,0 SS SP FE! 1-1/~.' COPPER SER 30,0 LF 17,00 0,0 59 SP FEI 1-1/2' CORP, COCK 1,0 EA 115.00 0,0 60 SP FEI 1-1/~' CURB STOP 1,0 EA 115,00 0,0 61 SP FEI 6' GATE UALUE 1,0 EA 400,00 0,0 6E SP AD)UST EXISTING G.¥, 1,0 EA 8S,00 1,0 63 SP AD)USl EXIST CURB BDX ~,0 £A 50,00 3,0 64 SP RELOCATE HYD, & G,U 1,0 EA 650,00 0,0 65 SP FEI 8' PUC SAN,SEWER 40,0 LF 19,00 0,0 66 SP FEI 6' CISP SEW. SERU, 40,0 LF 16,00 0,0 67 SP ADJ, EXIST, HH/CB ·4,0 .EA 100,00 1,0 ~S SP RECONSTRUCT EXIST HH 1,0 EA 500.00 0,0 69 SP FEI SIGN POSTS 4,0 EA 80,00 ~,0 70 SP FEI R2-1 SIGNS ~,0 EA 100,00 '0,0 71 SP FEI RT-1 SIGNS ~,0 EA 100,00 0,0 ~ 2105.Ex~3 EXC.COH.BORROW 2,788.0 CY 5.25 0.0 ~ LOWER ~TER ~RUICE 1.0 EA 290.00 0.0 74 'RELOCATE CURB STOP 1.0 EA 550. O0 O. 0 ~ IG. YSTONE RETAINING WALL 1,420.0 5F 9.~ 0.0 76 1-1/E" RIGID CONDUIT-~C 111.0.0 LF 5.=-F~ 0.0 77 ALT. FOR STREET LIGHT 1.0 LS 1,649.50 0.0 78 ~ DD71:R TIHE EO.O HR 70.00 0.0 ~ SP BUILDING DEHOLITION 1.0 LS .1.9~1.00 0.0 80 ~ COHPACTED B~HT FILL E,O00.O CY 5.00 0.0 81 ~ COHHDN EXCA~hqTION 4,000.0 CY 4.25 0.0 8:E) ~ ~TAINING ~ALL 1,800.0 ~F 9.~ 0.0 B3 1-1/E' PUC CONDUIT 80o0 LF 3.~ 0.0 ~ ND. 8 USE ¥IRE 440.0 LF 0.68 400.0 PERIOD ..... AHDUNT QUANTITY 0.00 1,652.0 0.00 1.12.0 220. O0 3.0 1,040.00 3.0 0.00 40.0 0.00 2.0 225. O0 3.0 150. O0 2.0 1.50. O0 2.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 2,092.70 1,231.0 0.00 0.0 0,00 22.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 14.0 O. O0 150.0 0. O0 58.0 0.00 E.O 0.00 2.0 0.00 2.0 1t5. O0 3.0 150. O0 3.0 0.00 1.0 0.00 40.0 O. O0 61.0 100. O0 4.0 0.00 1.0 160. O0 6.0 0.00 2.0 0.00 ~.0 O. O0 E, 788.0 0.00 1.0 0.00 1.0 0.00 1,~.0 O. O0 105.0 0.00 1.0 O. O0 .12.2 0.00 1.0 O. O0 T~7.0 0.00 4,790.0 0.00 1,498.0 O. O0 BO. 0 2'~. O0 400.0 ---- TO DATE ~---- MOUNT 9,664.20' ~,I~40.00 330. O0 1,560. O0 470. O0 1,400. O0 ~5. O0 150. O0 ISO. O0 0.00 0.00 2,092.70 0.00 2,S30.00 0.00 21~3.80 225. O0 986. O0 230. O0 230. O0 800. O0 150. O0 650.00 7~0. O0 976. O0 400. O0 500. O0 480. O0 PO0. O0 PO0. O0 14,637. O0 290. O0 SSO. O0 ]2,9B7.00 561.~ 1,649.50 854.00 19,951.00 3,68S.00 20,3S7.50 14,605.50 3OB. O0 2T2. O0 m :.;O~RAC.;1Ok PAY ESITHATE NO. OS PAGE CITY OF HOUND-LYNWODD & TUXEDO BLUD-STREET Ii~PROVE'HENTS PART Z'"HSAP 14_r-,-104-03 LYNWODD BOULEVARD 04 -- PAYNENT gUHHARY FOR iK)P~ COHPL£'IT.D TO DATE. -- [TEH Il'EH CONTRACT UNIT ND. D£SCRIPTIDN QUANTITY UNIT PRICE QUANTITY I~ NO. 4 USE #IRE ~,~00.0 LF O.SO e30. O I~ TRENCHING 440.0 LF 1.40 0.0 B7 RELOCATE CONTROL CABINKT 1.0 LS SO0. O0 0.0 B8 HOUE EXISTING WIRES 1.0 LS EBO. O0 0.0 ~ ~PLICE #IRTNC 1.0 LS 170.00 90 FOOTING - RETAINING WALL .~00.0 LF 10.00 91 FEI FENCE-RETAINTfl5 ~ALL 1.0 LS 300.00 0.0 9~ BIT.PATCHING HN/DDI 2.'~41 ~0.0 TN SS. O0 93 EXTRA FDR B'x6' WEl TAP e.O EA 100.00 94 EXTRA FOR B' SADDLE TAF' E.O EA SO. O0 0.0 ~ SUBGRADE CDRRECTIDN 600.0 CY S. O0 0.0 96 SU~)GRAD£ EXCAUATIDN 600.0 CY 6.00 0.0 97 GRANULAR BORRD~ (L.U.) BO0. O CY S. O0 0.0 9S'G£DTEXTIL£ FABRIC 1,000.0 SY 1.SO ---- THIS PERIOD ..... AHOUNT QUANTITY AHDUHT aO?.O0 E,E30. O e,O0?.O0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0,00 1.0 SO0. O0 0.00 1.0 280.00 0.00 1.0 170.00 2SO. O0 260.0 E,600. O0 0.00 1.0 300.00 0.00 20.0 1,100.00 0.00 E.O 200.00 0.00 E.O 100.00 0.00 i~.0 37S.00 0.00 1,111.0 6,666.00 0.00 705.0 3,E~S.O0 0.00 0.0 O. O0 PARl I'-HSAP 14S-104-03 LYNWDDD BOULEUARD S,44E.EO CONI'RACIO~t PAY £f~l 1M~.11:' NO. CIIY OF HDUND'-LYN~OBO & TUXEDO BLVO-$TRE£'T ~IlPROUEHENTS PART 1--HSAP 145-104-03 LYN~OD BOUL£VARO O5 ENG:~N££R: HcCOHBS-KNUTSON CONTRACTOR: PREFERP~D PAVXNG lP600 ]NO.PK. BLVD. t~4 ~OUTH PLYHOUIH, HN sr"~4~.1. IIACON]:A~ Pat DATE: .1.E/01/1~ -- PAYH£NT SUHflARY FOR HATERIAL$ ON SITE -- THIS PER'TOD * /TEH /TEH CONTRACT UN/TS 1N~IC£ UN/TS TOTAL NO. DESCRIPTION DUANTITY D£LI~.RED PRICE ON SITE ITEH VALUE :/NVOZCE PR/CE TO UN/TS ON TOTAL XTEH VALUE TOIAL PAR1 1-HSAP 14S-104-03 LYN~OOD BOULEVARD O. O0 0.00 h RACIOR PAY E_B1 IMAl£ NO. OB CITY OF MOUND'-LYNWODD & TUXEDO BL~-STP~ET II4PROVEMENTS PART I--~S~F' :[45-104-03 LYNNOOD BOULEVARD O~ ENGINEER: ticCOtiB$-KNUT~N CONT~CTOR: PREFER~D PAVING ~PB00 IND.PK.BLV~. E4 ~0UTH DLIV~ PLYtiOUTH, tin 55441 tlAC~IA, tin 5~87 OAll:: 1~/01/86 -- S~MtiARY OF CHANGE ORDERS -- CHANGE ORDER NO. 01 04~/30/B6 9,~.00 ITEM ITEti NO. DESCRIPTION 11 ~10~.501 C0~ti0N EXCAV. ~P ~10S.5~3 :0H~0N ~RROW SS ~ DRY R~E ~A~N ~LL LO~R ~R ~RVICE 74 ~LOCA~ CU~ SlOP ~YSTONE ~TRININC 1-1/~' RIGID .T. FOR ST~ET LIGHl ....... -PREVIOUS QUANTITY ~,7S0.00 C¥ 1,SO0.00 CY 1,4~0.00 5F 0.00 C¥ 0.00 EA 0.00 £A 0.00 E: 0.00 LF 0.00 LS UNIT PRICE 4.00 7.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ....... -CHANGED QUANTITY UNIT PRICE E,600. O0 C¥ 4.00 0.00 CY 0.00 0.00 ~ 0.00 E,TBB. O0 CY S.E5 1.00 EA EgO. O0 1.00 EA ~0.00 1,4EO. O0 ~ 9.75 110.00 LF S.3S 1.00 LS 1,&49.50 M4OUNT DEDUCTED -~00.00 -9, ~SO. 00 -11,218.00 A~40UNT ADDED 14,~37.00 ~90. O0 SSO. O0 13,845. O0 SBB. $0 1,~49.S0 PREVIOUS CONT~ACT PRICE 1B~,1:~.$~_ + CHANGE 9,99E.00 = REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT CON'IRACIOR PAY £S'I.1. HATE NO. 0...~ C/*TI' DF HDUND-LYN~DD & TUXEDO BLUD-$TREET -TtlPROUEHENT$ PART 1-HSP, p 145-104-03 LYN~DD BOULEURRD ;NGZNEER: HcCDHHS-KNUTSON ./.E SOO ZND. PK. BL VD. CON TRACTOR: PREFERRED PA 9ZNC PLYHOUTH, HN .55441 E4 ~OUTH OL.I'UE ~TE: 12/01/86 t~CONIA, HN 55387 AHCE ORPER ND. O~ 0713!18~ EH ]'TEll )' DESCRZF'T]'DN ) St:' DOZER ~ SP BUZLDZNC, DEllDL.TTZON ~ COllPACIED BSllT F.TLL ~ COllllON EXCA~TZON ~ RETAZN.TNC W, LL 1-1/2' PUC CONDU~'T NO. 8 UR #ZP,.E NO. 4 USE · LOCA~ CONTROL CAHZNET ~DPE EX.TST,TNC ~LZCE DU$ CONTRACT PRZCE '- SUHllARy DF CH~NCE ORDERS ., 70,0r-,_4.20 O"'7 ....... "PREVZDU$ ........ Q~NTZTT UNiT PRZCE ' ......"CHANCED ......... QU~NTZTY UNZT PRZCE 0.00 ~R 0.00 EO. O0 HR 70.00 0.00 LS 0.00 1.00 LS 19,951.00 0.00 CY 0.00 2,000.00 CY S. O0 0.00 CY 0.00 4,000.00 CY 4.25 0.00 S1: 0.00 1,800.00 ~ 0.00 LF 0.00 80.00 LF 3.8S 0.00 LF 0.00 440.00 LF 0.6~ 0.00 LF 0.00 2,200.00 LF 0.90 0.00 LF 0.00 440.00 LF 1.40 0.00 L$ 0.00 1.00 L$ $O0. O0 0.00 L$ 0.00 1.00 L$ 280.00 0.00 LS 0.00 1.00 L$ 170.00 CHANCE 70,054..20 = REU,TSED CONTRACT AllDUNT ~D~T ~D~D ~HDUNT . ADDED 1,400. O0 19,951. O0 10, 000. O0 17, 000. O0 17,550. O0 3O8. O0 /,9BO. O0 616. O0 SO0. O0 280. O0 170. O0 26E, 178.55 RAg TOR PAY ES1 IHA'rE NO. 05 PAGE 71E)3 CITY DF HDUND-LYNWODD & TUXEDO ~.U~-SlE[l IHPRD~EMENT$ PARl 1--M~AF' 14S-104-03 LYN~OOD BOULEVAR~ OB ENGINEER: McCOMBS--~3~UTSON CONTRACTOR: PREFERREO PAVING lP800 IND.PK.BLV~. 84 ~U~ OL]~ PLY~OU~, HN 5~41 ~CONIA, MN DA~: ~/O1/B6 -- 5~ARY DF CHANCE O~ER5 -- CHANGE ORDER NO. 03 OB/13/B~ 4,700.00 ITEM ITEM NO. DE~RIPTION 90 FOOIlN~ - REIAININC WALL 91'F&I FENCE-RETAINING WALL 9~ BIT.PATCHING MN/OOT 8.341 93 EXTRA FOR 8"xG" IET TAP 94 EXTRA FOR 8' ,~DDLE TAP -PREVIOUS, QUANTITY 0.00 LF 0.00 LS 0.00 TN 0.00 EA 0.00 EA CHANGED AMOUNT RHDUNT UNI1 PRICE QUANTITY UNIT PRICE DEDUCTED ADDED 0.00 300.00 LF 10.00 3,000.00 0.00 1.00 LS 300.00 300.00 0.00 80.00 TN 5S.00 1,100.00 0.00 8.00 EA 100.00 800.00 0.00 8.00 EA BO.O0 100.00 P ~IOUS CONTRACI PRICE 8GB,17B.SS + CHANGE 4,700.00 = REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT 866,B78.5~ CON1RAC;TO~ PRY r-'S'ITHATE NO. 0.5 PAGE CITY OF HOUNO.-LYNMOOD & TUXEDO BLVO-STREET II~PRDW..NENT$ PART 1-HSAP 145-104-03 LYNt~OOD BOULEVARD O9 ENGINEER: HcCOHBS'-KNUTSON CONTRACTOR: PREFERRED PAVING Z2800 IND.PK.BLvo. 24 SOUTH OLIVE PLYNOUTH, HN SS441 ttACONIA, finSS387 DATE: 1P./OLIB6 -- SUHHARY OF CHANGE ORDERS -- CHANGE ORDER NO. 04 08/13/86 .12,100.00 Il'EH Il'EH NO. DESCRIPTION 95 SUBGRADE CORRECTION 96 StJBGRADE EXCAVATION 97 GRANULAR BORROM (L.V.) 96 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC ~REVIOU$ QUANTITY UNIT PRICE 0.00C¥ 0.00 0.00 CY 0.00 0.00 CY 0.00 0.00 SY 0.00 CHANGED AHOUNT AflDUNT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE DEDUCTED ADDED 600.00 CY S. O0 3,00~.00 600.00 CY 6.00 3,600.00 800.00 CY S, O0 4,000.00 1,000.00 SY 1.SO l,SO0. O0 PREVIOUS CONTRACT PRICE 266,B7B.S5 + CHANGE ~2,100.00 = REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT 27B,978.55 ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE 18E,13E.3c_, + CHANGE REVISED CONTRACT AHOUNT 278,978.55 TRAC;'IOR PAY E~:~I IM~..'~E NO. 0.~ PAGE ?19~ CI~ OF HD~D~YN~OD & T~EDO ~-S~ET PART E~P 14~-101-~ T~EDO ~E~ 10 ENGINEER: McCOMBS'-KNUTSON CONTRACTOR.' PREFERREO PAVING lPBO0 IND.PK.BLVD. E4 SOUTH OLZV~ PLYMOUTH, MN b-~41 IdACONIA, ~ ~387 DATE.: 1~./01/B6 -- PAYMENT SUMMARY FOR ~RK COMPLETED TO DATE -- ITEM ITEM CONTRACT UNIT NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE QUANTITY I 8101.513 C&[;R'T-OF-¥AY 1.0 LS 500.00 0.0 E E104.501 REM CONT. C&G EO.O LF 1.00 0.0 3.E104.501 REM BI] CURB LBO.O LF 1.00 0.0 4 E10~.501 COMMON £XCAV. 15.0 CY 6.00 0.0 5 E105.Se3 COMMON BORROW 400.0 CY 6.SO 0.0 6 E105..r:~.5 TOPSOIL BORROW 70.0 CY 6.00 10.0 7 2~1.504 BIT MAT FOR HIX 1.6 TN 165.00 0.0 B 2331.514 BASE COURSE HIX 3S.0 TN 17.00 0.0 9 E341.S04 BIT HAT FOR MIX 0.6 TN 165.00 0.0 341.50B ~AR COURSE MIX 10.0 TH EO. O0 O.B 357.50~ BIT MAT-TACK 5.0 GAL 1.50 0.0 503.511 lp, RCP ST.CL.S 5.0 LF 2?.00 0.0 13 E50~.50~ MH/CB DESIGN N 1.0 EA 170.00 0.0 14 ESOG.51G CAST ASSEMBLIES 1.0 EA 225.00 0.0 ~ ES3S.S01 BITUMINOUS CUP~ 170.0 LF 4.00 0.0 16 E5~4.50! DESIGN A 1BO. O LF 5B. O0 1B.O 17 ES?!. 502 TREE S - MAPLE 4.0 EA ?S. O0 O. 0 lB ES?I.50~ TREES - ASH 4.0 EA 75.00 0.0 19 E571.541 TRANSPLANT TREE 2.0 EA '/~.00 0.0 EO 25'/~.505 SODDING 540.0 SY 1.70 ~! SP RELOCAT£ EXZSTIN~ CB ~.0 LS /SO. O0 0.0 .... THIS PERIOD ..... AMOUNT 0.00 0.00 O. O0 0.00 0.00 60.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,044.00 0.00 0.00 O. O0 977.50 0.00 QUANTITY 1.0 EO, O 17S. O ~.S.O 400.0 70.0 E.O 45.0 O.B 15.0 5.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 1BO. 0 lBO. 0 3.0 3.0 ~.0 5'~.0 1.0 AMOUNT 500. O0 eO. O0 1TS. O0 150.00 e, 600. O0 4EO. O0 ~30. O0 76~.00 I~E.O0 300.00 ?.SO .oo 170. O0 EES,O0 7EO. O0 10,440.00 EES.00 EES. O0 150. O0 1~0. O0 TOTAL PART E'-'MSAP 145-101-05 TUXEDO BOLLEVARD ~,097.50 .1.8,817 · O0 CON'I'RAE;IOR PAY ES'I"rH~TE NO. 0.~ 719~..'-~ CITY DF HOLIND-LY#IJOOD ~ TUXEDO BLVO-STREET ];HPRD~'HE#T$ PART E*.-I~SAP .1.4S-.1.0.1.-05 TUXEDO ENCINEER: HcCOHBS-KNUTSON CONTRACTOR: PREFERRED ~BO0 ZND.PK.~. E4 ~UTH OLZ~ PLYHDUTH, HN ~41 ~CDN/A, DA~: 2/01/B~ -- ~AYHENT S~H~RY FOR HA~RIALS OH SI~ -- 1}!I$ PERIOD ZTEH ITEH CONTRA~1 UNIT8 INVOICE UNITS ND. