The URL can be used to link to this page

1987-05-12 CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL BOARD OF REVIEW AND REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M., TUESDAY, May 12, 1987 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW Hennepin County Assessor Keith Rennerfeldt will be present. We will accept complaints on assessed value from residents. The Assessor will then review these properties and bring back recommenda- tions at the May 26, 1987 Reconvened Board of Review. The Council will take action on the total assess- ment at the May 26, 1987 Meeting. Pg. 1238-1245 REGULAR MEETING 1. Pledge of Allegiance Approve the Minutes of the April 28, 1987 Regular Meeting. PUBLIC HEARING; PUBLIC HEARING; Input on the 1988 Budget Consider Amending the Zoning Map to Change the Zoning of a Portion of the Property Along Northern Road from B-2, General Business to R-2. Single Family Residential 5. CASE #87-622: Roco Investments, 5950 Bartlett Blvd., PID 023-117-24 13 0032 ReQue..~t; Lot Width Variance & Subdivision CASE ~87-624; Stuart Chazin (Shoreline Plaza), 5229 Shoreline Blvd., Pg. 1246-1256 Pg. 1257 Pg. 1258-1267 Pg. 1268-1280 Reque_st: Sign Variance Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present· Pg. 1281-1289 Set Date for Public Hearing to Consider the Issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for the Operation of a Wine and Beer Restaurant (Class IV) Located at 2244A Commerce Blvd. (SUGGESTED DATE: June 9, 1987) Pg. 1290 Page 1236 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Set Date for Public Hearing to Allow Public Input .on the City of Mound having Assessing done by Hennepin County or Private Contractor pg. (SUGGESTED DATE: JUNE 9, 1987) 1291 Application for a Portable Sign Permit: Ind. School Dist. 277, Community Services - Art Exhibit Pg. 1292-1294 Approval of Final Payment Request - Lynwood Blvd. Project and Tuxedo Blvd. Safety Project - Preferred Paving - $3,800.63 Pg. 1295-1310 Preliminary Engineering Reports for Additional Projects to be done during the County Road 15 Project Watermain Replacement Pg. 1311-1312 Street Light Replacement (TO BE HANDED OUT AT MEETING) Curb, Gutter and Concrete Apron, Storm Sewer. and Sidewalks (SEE BOOKLET) Payment of Bills Executive Session - Pending Litigation Pg. 1313-1327 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: A. April 1987, Department Heads Monthly Reports Pg. 1328- 1350 Be Ce Invitation to an information/meeting luncheon for Mayors, Administrators and Councilmembers in the West Lake Minnetonka Area to discuss Watershed District issues and concerns. ~..__~~~~Mv~'2 ~,~2) MEETING DATE: Thursday, May 28, 1987 TIME: 11:30 A.M. to 2:00 P.M PLACE: Minnetonka County Club COST: $5.00 per person ~:^ Please let me know by Monday May 18, 1987, if you plan to attend. Pg. 1351 Ind. School Dist. #277 Minutes- April 13, 1987 Pg. 1352 Planning Commission Minutes of April 27, 1987 Pg. 1354- 1356 Page 1237 CITY OF HOUND ASSESSHENT NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, That the Board of Review of the City of Hound in Hennepin County, Hinnne$ota, will meet at the office of the City Clerk, in said City at 7:00 P.H., on Tuesday,.the 12thday of Hay 1987, for the purpose of reviewing and correcting the assessment of said City for the year 1987. All persons considering themselves aggrieved by said assessment or who wish to complain that the property of another is assessed too low, are hereby notified to appear at said meeting and show cause for having such assessment corrected. No complaint that another person is assessed too low will be acted upon until the person so assessed, or his agent, shall have been notified of such complaint. Dated this 28th day of April 1987. Francene C. Clark, CMC, Cil~y Clerk City of Mound, Minnesota Publish in The Laker April 28, 1987. CHAPTER VI BOARDS OF REVIEW AND EQUALIZATION LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW '. The town board of each town, the council or other lloverning body of each city, except in cities whose charters provide for a board of equalization,.shall be a board of review. The county assessor shall fix a day and time when each of such boards and the board of equalization of any city whose charter provides for a board of equalization shall .meet in the several assessment districts of the county, and shall on or before April first of each year give written notice thereof to the clerk. Such me~tings notwithstanding the provisions of any charter to the contrary shall be held between May 1st and June 30th in each year, and the clerk shall give published and posted notice of such meeting at least ten days prior to the date fixed. Such board shall meet at the office of the clerk to review the assessment of property in such town or district, and immediately proceed to examine and see that all taxable property in the town or district has been properly placed upon the list, and duly valued by the assessor. In case any property, real or personal shall have been omitted, the board shall place it upon the list with its market value, and correct the assessment so that each tract or lot of real property, and each article, parcel, or class of personal.property, shall be entered on the assessment list at its market value; but no assessment of the property of any person shall be raised until he has been duly notified of the intent of the board so to do. On application of any person feeling aggrieved, the board shall review the assessment, and correct it as shall appear just. A majority of the members may act at such · meeting, and adjourn from day to day until they finish the hearing of all cases presented. The assessor shall attend, with his assessment books and papers, and take part in the proceedings, but shall not vote. The county assessor, or an assistant, delegated by him shall attend such meetings. The board shall list separately, on a form appended to the assessment book, all omitted property added to the list by the board and all items of property increased or decreased, with the market value of each item of property, added or changed by the board, / 37 equalization. All assessors and county assessors should familiarize themselves with the duties imposed upon them in connection with these boards. County assessors should re-read frequently the provisions of M.S. Sec. 2'/3.061 which is the act creating their offices and outlining their duties. placed opposite such item. The county assessor shall enter all changes made by the board in the assessment book. If a person fails to appear in person, by counsel, or by written communication before the board after being duly notified of the board's intent to raise the assessment of his property, or if a person feeling aggrieved by an assessment fails to apply for a review of the assessment, he may not appear before the county board of equalization for a review of his assessment, except when an assessment was made subsequent to the meeting of the board, or that he can establish that he did not receive notice of his market value at least five days before the local howard of review meeting. The board of review, and the board of equalization of any city, unless a longer period is approved by the Commissioner of Revenue, shall complete its work and adjourn within 20 days from the time of convening specified in the notice of the clerk and no action taken subsequent to such date shall be 9alid. All complaints in reference to any assessment made after the meeting of such board, shall be heard and determined by the county board of equalization. Any non-resident may, at any time, before the meeting of the board of review file written objections to his assessment with the county assessor and if any such objections are filed they shall be presented to the board of review at its meeting by the county assessor for its consideration. (M.S. Sec. 274.01, Subd. 1) The council or other governing body of any city, including cities whose charters provide for a board of equalization~ may appoint a special board of review to which it may delegate all of the powers and duties of the board of review or board of equalization. The special board of review shall serve at 'the direction and discretion of the appointing body, subject to the restrictions imposed by law on the appointing body. The appointing body shall determine 'the number of members to be appointed thereto, the compensation and expenses to be paid, and the term of office of each member. At least one member of the special board of review shall be an appraiser, realtor or other person familiar With property valuations in the assessment district. (M.S. Sec. 274.01, Subd. 2) Although the local board of review or equalization has the authority to increase or reduce assessments, the total of such adjustments must not reduce the aggregate assessment made by the county assessor by more than one percent of said aggregate assessment. If the total of such adjustments does lower the aggregate assessment made by the county assessor by more than one 'percent, none of the adjustments will be allowed. However, any double assessments or clerical errors discovered and 55 corrected by the county assessor does not affect the one percent referred to above. (M.S. Sec. 2'13.061, Subd. 9) KINDS OF BOARDfi The work of each assessor is, under the Minnesota statutes; subject to review and correction by three different boards. These are (1) the town or city board of review, (2) the county board of equalization and (3) the Commissioner of Revenue sitting as the state board of April 28, 1987 Fran Clark Mound City Hall 5341Maywood Road Mound Minnesota 55364 Dear Ms. Clark, I, Nancy Fames, am writing my appeal to the revised 1987 Estimated Market Value, appraised on April 10th, by the city assessar in the amount of $88,700.. I am'unable to attend the meeting in Mound City Hall as I am getting married on May 9th and will be on our honeymoon out of the state during the week of the meeting. The below mentioned are just a few of the obvious facts that this market value is way out in "left field" 1) I bought the condominium for $62,500. a) This unit was not renovated as many of the others were. i.e.: new appliances, carpeting, tiling, countertops, fresh paint etc. b) I do not know or have a relationship with the developers as the assessor, Keith, implied in our telephone discussion on April 23, 1987. 2) This "luxury" condiminium complex of 190 units has a mere handful of 20 owner-occupants. (89% rental as in Non-owner occupied). You all know how renters depreciate not only the physical property, but also the quality of the area and desirability to future home owners. Need I say more? 3) I would not have purchased this unit at the selling price if I had known of the existing Problem of #2. 4) These "luxury" condominiums have a large vacancy rate. From observation the units could not even be given away at an auction and are nearly impossible to rent out. The cash flow is obviously not there for the investor owners. They are losing money monthly by the abundance of empty units. I would have to come up with $550. rent every month to cover fees, taxes and insurance. Taking the mortgage into consideration it is obvious why these places are vacant and there are upset owners who paid more than $62,500. for their units by overpaying what the market bears at Lakewinds. Page 2) In summary I am requesting that my taxes be lowered to, at least, ~y purchase price of $62,500. Thank You. Sincerely, P.S. A real estate agent of ERA has informed me that the units at Lakewinds have been listed for the low 60's for' over a year now and are not selling. I have been also advised by an attorney that the property taxes at Baypoint down the road of far qreater quality are paying half of the property taxes that Lakewinds have been assessed. Please advise at your earliest convenience of the outcome of your decision, as I am rather concerned about this over estimated assesed value that the assessor, Keith, assessed my condo at on April 10th when he appraised the unit. Thank you. C. L. John son P. O. BOX 246 Spring Park, MN 55384 Tele.: 612-472-4664 612-472-5353 612-471-8897 May 11, 1987 Local Board of Review 5341 Maywoo~ Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Property I.D. 13-117-24 33 0006 Gentlemen: This is to advise we are unable to attend the May 12, 1987, ~meeting and that we do not waive the right to be heard. As of this date we have not received copies of the records on which the 1987 Estimated Market Value was determined. ' C y L. J~on CLJ/lma o (~ .J ~g g Il, r~ H~ 0 0 I-- Ze~ I-I1~ 0 · U C~( r~,,~ U · ! . I ° THIS STUB MUST ACCOMPANY FIRST HALF PAYMENT. Pay on or before May 15, 1987 to avoid penalty. I ST HALF Please read reverse side for payment information. PAY STU 1987 TAXPAYER OR AGENT . THOMAS G MORSE.' P O BOX 114. MOUND MN 5536/,' -]lf name and/or address as shown above are not correct, check box and make correction on back of this form, HMSTD IIII~ROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NO'I 3--117--74 73 00061FULL TAX FOR YEAR MUNIC MTG CODE LOAN NO. 85 PROPERTY ADDRESS 1838 COMMERCE BLVD 4,308.0/+ IFIRST HALF 241171323000600043080400021540224117132300064 DEPARTMENT OF PROPERTY TAX AND PUBLIC RECORDS HENNEPIN COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55487-0063 Office Hours - 8 to 5'- Monday - Friday Phone 348-3011 OWNER OR ASSESSED NAME THOMAS G MORSE TAXPAYER OR AGENT THOMAS G MORSE P 0 BOX 114 MOUND MN 55364 YOU MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE PROPERTY TAX REFUND AVAILABLE THIS YEAR. FOR INFORMATION ON HOW TO OBTAIN REFUND FORMS READ DETAILS ON THE BACK OF THIS STATEMENT. uL-"TACH PAYMENT ~-TU8 HEKE BEFORE MAILING , .' 