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY DELIVERED PRICE ON SITE TOTAL PART E--I'IS~P 14S-101-05 TUXEDO BOULEVARD TO D~TE TOTAL INVOICE UNITS TOTAL ~TEH ~LUE PRICE ON SITE ITEH W~LU[ 0.00 0.00 ORIGINAL CONTI~CT PRICE 15,443.50 + CHANCE 0.00 = REVISED CONTRACT Charitable Gambling Control Board Room N-475 Griggs-Midway Building 1821 University Avenue St. Paul, Minnesota 55104-3383 (612) 642-0555 GAMBLING LICENSE APPLICATION FOR BOARD USE ONLY Iuc"""Numb" PAID AMT. CHECK#. DATE. INSTRUCTIONS: A. Type or print in ink. ~' B. Take completed application to local governing body, obtain signature and date on all copies, and leave I copy. Applicant keeps 1 copy and sends original to the above address with a check. C. Incomplete applications will be returned. Type of Application: I-IClass A -- Fee $100.00 (Bingo, Raffles, Paddlewheels, Tipboards, Pull-tabs) /J~cClass B -- Fee $ 50.00 (Raffles, Paddlewheels, Tipboards, Pull-tabs) lass C Fee $ 50.00 (Bingo only) F-IClass D -- Fee $ 25.00 (Raffles only) Minnesota Charitable Gambling Control Board FIYes~i~lo 1. Is this application for a renewal? If yes, give complete license number /~Yes []No 2. If this is not an application for a renewal, has organization been licensed by the Board before? If yes, give base license number (middle five digits)I O ! I ?~Yes FINe 3. Have Internal Controls been submitted previously? If no, please attach copy. h' ~ Applicant (Official, legal name of organizatipn) 5. Business Address of Organizatioq 6.. ~ity, State, Zip 7. ~ounty ~8. B~iness Phone Number ¢5-5 4' V I /;-/, 9. Type of organization: ~Fraternal ~Veterans ~Religious ~Other nonprofit* * If organization is an "other nonprofit" organization, answer questions 10 through 13. If not, go to question 14. "Other nonprofit" organizations must d~ument its tax-exempt status. ~Yes ~No 10. Is organization incqrpo[ated ~s a ~ onprofit organization? If yes, give number assigned to A~icles or page and book number: ~ ~ ~ A~ach copy of ce~ificate. [~Yes []No 11. Are articles filed with the Secretary of State? F-lYes (~No 12. Are articles filed with the County? fl~Yes [] No 13. Is organization exempt from Minnesota or Federal income tax? If yes, please attach letter from IRS or Department of Revenue declaring exemption or copy of 990 or 990T. []Yes~No 15. 17. 14. Has license ever been denied, suspended or revoked? If yes, check all that apply: []Denied []Suspended I-]Revoked Give date: I - - Number °f active members I 16' Number °f years in existence~'" ,,~"'- ~/ IN°te: If less 'than f°ur years' attachexistence, evidence of three years Name of Chief Executive Officer 18. Name of treasurer or person who accounts for other revenues ,- of the organization. Title usiness Phone Number 19. ~.conducted 21. City, State, Zip Title Business Phone Number Name of establishment where gambling will be /7..-/,,~ C, 20. Street address (not Re. Box Number) ._,j, ?../ ,:_ .p _.1 -.. 22. County (where gambling premises is located) canary-Applicant ) Pink-Local Governing Body CG-O001-02 (8/86) White Copy-Board Gambling Ucense Application . :, · * Type of Application: I-IClass A /l~Class B CIClass C lqClass D Page2 I~Yes []No 23. Is gambling premises located within city limits? ~Yes []No 24. Are all gambling activities conducted at the premises listed in # 19 of this application? If not, complete a separate application for each premises (except raffles) as a separate license is required for each premises. []Yes ~No 25. Does organization own the gambling premises? If no, attach copy of the lease with terms of at least one year. l-lYes~No 26. Does the organization lease the entire premises? lf no, attach a sketch of the premises indicating what portion is being leased. A lease and sketch is not required for Class D applications. Do you plan on conducting bingo with this license? If yes, give days and times of bingo occasions: Days Times J-IYes~fNo 28. ii, Yes I-INo 29. Has the $10.000 fidelity bond required by Minnesota Statutes 349.20 been obtained? Attach copy of bond: ~:.'*'30. Insurance Company_Name .~.... : , .... , ' ' * T' ~31~,.Bo_nd Number,~ _ **.... ' ' 'ii ',i "' 32~.Gss'o,~Namg~-~ . . __ 133: ~ddres, _, . [34. City, State,Zip ., ' -35.I Ga[nJ31ing Maoager Name 136. Address . . .1 37. City, State, Zip . 38. Gambling Manager Business Phone /39. Date gambling manager became c/?z_ 3 7 I member of organizati0n: I ~~ 1~7~ GAMBLING SITE AUTHORIZATION 'BYmy signature below, local law enforcement officers or agents of the Board are hereby authorized to enter upon the site, at any time, gambling is being conducted, to observe the gambling and to enforce the law for any unauthorized game or practice. BANK RECORDS AUTHORIZATION 'By my signature below, the Board is hereby authorized to inspect the bank records of the General Gambling Bank Account whenever necessary to fulfill requirements of current gambling rules and law. OATH / hereby declare that: I have read this application and all information submitted to the Board; 2. All information submitted is true, accurate and complete; 3. All other required information has been fully disclosed 4. · I am the chief executive officer of the organization; 5. I assume full responsibility for the fair and lawful operation of all activities to be conducted; 6. I will familiarize myself with the laws.of the State of Minnesota respectinggambling and rules of the Board and agree, if licensed, to abide by those laws and rules, including amendments~ther~X~. 40.. fO ficial, Legal Name of Organization 141. SignaJ:u~r/~'. ~m..~J~.be sig.ne,d by Chief Executive Officer) Title of Signer ~ I Date ~' V" ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF NOTICE BYLOCAL GOVERNING BODY I hereby acknowledge receipt of a copy of this application. By acknowledging receipt, I admit having been served with notice that this application will be reviewed by the Charitable Gambling Control Board and if approved by the board, will become effective 30 days from the date of receipt (noted below), unless a resolution of the local governing body is passed which specifically disallows such activity and a copy of that resolution is received by the Charitable Gambling Control · Board within 30 days of the below noted date. 42. Name of City or County (Local Governing Body) Signature of person receiving application~, Title . .~ ~ Date received (30 day period ~ ~' , * ~' ~, ~< begins from this date) 44. ~i,rne'of Person deliveri~Dg-ap~tcation, to Lo~al Gove, rning Body CG;0001-02 (8/86) WhiteCopy-8oard / If site is located within a township, item 43 must be completed, in addition to the county signature. 43. Name of Township Signature of person receiving application X Title ! Canary-Applicant Pink-Local Governing Body BILLS ..... DECEMBER 9, 1986 Apache Paper Acro-MN Bonestroo, Rosene Balboa MN Co. Bryan Rock Products Donald Bryce Communication Auditors Conrad Concrete Fran Clark Cargi ! 1 Salt Dependable Services Glenwood Inglewood Wanda Gorgoschlitz W.~. Grainger Henn Co Chiefs.Police PTAC Henn Co. Treas Henn Co. Sheriff Dept Hazard Control Inc lnd School Distr 277 Island Park Skelly Kelly Services Lowells Luverne Truck Equlp The Laker LOGIS Kyle Larson Ronald Marschke ~m Mueller'& Sons Metro Area Hgmt Assn' Mound Fire Dept Marina Auto Supply Minnegasco Northern StateS Power Navarre Hdwe O'Connor &Hannan Rotary Club of Mound Ranger Products .Tom Rockvam Savole Supply Co. Edw Shukle Sterne Elec Smith Heating Suburban Ti re SOS Printing Team Laboratory Tom's Jack Repair Thrifty Snyder Drug University of MN Unitog Rental Westonka Foods Westonka Firestone Westonka Intervention Watkins Aircraft Support Wayzata Auto Service Xerox Corp Paper Towels Office Supplies Engr. PW Bldg Storage Rent Nov. Rock Nov Chief Pager Repair Curb-Otter Mtg-Hicrofilm Salt Nov garbage Nov water cooler Tape mtgs for cable Elec motor Courses for Roy & Hudson' Oct prisoner board Oct booking fees Fire gloves Senior Center expenses Reseal sector Temp help Nov parts Brush guard-new truck hearings & 1iq inserts Oct computer expenses Halloween candy-Reserves Nov Assr Chief Concrete Sand MAMA mtg Nov salaries,drllls,maint Nov supplles : Nov 'gas Nov Elec Nov supplies Cable TV--prof serv Memb & mtgs hose clamps 'Dock remora 1 Janitor supplies LMC lunch Ballast~--Liq Store Pipe Tires Certificates - Fire Dept Roughneck Replace Mall handle Film Registr. Bldg Off Inst Nov Uniform rent Nov supplies-council,City Tube. Postage Nov Recycling Services Flags Pymts on Copiers Hall 186.30 249.52 1,822.50 1,411.25 91.98 417.00 89.06 130.00 10.00 1,257.5O 38.OO 64.55 60.50 76.84 160.00 1,692.50 140.67 139.15 8,995.00 151.95 118.40 190.11 177.95 359.68 2,529.94 61.82 150.00 2,589.48 8.oo 6,O61.00 514.75 551.39 1,291.74 418.70 '334.44 45.00 20.42 168.00 99.02 26.63 151.87 -10.15 486.40 7.50 81.71 22.45 17.98 90.00 215.57 109.26 14.95 lO.O4 1,085.o0 45.00 253.19 BILLS ...... DECEMBER 9, 1986 (Cont) Coca Cola Bottling Day Distributing East Side Beverage Four Star Bar Supply Flahertys Happy Tyme Happys Potato Chips Mark VII Distr Pepsi Cola/7 UP Pogreba Distr Ron's I ce Royal Crown Beverage Thorpe Distr Twin City Home Juice Nov mix .' 291.85 Nov Beer 3~278.69 Nov Beer 2,592.09 Nov Mix , Mis'c 116.30 Nov mix 59.40 Nov Mist 77.35 Nov Beer .. 4,361.80 Nov mix 284.10 Nov Beer. '3,374.20 Nov ice 78.96 Nov mix. _ 75.55 Nov Beer 5,686.25 Nov mix 45.30 T°tal--Batch 8641,1.5 55,863.65 Mound Firemen Preferred Paving .' Mound Postmaster Nat~l Car Sales Bill Clark 0il PHP of MN MN Dept Pub Safety-Llq Med Center Group Health Mutual'Benefit Life Del RudolPh Arthur Lee Griggs~ Cooper Quali.ty Wine Twin. City Wine Commissioner of Revenue Physicians Health Plan Shoreline Plaza Metro Waste Control Officers Pay 1986 3,600.00 Pymt Request#5 18,694.04 Replen Postg Due acct 200.00 86 Chev Cav Wagon-Police 8,375.00 Gasoline 610.10 Hosp.- Werts 87.30 Buyers Card 12.00 Dec Hosp - 229.10 " " 155.59 Dec LTD 626.10 Contract help 33.00 Contract cleani ng 200.00 Liquor 1,532.59 " 162.23 ** .103.99 Nov Sales Tax 5,1.74.99 Dec Hosp 5,664.49 Dec Rent 1,541.70 Dec Sewer Serv 28,469.55 Tote.i--Batch 864121 75,~]1.77 Batch 864114 Computer Run Dated 12-3-86 50,937.82 Grand Total--All Bil:ls 182,273.24 Z ZZ ooooooo~ 0 0000000000 I- Z Z~ 0 'r- ..J .I _J .J _1 _J _l .J _1 .J ZZZZZ~ZZZZ Z h 0 I- '~*ZZ -] _1 -I UOU · ZZZ o ~ ~ Z .J b. L~ Z Z 0 0 U ~J Z Z Ld 0 o I p- Z 0 o ~0 Z .J .-I bJ X O0 O0 0 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 December 4, 1986 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Ed Shukle City Manager Greg Skinner Water & Sewer Supt. November's Activity Report In November we pumped 18,736,000 gallons of water. There were 6 new accounts opened, 6 water turn offs, 1 turn on, 1 turn off for non-payment, 3 meters replaced, 33 final readings, 4 outside reader inst'allations and 19 service calls. In December we will turn off water f'or non-payment. The weather has been good in November so there is little frost in the ground. After these turn-offs I don't think we will be able to start turn-offs again until sometime in April. We sent out 1016 meter cards in section 1 for residents to read their inside meter. We received 602 back, that is 59% return. Ryan Chevrolet was awarded the bid on the 2 new pick-ups. Delivery is set for sometime in January. SEWER DEPARTMENT We completed cleaning the lift station and wet wells this month. We had 2 sewer back-ups. The back-up on Langdon Lane has been turned over to the City's insurance company for review. The second back-up was at 18OO Commerce Blvd. It appears that the contractor for Port Harrison drilled a hole in the manhole to relieve the pressure on the property. They put in a 1" copper pipe so the water would run into the drought. With this copper in the manhole the paper and solids struck to it causing a blockage. As I said we believe it was the contractor for Port Harrison but we cannot prove this. The copper pipe has been removed and the hole will be repaired by us. The sewer and water mains have been put in for Cobblestone Cove in the Highlands. An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on me basis of race co!or not,chat origin or harL(:,cap::_-d ,~,tatus in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment, m, Ks proorams and activihes CITY of MOUND · 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 December 4, 1986 TO: Ed Shukle City Manager FROM: Joyce Nelson Recycling' SUBJECT: November's Recycling During the month of September I sent out a recycling survey to ~,043 home. 435 households or 14% have returned the survey. There were quite a few comments on the survey. Some have requested the recycling containers, some said they were missed, want more publicity, some want more signs out as reminders, some didn't know of the program but are going to start now. Supercycle is now picking up our recycling items. Beerman services has gone out of business. Supercycle came in with some better looking trucks, more people and seemed to cover the town in less time. There will be a bid opening on December 15. Bid forms were sent out to 5 contractors (that's all that are in the business). Met Council reimbursed us $385.20 for our tonage figures since the first of the year. In January we apply for the household rebate of .56¢ per household or $1,810.00. For the year of 1987 we are going to ask for 60% Of a reimbursement from Hennepin County, now we are receiving 50%. We can ask for this because of our increase in the monthly tonage figures and the compost site in Minnetrista. 1987 budget is $18,320.00 with the $1,810.00 and the $4.00 per ton from Met Council and the 60% we plan to get from Hennepin County the city's share will be $6,296.80. In November 11.46 ton of material was picked up. I~ ~? An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race. color nat'onalor'om ~rha*~dicappedst3tus in the admission or access to, or treatment or emptoyment in. its prggrams and acb,,:tes. CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 December 4, 1986 TO: FROM: RE: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER AND CITY COUNCIL JOHN L. NORMAN, FINANCE DIRECTOR NOVEMBER 1986 FINANCE REPORT COMPUTER UPDATE LOGIS has made a proposal to us for a stand alone Hewlett Packard Computer system. The total cost for the LOGIS system is lower than the system proposed to us by Computoservice (a computer hardware- software vendor out of Mankato). Both proposals have costs less than our present computer arrangement with L'OGIS. Ed and I plan on evaluating the proposals and have a recommendation selected by December 15th. Our recommendation will then be presented to the Council. LIQUOR STORE The building owner.where the liquor store is located wants us to sign a three year lease. Ed has requested that Joel and I forecast how the liquor store will do the next three years. Ed has concerns regarding the future profitability of the 'liquor store. Our report to Ed will be completed in December. '914:; ,rtL, r~d, E';;:'; :;,vet I,h;g doe.'3- not discriminate on *,hE L:;:S; cf rcce. color natl,"n~.} crtgin or handica?ped s!atLJs tho L~:J,q'd'3S',Or~ Or access tO, or treatmen~ or emp o,r'ment m, its programs and actJvHies. November 1986 Finance Report Page 2 INVESTMENTS The following is November Balance 11-1-86 investment activity: Bought: Gov't Trust American National Repo 5.75 Due 12-12-86 Marquette CD 6.50 Due 5-13'87 Marquette CD 5.90 Due 5-15-87 Marquette Matured: CP 6.419 Marquette CD 6.1 Marquette FNMA 6.49' Marquette Treas. notes 8.42 Dain Bosworth Balance 11-30-86 $7,044,638 120,000 100,000 290,628 .180,000 (401,527) (200,000) (125,880) (107,493) $6,900,366 COMMERCE SQUARE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT Balance 11-1-86 November interest November Expenses - HRA Balance 11-30-86 $260,314 1,198 (55,000) $206,512 dN:ls CITY of MOUND December 2, 1986 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: FROM: SUB J E CT: Ed Shukle, City Manager Fran Clark, City Clerk November Monthly Report There were two regular Council Meetings in September, which means agenda preparation, packets, minutes, resolutions and follow-up items from each meeting. The General Election was November 4, 1986. Before that election there are a lot of last minute details that need to be dealt with. A training session 'for the election judges was held. A public accuracy test of the election counting equipment was done. To do this test 150 ballot cards from each precinct must be punched so that it appears there were different situations in voting, i.e. undervotes, overvotes, blank ballots, etc. This all takes time and there has to be a master sheet for each precinct showing what the count should be to compare with the machine count. In any election, the forms from Hennepin County arrive on the Friday before the election. These forms are then disseminated to the various supplies of each precinct. We are open for absentee voting on the Saturday before any election from 1:00 P.M. to 3:00 P.M. and are open until 7:00 P.M. on the Monday before any election for absentee voting. The Monday before the Tuesday election is when each precinct must be set-up (all voting booths and miscellaneous supplies), keys obtained for the various precincts, and the Precinct Chairpeople come to pick up their material. Election Day arrives and for Linda and I, it starts at 6:00 A.M. I check each precinct to make sure they have everything they need and there are no questions.. Linda monitors the phone at City Hall in case there are any problems in any of the precincts and then gets me on the radio so that I can deal with them. ir, th(. adn-.~lSSlO,q or access to. or treatment or empJo~tment tn, its programs and activities Page 2' November Monthly Report December 2, 1986 City Hall is designated as the Counting Precinct for the City and there are separate judges who handle the counting process. They start counting absentee ballots after the last mail delivery in the afternoon. This year we used all paper ballots for absentee balloting, thus the counting is much more tedious. The judges then fill out the part of the Summary Statements that apply to absentee ballots. This entire process is usually done by the time the first precinct has brought in their ballots. After the polls close each precinct has a number of duties to perform. Opening the ballot boxes, counting all the ballot cards received to be sure they balance with the number of voter receipts. In the General Election each ballot envelope must be looked at to determine if there are any write-in votes. Write-in votes are handled separately because you have to determine if the person voting also voted for the office on the punch card. The ballot cards ars ali checked to be sure there are no hanging chads (the little squares that are punched on the machine). Unused ballots are accounted for and certain supplies brought back to City Hall along with the voted ballots. The same accuracy test is done on the computer before and after counting the precinct ballot cards to insure the equipment is working properly. At City Hall each precinct is handled separately. The counting judges must check to make sure all the forms have been filled out and signed by the precinct judges. The Precinct Certification form has the number of voted ballots figured on it. The voted ballot cards are then run thru the computer to determine the number of voted ballots. If the two figures agree the computer then prints out the votes on~ the ballot cards by office and person voted for. The computer also counts all overvotes (where a person votes for more than one in any office) and undervotes (where a person does not vote for anyone in an office). After all precincts are in and counted, the Summary ~tatements have.to be filled out. This year each precinct had 20 pages of Summary Statement. This all takes time. Linda and I put in almost 20 hours on Election Day. The day after the election is getting the resolution and forms ready for the Canvassing Meeting. There were 465 new voter registrations on election day. Linda goes thru each card to be sure all the information is one the cards. Then the cards are copied and sent to Hennepin County to be put on the computer and given a Voter Indentification Number. When these are returned, sometime in December, she will have to check each card against the computer list to be sure Hennepin County has put in the proper information. Page 2 Page .R November Monthly Report December 2, 1986 I spent time cleaning up my office after the election and getting things put back in order. Refiled all election data back to 1965 and cleared out files. There were 4 bid openings in November which required specifications, advertising for bids, opening the bids and tabulating the bids. I have been working on the recodification as much as possible and have now given each department head the ordinances that would' pertain to their area. They will be returning these to me in December and we will be going over the changes together and with the City Attorney. Hennepin County has submitted about 20 more tax forfeit parcels to me for disposition and I hope to be able to get at those soon. There were the usual calls from residents with questions and problems to handle. fc CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 December 2, 1986 TO: Ed Shukle City Manager FROM: Geno Hoff Street Supt. SUBJECT: November's Activity Report November is a month that we spend a lot of time getting ready for winter. We winterized the sweepers and vac-all and put them in the Balboa building. We mounted the snow equipment on five 2½ ton dump trucks and two 4-wheel drive pickup trucks. We had trouble with the wing post on Unit 13, it took about 5 hours to repair. The problem was that the truck. sets outside and the post was rusted tight. We spent alot of money on street materials this month (salt & sand). 