1987 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY TAX STATEMENT WHEN FILLING OUT PROPERTY TAX REFUND FORM M-1PR USE AMOUNTS PRINTED BELOW: 1. ENTER AT LINE 10 4,174.24 7OD.OD 2. ENTER AT LINE 12 DELINQUENT TAX If this box is checked, you owe de- linquent taxes and may not apply for the Property Tax Refund untd those taxes are paid, or you enter into a con- fession of judgment to pay those taxes. 2,700 161,100 38,608 VALUE INFORMATION: Market value of new improvements Total market value of parcel Total assessed value of parcel STATE COPY PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NO. SCHOOL WATER MUNIC. DISTRICT SHED ~ 13-117-~4 ~3 000 85 277 3 ADDITION LAFAYETTE PARK LAKE MTKA LOT BLOCK ACRES THAT PART OF LOTS 27 AND 29 DE PROPERTY ADDRESS 1838 COMMERCE BLVD TAX SUMMARY: TAXES LEVIED LESS CREDITS 4,194.24 700.00 TAX AFTER CREDITS ADD SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS PRINCIPAL INTEREST 1987 TAX PAYABLE /+,308.04 THIS STATE COPY OF THE TAX STATEMENT IS TO BE USED TO CLAIM PROPERTY TAX REFUND FROM THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE. DETACH PAY STUB BEFORE YOU FILE CLAIM, USE THIS STATE COPY TO CLAIM PROPERTY TAX REFUNDS April 29, 1987 Mound Board of Review 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Homeowners: Gregg A. and Constance E. Murray 4729 Islandvie~z Drive, Mound, MN 55364 PID # 30-I 17-23 22 0054 Dear Board Members: As I am unable to appear on the date and time specified in the attached notice of your meeting, I am submitting this written communication to you pursuant to Minr~esota Statutes § 274.01 Subd. I (b) to protest the valuation for our homestaed for 1987. My wife and I purchased our home in October of 1985. After deduction for personal property purchased in the sale, the net purchase cost of the home was $106,695.00. We feel that due to the history of Estimated Market Values for the home and the actual declining value of real estate generally in our area, the 1987 Valuation of $107,600.00 is outrageous. The County Assessor's office has provided me with the the foilowing figures for valuation of our home:. 1984 $105,600 1985 99,600 1986 97,100 1987 107,6 O0 The market value for our home during the year of purchase was $99,600.00. You may ask whywe paid $106,695.00 for a property whose market value for tax purposes was only $99,600.00. When determining estimated market value for tax purposes, the purchase price figure alone is not necessarily an indication of the property's real value. Any assessor or appraiser worth his salt realizes that one must examine both the actual purchase price AND the terms of the sale. The actual market value is what a willing buyer will pay in CASH for a particular property. The actual purchase price increases as the terms become more liberal. In our case, the home was financed on a contract for deed, which is historically considered to be the most liberal of possible terms. Thus we feel that the actual market value of the property at the time of purchase was at or In 1986, the year after purchase, the value for tax purposes was $97,100. We think that this v. alue set by the assessor genuinely reHects actual market conditions and the value of the home. Even though we have been experiencing an active residential real estate market from 1986 through today, the average price for homes in the Lake Minnetonka District has declined. It should be noted that the assessor, who had information regarding our purchase in hand, nevertheless had set market value at. $97,100 for 1986, down $2,500 from the previous year. For 1987, as my attached Notice of Valuation indicates, the assessed valuation jumped 10.8% to $107,600. This is our complaint. The new valuation belies the actual real estate market in our area, which saw an average decrease in value across the board. If the assessor followed the actual market in our'area, the market value of our home should have decreased, and n8t increased so dramatically. Thank you for considering my Board of Review complaint. Gregg A. Murray 4729 Islandview Drive Mound, MN 55364 HENNEPIN COUNTY 1987 VALUATION NOTICE COUNTY ASSESSOR ~i103 GOVERNMENT CENTER NNEAPOL3. S MN 5548? PROPERTY ID 30-117-23 22 0054 MOUND GREGG A & CONSTANCE E MURRAY 4729 ISLAND VIEW DR MOUND MN 55~64 1987 CLASSIFICATION RESIDENTIAL HOMESTEAD 1987 ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE 107,600 IF YOU HAVE GOOD REASC~ TO BELIEVE THAT EITHER YOUR VALUE OR CLASSIFICATI05 IS I~ICORRECT, YOU MA~. CALL 348-3046 WITHIN THE NEXT '5 BUSINESS DAYS. IX NECESSARY, AN APPOINTMENT CAN THEN BE MADE FOR YOU TO DISCUSS YOUR INFORMA- TION WITH AN APPRAISER/ASSESSOR. THE LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW IS SCHEDULED FOR MAY 12, 7 00 PM AT MOUND CITY HALL. THE HENNEPIN COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION WILL MEET FOR TWO WEEKS BEGINNING JULY 6, 1987. YOU MUST HAVE APPEARED AT THE LOCAL BOARD OF REVIEW TO BE ELIGIBLE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION. OR AN APPOINTMENT TO APPEAR AT THE COUNTY BOARD YOU MAY CALL 348-5076 BY ULY 2, 1987.- STATE TAX COURT. STATE LAW ALSO PROVIDES THAT A PROPERTY Ot.~NER CAN APPEAL TO THE TAX COURT OR DISTRICT COURT FOR A REVIEW OF HIS OR HER ASSESSMENT. FOR INFORRATION ON THE TAX COURT CONTACT THE TAX COURT OFFICE, 520 LAFAYETTE ROAD, 2ND FLOOR, ST PAUL, MN, 55155. TELEPHONE 296-2806. 58 April 28, 1987 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING APRIL 28, 1987 The City Council of Mound, HenneRln County, Minnesota, me% in regular session on Tuesday, April 28, 1987, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 5341Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Steve Smith, Councilmembers,Don Abel, Llz Jensen, and Skip Johnson. Councilmember Phyllis Jessen arrived at 8:20 P.M. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson', Building Official Jan Bertrand, City Engineer John Cameron, Finance Director John Norman, City Auditor Gary Groen from Abdo, Abdo and Eick, and the following interested citizens: Neil Sohoenhofen, Joel Krueger, John Weber, Scott Thomson, Dayton and Margaret Williamson, Teri Ertckson, Bob Hortsch, Merle Eisert, Janet DenBeste, .Larry Cazle, Freda Olson, Barba'ra Messerich, Laura and Charles Smith, William Carrow, Peter Graf f, Sue Graf f, Jean Graff, Jerry Tasa, Ellen Hallquist, Dorothy Hitchings, Rosemary DeGuise, Mark Jenks, Earl Bakken. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. MOTION made by Abel, seconded by Jensen to approve the Minutes of the April 14, 1987, Regular Meeting, as submitted. The vote was 4 in favor with Councilmember Jessen absent and excused. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS The City M~nager reported that the amount is now $2,710.44. The Mayor opened the public hearing. The Mayor closed the public hearing. There were no comments. Abel moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~87-79 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,710.44 AND AUTHORIZING THE STAFF TO SHUT-OFF WATER SERVICE FOR THOSE ACCOUNTS The vote was 4 in favor with Councilmember Jessen absent & excused. Motion carried. 59 April 28,'1987 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER PROPOSED WATERMAIN EXTENSION IN, . VACATED LAUREL STREET The City Engineer explained the background of this proposed extension· The Mayor opened the public hearing. The following persons spoke against the proposed extension of watermain because of the cost: Earl Bakken, owner of Parcel B Jan DenBeste, purchaser of Parcels E and F Terri Erickson, current owner of Parcels E and F Bob Hortsch, owner of Parcel C Ms. Jean Graff, owner of Parcel D asked what would happen if this extension were not approved. The City. Engineer stated that each parcel would have to put in a private water linc'from Lynwood Blvd. to their property. The Mayor closed the public hearing. MOTION made by Abel, seconded by Johnson to abandon any further study on the watermain extension in vacated Laurel St. The vote was q in favor with Councilmember Jessen absent and excused. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - CASE ~87-623: CONSIDER THE ISSUANCE OF A CON- DITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE OPERATION OF A FAST FOOD, CONVENIENCE, DRIVE-IN RESTAURANT (CLASS ~) LOCATED AT.233~ WILSHIRE BLVD., DOMINO'S PIZZA (PID ~13-117-2~ 34 072) The Building Official explained that there would be from 3 to 12 people employed and that 955 of the business would be take-out or delivery. The Staff recommends approval with the following three conditions: All required county permits shall be obtained from the Health Dept. Ail signage shall conform to the Mound Sign Ordinance. The applicant shall identify the location for a screened trash dumpster for review and approval by the Mound Building Official. The Mayor opened the public hearing. The. Mayor closed the public hearing. There were no comments. Johnson moved and Abel seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~87-80 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A CLASS II RESTAURANT IN 6O April 28, 1987 THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT (B-l) AT 2330 WILSHIRE BLYD.. (PID #13-117-24 34 0072) The vote was ~ in favor with Councilmember Jessen absent and excused. Motion carried. ,C0MME.NTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS, PRESENT There were no comments or suggestions. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR PUBLIC INPUT ON 1988 BUDGET MOTION made by Abel, seconded by Jensen to set May 12, 1987, immediately following the Local Board of Review, for a public hearing to solicit public input on the 1988 Budget. The vote was 4 in favor with Councilmember Jessen absent and excused. Motion carried. Councilmember Jessen arrived at 8:20 P.M. CASE ~87-,620: APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONDITIONAL US~ P~RMIT, LOT SIZE VARIANCE & SETBACK VARIANCES ,FOR GRIMM'S. STORE LOCATED AT 3069 BRIGHTON BLVD~ - PID #24-117-24 43 0017 MOTION made-by Johnson, seconded by Jensen to approve the written form of Resolution t87-65 adopted at the April lq, 1987. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE ~87-621: MARK JENKS, 4932 BEDFORD ROAD, LOTS 16 & 17, BLOCK 38, WYCHWO.OD, PID #2q-117.2q ql 0157, REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval. The applicant was present. Jensen moved and Abel seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~87-81 RESoLuTIoN TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVE A REAR YARD VARIANCE AND RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR LOTS 16 AND 17, BLOCK 38, WYCHWOOD (PID #24- 117-24 ql 0157 (~932 BEDFORD ROAD), CASE #87-621 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 61 April 28, 1987 _CASE ~87-625: ~AMES & JOSEPHINE SHARP, ~925 GLEN ELYN. ROAD, LOT 22, BLOCK 2q, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #13-117-2q 11 0097, LOT AREA VARIANC~ The Building Official explained the request. Planning Commission recommended denial. The Staff and the MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jessen to concur with the Planning Commission and deny the request for a lot area variance because it is not a hardship. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE ~87-626: J. THOMAS LEPISTO, 5325 WATERBURY RD., WEST 1/2 OF LOT 5q, WHIPPLE SHORES, PID ~25-117-2q 21 01~q, REAR YARD VARIANCE The Building O~ficial explained the request. Planning Comm~ssion have recommended approval. ~he Staff and Jessen moved and Abel seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~87-82 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE A 9 FOOT REAR YARD VARIANCE FOR WEST 1/2 OF LOT 5q, WHIPPLE SHORES, PID ~25-117-2q 21 015q, CASE ~87- 626 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE ,f87-627: MIKE & JUDY GARDNER,. l~R~. BLUEBI.~D LANE, LOT 18 & 19, BLOCK 6, WOODLAND POINT, PID. ~13-117-2q 12 0128, REAR & SIDEYARD VARIANCES The Building Official explained the request. The Staff recommended denial due to lack of actual hardship and the Planning Commission tie 'voted. The Council discussed this item at length. Barbara Messerich, 1593 Bluebird expressed concern about drainage ont~ her property from the 2nd story addition. Smith moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~87-83 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCES AS REQUESTED INSERTING THE THREE ITEMS THAT PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED, CASE ~87- 627, LOTS 18 & 19, BLOCK 6, WOODLAND POINT Cou~cilmember Jessen stated that she did not like intensifying this nonconforming use and expressed concern for the integrity of the Zoning Ordinance. Councilmembers Abel, Jensen and Johnson agreed. 