565 ton of sand @ $1.75 per ton or $988.75 105 ton of salt @ $21.79 per ton or $2,287.95 Total $3,276.70 The City crew does all of the mixing of salt and sand which takes alot of time. The 10th of November we got a little shot of snow, just enough to make it slippery. We sanded for 3 hours. The 18th 2'? of snow, plowed and sanded, the 20uh 3 inches we stated at 5 a.m. plowed and sanded, also cleaned sidewalks and hauled the snow away. CHRISTMAS DECORATIONS It takes about three days to repair and install all of the lights and decorations. We decorate 15 trees with about 100 strings of lights and 17 street light poles, each pole having a decoration and garland. in the admission or access to, or treatment or emptoyment m, ~ts programs a~d acbvities December 2, 1986 STREET SIGNS We posted 2 new areas for No Parking Any Time, Devon Hill and Lynwood Blvd about 10 signs, also put up 6 other No Parking and 4 Stop signs. CEMETERY In the fall before freeze up we stake out the cemetery with 125 lath. We find the lot marker and drive in a lath take the number from the marker and write it on the top of the lath, so when we get snow its easier to locate graves and saves alot of time and labor. In November we had 2 grave stake outs and 3 marker stake outs. November 1986 SHOP MAINTENANCE RECORD The following is a record of work to city vehicles by the mechanic. STREET DEPT. Unit #! - replace tube and radiator cap Unit #5 - replaced sander light Unit #8 - replaced 2 speed motor Unit #13 - replaced battery and cables Trackless - Install new voltage regulator SEWER DEPT. Unit #9 -°Install heater blower motor and fan WATER DEPT. Unit #3 - replace power steering belt and alternator belt POLICE DEPT. #840 - changed oil, filter and lube, install clipboard holder #841 - replace water pump and hose #843 - changed oil, filter.and lube, repaired windshield washer #844 - replaced headlight and front tires CSO - replaced heater motor CITY of MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 December 2, 1986 TO: FROM: RE: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER AND CITY COUNCIL ~ / JIM FACKLER. PARKS DIRECTO~ NOVEMBER 1986 REPORT GENERAL COMMENT This month has been used to prepare for work budgeted for 1987. These areas are rip rapping, dredging and equipment purchases. Currently, we have accepted delivery of the Skidsteer loader and the 10,O00 lbs. capacity trailer. The trailer was delivered unpainted, without a deck and no electricial. This was to save on expenses. The budgeted amount is $3,000 and I feel we will spend less than $2500. The city mechanic, Greg Bergquist, did the painting and I installed the deck. The storage area at the Balboa building has helped, but I am in need of an area that I can work on equipment and to consolidate all of the parks tools, parts, supplies, office and equipment. SPECIFIC Tree Removal Four trees were scheduled for removal this month. I feel I can hold the expenses of this line item to budget as long as we do not get any exceptional removals. Cemetery The budgeted trimming of trees has been scheduled. Parks The Recreation Commission has asked for an update of the Parks Comprehensive Plan. This will be my main concentration of effort this spring. I plan to have facts and figures for the 1988 budget request. Commons We have spent time this month preparing for the rip rapping and dredging budgeted for in 1987. I have found that when rip rapping is done over the ice, in January or February, the cost per foot goes from approximately $45.00 to less than $20.00. So the contractor has to be set as soon as possible. Dredging on the other hand, has shown a great increase. The figures here are expected in soon and will be forwarded on next month. JF:ls Ar~ eqL~! r,.m ~rt~!r~t ;r~,: ',v,,~ m~t d~)es not discr~mmat~ Or~ the basis of race, color nationa~ origin, or handicapped status mtt,- ~Om~sslon o! access to ortre~,tment or employment in, its programs and activities, CITY of MOUND December .2, 1986 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER AND CITY COUNCIL FROM:' JOEL KRUMM, LIQUOR STORE MANAGER RE: NOVEMBER 1986 REPORT As you can deduce,°we had a dismal month.compared to November of last year when we did $75,286. This puts us $49,130 down over last year. This should hopefully be the extent of our downfall this year because I am predicting we will match last years December sales. If that is the case, I will be extremely encouraged because this will.mean we will only have experienced a 7% drop in sales over last year..- It could have been more critical. And we still are surpassing 1984's sales by 5%. As you may have noticed in your Laker newspaper that is delivered to your home or office, we ran an extensive advertising campaign for our 3rd annual Thanksgiving Wine Sale. This insert was incoprorated into 8000 copies of the Laker and was mailed to the local communities of Mound, Spring Park, Orono, etc. Realistically, we knew we probably were not going to get any new customers out of the advertisement. The intention of the ad was to keep the customers we have and to bring back some of our clientele who have gone elsewhere. What response did we receive from our investment? Difficult to say. We do not know what would have been the sales in November without advertising. What I can tell you is that' we had our best Thanksgiving Eve ever in the Mound Liquor Store's history. We did $7,500 this year, $7,O00 last year and $6,500 the year before. Some other items of interest to note for November were Ed Shukle and I had another meeting with the property owner concerning our new lease for the upcoming years. This time we had our City Attorney in our camp to help negotiate on our behalf. There is a lot of language in the owners proposed lease that is not acceptable to either Ed, Curt or myself. We seem to be closer to hammering out a lease that will also have the City's best interest in mind as well as that of the landlords. This new lease will hopefully be signed sometime in December and will in all likelihood take effect the first of the year. On Ed's request, John Norman and I are undertaking a project that will generalize fairly accurately what the future of the liquor store looks like down the road. It will be a 3 year projection (based on a 3 year lease) as to what our sales and profits will look like in that time frame. You should get this study either in January or February of 1987. Ar~ e,:~;al ', ~', rtb:~;'., ~:r-4. oy,cr mat does not Olscriminatt, oil the ba.s;s of race, color, nationa or,gin, or handicapped status m th(, admis'.,~or~ or access to. or treatment or employment in. its programs ar'd activities SA.-'~S TEIS MONTH "L~ST M.ONTH,.' ', THIS YEAR Co'mpaz'~son o£,_Hont'n~Y S81es , Month Mor~th & Year . ~'.. LAST / jr LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Telephone 472-3711 Mound, MN 55364 Dispatch 544-9511 EMERGENCY 911 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Ed Shukle, City Manager Chief Len Harrell, Chief of Police Monthly Report for November, 1986 STATISTICS The police department received 603 calls for service in the month of November. Of those calls, 22 were Part I Offenses and 65 were Part II Offenses. The Part I Offenses included 4 burglaries, 12 larcenies, 3 vehicle thefts, 1 arson, and 3 criminal sexual conduct. The~Part II offenses included 5 child abuse/neglect cases, 2 forgery/NSF check cases, 15 criminal damage to property cases, 2 DWI's, 5 domestic assaults, 11 harassing phone calls, 6 runaway/incorrigibility cases, 17 disturbing the peace cases, and 9 all other offenses. There were 21 accidents, 4 with personal injuries and 17 property damage. There were 10 medicals and 73 animal complaints. The patrol division issued 223 citations which included 42 parking citations, 18 juveniles received citations. There were 333 warnings issued. Adult arrests for the month of November included 2 for domestic assault, 2 for DWI, 1 for child neglect, 3 for forgery/NSF checks, 1 for damage to property, and 1 for all other offenses, and 1 for public peace. Juvenile arrests for the month Of November included 3 for runaway, 3 for disturbing the peace and 1 for all other offenses. II. INVESTIGATIONS Cases investigated for the month of November consumed approximately 53 hours, which included 8 hours of juvenile related matters, incorrigibility, truancy, etc.; 32 hours comp time; 32 hours holiday time. III. MANPOWER Four officers used 9 days of vacation, 3 officers used 18 days of holidays. There were 23 hours of overtime and 7½ was assigned. 35¼ hours of comp was earned and 1 day of sick time was used by one officer. IV. TRAINING TIME 7 hours of training was conducted in November. V. RESERVES The Police Reserves donated 289 hours to the department in the month of November. Most of the time spent was in the community functions and assistiing the patrol division. NOVEMBER i 9 86 · City MOUND Month CITATIONS ~DULT DWI or OUl 2 More than .10~; BAC 2 Careless/Reckless Orlvin9 Driving After Susp. or Rev. Open Bottle Speeding No OL or Expired DL Restriction on OL Improper, Expired, or No Plates 1 2 · Illegal Passing 92 Stop Sign Violations Failure to Yield Equipment Violations HSR Leaving the Scene 36 No Insurance 3 Illegal'or Unsafe Turn Over the Centerllne .. pa~k'ing'¥iOlaE'ions 42 Crosswalk 3 Dog Ordinances Derelict Autos MisCellaneous Tags TOTALS' WARNINGS No Insurance Traffic - 31 Equ i pment C ros swa 1 k 44 112 JUV 1 5 4 3 15 Felony 57 ~j sdemeanor ARRESTS 1 Animals i0 Trash/Derelict Autos 10 Other 103 TOTAL j 311 22 PROPERTY LOSS/RECOVERY SUP. qARY ITEH Bikes Snowmobiles Boats, Motors, Trailers · Clothing CurrencY, Notes, Etc. Jewelry $ Precious Hetals Guns Home Furnishl.ngs Radio & Electronic Equipment Vehicles & Vehicle EquiPment. Hiscellaneous .TOTAL STOLEN $ 200 908 1,099 8,995 36,508 $47,710 RECOVERED $ 200 7,400 $ 7,600 OFFENSE ACTIVITY SUmmArY PART I CRIMES o Homicide Criminal Sexual Conduct 3 3 ' Robbery Assault Burglary 4 4 Y_~rceny 12 1 11 VehicleTheft 3 3 1 Arson 1 1 TOTAL 23 1 22 1 PART II Child Abuse/Neglect .. ~ ~ 2 1 1, For~ery%NSFChecks' 2 2 ~ 3 3 Criminal D-m~e to Property 15 15 2' 1 1 WeapOns - ,, Narcotic Laws Liquor Laws DWI 2 2 " 2' 2 Simple Assault. Domestic Assault " 5 5 3 2: 2 Domestics (No Assault) 3 3 3 Harassing Phone Calls '11 11 2 Runaway/Incorrigibility 6 1 5 3 2 3 Public Peace - 7 7 3, 4 1 3 Ail Other Offenses 9 9 3 1 1 TOTAL 69 4 ~ 18 18 '11 ? PART III & IV REPORTS PFbperty Dsms~e Accidents 17 17 · .personal In,jury Accidents Fatal Accidents O 0 Medicals 10 10 Animal Complaints 73 73 Mutual Aid 16 16 Other General InvestiEations 391 391 TOTAL 511 511 e?. ~ 19 18 ii 7 T~AL ACTIVITIES 603 5 598 POLICE/C~U~E ACTIVITY REPORT NOVEMBER YEAR 1986 ACTIVITY SUMMARY T~IS THIS YEAR LAST YEAR MONT~ TO DATE TO DATE Hazardous Citations 111 1,452 1:163' Non-Hazardous Citations 52 603 868 Hazardous Warnings 37 .. 465 436 Non-Hazardous Warnings 233 1,199 1,123 Verbal Warnings ' 63 92 - Parking Citations &6 634 872 DWI 2 119 93 OVER .10 2 89 63 Property Damage Accidents 17 81 10~ Personal Injury Accidents 4 28 44 F~al Accidents 0 0 0 Ai~lt Felony Arrests 5. 50 · 33 -' Adul~MiSd~mean~ Arrests 18 415 435 Adult Misdemeanor Citations 6 '97 _ Juvenile Felony Arrests O' 49 55 Juvenile MisdemeanorArrests 7 . 162 98 Juvenile Misdemeanor Citations 3 56 - Part I Offenses 22 342 3~2 Part II Offenses 65 827 605 Medicals 10. 155 247 Animal Complaints 73 1,107 1,210 Other General Investigations 391 4,715 6,198 TOTAL 1,167 12,737 13,980 ~ists 30 693 Follow-Ups 32 468 , DAY SHIFT~i ~ MIDDLE SHIF~ ~ DOG SHIFT ~ · [ HaZardoUs " Non-~rdous ~zardous 'Non_~ardous Verbal D~ 0 Q 2 0 0 0 0 0 ldult ~e~on~ ~ O. 0 0 0 0 0 O '0 0 0 Ad~y Adult Juvenile Felony 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 Juvenile ms~emeanor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Juvenile c~a~on 0 ~ I 0 0 0 0 I 3 All Other Follow-Ups LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Telephone 472-3711 Mound, MN 55364 Dispatch 544-9511 EMERGENCY 911 ~'1986 13% 2 22 B;~ Hawks D. Niccum C. Stahlbusch 8 2~ 38% 11 9 2 2 2 18 60 17 D. St. Cyr D. Thomp~n To is 14~ 28% 5 5 5% 20 6% 47% 13 40 140 4 5 '¥4½ 4 · 47 25 2 2 2 14 50 62 60 289 ~3D - ~ergency Call Out Ballet (bunting Telephone Answering when pPmnes were out~ RS - Reserve.Squad RA - Ride Along w/ Regular Officer TR '= Training Received IN - Instruction Of C~m~r~ity Citizens CPR Class Given CS - C~,,~unity Service Details Bantam Hockey Tourny AD - Administrative'Hours M~~ ~nthly Meeting. Prepared by, Debbie Thompson, .Sgt. LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Telephone 472-3711 Mound, MN 55364 Dispatch 544-9511 EMERGENCY 91'1 MOUND PCLICE ~ESEEV~S ' SEVEEBNCE PAY ~ 1986 Officer, ~ob Brown match ~awks Dan Niccum, C. S~h Dave St. C~r Debbie ThCa~son ~th vo~ ~Dunt De~osite~ 5.00 Balance 50~00 164.00 50.00 5.00 75.00 173.00 207.50 Totals 5;00 7~-4.50 Debbie Thompson, Sgt. TO: City Manager and Members of the City Council FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Officlal.~q~ DATE: December 2, 1986 7 SUBJECT: November Monthly Report During the month of November, we started into the Holiday season with three Holi- days for the City Office. The following inspections were conducted by myself during the month of November: (Site inspections include the review of the Planning Commission requests and requirements, complaints and follow-ups to code compliance such as, no building permit, recheck for compliance notice, review status of various sites for the City Prosecutor, pre-construction meetings with building permit applicants or realtors, fire damage and periodic commercial inspection updates.) Site Inspections Footing InspeCtions Framing Inspections Insulation Inspections Drywall Inspections Final Inspections Progress Inspections Erosion/Grading Heating Inspections Plumbing Inspections Fire Sprinklers Complaints Total 17 26 12 lO lO 33 12 1 3 6 0 7 137 Plan review was completed on 8 building permit applications. New projects such as the V.F.W. Club, the Mound State Bank, and various new dwellings were started during November. There were revisions made to the Balboa facility drawings with several meetings to review changes in the plan review original proposal for the Toro Section. The City Planner and myself met with Phil Hasch to review his re- quest in the General Business District (Northern Road) and City Engineer dis- cussed the revisions necessary for the subdivision plat at Inverness Heights as well as plan review items for the commercial development. The usual staff meeting was held during November. I attended a State Building Code Seminar in Brooklyn Center this month to review and update the revisions and receive a new model ordinance for the soon to be published revisions for the State of Minnesota Building Code. I attended two Planning Commission evening meetings and a Council meeting. A luncheon meeting was held by the Lake Country Chapter of I.C.B.O. which discussed a new building product which is a honeycomb wall section that has been approved and engineered to possibly replace some of the standard stud construction in new buildings. The Planning Commission had a heavy case load in November which resulted in 15 cases being referred to the City Council for the month of December and late November. The Lost Lake Report from Maxfield November Monthly Report December 2, 1986 - Page 2 Research Group was reviewed by the Planning Commission and Staff. The City vehicle had its share of problems this month. After having a flat tire on a day with a 30 to 50 below windchill, the tires, after being repai'red, kept losing air over the next few days off and on and was returned to the garage at the Skell.y'lsland Park to determine the cause. A new procedure was enacted with the'evaluation of employees in November. Vari- ous items such as apples and brownies were found to favor the person being re- viewed. The Fire Department reported extensive damage to a vacant home at 5444 Tonkawood Road in which case the building was ordered to be'secured. The home has received substantial damage and had been vacant for several months. You can tell by the number of inspections that November has been an active month. The short storm that we had in November has not stopped the construction of new buildings. Two subdivisions, eleven variances and one comprehensive sign request were handled and referred, from the Planning Commission. The total number of Building Permits for November was 27 with. a valuation of $1,497,424. A copy of the Building activi- ty Report is attached. In addition,.our Department prepared the monthly calendar for the.December City meetings and events; handled the purchase of three graves, arranged with the Public Works to have two grave sites staked out for burials and completed the records and mailed the deed for one of the graves. This past week, at the request'of the City Clerk, Marge reviewed the recodified Cemetery ordinance and made notations on vari- ous sections that do not cohere with existing practices. JB/ms CITY OF MOUND 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN. 55364 Cl~ Street Address City and State NEW RESIDENTIAL ' CONSTRUCTION { FImlly~ Total Family Units NEW RESIDENTIAL IGroup & Transient) Totel Non-Fem}l¥ NEW NON-RESIOENTIAL (CommerclaVInd,) Total Non-Residential RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS lAND ALTERATIONS Total Residential NON-RESIDENTIAL ADDI- TIONS & ALTERATIONS Total Non-Residential TOTAL MO~TH AND YEAR TO DATE CONVERSIONS DEMOLiTiONS PERMITS, INSPECTION,~ COLLECTIONS Fence/Ret.Wal TOTAL BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT Month of Nmv~m~)~. r' FY lga 6-~ 323,674. ,090,000 15,000. IO,UO0.' 21,150. 46,950. 10,OOO. .26,8OO. 36,800. 2,786,431 1,497,424. 3,580,0~0. 62 608,928. 3 231,467. IO,5OO. 92 I 279,206. .182 1,130,101. 8 2,172,O00. 18 260,800. 1 ! 1 , 0OO. 27i 2,433,800. ...~-'"'~ 9,930,332.. 338 MAJOR PERMIT ACTIVITY OVER (612) 472-1155 Telephone Ne, Jan Be~'trand, Building Official (CII~ ofllclat'l slgnatur~ lint) /- THIS. .: LAST. THIS YEAR LAST YEAR ~'.ONTH OF AJ'oij~/ttl~/~, J~/- MONTH HONTH · TO DATE TO OAT[ HINNETRI STA - 'FIRE E~ERGENCY / SHORE~OOD - ' FiRE / ~ ~ ~ [ EHERGENCY ~ ~ D ~ 0 SPRING PARK - FIRE EHERGENCY / v TOTAL-EHERGENC~ CALLS INDUSTRIAL AuTo [~E~.CY " 2J ~ '/~ XX/~ ~ /~SY E~ERGE'NCY ~m EHERGENCY EHERGENCY ~/ ' p /y~ ' /A / - SHO~UOOD -F~ ~ / ' EMERGENCY TOTAL FiRE HOURS ~OTAL E~,ERGENCY HOORS //~ TOTAL FIRE ~ EMERGENCY HOURS' Hound, Hinnesota DRILLS & MAIlfi~NAI~CE [. FIP, E & RESCUE ~IR~Eif DATE OA~ DRI~ DRI~ ~IN. T~ HO~LY WAGES WAGES HO~S ~ WAG~ n. qO C. Henderson ~ ~ / F ~ 0 ~ 6.00 /~ G. Johnson ' ~ ~ / f~ 0 ~ 6.00 'M., Kleeberger ~ ~ ~ /~ ~[ '0 30 6.00 /~ B. Landsman ~ ~ ~ /~ ~ ~ A / 6.00 /~ R. Marschke ~ / ~ ./~ ~ ~ ' ~' ~.25 /&~ D. ~[~tzer ~ ~ ~ /~ -- ~ /~. 6.00 T. Rasmussen ~ ~ ~ /f -- ~ ~/ 6.00 DATE MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT ~i~ J. Anderson ~,~ G. Anderson ' O J. Babb J. Beauchamp O D. Boyd O D. Bryce ~ S. Bryce ~ D. Carlson ~ S. Collins ~ M. David ~ S. Erickson ~ J. Garvais '~ L. Heitz O C. Henderson O G. Johnson ~ B. Landsman O R. Marschke MEN ON DUTY TOTAL MONTHLY HOURS J. Nafus M. Nelson A. Op~tz B. Palm G. Palm M. Palm G. Pederson D. Platzer T. Rasmussen M. Savage T. Stallman W. Swenson T. Swenson M. Tobey R. Williams T. Williams Discipl;ne and Team ~ork Critique of. Fires & "I nsp~ctions pr¢-Plannlng . T'ools & Apparatu. s Identifying Hand Ext'ingulsher OperatTon WearTng Films DRILL Time Protective Clothing ...... .--- First Aid and ResEue'Operati~n Use of Self-Contained Masks RE PO RT pumper Operation Fi re Streams & Frictlon Loss House BurnTngs Natural & Propane gas & Oe~.~ns tra t Tons Ladder Evolutions Salvage Operations Talk Radlo 'Operatlons House Evolutions Nozzle & Hc~se Alliance .- Inhalator Operat-ion' . .... NOTE: Hou'Fs Tralnlng Pald ~ Excused Unexcus~d ~ Present, Not.Paid ~)l/,,~..J. Andersen .'~/2~ M. David ~//~, j. Nafus ~./_~_ G. Anderson _-),_//_)__B. Erickson ~/~M. ·Nelson -,I/~j Babb ~S. Erickson ~_ . , ~ A. Opitz ~/~J. Beauchamp ~ ~ J. Garvais ~//~ B. Palm ~/~ D. Boyd ~L. Heitz ~G. Palm ~/~D. Bryce ~//~ C. HendersOn ~M. Palm ~I~S. Bryce ~ G. Johnson .~ G. Pederson .~;./~. D. Carl'son ~/~M. Kleeberger ~'/~D. Platzer _ __~ ,-- ~I/~B. Landsman ~2~ T. Rasmussen ~//~S. Collins ~R. Marschke ~I/~M. Savage ~//,L..'T. Stal lman ~//~- T. Swenson ~//~,_ W. Swenson (~ M. Tobey j[~_ R. Williams ~//2._T, Williams Dri 1 ln~aster DTsclpl[ne and Team ~4ork Crltlque of Fires pre-plannlng &.'Inspections ~ools & Apparatus Identi.fying Hand Extingui~:her OperatTon Wearing Protective Clothing DRILL REPORT Time Pumper Oper~tlon Fire Streams & Fr;c~ion Loss House Burn~ n9s Natural & Propane gas Talk & De~onstratTons Ladder Evol ut:.i ors Salvage Operations Radio Operations Films First Aid and Res'cue Operation House Evolutions Use of Self-Contain'Jcl Masks Nozzle & Hose Alliance Inhalator OPeration· ' . ...... NOTE: Hou'r's Training Paid Excused X Unexcused 0__ Present, Not Paid ,~l/~?~.~j. Andersen .~l/~_.j. Nafus ~t~/~G. Anderson ~__ M. Nelson ~/~_J. Babb ~l/~l._A. Opitz _% . Beauch.~mp ~B. Palm _ . Boyd G. Palm ~i/O..D. Bryce ~/~_M. Palm ~S. Bryce ~2~.I/~._G. Pederson ~'/~-D. Carl'son _~.I/.~.D. Platzer . - P.