62 April 28, 1987 The vote on the resolution was one in favor with A~el, Jensen, Jessen and Johnson voting nay. Motion failed. CASE ~87-628: NEI.L & LINDA SCHOENHOFEN, 6116 BARTLETT BLVD., METES & BOUNDS DESCRIPTION,. PID $23-117-2~ 31 0002 ,MINOR SUBDIVISION The Building Official explained the request. Planning Commission recommended approval. The Staff and Jensen moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION $87-83 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION, PID $23- 117-2q 31 0002, (6116 BARTLETT BLVD.) CASE $87-628 The vote was unan-imously in favor. Motion carried. CASg ~87-629: DAYTON & MARGARET WILLIAMSON, 2012 VILLA LANE, LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 5, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID $13-117-2q 31.0023, FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE The Building Official explained that the addition to be built would meet all setback requirements and the applicant only needs for the Council to recognize the existing nonconforming setbacks. The Planning Commission tie voted in this item. Johnson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION $87-8~$ RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACKS TO ALLOW AN ADDITION TO 2012 VILLA LANE, LOTS I & 2, BLOCK 5, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID $13-117-2q 31 0023, CASE $87-629 The vote'was unanimously in favor. EXTENSION OF R~SO..LUTION $87-59' Motion carried. The City Clerk explained that Gary Heines has requested another extension of Resolution $85-59 because he cannot get the financing together before the expiration. Smith moved and Abel seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION $87-85 RESOLUTION TO EXTEND RESOLUTION ~85-59 FOR ANOTHER YEAR - EXPIRATION MAY 13, 1988 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 63 April 28,1987 TAX FORFEIT LANDS The City Clerk ~xplained that the City would like to acquire PID ~19-117-23 23 003? (Lot 4, Block 17, Seton) for park and wetlands. Abel moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~87-86 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR CONVEYANCE FROM THE STATE OF CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LANDS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The City Clerk explained that the City would like to release the following parcels to be sold at public auction: PID #19-117-23 33 0192, Lot 43 and ~the W 10 £t of Lot 44 also · all that part of vac st lying between Wly extensions across it of the N and S lines of said Lot 44, Pembroke PID ~30-117-23 22 0021, Lots 3 and 4, Block 4, Devon Johnson moved'and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~87-87 RESOLUTION RELEASING'CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LANDS TO HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR PUBLI~ AUCTION AND CERTIFYING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The City Clerk explained that the following parcels are undersized lots and the City would like to release these to be sold only to owners of adjoining properties and combined with those properties: PID #19-117-23 33 0168, Lots 21, Block 14, Pembroke PID #2§-117-24 21 0073, Lot 10, Block 23, Whipple PID ~25-117-2q 21 0135, Lot,12 and N 10 ft of Lot 13, Block 20, Whipple PID ~13-117-24 11 0058, Lot 16, Block 16, Shadywood Point PID ~13-117-24 12 0026, Lot 22, Block 2, Dreamwood PID ~13-117-24 12 0055, Lot 11, Block 5, Dreamwood PID #24-117-24 44 0148, Lot 23, Block 12, Arden April 28, 1987 PID #25-117-24 11 0136, That part of Lot 8, Bloc~ 10, Devon lying S of the N 15 ft thor also all of Lot 13 said Block 10, Devon There was discussion about restricting tax forfeit lots that are within the 10% of lot area for sale to adjoining property owners, Johnson moved and Abel seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~87-88 RESOLUTION RECONVEYING (IF NECESSARY) CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LANDS BACK TO THE STATE AND REQUESTING THE COUNTY BOARD TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE SALE OF SAID TAX FORFEIT LANDS AND TO RESTRICT THE SALE TO OWNERS OF ADJOINING LANDS The vote was 4 in favor with Mayor Smith voting nay. carried. MotiOn AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 206 TO THE CITY CODE The City Attorney presented the prepared ordinance. Councilmember Jensen asked that all the terms "his" in the ordinance be corrected to read "his/her". The Attorney agreed and apologized. Jensen moved and Abel seconded the following: ORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 206 TO THE CITY CODE PROVIDING FOR THE DEFENSE AND INDEMNIFICATION OF OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. pRESeNTATION OF.FINANCIAL AUDIT FOR YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1986 Gary Groen, Abdo, Abdo & Rick and John Norman, Finance Director reviewed-specific items in the Audit with the City Council. Abel moved and Jensen seconded' the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~87-89 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND APPROVING THE AUDIT AND FINANCIAL REPORT FOR 1986 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, R~; LOST LAKE The City-Manager reviewed the recommendations from the Planning Commission with the City Council. The Council discussed items they felt should be included in an 65 RFP. The four items in the Planning Commission recommendation related to development of Lost Lake were discussed. These items will be integrated into the RFP. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jessen directing the Staff to prepare an RFP enphasizing the Country Inn concept and incorporating all items recommended by the Planning Commission. The RFP to be brought back to the Planning Commission on June 6, 1987 and back to the Council for consideration at the June 23rd meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. NEW LICENSES & LICENSE RENEWALS MOTION made by Jessen, seconded b2 Johnson to authorize the issuance of the following licenses: Mound Volunteer Fire Dept. - June 13, 1987' Fish Fry · Charitable Organization 3.2 Beer Permit Public Dance Permit Set-Up Permit - fee waived Tree Removal License .Aaspen Tree Service 8 Lanes - Mound Lanes Games of Skill I - A1 & Alma's 4 - Captain Billy's 5 - Donnies on the Lake American Legion Donnies on the Lake YF~ Post ~5113 Captain Billy's Donnies on the Lake VFW Post ~5113 A1 & Alma's American Legion Minnetonka Boat Rental Captain Billy's Donnies on the Lake Happy Garden Hardee's Hidden Treasures House of Moy 66 April 28, 1987 Mound Lanes ¥1~ Post #5113 S~ndav Liouor YFW Post ~5113 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ~AYMENT OF BILLS MOTION made by Abel, seconded by Johnson to approve payment of bills as presented on the pre-list, in the amount of $122,431.03, when funds are a~allable. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ,INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: March 1987, Financial Report as Prepared by John Norman, Finance Director B. Preliminary Program for the Annual League of Minnesota Cities Conference to be held June 9-12 in Rochester. -(This is the week of our 75th Anniversary/Mound City Days Celebration.) If you are interested in attending, please let me know as soon as possible. C. Proposed rate change being filed on interexchange services in Minnesota by AT&T Communications of the Midwest, Inc. The filing represents a restructuring of the long distance service schedule price increases in Channel Services and an overall reduction in WATS prices· D. Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 1987. City Attorney's previous correspondence setting forth the difference between motions, resolutions and ordinances. I think this information will be useful. Ge Letter from Joyce Clark, Bartlett Blvd. resident, re: Bass Fishing Contest at Mound Bay Park REMINDER: Work Session, Saturday, April 25th, 8:30 A.M., City Council Chambers Copy of LMC ACTION ALERT, re: Three Percent Levy Limit and LGA Cuts. I have already informed Senator Gen Olson and Representative John Burger of our opposition to any 'reduction or elimination of LGA. This alert from the League is a new "twist" and I will be contacting Ol~on and Burger again. This would be devastating for ~11 cities. 67 April 28, 1987 MOTION made-by Abel, seconded by Jensen to adjourn at 10:50 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motioa carried. Edward J. Shukle,.Jr., City Manager Fran Clark, CMC, City Clerk BILLS APRIL 28, 1987 Computer Run dated 4/18/87 Batch 874041 Computer Run dated 4/23/87 Batch 874042 71,570.O5 44,431.77 Dock Refunds 1,861.75 Kimler Roofing Reroof fire sta 3,352.00 SuperAmerica March gasoline 922.02 Connie Stahlbusch Reserve Expenses 38.10 Loren Koehnen Plan Reviews 255.34 TOTAL BILLS 1~2,431.03 LEGAL NOTICE CITY OF MOUND, ~INNESOTA The Mound City Council will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, May 12, 1987, at 7:30 P.M. in the City Council Chambers at 5341Maywood Road. The purpose of this hearing is to obtain input for the development of the 1988 Budget. All interested persons will have the opportunity to be heard. Francene C. Clark, CMC, City Clerk Publish in The Laker - May 11, 1987 ~ound, ~innesot. a NCrfICE CF PUBLIC HEARINg %D CDNSIDgR AMENDINg ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ OF A ~~OF~~~ ~ ~ R-2~ ~ F~LY ~~ NOTIC~ IS BEREBY GIVEN ~hat on Tuesday, May 12, 1987, at 7:30 p.m. at ~.he city Ball, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, a hearing will be held to consider ~ rezon:h~j of parcels 76, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 29 from B-2, General Business to R-2, Single Family.Residential (see map below). ~ rezontng Ks being considered to bring a ma3oritY of the residential uses. conformance All persons appearing at said hearing will be given the opportmity t~ be Dakota po F ezoning 3030 Harbor'Cane No~h, Suite 1~ Minneapolis, Minnesota 5~1 61~5~1950 TO: Planning Commission and Staff . FRG~: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: November 18, 1986 SUBJECT: Potential Rezoning At the present time, the city has received two variance applications along Northern Ro~d. This area has been the site of previous variance applications an~ 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 commission has interest in reviewing the potential of rezoning the area from 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 c~mplicate 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. AN ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN LANDS FROM GENERAL BUSINESS (B-2) TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-2) . The City of Mound does ordain: The City of Mound Zoning Map as revised 1/2/87 is hereby amended as follows: Property described as parcels 76, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30, Subdivision of Lots 1 & 32, Skarp and Lindquist's Ravenswood is hereby deleted from the General Business (B-2) district; and Property described as parcels 76, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30, Subdivision of Lots 1 & 32, Skarp and Lindquist's Ravenswood is hereby added to the Single-Family (R-2) district. The Zoning Map of the City on file with the City Clerk is hereby amended in accordance with these rezoning provisions. Mayor Attest: City Clerk ~Z =--I ~Z Use Lot Area Minimum Ordinance Residential Marina Residential Four-plex Residential Residential Residential Residential Residential 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 int~) conformance but would still result in five nonconformin~ residential lots, a nonconforming four-plex and a no~conforming marina (business) use. If the area were rezoned to R-4, the four-plex would still be nonconformiSg 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 Since the second Planning Commission meeting of the month is typically a'~ discussion session, staff felt that this issue should be addressed as part of the review of the variance applications that' have been received. Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55~1 61~5~19~ TO: Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koe~ler ~ 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." Nonconformin~ 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 ~'~ree 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 ordinance. Finally, nonconforming lots are those which do not contain the total area stipulated in the existing code. NonC°nformin(3 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 regulatlon~ 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 asa residence precluded reasonable use of the property. A key point in this case was the fact that' the structure, as it existed was uninhabitable as a residence. Both' of the structures which are the subject of current variance applications are inhabited. 