-C;,arl~ ,~ ~I/~_T. Rasmussen Col 1 ins ~I/~__M. Savage ~/i~- B. Erickson ~S. Erickson __~J. Garvais (~ L. Heitz /N~ C. Henderson ~t/~._G. Johnson .~I/.9_M. K1 jeberger "~.I/.~B. Landsman ~//j._R. Marschke Dri 1 lmas tar · ~_ T. Stallman ~/~l._ T. Swanson ~ I/~l._W. Swanson ~ '~t..M. Tobey. "~//~_R. Williams ~/~..T. Wi 11 i ams league of minnesota oities November 26, 1986 TOI From: City clerks, managers, and administrators Peter Tritz New developments in LMCIT,s property/casualty program The LMCIT Board of Trustees has approved a number of changes in LMCIT's property/casualty program. Most of these changes ta~e effect for coverage written or renewed after Nov. 15. Enclosed are several memos which describe respectively LMCIT's property/casualty rate changes; new deductible options available to cities; the switch to a claims-made liability form; and the revised liability coverage form. We suggest that these materials be placed on the council's agenda as an information item, to help keep them abreast of these developments in their program of pooled self-insurance. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to call me at the League office. Or contact LMCIT's program administrator, North Star Risk Services,1401W. 76th St., Minneapolis, Mn. 55423; phone (612) 861-8600. avenue eas'c, st;. paul, m~nnesot;a 551 01 (t~ 1 2) 227-5600 league of minnesota oities LMCIT CHANGES IN COVERAGE LMCIT has made a number of changes in the liability coverage documents. The language has been simplified considerably, and most of the coverage provisions which were formerly handled by endorsements are now incorporated into the body of the document. There are also a number of substantive changes in the coverage. These changes eliminate many of the ambiguities and internal inconsistencies of the old coverage forms, broaden the coverage in a number of areas, and conform the coverage much more closely to the city's statutory duties to defend and indemnify its employees. The format of the liability coverage document is as follows: COVERAGES A. General Liability B. Medical Payments C. Personal Injury D. Errors and Omissions E. Automotive Liability II. WHO IS COVERED III. LIMITS OF COVERAGE IV. DEFINITIONS V. SUPPLEMENTARYPAYMENTS VI. CONDITIONS This memo summarizes the major substantive changes in the coverage. (The change to a "claims-made" format is described in a separate accompanying memo.) Keep in mind that this memo is just a summary. It will be important for cities and agents to read and understand the actual coverage document. 1. Police Exposures The general liability coverage part has been broadened to provide the city and its employees coverage for the use of reasonable force to protect persons or property. Further, the personal injury coverage part has been broadened to cover the city and its employees for assault or battery committed for the purpose of protecting persons or property, or incidental to an arrest. east], st;. ~aul, ;:$~n;-eso'ca 551 01 (~1 c)) ~_~7-560CD 2. Civil rights coverage The errors and omissions coverage is revised to make it explicit that Sec. 1983 and similar civil rights claims are covered. (Note that LMCIT has consistently taken the position that most of these claims were already covered under the old forms; thus, this is more a clarification than an expansion of coverage.) 3. Defense coverage The statutes and court cases make it clear that a city's duty to pay for defense of its officers and employees is much broader.than its duty or its authorization to indemnify them. The general liability, personal injury, and errors and omissions sections are revised to reflect this broad duty to defend employees. A provision in the "conditions# section brings the coverage of damages (as distinguished fro~ defense) into conformance with the city's statutory duty and power to indemnify its employees. 4. Punitive damases' LMCIT has consistently taken the position that punitxve damages will not be indemnified. This is now,made explicit. Note though that LMCIT would still cover the defense of suits for punitive damages, provided that the actions leading to the suit arose in the course of the employee's duties. 5. Errors and omissions 'exclusions Formerly LMCIT's errors and omissions coverage, like nearly every other errors and omissions form, excluded coverage for property damage, bodily injury, and personal injury. This created a potential coverage gap for those claims which didn't arise out of an "occurrence" (i.e., an accident), but which resulted in property damage or bodily injury. (One example might be a claim for property damage arising out of a decision to abate an alleged nuisance, which a court later determined to be improper.) The errors and omissions coverage has been broadened considerably to eliminate this possible gap. 6. Professional services exclusion - ambulance and engineer exposures The "professional services" exclusion to'the liability coverage part'has'be~n modified so that only the professional services provided by an attorney, architect, medical-.doctor, dentist, nurse, or pharmacist are: excluded. Thus, other professional serivces, such as those of an ambulance attendant, paramedic, "First Responder," etc. are not excluded. Similarly, the professional exposure of a professional engineer who is an employee of. the. city is no longer excluded. (Consulting engineers would continue to be excluded as independent contractors.) These changes eliminate the need for a separate "ambulance malpractice" or "engineer's malpractice" policy to protect city employees and volunteers. This revised "professional services" exclusion can also be endorsed on to the city's existing coverage, to' provide the expanded coverage for the remainder of the existing policy's term. 7. Aggregate limits Ail annual eliminated with two exceptions: payments. aggregate limits ha~e been products liability and medical 8. Fellow employee exclusion The "fellow employee" exclusion has been removed from the general liability and automobile coverages. Coverage is now provided for claims made against one employee of the city by another employee. 9. Medical payment~ The "medical payments" coverage has been modified to apply only to bodily injury arising out of a condition on premises which the city owns or rents. This does not include streets, sidewalks or boulevards, except for those abutting city-owned buildings or city-owned parking lots. 10. Employment-related claims Con~ractual obligations (not to be confused with contractuallY-assumed tort liability) are generally not covered under the liability coverages. However, the errors and omissions coverage has been modified to provide coverage for employment-related obligations, except for wages and benefits owing. 11. Firefi~hters liability The automobile liability coverage now sPecifically provides coverage to firefighters for the use of any automobile (including the firefighter's own automobile) in the performance of his official duties. Cities are required by statute to provide this indemnification. 12. Relief associations Local fire or police relief associations and their officers, employees, and members are now listed as covered parties under the liability coverages. 13. Joint powers entities The coverage contract now specifically excludes coverage of any joint powers entity, and of any city liability arising out of the activities of a joint powers entity, unless specifically named in the declarations. This does not mean that LMCIT will not cover joint powers entities. Where coverage is needed for the activities of a joint powers entity, LMCIT will issue a separate coverage document to the joint powers entity. That coverage will also name each of the entity's constituent cities as additional covered parties. This approach has the advantage of putting all of the coverage relating to the joint entity's activities under a single coverage document, rather than involving the liability coverage of each of the constituent cities. Note also that the exclusion applies only to those joint powers agreements which actually create a separate joint entity. Joint powers contracts under which ~he city is merely providing services to or receiving services from another political subdivision don't create any special problems under the city's LMCIT coverage. league of minnesota oities LMCIT "CLAIMS-MADE" LIABILITY FORMS LMCIT will use a "claims-made" coverage form for general liability and public officials errors and omissions coverage written after Nov. 15. (Automotive liability coverage will continue to be written on an "occurrence" basis.) This memo is intended to help explain to city officials what this change means, the problems "claims-made"'ooverage can create for the buyer, and how LMCIT has dealt with those problems. The primary re~son for changing to "claims-made" coverage was that it would have been difficult or impossible for LMCIT to get reinsurance if an "occurrence" form were used. "Claims-made" coverage also simplifies underwriting and rating to some extent, .since the underwriter does not have to try to predict and allow for possible future changes in the law governing liability for occurrences during the current year. What is "claims-made" coverage? The basic difference between "claims,made" and "occurrence" coverage is in which claims are payable under a particular policy. With "occurrence" coverage, the key question is when the incident happened. If the incident occurred during the policy period, it is covered regardless of when the claim is made. (This assumes, of course, that the incident is one which falls within the kinds of claims that the policy covers.) With "claims-made" coverage, whether a claim is covered by a particular policy depends not only on when the incident occurred but also on when the claim was first made. This can perhaps best be illustrated 'by an example. Consider a "claims-made" policy which runs for the calendar Year. The 1987 policy will cover claims arising out of incidents which happened during 1987, provided the claim was also made during 1987. When that policy is renewed for 1988, the 1988 policy will cover claims made during 1988 which arise out of incidents that happened during either 1987 or-1988. The 1989 renewal, then, will cover claims made during 1989 for incidents which happened during 1987, 1988, or 1989. Thus, each successive renewal of a "claims-made" policy covers a greater number of claims. This is the reason why "claims-made" coverage is cheaper during the first year, and why each successive renewal of a "claims-made" policy becomes more expensive. (The cost does level off after about five years.) i ~],?, ,_ :~-~,,.