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1l~,0 Plaming O~mission ~d Smff~%%~/' Mark Koegle. r, C. ity Planner DATE: November lB, 1986 SOB]ELT: Variance Applicatio~ CASE NO: 86-561 %~S PILE NO: 86-310-A40-Z0 IDCATI~: 4797 Northern Road ~C~Tf: Angela Hingce ~ l~r~: Brininess 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 recommend denial of the same variance that is currently being proposed. ~ATION: Staff recommends denial of the variance to remodel and expand the house at 4797 Northern Road since it does not meet ordinance criteria for variances nor does it comply with the provision 90verning nonconforming uses. Cases of this nature are typically emotional and difficult. They place the City Council and Planning Commission in the position of reaffirming their commitment to long-range planning as stated in both the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance. Long-range planning and short-term use are typically difficult to balance. Approval of the variance for Ms. HinGos will have an impact on City policy and 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 2. 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. S 32 Ravenswood Angela Hlngos was present. The planner, Hark Koegler, reviewed his report. .Hs. Hingos stated-.she 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. - 1985. Chair stated that would be extending the life of the house. Ms. 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 motlon .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 llving 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. 71 RESOLUTION NO. 85-~9 April RS, 1985 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH T~E PLANNING COMMISSION .... ~ RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A YARIANCE OF LOT SIZE, '!~i~'~:! SETBACK AND TO RECOGNIZE A NONCONFORHING USE .':,-"- ~' " OF PROPERT~ AT ~798 NORTHERN ROAD, ~ST 1/2 OF ~--+, ~ND LIND~DIST S RAVENS~OOD ( . - ~~ /: . " '~" , ~e~t ~/~ of Lot ~7, SubdEvEslon 2f~ots/~_ ~u. ~'~:? '~[]:'~., cribed as the 8-11 3 3~002 , has ~::%~::'. '. · for varla~cem uo =u,~,~- ~ ~ . :,:~.~: · ~. ~-~% ~ feetv to z~e wesu 8sAu a r ~f · ':-~:~'::' : ':' · d · :~.~:.:, ~ -~* ~ ' - · -- ~-:~ : WHE~E~S: - --~'-~-~-t, and residential uses ~re ~o~ ~[[ ',,~ea in the B-Z ~g.~[~j~ +_h, structure has noncon~'ormxng ~".- ~.,,m~tted in the district, .......... :.': ..~,.~3 ~..,,- _- . . .. -- .~ ,::lvacy fence at the west side property line extending from the i;;-~"7'~'' ~,::use to within 8 feet of the front property line, and does not :~: 'e::ommend the second story addition, nor allow the enclosure of · "--:-~",~::~:~ !'.:e roofed area (carport only) 9 to 10 feet. from the front ..v,':~:: :'~perty line and 5 feet from the east property line. '?~'>" ~ the City Council of -.-i~:- ~ e a variance ,,...:: , NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that . .,.~,,..::.e City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approv on two or more sides) _~...~:,, ':quest to- construct a carport. (open - .:cared 9 feet to 10 feet from the front property line and 5 feet ':-.-'.; feet to the west :om the east property line, allow the deck 0 ::0perCy line not be extend, above the first floor elevation of ::.e structure, within 38 feet (plus or minus) from lakeshore, ,flow the privacy fence enclosure along the west property line '::om the structure to within 8 feet of the front property line, ' ~-'-~ shown on Exhibit "A" and "B". :' The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember }"' ::-Ulsen and seconded by Councilmember Peterson. ' ~ The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: ~ Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson, Polston and .Smith. 5647 Tall Oaks Bi_~in_~ham, .':i 48010 January !!, lO, 9.7 Jan Bertrand ..~ui!~in ~ insnector Cit.v of l[oun~ I{ounJ, .Pear"s~. nertran~: ~rtber to our conversatlou this wee:< r'~a~ir:~ our nrooertv at 4V~2" *' Tom~ " "0~- ~'~--~ ~0~2~ ~ ~ E~ Z'Te are ~,ery intereste~ in i.mnrovin~ the a~,ove nrooertv 'an~ its aesthetic value to the conuunity. The oresent tax assess- ment and size of st~cture does not oro~ote any incentive to invest further caoital, Consequently low income tenants are our only sour~ c~ occ,~'oauts. ?is lev~ of ir co"~e teu~t ~oes ~'.ot '--~ '~ local -~ -- ~--~- ~, tv= ~ez~ree a ~her income occuoant wo~d. "'f=. ~ require to ado a Bedroom area to our structure oreferably in the attic ~.~ich ~ill require modification of the roof. If we are .oe.~:~itte8 to do this we ~.ri].l remodel the interior as ~tel]. as in,oro~_ng the exterior aooearance :h_s oroSuce imorove9 income level of occuoant, nroducs inorovee .~o%n~ revenue through tax assessment alon~ ~.ffth assistinz in an overall shoreline beautification. %le are serious in our desire to imorove ~he aooeargnce of this area and request your suo.oort in thi s end savor. For your i. nfor~ation I am emn!oye~ by the Purl in _~t on Yortherv~ Pmilroad and have been transferreO across the count~ many times. ~e are hooefu~ in the ~ture we nay ret~ to ~ouu~ to occumr +.his ~a%erfront orooerty. If you requre further ~.nfo~.ation o].ease con~.c~ me at 3 .3-~,,-~6 9 home or ?~-~'""'~p-~3- . ~ ..... O~ ~- Ce or at the above a~dress. CASE NO. 87-622 TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official --~_~ Planning Commission Agenda of April 13, 19 CASE NO. 87-622 APPLICANT: Roco Investments LOCATION: 5950 Bartlett Boulevard LEGAL DESC.: Lot 55, Auditors Subdivision No. 168; PID No. 23-117-24 13 0032. SUBJECT: Lot Width Variance and Subdivision EXISTING ZONING: R-1 Single Family The applicant is requesting a waiver of the subdivision provisions to subdivide an existing parcel off land to the north of Bartlett Boulevard. The existing par- cel has two single family homes. He is requesting a variance of lot width from 60 feet to 25 feet at the improved public right-of-way to provide a deeded drive- way, utility and public vehicle access to an area at the north; the' lot width is approximately 138 feet+. The existing dwelling of 5950 would have 10,481 square feet with a 1 foot rear y~rd variance to recognize a 14 foot rear yard. The front yard setback of the existing structure on Parcel 2 is 20 feet instead of the re- quired 30 feet in the R-1 Zoning District. The structure on the proposed Parcel 1 has conforming lot setbacks to the rear and side property lines, however, the lot setback for a replacement structure or expansion of the existing dwelling should be marked on the lot subdivision, but in no case should it be closer than 20 feet to the south property line. Parcel 1 would have 22,725 square feet. The site presently has a crest on the hill between Parcel 2 and Parcel 1. The north structure is connected with a sewer lift station through the front building at 5950 Bartlett Boulevard. To correct the situation and provide a separate sewer and water service to the rear structure is being proposed by the property owner. The survey submitted has not included the site grades. The applicant will be submitting a new survey to assure that the rear structure can make the sewer invert elevation possibly without a lift station on the future connection of sewer service. RECOMMENDATION: Staff feels that the lot areas are conforming with this parcel; possibly the Planning Commission could subdivide the property.with the assurance that the rear parcel be disconnected from sewer and water service of the front building and that the new sewer service would be in the 25 foot deeded access for the existing building to the no~th. After the grades are added to the survey, the subdivision could include drainage easements around the perimeter of Parcel 1 to assure on-site drainage would not be diverted to the property north of Parcel 1. Staff does recommend the waiver of the public hearing for the subdivision of less than five acres, the park dedication, replat of the parcel and any fees for legal engineering, etc~ The abutting neighbors have been notified. This will be referred to the City Council on April 28, 1987. Planning Commission Minutes - April 27, 1987 1. Case No. 87--622 Lot Width Variance and SubdiviSion - 5950 Bartlett Boulevard Lot 55, Auditor's Subdivision No. 168; PID No. 23-117-24 13 0032 The applicant,. Mark 'Rosenbaum, was present and also neighbor~, Dorothy Hal l|n and James Lewis were present. The Building Official briefly revTewed the proposal and that elevations had been' added to the survey. There.' wl]] be' new sewer and water services and a new .1irt station w~]l be required if..thls subdlvi.sJon ls approved. The..rear lot line for propose, d Parcel '2'could be .changed.' to make a conformi~.,rt~aer~tru~ture on Parcel 2 has a nonconforming front yard setback of 20 feet instead of the 30 feet '~equired; variance is the lot.width (25 feet) for Parcel ] which would than have. deeded driveway. The City Engineer could review the drainage and possibly would recommend drainage easements. Applicant Hark Rosenbaum was present; he advised he had written to Ms. Hallin and the Lewis' informing them they have'no intention of subdividing rear parcel more; they want to separate two structures so properties can be sold to tenant resi- dents. He commented rea~ lot lind could be swung 90° to g~ve Parcel 2 more land and a conforming rear yard setback. James Lewis was concerned that mo~e homes cou.ld be put in and make appearance of crowdiness and diminish spaciousness they have now. Ms. Ha.llin commented she does[ not think this ls orderly planning. Ray Hanson, neighbor to the west, questioned kind of structure to be put on parcel 2; he stated tenants of that house have been type that play loud music until 3 A.M. and he d~d not feel a family would want. to purchase and llve in that small a house. 'He's opposed to more homes in this area. Rosenbaum stated his intention is to make two self-sustaining parcels which can be sold to two.parties. He would not object to having a restriction placed in the deed limiting the division-to two sites, in response to the Commission's question', the Planner stated he believed because there is a.variance involved, approval could be made Subject to. having a deed restrict[on placed on Parcel 1 and have that reviewed by the'City Attorney. The' Commission dlscussed.'the..request...at length;: the nonconforming size of the house on Parcel 2; the. length. Of..time It has been unoccupied a~d whether 'it c°uld be re'rented; there ~e. re.several suggestions for ways of splitting the land; discussed Whether 50~ of valuei.~le appl'ied; whether if they created' the lot with'the nonconfo~ming structure~'~t would be back for more variances; also d!scussed past.'decisions on similar lots on Bartlett and whether they'd be creating more problems. It.was notedthat lot is 138 feet wide at the street and, if'no house ~ere On' it, twq conforming lots could be made---also noted that they'd be back'to the bowling lane type lots. The-Planner clarified that the small structure can be rented again provided it has not been vacant a year; be'also.stated.that, small house does meet setback requiremen:s and if separate Parcel, it could be added onto to meet minimum house size· Smith moved a motion to deny the request; motion was seconded by Jensen. Smit~ stated the reason for the mot.ion was can't see reason to create more p~oblems The vote was: Andersen, Jensen,.Reese, Smith and Sohns in favor of the denial and Meyer and Thal against the denial. Motion carried. - " This wili be on the Council agenda for May 12, 1987. APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND -~~ ,~ j~' p~; Sec. 22.03-a ~ ,07 - 4. ,Ag.., ~ ~ ~[ ~' VILLAGE OF MOUND FEE OWNER PLAT PARCEL 'R0c0 [NVESfNENTS Location i~d complete legal ~scripti~ of prope~y to be divided: 5950 BARTLETT BOULEVARD, NOUND, NN 55364 LOT 55, AUDITORS 5UBD[VJS[0N 168 .'.. . ZONING ~'?' ' To be divi~ as foll~: ~ ~ · .. All supporting documents,"such, as sketch plans, su~e~s, attac~ents, e~c. must submitted:In 8~''X 11'~ sl.ze"~nd/off 1~ copies, plus=one' ~" X ll~"'~op~'. " Ja~ach su~ey or Scale drawing showing adjacent street, dimensi~ of ~ildlng sites, square foot area of each n~ parcel ~signated by ~mberJ A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR= New Lot No. .. From ~are feet TO ~are feet (signature) ~DRE~ ~ ~001~ · ~P~ ~ ~O~ DATE Applicant'~ interest in the property: 0~NER - - ROC0 [NVESTHENTS ~ This application must be signed by all ~e OWNERS of ~e prope~y, or an explan- ' 'ation given why ~is is not ~e case. PLANNING COMMJ~ION RECOMMENDATION: DATE ~,~, .5'7 ~ CITY OF HOUND APPLICATION TO PLANNING ~ ZONING COHHISSlON ' ' "-. ~' ['~"~'~'['~"~ ' (Please type the following infor~tion) Case No. Fee Pa i d ~/~-0,00 Date Filed Street Address of Property 5950 BARTLETT BOULEVARD Legal DesCription of Property: Lot Block Addit'ion AUDITORS SUBDIVISION 168 3. OwnerJs Name ROCO INVESTMENTS PID No. 23-117-24 13 0092 Day Phone No. 372-3276 Address BOX 300128 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403 e Applicant (if other than owner): Name MARK ROSENBAUM Address 1921.JAMES AVE SO MINNEAPOIS, Day Phone No. MINN 55403 374-3276' Type of Request: 'Present ~on lng DistrictI ~/' ~-i-- Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit' ( .) Amendment ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Sign Permit ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. (~(/)*Other Existing Use(s) of Property c~ ~~ I[/~j'://~ ~(l Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conaitional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? NO 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 above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Hound for thepurpose of ins~'~'~g~5~f posting, maintaining and removing such Signature of App]ican~~/~~ Date~-/~--8~ Planning Commission Recommendation: Date Council Action: Resolution No. 4~82 Date Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities~ etc~ E. Indicate North compass direction F. Any addltional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. III. Request for a Zonln9 Variance A. All information 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 regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (X) No ( If "no", specify each non-conforming use: Ce Do the existing structures comply with all area height and bulk regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes If "no", specify each non-conforming use: De Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) .Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil" ( ) Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface ( ) 'Too shallow ( ) Shape (X) Other: Specify: EXISTING HOME TO CLOSE TO PROPERTY LINE TO PERMIT 60' ON ROADWAY Ee Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No (X) If yes, explain: F. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (X) If yes, explain: Ge Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described-in this petition? Yes (X) No ( ) If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? 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.) WE REQUEST A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 25' FRONTAGE ON ROADWAY Will'granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? NO ~ wa,,.~e .o.~ ~n Prairie, Minnesota 5~ ~o~'r H ~1 ~: L"= u~o~ 22,725 S.F, 10~481' S.F. : 1 I~l ...11! I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF SURVEYED BY ME THIS. DAY OF l-/e',:.,,:., e- P/,~ ' /~' ~ , COUNTY, MINNESOTA. 'R(~NALD L. City of Mound Planning & Zoning Commission 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: Request for Variance 5950 Bartlett Blvd. Lot'55, Auditors Subdivision 168 Gentlemen; Our request for this variance has been generated by our desire to Subdivide our land at the above address so that each of the two dwellings thereon can be owned individually. Due to the placement of the house in front, it is not possible to achieve a 60 foot frontage on Bartlett Boulevard. Since the water,_sewe~,. and existing driveway serving the rear property lies within a 25 foot path to the east of the front house, we would like to continue using this as the egress to the rear house-and have that strip of land deeded to the rear property. We sincerely appreciate your attendance to this matter and patiently await your .response. March 18, 1987 Ron Krueger Associates, Inc. 8080 Wallace Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 (612) 934-4242 Engineering Land Surveying Landscape Architecture Planning Legal Description Parcel 1 That part of Lot 55, Auditors Subdivision No. 168 lying northerly and easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the Southwest Corner of said Lot 55; northerly along West line of said Lot 55, a distance of 98.00 ft. to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence northeasterly deflecting to the right 78°30,00,, a distance of 102.00 ft; thence south- erly deflecting to the right 96o30,00,, a distance of 97.00 ft., more or less, to the southerly line of said Lot 55 and said line, there terminating. FROM: Planning Commission Members City Staff Dorothy Hallin, 5912 Bartlett Blvd. DATE: April 22, 1987 SUBJECT: Case No. 87-622 5950 Bartlett Blvd. Lot 55, Auditor's Subdivision No. 168 P.I.D. 23-117-24 13 0032 ISSUE Lot width variance and subdivision of subject property. I NT RODU CT I ON The County Assessor's records indicate a 1986 market value of $64,000 land and building value for 5950 Bartlett (land 20,000" and building 44,000) and a market value of $5,800 land and building for the second structure (land 2,000 amd building 3,800), making the total market value of the existing parcel $69,800. Proposed Parcel 2 would include the existing structure 5950 Bartlett which has a market value of $44,000 on a lot containing 10,481 square feet. Proposed Parcel 1 would include an existing structure which has a market value of $3,800 on a lot containing 22,725 square feet. DISCUSSION There are some issues and concerns on this application that adjacent property owners would like the Planning Commission members to consider before making a recommendation to the Council. Proposed Plat Parcel 2 A. The granting of a rear yard setback of 14 feet not the required 15 feet. IpTZ B. Lot would be restricted for future improvements and/or additions. Ce Shared driveway access. Proposed Plat Parcel 1 A. Lot width variance from required 60 feet to 25 feet on Bartlett Blvd. B. Existing structure has a market value of $3,800 (very low value for a ~abital building). Would it be possible to make major improvements or an addition to this structure? C. Installation of sewer and water hookup from Bartlett Blvd. and the possible necessity of a lift station. D. Lot contains 22,725 square feet which could indicate the possible future dlvision of this lot. E. This proposed lot will not conform with the existing lots in the neighborhood. It will become an isolated island in the backyards of 5950 Bartlett Blvd. and also the adjacent properties. In addition is would take away the privacy and open space of the these propert'ies. F. This might set a precedent in the neighborhood for future subdivisions. CONCLUSION As 'proposed this subdivision would not meet the existing established neighborhood lot plan. The long shared driveway could be a hardship for emergency vehicles. Will Parcel 2 have a driveway easement? The sewer and water hookup and possible lift station will be a substantial expense for the developer, which will encourage the request for future subdivision of Parcel 1. The Planning Commission members must consider the future impact of this proposed subdivision not only to the adjacent neighbors, the exist, lng neighborhood, the City as a whole and the applicant. Moving the 25 foot wide access to the west side of the lot would be an advantage to Parcel 2 by giving more open space toward the east and eliminating the need for a shared driveway. This plan however does not eliminate the major objection to this subdivision which is the non-con£omity of the proposed lot to the rest of the neighborhood. The size of the property would indicate that a developer could divide the property with a division line running north and south creating a new buildable lot to the west of the existing strtucture (5950 Bartlett). It is anticipated this would require a small lot widt~h variance, but could be an acceptable alternative. Additionally the lot has a slop to the west which would probably- dictate the architectural st~le of a new structure. The small existing structure in the rear of the lot could be used as a storage building if it is not raised. Such a subdivision would eliminate; a.) shared driveway, b.) expense to developer of lengthy sewer and water line installations, c.) initial cost and upkeep of a lift station, d.) would preserve the conformity of lots in the neighborhood, e.) preservation of privacy and open space of newly created lot and adjacent.. properties and f.) applicant is granted a subdivision of his property. Thank you for your time and consideration regarding our concerns on this matter. April 13, 1987 Re; Requested variance on PIp ~3-- /[7-~ t3 (D~P----F~ ? To Whom It May Concern~ Marylan and James Lewis, owners of the lot adjoining the above property on the north at 5921 Beachwood Road oppose the granting of a variance from city code to the owners of the above property for subdivision of the lot. The following are our reasons: 1. The building of an additional house, I believe will diminish the value of adjoining properties as it will give the appearance of crowding and lack of orderliness. Sight lines for such a house would not be congruent with any other houses. 2. We purchased our lot because it provides spaciousness on our back lot line from the existing structures on the said property. This sPaciousness would be diminished by building a house on the said lot. 3. Quality of life is, to some extent, a function of space. As space diminishes, quality of life diminishes with it. 4. A final thought: If the subdivision were granted, what would hinder the developer(s) from requesting permits to build TWO houses which would only intensify the objections we have/mentioned above. ~_~e r ely, / y . Mound, MN 55364 Phone 472-7390 --/ 0 - 518 ._ 4 &o ! ! CASE NO. $7-622 \ \ \ 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 Planning C~nnission and Staff Mark Koegler,' City Planner ~/ April 8, 1987 Sign Variance APPLICANT: Stuart Chazin CASE NO. 87-624 ~ FIrJ~ NO. 87-310-A17-ZO L(XtATION: 5229 Shoreline Boulevard EXISTING ZONING: Central Business (B-I) ODMPi~ PLAN; ~rcial PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting a variance to replace the existing Shoreline Plaza free standing identification sign. The existing sign is 8 x 10 feet (80 square feet) and it is 28 feet in height. The proposed sign has a size of 10 x 12 feet (120 square feet) and will total 30 feet in height. Additionally, the applicant has requested approval of a new free standing sign along Wilshire Boulevard for Domino's Pizza. The proposed Domino's sign is 40" x 6'-1" (20.3 square feet) and is proposed to be 25 feet in height. The Dc~ino's sign conforms to the ordinance requirements and hence, does not require a vari~ca. The Mound Sign Ordinance allows one (1) free standing sign per s~reet frontage. Free standing signs are limited to 48 square feet in area and 25 feet in height. Additionally, free standing signs must observe a minimum of a 10 foot setback from the right-of-way line. The existing Shoreline Plaza sign is non-conforming due to size and total area. Under the sign ordinance, the existing sign is allowed to remain as a grandfathered use. As a grand fa thered use, the existing sign cannot be "rebuilt, altered or relocated" without being brought into compliance with ,the provisions of the sign ordinance. COMMENTS'. The existing Shoreline Plaza sign is currently 66% larger than the ordinance allows. The applicant is proposing to increase the size of the existing sign which would result in the new sign being 150% larger than the ordinance permits. Variances are allowed under Subdivision 5 of Section 365-.05 of the City COde in instances where 'it is shown that b~ reason of topography or other conditions that strict compliance of the ordinance would cause a hardship.' In determining whether or not the variance is reasonable, the Planning Co~mission must make a finding regarding the existance of a hardship. In the case of Shoreline Plaza, a hardship would exist if the shopping center was not readily visible due to topography or other factors. Shoreline Center has frontage on two of Mound's major streets and, in fact, is readily visible to vehicles on either County Road 15 or Wilshire Boulevard. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the request to expand the size and height of the existing Shoreline Plaza freestanding identification sign due to a lack of existing ha.rdship. Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1~)87 e Case No.. 87-624 Sign Variance for Shoreline Plaza Shopping Center, 5229 Shore- ]ina Boulevard; Lots 7-20. S 26-35 including vacated a]ley, parking .area and Park, B]ock ],' Shirley. Hi]Is Unit F; PID. No. 13-117-13 23 0072 ' Stuart Chazen was p~esent for Mark Sa]iterman, owner of'the ShoPping Center The City Planner, Hark Koeg]er, reviewed his report. The existing sized sign is grandfathered Jn and is 8 X ~0 feet'and 28 feet in h~lgh~;' the ordinance limits .free standing signs to 48 square feet'and 25 feet in height..The rep]acement sign proposed for one on Sho~e]lne Is .requested to'be 10 X ]2 feet and 30 feet in height, .The proposed sign a~ong Wi]shire Boulevard for Domino'S Pizza conforms to the ordinance and does not require a variance. Koeg]er commented the vJsibi]ity on Shoreline seems to be quite, good and the staff is recommending denial of the variance for ~he increased sized sign: Mr. Chazin diSagreed on the visibility on Shoreline; he stated some of the tenants have requesLed a larger sign be put 'bp; the proposed sign would be two feet wider and 2 feet'higher which'would make it more noticeable and bring tenants back to Mound. He dJd not believe that was too large a'sign for a 28,000 square foot shopping center. If they can get.more tenants, they would like to expand with a 8,000:sq0are feet addition onto the east of the structure. The Commission discussed the sign ordinance and one member commented ordinance .. may be a ]ittle restrictive and that the Commission, at the time of ordinance adoption, had stated they cou]d consider visual impact on a case by case basis. The subject of the parking lot problems was a]so brought up. Thai moved and Sohns.seconded a motion to recommend denial of the request because it is against the ordinance. The .vote was Hayer, Reese and Smith against'the denial; Andersen, Sohns, Thai and Jansen for the denial. Motion carried .4 to'3. This Will be on 'the Council agenda for May 12, lg87. L. :- .-:,,,-...~.%~ :. , APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COHHISSION (Please type the roi'lowing information) 2. Legal Description of Property: Lot 7~20 & 26~3~ including nll of Block 1 adjacent vacated alleys F. parking ar.eas. PID Ho. 13-~]7-2~ 3~ 'O072 Addition Shirley Hills Unit F ~. Appllcant~. '-o. ther~tha_n~owJ~er): 5. Type of Request: ~ Variance ( ) ConditiOnal Use Permit (.) Amendment ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review (X) Sign Permit (.) ~/etland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( )*Other Date Flied $-,z~'"J'7 *If other, spe:ify: 6. Present ioning District: ~]' ..... 7. Existing Use(s)of Property ~~-'~ ~~ · ' for zon~'na, v~nrianc-~or conditional use permit or 8. Has an application ever ~een maae ~t.~ . - · - other zoning procedure for this property? ~ if so, list daters) or list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resol'ution No.(s) pies ~ previou~ resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that a11. of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized officlal of the City of ~ound for the purpose o~e~ting,,or of posing, maintaining and re~ving such . ?s.m., Signature of Applican~~~-~ ~' ~~7 Date Plea'ming Co~ission Reco~endation: Date Council Action: Resolution No. Date 1'-0" 4" DIA. STU IELD WEL 22'-2" 10'-0" IOSA INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED DOUBLE FACE, CENTER POLE SIGN WI4" DIA. PIPE STUB ELECTRICAL DATE 12.8 AMPS 1460 WATTS' (1) 15 AMP CIRCUIT REQUIRED 120 VOLT 60 CYCLE WELD 14SA INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED, DOUBLE FACE, THRU POLE SIGN (SIGN SLEEVES DOWN OVER 8" DIA. XS (EXTRA STRONG) GROUND POLE -- 8" DIA. EX (Extra Strong) PIPE W/.500" WALL ~,TION BOX -- GRADE -- POWER SOURCE (By Others) ~ 3'-9" sq. ~ -- REROD AS REQ'D. BY LOCAL CODE RECOMMENDATION FOR MINIMUM INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS CHECK LOCAL CODES FIRST, CONCRETE 3000 lb./SQ. IN. STRENGTH, UNDISTURBED SOIL, NOT FRESH FILLED, LOOSE SAND, GRAVEL, OR OTHER POOR FOUNDATION MATERIAL. INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS 1) INS~'ALL GROUND POLE PER LOCAL CODES, PROVIDE ELECTRICAL TO BASE. 2) LIFT READER BOARD INTO LOCATION, SLIDE DOWN OVER GROUND POLE, WELD PIPE TO PLATE ON TOP & BOTTOM OF READER BOARD (MAKE SURE SIGN IS PLUMB & SQUARE) 3) PULL WIRE THRU HAND HOLE PROVIDED AT BASE OF GROUND POLE. 4) LIFT TOP SIGN INTO LOCATION, SLIDE PIPE STUB INTO GROUND POLE, WELD PIPE TO PLATE ON BOTTOM OF SIGN (MAKE SURE SIGN IS PLUMB & SQUARE) NOTE: WIRES ARE COILED & TAPED INSIDE PIPE STUB. PULL. UNTAPE, AND ALLOW TO DROP INSIDE GROUND PIPE. 5) REPEAT STEP No 3 6) HOOK UP ELECTRICAL J CASE NO. 87-637 CITY OF MOUND Moun~, Minnesota NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMI.T FOR 'THE OPERATION OF A WINE AND BEER.RESTAURANT (CLASS I.V) LOCATED AT 224~A COMMERCE BOULEVARD NOTICE'IS'HEREBY.GIVEN.THAT on Tuesday, June 9, ]987, at 7:30 at the City Hall, $341M~ywood Road,'Moond,.Minnesota, a hearing will be held on the. issuance of a conditional use permit for the~estab]ish- ment of a Class IV restaurant at 22~4A Commerce Boulevard. The proposed use consists of a restaurant where food,.non-intoxi~ating liquors 3.2 beer and w.ine).are served and consumed'by customers while seated at a counter or table. 'Ali persons, appearing'at said hearing will be given the opportunity to be heard.' Francene C. Clark, City Clerk LEGAL NOTICE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA PUBLIC HEARING .The City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, June 9, 1987, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 5341Maywood Road, in said City. The purpose of this hearing will be to allow residents the opportunity to express their views on the City of Mound having assessing done by Hennepin County or private contractor. All persons will be heard. Francene C. Clark, CMC, City Clerk Publish in The Laker June 1, 1987 APPLICATION FOR SIGN PERMIT OF APPLICANT BUILDING OWNER (if other than C I TY ?F/~OUND St reet/~lumber City Zip applicant) Name Address CONTRACTOR. SIGN LOCATION LOT ALLOWABLE S!GNAGE WALL AREA EXIST!NG SIGNAGE / DESCRIBE SIGN HEIGHT OF SIGN SIGN= SI~E ~BEING LENGTH OF TIME SEASONAL Name BLOCK Address ~ ~"- 00' Commerce Boulevard 'north Lynwood Boulevard. ADDITION ~'-t' ~[/~M// BY Ft. = TOTAL j~) NUMBER OF SI GNS (Materials, etc~) /~ /~ ~'/;~'~/ Square Footage r~_~/ ZON I NG D I STRI CT REQUESTED .~ BY <~ SQ. FT SIGN TO BE ERECTED PLEASE DESCRIBE REQUEST AND REASON FOR REQUEST: Is / I'f additional information / SQ. FOOTAGE OF SIGNS ILLUMINATED: YES TYPE OF SIGN: WALL MOUNT FREE STANDING PORTABLE '~ OTHER NO z~4 c) sign f9r a community organization and does it meet all the standards of is attached, Sect ion 55.38? ease submi//~½" X l l"~yl~Nr)imu, m ~;zed ~lra~i_ngs Date ~ubmi ~ted Recommendation': APPROVED: Building Official Mound City Code Section 365:15, Subd. 9 (e) Garage sale signs will be permitted in conjunction with 'the sale'of house- hold goods and materials from private residences. Such signs shall be exempt froh permits and fees but shall be subject to the following: (1) Signs shall not exceed four (4) square feet in area. (2) 'The name and telephone number of the party responsible for the sale shall be clearly marked on the sign. (3) No signs shall be placed' within the public way nor shall they be attached to any telephone poles or light standards. '(4) Directional off premise garage sale signs can be placed on private property providing that the proper owners consent is obtained prior to the placement of such signs. (s) (6) The use of garage sale signs shall be limited per calendar year per residence· to five (5) occasions Boutiques, craft sales, and other sales events of hand-crafted merchandise shall be subject to all garage sale signa§e provisions. (7) Garage sale signs shall be limited to five (5) days per occurrence. (f) Seasonal Signs - Seasonal signs of a temporary or portable nature may be used in the non-residential districts to promote or advertise on-premise seasonal services or merchandise. Such signs shall be limited to a maximum of thirty-two (32) square feet and shall not be left in place for more than a two (2) month period. Permits and fees shall be required for all seasonal signs, and permits may be issued no more than two (2) times per calendar year per business. ~cept as may be specifically authorized by this Subd. 10 and Subd. this Section 365:15, portable signs are prohibited. A portable sign Used for the purpose of directing the public may be permitted under the following conditions: (a) Said sign is coincidental to, or used in conjunction with, a governmental unit or quasi-public function; and (b) The period of use of said sign shall not exceed ten (10) consecutive days; and (c) Signs shall not be used more than four (4) times during a calendar year; and (d) Prior approval of a majority of the City Council shall be required for the use of any such sign; and (e) Signs shall be placed ~n the premises of the advertised event; and (f) Such signs shall require the issuance of a permit but will be exempt from all fees; and Mound Ci~ Code 'Section 365:15, Subd. l'. (g) In the instance of a multi-use facility, only one seasonal sign may be placed on the premises at any one time. Subd. 11. Projecting wall signs shall be permitted only in Commercial Districts provided the total sign area does not exceed ten (10) square feet per building face. Such signs shall not project over public property more than 18 inches. Subd~' 12. One address, name place and/or identification sign, visible from the public way, shall be required per building in all districts. Such signs shall contain the street address in'minimum 4-inch numerals and shall be securely attached to the structure. Subd. 13. Canopies and marquees shall be considered an integral part of the structure and shall not be considered as part of the wall area and shall not warrant additional sign area. Subd. 14. Signs located on the interior of a building are exempt from the provisions of this Section 365. However, such signs, not'including changeable signs, shall not contain flashing lights that are visible from the exterior of the building. Subd. 15. A Comprehensive Sign Plan is required at the time of Planning Commission review of any proposed commercial or industrial development. plan shall indicate the location, size, height, color, lighting and orientation of all proposed signs and shall be submitted for approval pursuant :o the regulations of the City of Mound. Said Sub~. 16. Signs shall not exceed two faces. Subd. 17. Roof Signs shall be prohibited in all districts except as noted in Subds. 5 and 6 of Section 365:20. ~'~_i,~j ..~ i~5~ McC°mbs-Knutson Associates, Inc. 12800 Industrial Park.Eilvd. Plymouth, MN 55441 612/559-3700 1-800-328-8322 Ext. 784 May 7, 1987 Engineers P/anners Surveyors Mr. Edward $. Shukle, Or. City Manager City of Mound 5341 Haywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBOECT: Lynwood Boulevard MSAR 145-104-03 Tuxedo Boulevard MSAR 145-101-05 Street Improvements NKA File #7193 & #3724 Dear Ed: Enclosed is Preferred Paving's Final Payment Request in the amount of $3,800.63 for the subject projects. Of this total $2,277.58 is for the Lynwood Boulevard project, $1,000.000 is for the Tuxedo Safety Improvement project, and $523.05 is from Change Orders 2 and 4, which is the work being done for the HRA. The amount of.'$523.05 for the HRA work will need to be paid to the Contractor by the City, but you should also bill the HRA for reimbursement in that amount. We have reviewed the projects and find that they have been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications. It is our recommendation that the Contractor be paid in full for this project. If you have any questions, please contact us. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Oohn Cameron OC:cah Enclosure cc: Preferred Paving CHANGE ORDER NO. 5 PART 1 - LYNWOOD BOULEVARD - MSAP 145-104-03 MOUND, MINNESOTA MKA FILE #7193 OWNER: CONTRACTOR: ENGINEER: City of Mound Preferred Paving McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc. ADDITIONAL WORK FOR LYNWOOD BOULEVARD ADD: IT~4 NO. 99 Centerline Striping 1 L.S. ® $520.00 = $520.00 TOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO. 5 ............................ $520.00 ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT (PART i) CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 CHANGE ORDER NO. 5 REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT (PART 1) ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT (PART 2) $ 182,132.35 9,992.00 70,054.20 4,700.00 12,100.00 520.00 279,498.55 18,44~.50 REVISED TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT ....... $ 297,942.05 APPROVED: ' '/ ' 'Y' 7 , / / APPROVED: McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. ACCEPTED: CITY OF MOUND By: Date: CHANGE ORDER NO. PART 1 - LYNWOOD BOULEVARD - MSAP 14~-104-03 MOUND, MINNESOTA MKA FILE #7193 OWNER: CONTRACTOR: ENGINEER: City of Mound Preferred Paving McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc. ADDITIONAL WORK FOR LYNWOOD BOULEVARD ADD: ITEM NO. 99 Centerline Striping 1 L.S. $ $520.00 = $520.00 TOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO. 5 ............................ $520.00 ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT (PART 1) CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 CHANGE ORDER NO. 5 REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT (PART l) ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT (PART 2) $ 182,132.35 .9,992.00 70,054.20 4,700.00 12,100.00 520.00 279,498.55 18,443.50 REVISED TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT ....... $ 297,942.05 APPROVED :/~ 'l 'j APPROVED: McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. By: ACCEPTED: CITY OF MOUND By: Date: CHANGE ORDER NO. 5 PPRT 1 - LYNWOOD BOULEVARD - MSAP 145-104-03 MOUND, MINNESOTA MKA FILE ¢;7193 OWNER: CONTRACTOR: ENGINEER: City of Mound Preferred Paving McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc. ADDITIONAL WORK FOR LYNWOOD BOULEVARD ADD: ITEM NO. 99 Centerline Striping 1 L.S. ~ $520.00 = $520.00 TOTAL CHANGE ORDER NO. 5 ............................ $520.00 ORIGINAL'CONTRACT AMOUNT (PART 1~ CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 CHANGE. ORDER NO. 5 REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT (PART 1) ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT (PART 2) $ 182,132.35 9,992.00 70,054.20 4,700.00 12,100.00 520.00 279,498.55 18,443.50 REVISED TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT ....... $ 297,942.05 APPROVED: McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Date: / ACCEPTED: CITY OF MOUND By: Date: --FINAL-- CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIMATE NO. OG PAGE CITY OF MOI.[~O-LYNI~'OOD & TUXEDO BLVD-STREET IMPROVEMENTS Oi ENGINEER: McCOMB~--k'NUTSON CONTRACTOR: PREFERRED PAVING /EBO0 IND.PK.BL~. 24 SOUTH OLIVE PLYMOUTH, MN 55441 tJACONIA, MN S5387 DATE:'05/O6/87 -- CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIMATE SUHMARY -- THIS PERIOD WORK COMPLETED PART 1-MSAP 145-104-03 LYN~OD BOILEVARO 917.80 PART 2-~P 14§-101-0~ TUXEDO ~EVARO 0.00 MATERIALS ON SITE PART 1-MSAP 149-10~-03' LYN~OD ~U. EVARD 0.00 PART E-M~P 145-101-~ T~EDO ~E~RO 0.00 TO DATE 270,383. 