~,e,~s~r,y a,Jenue east, st. paul, m,nrnesoCa 551 01 Potential problems with ,claimS-made coverage The problem with "claims-made" coverage really'arises when you want to change carriers. The new carrier typically won't want to accept risk for claims arising out of incidents which happened before the inception date of his policy. This can create a gap in coverage, for claims made after the date of the change in carriers for incidents which happened before the change. Unless special steps are taken, neither carrier will cover those claims. There are two ways to solve this problem; either will involve paying some additional premium to someone. One is to get th~ new carrier to. agree to cover claims from those earlier incidents..However, most carriers are very reluctant to dO this, although it is certainly worth inquiring about if you find yourself in this situation. The second way is to get the old carrier to agree to cover those claims, even though the claim happens after his policy has expired. (This agreement is called an "extended.reporting period.") Of course, the old carrier has no particular incentive to agree to give you that extension, Or to charge a reasonable price if he does agree to do it. This is why is is extremely important in purchasing a "claims-made" policy to make sure that the policy gives you the right buy an extended reporting period. Unfortunately, many "claims-made" policies give the buyer that right only if the carrier cancels or refuses to renew the coverage. Thus, if the buyer decides not to renew the coverage, the old carrier is under no obligation to offer an extended reporting period. If an extended reporting period is offered, it may be only for a limited time - sometimes as little as a year or two. An extended reporting period of limited duration certainly is better than nothing, but if there is any time limit at all, the potential gap still exists. A third problem is.that even if the policy gives you the right to buy an unlim~te~ extended, reporting period, the cost to buy that extension probably won't be specified. You'll have to pay Whatever the old carrier feels like charging. .(The standard "claims-made" forms recommended by ISO, for example, state only that the cost of the extended reporting period can't exceed 200% of the last year's premium.) How LMCIT addresses those proble~ LMCIT's revised coverage document includes an automatic 60 day extended reporting period. It also gives the city the right to purchase an extended reporting period of unlimited duration. The City has this right regardless of whether it is the city's or LMCIT's decision not to continue the coverage. The cost of purchasing the extended reporting period is specified in the coverage document itself. The cost depends on how long the city has been covered under the "claims-made" coverage. It ranges from 34.6% of premium if coverage has been for one year, up to 70.8% of premium if coverage has been for five years or more. By comparison, standard ISO "claims-made" forms allow a range of up'to 200%. Other forms often say nothing at all about the cost of extending coverage. Because the LMCIT coverage document offers an unlimited extended reporting period for a known cost, the city really has available the equivalent of "occurrence" coverage. The city may wish to set aside each year the funds necessary to purchase the extended reporting period; i.e., roughly 35% of premium the first year, 18%.the second year, 8% the third year, and so on. After five years, the cost of the extended reporting period stops increasing, so that no further funds would need to be set'aside. (The exact percentages needed would vary somewhat depending on changes in the city's rating base from year to year.) league of minnesota oities LMCIT PROPERTY/CASUALTY RATES 1. Overall For coverage written or'renewed after Nov. 15, LMCIT's property/casualty rates will be reduced somewhat. The largest reductions will be on the property, automotive physical damage, and inland marine coverages. These reductions reflect LMCIT's consistently good loss expe~ience in these areas. Rates for general liability coverage will also decrease slightly. This reduction is largely a function of the switch to a "claims-made"'coverage form, as discussed in an accompanying memo. However, it also reflects projected savings attributable to LMCIT's in-house defense capability, and to the 1986 amendments to the municipal tort liability statutes. The revised rates also reflect the broader coverage provided by the revised coverage forms. Of course, an individual city's premium will be affected by any changes in the city's exposures - e.g., increased city expenditures, higher property values~, etc. - as well as by the rate changes. Cities should also keep in mind that the 10% reserve assessment has been eliminated for all renewals after the June 1, 1986. 2. Small cities rate credit As part of the overall review of 'rates, LMCIT looked at how premiums and losses have compared for various population classes of cities. This study showed that the experience has been somewhat better for smaller c'ities than for. larger ones. Because of this loss experience, cities of under 500 population will receive a rate credit of 20%. Cities between 500 and 2500 population will receive a 10% rate credit. These rate credits will apply to coverage written or renewed after Nov. 15, 1986, and will be applied in additi'on to the overall rates changes described above. ' ~C--_) ,_J~-~rvens~ty avenue east, st. ~oaul, m~nnesosa 551 01 (61 2] 227-5600 league of minnesota oities NEW DEDUCTIBLE OPTIONS One way in which a city can reduce its cost of coverage is by retaining some of the risk itself. LMCIT has developed a new "annual aggregate deductible" approach which offers the potential for substantial savings to medium and larger-sized. cities while at the same time keep£ng the city's total exposure manageable. This option is available to all cities. Under this approach, all lines of coverage are subject to a single annual deductible. This deductible might be as small as $§000 or $10,000 for smaller cities, or as much as $100,000 or more for larger cities. The city would retain responsibility for all claims - property, liability, and automotive - until the total amount of claims for that year equals the annual deductible. At that point, the coverage reverts either to first-dollar coverage, or to a small "maintenance" deductible. This "capping" of the city's annual exPosure is a key feature. The biggest problem with the more conventional approach of retaining risk through substantial !'per-line" deductibles is that the city doesn't know how many of those deductibles it will have 'to pay during the year. Under the "annual aggregate deductible" approach, the city knows its maximum cost in advance and can budget and plan for that amount. Thus the city gets the benefits and savings which result from retaining risk, without -being exposed to a potentially unlimited amount of liability. This approach.can reduce the city's premium substantially. In many cases, the premi'um reducti.on is close to the amount of the deductible itself. Of course, that premium reductionis not all savings, since the city will have to use some of that money to pay for the claims under the annual deductible. This approach offers a couple of advantages to the city. First, it keeps more dollars in the city's pocket, giving the city an opportunity for some investment earnings. Second, every claim avoided is money in the city's pocket. LMCIT's underwriters will be glad to calculate an optional "annual aggregate deductible" quote for any city that is interested. Simply tell the underwriters when you submit the city's renewal information. ~ -~E~ ,.J~n'.,..~er~,zy aven~_~e ease, sc. Ioaul, m,nnesol~a 551 01 (tE;1 2) 227-5800 MINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARKCOMMISSION MEETING OF November 13, 1986 Present were: Chair Nancy Clough; Commissioners Shirley Andersen, Marilyn Byrnes, Andy Gearhart, Delores Maas, Linda Panetta and Lowell Swenson; Council Representa- tive Phyllis Jessen; Park Director Jim Fackler and Secretary Marjorie Stutsman. Commissioners Cathy Bailey and Cheryl Burns were absent. Also present was Jim Roseen, owner of property at 1555 Bluebird Lane. MINUTES The minutes of the Park CommisSion meeting, of October 9, 1986 were presented for consideration. Swenson moved and Byrnes'seconded a motion to accept the minutes as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. MAINTENANCE PERMIT REQUEST Jim Roseen was present with his request'to-t[im the brush and trees on' Wawonaissa Commons in front of his property at 1555.Bluebird Lane. 'He stated it would look better for everyone to have the bush and trees trimmed by a professional tree trimmer which he is willing to.pay for and thePark~Direct°r would supervise]work. The Park Director, Ji'm Fackler, stated what is helng proposed is not very exten- sive; dead branches, underbrush, etc. with the total' cost about $225. Some of the immature trees need trimming to help.them grow. He commented that it was a ve[y reasonable request; mostly just the lower branches. The Commission discussed the request briefly. Maas moved and Panetta seconded a motion to approve the request for a mainte- nance permit. The vote was unanimously in favor. MAXFIELD RESEARCH GROUP REPORT ON THE LOST LAKE PROPERTY The Park Commission discussed the report and 'Commissioners had various comments and questions. The following items were included: l) proposed use of land and whether a "Country Innn" would get business all year around and 2) if part of any revenue from sale.of land would go to park development. They thought Commis- sion should have a volce/inpu~ as to aesthetic kind of things. They'd like to keep the wetlands/marsh and see a nature trail with board walk/bridges, etc. developed. They mentioned access by the City Office would be a good place to start path and some money should go.into a fund for a nature center; possibly in this same area. It.was suggested that Jim look into nature centers, find out costs and how other communities with centers financed theirs. The Commission would llke to visit several for ideas. REPORTS Council Representative Phyllis Jessen stated she had reported most everything at the last meeting. She did report that Josie Laurence, coordi.nator for the dona- tions made through the Gift Guide Program, has moved out of the area and we need another coordinator to take her place. Park Director Jim F~ckler reported Skldsteer would be here Monday. Dell was in to get ready to send out information on new docks. Jim reported on proposed rip- rapping schedules and costs; these will change a little as time goes on; he will be updating