18,817. O0 0.00 0.00 iAD3USTEO TOTAL 917. B0 LESS RETAINACE - 1% PREVIOUS, 0% CURRENT ITOTALAMOUNT DUE I ' FOR gORK COMPLETED TO DATE 3, BO0.~?. ILESS PREVIOUS PAYMENTS i -0.00 TOTAL AMO~IT DUE. 3,200.63 3, B00.63 289,200.7~ 0.00 289,200.75 -- SUNMARY OF PREVIOUS PAYMENTS -- ESTIMATE NO. DATE I O6/30/86 P 07/31/B6 3 09/0t/86 4 10/E0/86 5 12/01/86 ENGINEER': McCOMBS-k'NUTSON AMOUNT TOTAL 116,709.63 116,709.63 ' 50,479.S9 167,189. OE 79,801.43 246,990.45 CONTRA:TOR: PREFERRED PAUING !CONTRACTOR PAY ~'~;TIMATIr NO. OG PACE 7:1.9~B CIl~f OF HOUND-t. YN~OOO & TUXEDO ~LUD-STREET I)~PROUEH£NT$ PART 1-NSAP 145-104-03 LYN~OD BOULEUARD 02 ENCIXEER: I4ctOMBg-~UT~)4 O)NTRACTOR'. PREFER~EO PAUIN~ 1~000 INO.P;(.BLUD. ~4 SOUTH OLIUE PLYHDUltl, DATE: -- PAYHENT $~½ARY FOR WORK CDtIPLETED TO DATE -- ITEM ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION 1 2021.501 HOBILIZATION 3 4 6 7 8 9 3O 2101.511 C & G ROADUAY 2103.50! ~OG. REMOUAL P104.501 ~M. ST.~.PIPE 2104.S01 REMOVE ~1~.509 REMO~ MY OR CB ~10~.~09 RE~OUE ~104.~3 ~L~GE CASTING ~1~.529 ~LUAGE L.POLE ~1~.501 COMMON EXCAU. 210~.~3 COHMON BORROW ~ 105..tx25. TOP~O IL' BORROW 2130.501 WATER 2211.501 AGG. BA~E_ CL.2 E~kl.501 AGG. ~ CL.B 2331.514 2341.504 2341.508 2~57.508 2508.511 2503.511 850~.511 8503.511 2503.511 2503.5?3 2SOG.SO~ 850~.507 2~0E.507 250G. 516 8506.516 ~50G.521 850~. 2511.505 ~E~I.E, O1 BIT HAT ;'OR B~.SE COUR~ )iix BIT HAT FOR WEAR COURSE ~IX BIT MAT - T~CK BIT HAT - PRIHE 18' RCP ST.CL.5 lS" ~CP 8T.CL.5 18" RCP ST.CL.~ ~4" RCP ST.CL.3 30" RCP ST.CL ~0' RCP C.APRON O5S~GN ~H/CB DESIGN F H~/C~ DESIGN C CASTING CASTIN~ AS~H.D I~SlALL CASTING CONTRACT UNIT .... THIS PEEIO0 ..... QUANTITY UNIT PRICE QUANTITY AMOUNT 1.0 LO 2,500.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 LS 500.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 LS 88,S00.00 0.0 0.00 870.0 LF G. O0 O. 0 O. O0 160.0 LF 1. O0 O. 0 O. O0 1,670.0 ~ 0.~"~ 0.0 0.00 4.0 EA 175.00 · 0.0 0.00 i.O L8 8,500.00 0.0 0.00 2.0 EA 75.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 EA 110. O0 O. 0 O. O0 2,600.0 CY 4.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 CY 0.00 O.O 0,00 230.0 CY 6. O0 O. 0 O. O0 88.0 CA 1.SO 0.0 0.00 45.0 TN 18.00 0.0 0.00 i,3GO. O TN 8.00 0.0 0.00 25.0 TN 16EL O0 0.0 0.00 SBS. O TN 13.80 0.0 0.00 21.0 TN 1GS.O0 0.0 0.00 390.0 llq 17.00 0.0 0.00 185.0 CA 1.50 0.0 0.00 1SO. O CA 1.50 0.0 0.00 .tOG. 0 LF 20.70 O. 0 O. O0 63.0 LF 21.85 0.0 0.00 88.0 LF 24.40 0.0 0.00 280,0 LF 29.90 0.0 0.00 485.0 LF : 36.00 0.0 0.00 35.0 LF 40.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 EA 1,100.00 0.0 0.00 19.6 LF .i70.00 0.0 0.00 9.4 LF 170.00 0.0 0.00 5.8 LF 170. O0 O. 0 O. O0 P. 0 EA 225. O0 O. 0 O. O0 4.0 EA 225. O0 O. 0 O. O0 1.0 EA 225. O0 O. 0 O. O0 9.0 EA 60.00 0.0 0.00 9.0 EA ?0.00 0.0 0.00 G.G CY 40.00 0.0 0.00 9.~ CY 18.00 0.0 0.00 4,580.0 SF 1.40 0.0 0.00 ...... TO DATE QUANTITY A~OUNT 1.0 2,500.00 1.0 500. O0 1.0 28,500.00 155.0 155. O0 1,187.0 415.45 4.0 700. O0 1.0 2,500.00 2.0 ~0. O0 4.0 440.00 8,600.0 10,400.00 0.0 0.00 i~0.0 ~00. O0 25.0 ~37.S0 130.0 1,560.00 1,687.0 13,496.00 ~, 1 3,646.S0 491.0 6,73~.S0 25.0 4,185. O0 4~9.0 7,803. O0 240.0 ~0.00 0.0 0.00 73.0 8G.O B,098.40 276.0 8,25~.40 428.0 1R,408.00 ~.0 1,400.00 1.0 J.,100.00 18.6 3,168.00 6.0 1,0~0.00 2.0 4S0. O0 4.0 900. O0 1.0 225.00 9.0 540.00 9,0 630.00 S. 0 200. O0 3.0 ~.00 4,287.0 5,917.80 CONTRACTOR PAY ESTINATE NO. OG PAGE T~g93 CITY OF MOLelO-LYNgOOO E TUXEDO BLUO-STREET IMPROVEMENTS PART I-RSAP 145-104-03 LYNWOOD BOULEUARO 03 PAYMENT SbltMARY FOR WORK COMPLETED TO DATE -- ITEM ITEM CONTRACT UNIT ND. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY 41 22~1.501 CRC DESIGN BGIO 1,600.0 LF 5,05 0.0 0.00 1,652.0 42 Z531.507 6" APRONS 140.0 ~Y 20,00 0.0 0.00 112.0 43 2545.511 INSTALL L,POLE 1.0 EA 110.00 0.0 0.00 3.0 44 2545.515 LCT.BA~, DES.E 1.0 EA 5~0.00 0.0 0.00 45 254r-,.~1 3-1/2' CONDUIT 40.0 LF 11.TS 0.0 0.00 40,0 4CO 2.r~45.c_,Sg PULL BOXES E.O EA 700.00 0.0 0.00 2.0 4T 2571,5G?. TREES - MAPLE 4.0 TR '75.00 0.0 0.00 3.0 48 E~71.50~ TR~ES - AS~4 4.0 TR 'F~.O0 0.0 0:00 2.0 49 2~T1.~02 TREES-HACgr~.RRY' 4.0 TR ~.00 0.0 0.00 2.0 50 E775.501 ROADSIDE SEED 0.3 AC 1,500.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 51 2575.502 RED, KIXTURE 5 15.0 LB 2.~0 0.0 0.00 0,0 5~ 25lS.505 ~OODING 1,000.0 SY 1.70 0.0 0,00 1,231,0 53 25'iS.511 MULCH )tAT TYPE1 0.6 TN 300.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 54 ~ CONCRETE ST~PS EO.O RI 1/S.00 0,0 0,00 c.5 SP DRY RUggLE MASON ~LL 0.0 SF 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 5CO ~T F&I CO' DIP t~TERMA~N ~.0 LF 20.?0 0.0 0.00 14.0 57 SP F&X DIP FX'~TXNGS 260.0 LB 1,50 0.0 0.00 150.0 58 ~P F&I 1-1/~" COPPER gER 30.0 LF 1%00 0,0 0.00 59 gP F&! 1-1Y~' CORP. COCK 1.0 EA 115.00 0.0 0.00 60 5P F&! 1-1~' CURB STOP 1.0 EA 115.00 0.0 0,00 ~.0 61 SP F&! 6" CATE VALUE 1.0 EA 400. O0 O. 0 O. O0 2,0 G~ ~P AD3UST EXISTINC C.U. 1.0 EA 85.00 0.0 0.00 3.0 63 SP AOSUST EXIST CUR~i BOX E.O EA 50.00 0.0 0.00 3.0 64 SP RELOCATE HYO. & C.U 1.0 EA 650.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 6.~ SP F&! 8" PUC SAN.SE~R 40,0 LIr 19.00 0.0 0.00 40.0 66 5P F&! 6" CI~P ~E¥.SERV. 40.0 LF 16.00 0.0 0.00 61.0 67 SP AD~. EXIST. HH/CB 4,0 EA 100.00 0.0 0.00. 4.0 GB SP RECONSTRUCT EXIST MH 1.0 EA 500.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 Cog SP F&I SIGN POSTS 4.0 EA 80.00 0.0 0.00 6.0 70 SP F&I RE-1 SIGNS 2.0 ER 100.00 0.0 0.00 2.0 71 ~ F&I R7-1 SIGNS 2.0 EA 100.00 0.0 0.00 2.0 ~ 2105.523 EXC.COM.BORROW 2,788.0 CY 5.25 0.0 0.00 2,788.0 'r~ LBt~R ~TER SERVICE 1.0 EA 290.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 74 RELOCATE CURB STOP 1.0 EA 550.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 75 ~EYSTONE RETAIfl!NG ~ALL 1,420.0 ~ 9.*~ 0.0 0.00 1,:)~,0 76 1-1/2' RIGID CONDUIT-R~C 110.0 LF 5.35 0.0 0.00 105.0 77 ALT. FOR STREET LIGHT 1.0 LS 1,r~,9.50 0.0 0.00 1.0 78 e~, DOZER TIME 20.0 HR ?0.00 0.0 0.00 79 ~P BUILDING DEMOLITION 1.0 LS 19,951.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 O0 ~ CDF, PACTED B,~tT FILL 2,000.0 CY 5.00 0.0 O. OO 737.0 BI SP COHttON EXCAVATION 4,000.0 CY 4.2~ 0.0 0.00 4,~0.0 ~ SP RETAINING I~LL 1,000.0 ~r 9.7~ 0.0 0.00 1,498.0 ~ 1-1/E" PUC CO);DUIT BO.O LF ~.8~ 0.0 0.00 SO.O B4 NO. B USE ~JlRE 440.0 LF O.GB 0.0 0.00 400.0 .... THIS PERIOD ..... ...... TO DATE ....... AMOUNT 9,664.20 '2,240.00 330. O0 1,560.00 470.00 1,400.00 225. O0 150. O0 150. O0 0.00 0.00 2,0BE.?O 0.00 ~,S30.O0 0.00 . ~S.u. 38Ca. O0 E30.O0 800.00 255. O0 150. O0 ~0.00 ?60.00 400.00 500. O0 480. O0 200. O0 200. O0 14,637.00 290. O0 ~0. O0 ,12.,987. O0 1,649,50 854.00 19,951.00 3,G~.O0 14,605., ~OS. O0 272.00 ONTRACTOR PAY r-~TIHATB NO. O~ CITY OF MOUND-LYNtiOOD & ~XEDO ~-~TRE[~ IMPR0~MEN~ PART l-~S~P 145-1~-03 LYN~OD ~EVARO P~(~ O4 PAYMENT SU~I~ARY FOR 140RX COMPLETED TO DATE -- ii ITEM ITEM CONTRACT UNIT NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE QUANTITY 8~ NO. 4 U~ UIRE E,EO0.O LF 0.90 372.0 ~ TP, E?,CNI~ 440.0 LF 1.40 45.0 87 RELOCATE CONTROL CABINET 1.0 LS SO0.O0 0.0 88 MOUE EXISTING 14IRES 1.0 LS ESO.O0 0.0 B9 ~LICE ~IRING 1.0 L8 170.00 0.0 90 FOOTING - RETAININO i4ALL 300.0 LF 10.00 0.0 9i F&I FENCE-RETAINING blALL J..O LS 300.00 0.0 9E BIT.PATCHINO ~N/DDT E341 PO.O ~ S~.O0 0.0 93 EXTRA FOR 8"xG' ~El TAP E.O EA 100.00 0.0 ~ EXTRA FOR 8" SADDLE TAP ~.0 Eh 50.00 ~ S~gRADE CORRECTION GO0. O CY 5,00 O.O ~ ~RADE EXCAVATION 600.0 CY G. O0 0.0 97 GRANbLAR ~RRO~ (L.U.) BO0. O CY 5,00 0.0 98 GEO~XTILE FABRIC i,O00. O ~ i. SO 0.0 ~ CEN~RLINE STRIPING 1,0 LS ~0,00 .... THIS PERIOD .... AMOUNT C'~,.A. 80 f,3. O0 0.00 0.00 O. O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ~0.00 TOTAL PART 1-MSAP 14S-104-03 LYN~30D BOULEVARO 917.80 GUANTITY 45.0 1.0 EGO. 0 1.0 ~.0 1,111.0 70~.0 0.0 1.0 AMOUNT ~,341.80 :G3. O0 SO0. O0 E80.O0 170. O0 I~, GO0. O0 300. O0 1,100. O0 ~ 00. O0 100. O0 37S. O0 6,~.00 3,.~.00 0.00 SEO. O0 ICO'NTRAI:TOR PAY EST1'MATE NO, 06 PAGE 7:!.93 CITY OF HO~O-LYH~OOD E TUXEDO BLVD-STREET IMPROVEMENTS PART I-MSAP 14S-104-03 LYNMOOD BOULEVARO ~EN~IIIEER: I~cCOMBS--k'I4UTSON CONTRACTOR: PREFERRED PAVING I INO.PK.BLVO. E4 SOUTH OLIVE IEBO0 ATE: PLY~,OLrl~, MN S~441 YACONIA, MN S~387 -- PAYHEHT SUMMARY FOR MATERIALS OH SITE -- THIS PERIOD !ITEM ITEM CONTRACT UNITS INVOICE L~IlTS NO, DESCRIPTION QUANTITY DELIVERED PRICE ON SITE TOTAL ITEM VAL~ INVOICE PRICE TO DATE UNITS ON SITE TOTAL ITEM VALUE TOTAL PART I-MSAP 14S-104-03 LYNltO00 BOULEVARD O. O0 0.00 ~ONTR~CTO~ PAY ~TIH~T~ NO. O~ CITY OF MOU~D-LYNbJOOD ~ TUXEDO ~-STREET IMPRO~HENTS PA~T I~SAP 14~-lOA-03 LY~OD I NG INEER: )tcCObtBS-+(NUT~ON tPE)O0 IND.PX.BLLq). t PLY~OU~, HN ~5441 [I~H NO. DEaRIE'TIDE 11 ~1~.~01 COMMON EXC~V. CONTRACTOR: PREFERREO PAVING E4 ~UTH OLI~ -- SUMMARY OF CHANGE ORDERS 0~/30/B6 9,992.00 eREUIOU$. GUANTITY UNIT PRICE 2,')~0.00 CY 4.00 1,500.00 CY 6.50 .~,4~0.00 ~ 7.90 0.00 CT 0,00 0.00 EA 0.00 0,00 EA 0.00 0.00 SF 0.00 0.00 LF 0.00 0.00 LS 0.00 CHANGED ~UANTITY ~,600. O0 CY 0.00 CY 0.00 ~ E,788,00 CY 1.00 EA 1.00 EA 1,420.00 ~ 110.00 LF 1.00 L$ UNIT PRICE 4.00 0.00 0.00 ~90. O0 550. O0 9.'~ S.~ 1,~49.50 DEDUCTED -GO0. O0 -9,i"SO.O0 -11,~18.00 AHOUNT ADDED 14,G27.00 EgO. O0 550. O0 ~,84~.00 CONTRACT PRIC~ 1Be,1:~.35 + CHANGE = REUISqED CONTRACT ABOUNT ~C~'ITRACTOR PAY ESTIt.iATr:- NO. O~ PA~E CITY OF ~0UN0-LYN~0D I TUXEDO BLUO-tlTREET IHPROVEHENTS PART 1-H~P 14S-104-03 LYNI~OOD GOLLEVARO :NGINEER: HcCOMBS-KNUTSON CONTRACTOR: PREFERRED PAVING 17.800 INO.PK.BLUO. E4 ~U~ OLI~ PLYMOUTH, HN S~4~ ~CON~A, HN ~S~87 JA~: 05/~/87 -- S~HARY OF CHANGE OROER8 -- ORDER NO. OE 70,054.E0 IITEM ITEH NO. DESCRIPTION 78 ST DOZER TIHE 79 ST BUILOINC OEHOLZTZON 80 ~' CO~PAC:TEO B~T FILL 81 5P COKMON EXCAVATION . 8~ ~ RETAINING ~LL 83 I-I/E" PUC CONDUIT 84 NO. 8 USE ~IRE B$ NO. 4 USE I~IRE 86' TREI~CHING 87 RELOCATE CONTROL CABINET 8B MOVE EXISTING ¥IRES 8~ STLICE WIRING 4>R£VIOUS QUANTITY ~IT PRICE O. O0 HR O. O0 0.00 Ltl 0.00 O. O0 CY O. O0 O. O0 CY O. O0 0.00 ~ 0.00 O. O0 LF O. O0 O. O0 LF O. O0 0.00 LF 0.00 O. O0 LF O. O0 0.00 Ltl 0.00 0.00 Ltl 0.00 0.00 Ltl 0.00 CHANGED AMOUNT AMOUNT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE DEDUCTED AOOEO E0.00 HR 70.00 1,400.00 1.00 L$ 19,951.00 19,951. O0 E,O00. O0 CY $. (~0 10,000.00 000. O0 CY 4 ,ES 17,000, O0 1,800.00 SF. 9.7~ I?,S~O. O0 80. O0 LF 3. I~ 308. O0 440.00 LF O.G8 ~99.20 ~,200.00 LF 0.90 1,980. O0 440.00 LF 1.40 GIG.O0 1.00 Ltl 500.00 SO0.O0 1.00 Ltl 280.00 2r ~0 1. O0 Ltl 1TO. O0 . 1'~ ._ aO PREVIOUtl CONTRACT PRICE 19E,~.4.3S + CHANCE TO,OS4.20 = P,,EVI~O CONTRACT AMOUNT ~gINEER: McCOHBS-KNUT?.,ON t 1~800 IND.PK.BLVD. PLYMOU~, ~N ~A~: ~/~187 I I ~HAN~E ORDER NO. 0~ DE~RIPTION B1 ~I FENCE-RE~AININD ~LL 9~ BI%.PA%CHIND MN~OT .~.n~ FOR 8"x6" ~T TAP 94 EXTRh ~OR 8' ~DOLE [[PREVIOU~ CONTRACT PRICE ~CONIA, ~N -- SUNMARY OF CHANGE ORDERS 08/13/85 4,700.00 PREVIOUS QUANTITY 0,00 LF O. O0 LB 0.00 TN " O. O0 EA O. O0 EA PACE CHANGED UNIT PRICE QUANTITY ~IT PRICE 0.00 300.00 LF 10.00 0.00 1.00 LS 300.00 0.00 ~0.00 TN ~.00, 0.00 ~.00 EA 100.00 0.00 2.00 EA SO. O0 ~E2,,17B.55 + CHANGE 4,700.00 AMOUNT OED~TED = REVI~D CONTRACT AMOUNT AMOUNT ADDED 3,000.00 300.00 1,100.00 200.00 100.00 ~66,878.SS 13o CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIHATE NO. O(~ PAGE CITY OF HOUND-LYNI~00D & TUXEDO BLeD-STREET II~PR01EI~EN?$ PART 1.-~S~P 14S-104-03 LYN~OD BO~LEUARO 09 ENCIHEER: HcCOHBS-KNUTSON CONTRACTOR: PREFERRED PAV 1E800 INO.PK.BL~). ~4 ~U~ OLI~ PLYHOU~I, HN 5~41 WACONIA, HN 55387 -- S~A~Y OF CHANCE OROERS -- CHANGE OKOER NO. 04 1E,IO0. O0 ITEH ITEH NO. DESCRIPTION 9S SU~P,~DE COR~.ECTION 96 SU=J;~RAOE EXCAVATION 97 CRANULAR BORRO~ (L.V.) 9B CEOTEXTILE FABRIC PREVIOUS. Q~HTI~ UNIT PRICE O. O0 CY O. O0 O. O0 CY O. O0 O. O0 CY O, O0 0.00 ~ 0.00 CHANCED AHOUNT AHOUNT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE DEDUCTED ADDED 600.00 CY ~,00 3,000.00 GO0. O0 CY 6.00 3,600.00 800.00 CY 5.0~ 4,000.00 l,O00.OO SY 1.50 1,~00.00 PREVIOUS CONTRACT PRICE E6G,878.BS + CHANCE 1E,IO0.O0 = ~VIS~D CONTRACT AHO~T ~gO~.'TR4CTOR F'~Y ESTTH4TE NO. 06 7 CITY OF MOUND-LYNWOOD & TUXEDO BLVO-STREET IMP~,OVEMENT$ PART L-MSAP 14S-104-03 LYNWOOO BOLIEVARO JENr~INEER: MctOH~S-t~NUTe~N 1~800 IND.PK.BL~. PLYHOU~, ~N ~41 iDhTE: ~/06/87 I CHaNgE O~OE~ t~0. ~ l NO. ~99 CEN~RLINE STP, IPI~ ~PREVIOUS CONTgACT P~ICE 1 ~OEI:INAL CONTRACT PRICE 84 ~OUTH OLIVE: WACONIA, MN S~387 -- SUMMARY OF CHANHE OROERS -- 05/06/87 ....... PREVIOUS ........ QUANTITY UNIT PRICE 0.00 LS 0.00 878,B78.S~ + CHANGE 18~, 128.35 + C}IAN~E PAGE 10 CHANGED AMOUNT AMOUNT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE DEOU~TED ADDED 1.00 LS S~O.O0 ~0.00 ~0.00 = REVISED CONTP, AF,,T AMOLhNT 97,3~6.80 = REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT 8?B,4BB.SS 879,49B.SS CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIMATE NO. O~ PAGE CITY OF ½OUND-LYN~OOD E TUXEO0 BL~-STREET IMPROVEMENTS PART E-MSAP' 14S-I01-0~ TUXEDO BOULEVARO ENGINEER: McCOMBS-t~NUT~ON CONTRACTOR: PREFERRED PAVING ~800 IND.PK.BLVO. E4 SOUTH OLIVE PLYMOUTh, MN SB441 ~CONIA, MN SS307 DATE: 0~/0~/87 -- PAYMENT SUMMARY FOR ~RK COMPLETED TO DATE -- ITEM ITEM CONTRACT UN IT NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE QUANTITY 1 2101.Si3 C~G RT-OF-~AY 1.0 LS ~00.00 0.0 2 2!04.S01 REM CONC. C&G 20.0 LF 1.00 0.0 3 E104.501 REM BIT CURB 1S0.0 LF 1.00 0.0 4 EIO~.SO1 CO~',~O~ EXCAV. . 