the Commission on what is being done, etc. The intent is to do as much as possible during the winter months as costs are less. Commissioner Maas questioned what is being planned in the parks and mentioned that she thought a shelter for Highland Park was on the priority list., It was mentioned that we need to go through the master plan and update costs. Park Commission Minutes November 13, 1~86 - Page 2 Jim stated that right now repairs take most of the budget. Wychwood Beach was done with CDBG funds. He will add the shelter to the 5. Year Plan and try to look at early in lgBY. The American Legion has agreed to .install at the Depot in Mound Bay Park a flag pole with a Minnesota State Flag and a United States Flag in the Spring. The Volley Ball Court is in and next summer we can put gress 'in. The Northwest Lions have donated $1,O00 for-recreational improvements. He also reported'that Harold Meeker came 'in to talk about Mound City Days and wants the Park Commission to.get involved in someway and suggested possibly decorating the Depot with banners, etc., judging the Miss Mound Pageant, etc. They want to come up with a logo for banner that could be used each year. Jim will look at costs. and types of material that-could be used. Various members gave ideas for the use of the. donation from the Legion. They included p)ayground equipment, park improvements, flowers to pub) lc areas.all over the City, and investing for 5 Year Plan for playground/park improvements. It was thought, the funds should be spent now so that organization, can see What they are used for. Council Representative mentioned she had talked with Cathy Bailey and they would )ike seating downtown, a kiosk/roof with benches around it' that also-could have a bulletin board. The Commission discussed a posslb)e location and one of the east corners of Lynwood and Commerce Boulevards was sug- gested. Jim will look at area and check the feasibility of sites, etc. The Chair asked that a letter to sent to app)icant for Park Commi'ssion and she reminded members to prepare questions to be sent to the City Attorney for his input and'clarification on Commons, docks., etc. ADJOURNMENT · Jessen .moved and Gearhart seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting.at 9:15 P.M. A]I were in favor, so meeting was adjourned. MINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING November 24, 1986 Present were: Chair Elizabeth Jensen; Commissioners Vern Andersen, William Meyer, Geoff-Michael, Thomas'Reese, Kenneth Smith and William Thal; Council' Representa- tive Steve Smith; City Manager Ed Shukle; City Planner Mark Koegler; Building Official Jan Bertrand and Secretary Mar]orie Stutsman. Absent and excused was Frank Weiland. Also present were the following interested persons: Phll and Eva Hasch, Angela Hingos, Ron and Odessa Grlffiths, Ed Freldlund, Jane Hetchler and Ron Burns. MINUTES The minutes of the Planning Com~ission'meeting of November 10, 1986 were presented for consideration. Michael stated~he voted i.n favor of the amendment to the motion on Item 1 (Vote should be 6 in favor and 3 opposed}. Ken Smith moved and Reese seconded a motion to approve the minUtes as corrected. The vote was unanimously in favor. BOARD OF APPEALS ' A. Discussion on "Potential Rezoning". The City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed hls report on potential rezonlng along-the eastern portion of Northern Road and the validity of B-2 Zoning status of the area particularly with its one access from the west, and from that standpoint, it would support the argument that area is not suitable for a business location. He further pointed out that basically in order to change zoning, one of two circumstances has to haVe occurred: 1) a mistake was made or 2) a change in circumstances that would warrant the rezoning. The Planning Commission discussed the possibilities of various rezoning sce- narios, such as rezoning part back to residential or a new residential.cate- gory. Someone suggested it was time group does some planning for this area. Possibly, at some future time,~ lots could be combined to meet requirements. "Variances and Nonconforming Uses". Mark Koegler reviewed his report and stated there are three types of nonconformancies: 1) Use that is not allowed in the district, 2) Nonconforming structures that don't meet setback pro- visions, and 3). Nonconforming lOts that do not meet lot area Fequirements. The lot area in-particular for lots on Northern Road is undersized and makes expansion difficult. He stated every variance case is individual and that the Courts allow reasonable use. He also commented that both of the structures for which Variances have been requested are inhabited. Case No. 85-560 Variance Application to improve an existing nonconforming structure at 4804 Northern Road; Wly ½ of Lot 26 and part of Lot 25, Subd. of Lots I & 32 Ravenswood Mr. & Mrs. Phil Hasch were present. During the discussion of Items A ~ B above, it was suggested that Mr. Hasch add Parcels shown on map as 75 and 76 to Parcel 87 and add another attached unit to his 4-plex and meet the code for his conditional use multi-family in the B-2 Zoning. He would then have 20,000+ square feet total which would give him 4,000 square feet per unit. Planning. commission.Hinutes November 24, 1986 - Page 2 Mr. Hasch stated not everyone ]ikes a big 'house and' stated his plan to rebuild house and add a 2 car garage was shot down. He acknowledged that it would be over the percentage'allowed and he would need a driveway easement to come in off of Parcel 76. He' mentioned several a]ternatives/options he might have. The Commission discussed at length the possibilities for this property, that a variance'would be needed for setbacks and the lot area is 3300 square feet and will always be nonconforming. Reese moved and Thal seconded a mot]on that variance as requested be denied and that we.would encourage and. be receptive to Hr. Hasch~s combining .. Parcel shown as 75 with Parcel 87 with the further intent that he pursue the design of a.Sth unit for his 4-plex contingent on his removal of the structure on Parcel 75. Council Representative Steve smith asked Mr. Hasch if this third option is his preference and acCeptable to hi.m. He was agreeable to proposal. Commission discussed recommending waiving the fee for'a second variance proposal. The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor. Th'e Planner stated he and Jan will meet with 'Mr. Hasch anytime he's available. Case No. 86-561 Variance Application to remodel and expand an existing non- conforming structure at 4798 Northern Road; Wly ½ of Lot 27, Subdivision of Lots 1 & 32 Ravenswood Angela Hingos was present. The Planner, Hark Koegler, reviewed his report. .Ms. Hingos stated s.he wants to 'remodel and change, not ex~and, the roof line for a A type dwelling to'give her more headroom. Basically it is the same plan former owner had denied in t985. Chair stated that would be extending the llfe of the house. Hs. Hingos stated the house is in good condition and she had no intention of changing the roof until problem came up with the mortgage requiring more headroom. Reese moved and Ken Smith seconded a motion that request be denied. The vote was Andersen and Steve.Smith against the denlal; all others in favor of denial. Motion carried. Andersen stated he feels she wants to improve her living conditions/not extend llfe of the home. This will be on the City Council Agenda of December 9, 1986. Ms. Hingos dis- cussed possibly withdrawing her request. Case No. 86-562 Fence Variance to allow the finished fabric side toward applicant's property at 4947 Crestview Road; Lots ]8 and W. ½ of 19, Block 25, Shadywood Point Mr. and MrS. Ronald Griffiths was present. The Building Official, Jan Bertrand, reviewed her report. Applicant stated the neighbors were not in disagreement with way the fence was constructed. He interpretated ordinance to mean boards, not construction of fence as a whole. The Commission questioned why fence facing street was correct, but not the sides. They suggested he change'every other board to make it look Planning Co~ss~on Minutes November 24, 1986 - Page the same on both sides. rlfflths wanted the finlshed look on the inside where he's landscaped. He stated he'd looked at alternating boards, but felt that would be unacceptable and would be $3000 down the drain. Steve Smlth moved and Ken Smlth seconded a motlon for apRroval of the staff recommendation. The vote was tied with Steve Smith, Ken Smith, Andersen and Michael in favor and Meyer, Reese; Thal and Jensen were opposed. Reese. stated he voted against as it's bad to set a precedent. This will be.on'the City Council Agenda of December 9, 1986. 4. Case No. 86-563 Sideyard and'Front Yard Variances for 4~)09 Island View Drive Lots 12 & 13, Block 14,.Devon .. Ed Freldlund and neighbors, Jane Hetchler and Eon Burns were present.. The Building' Official,-Jan Bertrand, reviewed her report and stated that the survey submitted states a 6 foot side yard, but on the construction site, it, did not appear tha't way - it is closer to 4½ to 3 ft from the side. property line~ The 8 foot'.hlgh retaining wall makes it difficult to see and she was concerned about their building that close. Wall has failed twice'in the past. Also needs a 2.3 front yard variance. The Planning Commission discussed whether making garage and ~reezeway small~r, it could be built without variances. This would limit storage. Thal moved and.Reese seconded a motion to approve staff recommendation with 2.3 'front yard variance and garage be no closer than 6½ feet at the northwest corner and 4 feet at the southwest corner of the property.. The vote was Jansen.against; ali others in favor~ Motion carried. Jansen believes..it can be 'built within the sideyard setbacks. Mrs. Hetchler stated she's in favor of the variance; she plans to be back with request for variance. This will be on the Ci.ty Council.Agenda for December 9, 1986. DISCUSSION The Commission discussed briefly setting meeting on where we want to be on rezonlng. Lost Lake - After considerable discussion, the following motion was made: Reese moved that Maxfield Research Group be requested to provide an addendum to the report commenting upon the fact of the Ortenblad Project ~f Spring Park on their recommendations; additionally, I would request that they consider the potential impact of Advance MaChine. The motion was seconded by Meyer. The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor. ADJOURNMENT Ken Smith moved and Reese seconded a motion to adjourn at 10:00 P.M. was unanimously in favor, so meeting was adjourned. The vote £1iza~etn Jensen,' 'Chair