1S.O CY ~.00 0.0 5 ~10~.5~3 COMMON ~RROW . 400.0 CY 6.50 0.0 ~ EIOS.SES TOPSOIL ~RRO~ 70.0 CY ? E~I.~M BIT MAT FOR MIX 1.6 ~ 16S. O0 0.0 9 E~l.5~ BIT HAT FOR HIX 0.6 ~ 16~.00 0.0 10 E~1.~08 ~AR COUR~ MIX I0.0 ~ ~0.00 0.0 11 ~;I.S~ BIT MAT-TACR ~.0 gAL 1.50 0.0 ~ ES~.~09 MH/CB OESI~N H 1.0 EA 170.00 0.0 14 ES~.Sl6 CAST ASS~M~.IE~ 1.0 EA E~S.O0 0.0 lS E5~.~01 BIT~IHOUS CU~ 1~0.0 LF 4.00 0.0 L6 ~5~.501 DESIGN A 1BO. O LF 58.00 0.0 17 E571.5~ TREES - MAPLE 4.0 EA ~. O0 O. 0 18 E57L.S~ TREES - A~ 4.0 EA ~.00 0.0 ~9 E571.54~ TR~N~LANT T~E E.O EA ~.00 0.0 EO E5~.505 ~OOlN~ ~0.0 ~ 1.70 0.0 El ~ RELOCA~ EXISTIN~ CB 1.0 LS ~0.00 0.0 THIS PERIOD ..... AMOUNT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ...... TO DATE ....... QUANTITY 1.0 EO.O 17S.0 EB.O 400.0 70.0 E.O 4s.o S.O 1.0 1.0 1BO. 0 180.0 3.0 3.0 1.0 AMOUNT SOO. O0 20. O0 1'/~. O0 .1.~0. O0 ;~, toO0, O0 420. O0 330. O0 13E.O0 300. O0 ?.SO 13S.00 170. O0 ~2S.00 ~0.00 ~0,440.00 ~. O0 ~2S. O0 ~0.00 977.~0 ~0.00 TOTAL PART E-.H~4P 14S-101-0~ TUXEDO BOtJ. EVARO 0,00 lB,B17.00 IF_! CNGINEER: I~cCOMBS-KNUT20N CONTRACTOR: PREFEEREI) PAVIH~ 1~800 I~JD.P~(.E~.U~. 24 ~OUll4 OLIVE PLY)IDUTH, MN ~5441 ~CONIA, MN S~387 )ATE: -- PAYMENT SU~)iARY FOR )tATERIAL$ OH SITE -- ll4I$ PERIOD IlEX ITEM CONTRACT UNITS INVOICE UNITS )40. DESCRIPTION 9UANTITY ~)ELIUC~ED PRICE ON SIll~ TO DATE TOTAL INVOICE UNITS ITEM VALUE PRICE ON SITE TOTAL IT~)~ V~L I.E TOTAL PAP, T 2~SAP 1-~.c~-IOI-OB..TUX, EDO BOULEVARQ 0.00 0.00 3RI~INAL COHTRACT PRICE 18,443.S0 + CHANGE 0.00 = REVI~D CONTRACT AMOUNT ~~ McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc. 12800 Industrial Park Blvd. Plymouth, MN 55441 ' 612/559-3700 1-800-328-8322 Ext. 784 May 7, 1987 Engineers Planners Surveyors Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5~41 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBOECT: Watermain Replacement County Road No. 15 MKA File #8258 Dear Council Members: As requested, we are submitting a Preliminary Engineering Report for replacement of a portion of watermain in County Road 15. The existing watermain from Fairview Lane east to approximately 300 feet west of Feroside Lane is of 19~0 vintage. The remainder of the main east to Fernside Lane was constructed in the early 1960's. Both of these sections have a record of numerous watermain breaks and should be replaced since it is located within the paved portion of the new road construction. If the main is rebuilt, most of the services and curb stops should also be replaced at the same time. Our estimate for this watermain replacement is $55,000.00, a copy of which is attached to this report. Hennepin County has suggested, and we agree, that the watermain replacement be bid with the County project to minimize the cost. If it is the City's desire to proceed in this manner, final plans would need to be prepared and submitted to Hennepin County sometime in June for inclusion with their plans. We would consider this project to be a capital improvement which would not be assessed to the abutting.properties but should be paid from the City Water Fund. The cost of replacing the watermain in Commerce Boulevard which was completed during the County's reconstruction of County Road llO, was paid from the City's Water Fund. If you should have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Oohn Cameron JC:cah McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc. 12800 Industrial Park Blvd. Plymouth, MN 55441 612/559-3700 1-800-328-8322 Ext. 784 Engineers Planners Surveyors May 7, 1987 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBOECT: County Road 15 Improvements Rreliminary Engineering Report MKA File #8087 Dear Council Members: As requested, we are submitting herewith a Preliminary Engineering Report for street improvements on County Road 1~. If you have any questions or require additional information on anything in this report, we will be pleased to discuss this further with you at your convenience. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. $ohn Cameron OC:cah G~NERAL Hennepin County Project No. 8024, which is scheduled for construction in 1988 includes grading, bituminous base, bituminous surfacing, concrete curb and gutter, concrete sidewalks and storm sewer on C.S.A.H. No. 15 from Commerce Boulevard to the Seton Bridge. Also scheduled for 1988 construction is the replacement of Seton Bridge and reconstruction of C.S.A.H. 15 from Seton Bridge to County Road No. 19 in Navarre. At the present time, the County's plans indicate that most of the inplace concrete pavement will remain with the roadway widened to accomodate a wider driving lane and the addition of turning lanes. The inplace concrete pavement will be overlayed with bituminous surface. The plans call for the actual reconstruction to begin at the entrance to the city parking lot adjacent to the post office and continuing east. The existing road section from that point west to Commerce Boulevard will be overlayed with a bituminous mat. A 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk on both sides ls proposed for the entire length of the project withln the City 11mlts of Mound. The sidewalk will be adjacent to the curb from Commerce Boulevard to Wilshire Boulevard which is a 52' wlde road section. On the remainder of the project, a 44' wide road section is planned with the sidewalk set 5' behind the curb except for the area of the turnlng lanes at Bartlett Boulevard. In thls area, from Monclair Lane to the Seton Bridge, the road will also be 52' wide with the sidewalk directly behind the curbs. If the plans remain the same as when they were provided to us in March, there would be approximately 400 feet on the north side from First Minnesota's driveway east to the beginning of the project which does not include new concrete sidewalk. We would recommend that the City request Hennepin County lnstall concrete sidewalk in this area as part of the project. COST ESTIMATES The preliminary cost estimates included at the eno of this report were provided by Hennepin County. The City of Mound's share of the proposed construction is estimated to be $309,924.86, which is broken down as follows: Estimated Construction Cost EstimateO Cost incl. Hennepin County County Engineering Estimated Cost incl. Hennepin County Engineering & Add'l City Expenses 1. Right-of-Way 2. Concrete Curb & Gutter 3. Concrete Driveway Aprons 4. Concrete Sidewalk 5. Storm Sewer 6. Timber Retaining Walls $ 40,000.00 40,687.50 15,000.00 50,062.50 103,355.00 21,600.00 $ 40,000.00 47,604.38 17,550.00 58,573.13 120,925.35 25~272.00 $3o9,924.86 $ 40,000.00 51,412.73 18,954.00 63,258.98 130,599.37 27~293.76 $331,518.84 Please note that there is an error in the preliminary cost estimate furnished by Hennepin County, as the first item for concrete curb and gutter was not included in the total. We have included this amount plus engineering and corrected Mound's estimated share to read $309,924.86. The additional City expenses include items such as engineering, legal, fiscal and administrative costs. In addition to the above costs, the City will have aOditional costs to replace a portion of the cid watermain and the installation of new street lights, if those project are approved. Separate reports will be presented for these two projects. STATE AID FUNDS Each year a portion of the Minnesota gas tax is allotted for street construction and maintenance in cities with a population over 5,000. Each city is required to designate a State Aid street system. Mound's system was set up in 1962 and revised from time to time since then. Some of the State Aid streets in Mound are Tuxedo Boulevard, Three Points Boulevard, Wilshire Boulevard, Maywood Road, Cypress Lane, and Bartlett Boulevard. Each year a construction and maintenance allotment from State Aid funds is placed in a trust fund for each community. The amount of the allotment is based upon population, miles of streets in the city, and the estimated cost of upgrading all the State Aid streets in the City to State standards. In 1987, the City of ROUnd received $173,352.00 from the State for street construction and maintenance on State Aid streets. The construction portion of the allotment $148,352 may be used for construction on the State Aid system or on the county highway system. In the past few years, some of this money has been used to pay Mound's share of the cost of bridge replacements and the recent County Road 110 construction. All construction done with state aid funds must be done to state standards of width, load limit, parking regulations, etc. At the present time, Mound has $180,469.00 in their construction fund with approximately $35,000 of this total set aside for remaining reimbursement on the Lynwood Boulevard Rroject, leaving a projected balance of approximately $145,000.00. Mound should receive close to the same construction allotment in 1988 (approximately $148,000) as they did this year, which if added to the projected balance would result in a fund balance of approximately $293,000.00 in 1988. Some of this money can be used to finance that portion of Mound's share of the cost for County Road 15 which is eligible for State Aid reimbursement. This would have to be negotiated with Hennepin County since it is their project and they can also receive State Aid money. We have estimated that approximately $189,600.00 of Mound's share of the construction cost is eligible for State Aid reimbursement. ASSESSIv~NTS Since the street construction program began in 1975, virtually all of the City's streets have been reconstructed with concrete curb and gutter and storm sewer. With the exception of State Aid streets, the entire cost of this construction has been assessed to the abutting property owners on these streets. Improvements on State Aid streets have previously been assessed on the same basis as residential streets, using the cost of a typical residential street as a determination of the amount assessed. The remainder of the cost is paid with State Aid funds. I There are some items included in Mound's share of the County Road 15 construction that benefit the abutting properties in the same manner that similar construction benefitted properties abutting other streets in Mound. When County Road llO was improved in 1981, a portion of that cost was assessed to the abutting properties, therefore, to continue with a fair and consistent policy throughout the City, these costs for County Road 15 should also be assessed. The items to be considered for assessment would be concrete curb and gutter, concrete driveway aprons, concrete sidewalk and storm sewer. Concrete Curb and Gutter & Driveway. Aprons The cost of the curb and gutter and driveway aprons is assessed to the properties abutting the improvement on a per lineal foot basis for the curb and gutter and a square yard basis for driveway aprons. The proposed assessment for curb and gutter would be $51,412.73 divided by 10,200 lineal feet which equals $5.04 per lineal foot. The proposed assessment for driveway aprons is $18,954.00 divided by 1,000 square yards which equals $18.95 per square yard. A typical driveway apron is 16 feet wide by l0 feet deep, resulting in an assessment of $336.89. Hider aprons would be proportionately more expensive. Sidewalk The cost of the sidewalk would be assessed to the properties abutting the improvement on a square foot basis. The proposed assessment for sidewalk would be 50% of Mound's share of the cost or $31,629.49 divlded by 44,500 S.F. which equals $0.71 per square foot. For a typical 80 foot wide residential lot with a 16 foot driveway, the proposed assessment would be $227.20. The portlon of a sidewalk through a driveway is assessed as driveway apron. Storm Sewer The cost for storm sewer on previous street improvements has been assessed as part of the street project. Prior to that, storm sewers in Mound were assessed on a square foot basis to the entire watershed drained by the storm sewer system. In the past a credit has been given to properties previously assessed for street improvements which included storm sewer. We would recommend that the storm sewer cost for this project be assessed on a square foot basis to the properties abutting the street and that if any of these properties were previously assessed for storm sewer as part of a street project, they will be given credit against this project. On thls basls, the estimated assessment for storm sewer is $130,599.37 divided by 1,750,000 S.F., which equals $0.075 per square foot. Sewer and Water Services If during construction it is determined that sewer or water services need to be installed where none previously existed, the cost for same would be assessed to the benefitting property. Summary of Estimated Totals to be Assessed Concrete Curb and Gutter $ 51,412.73 Concrete Driveway Aprons 18,954.00 Concrete Sidewalks 31,629.49 Storm Sewer 130~599.37 Total ........................................ $ 232,595.59 Of the total properties abutting the project, it is estimated that City owned property and the right-of-way of intersection streets account for 25% to 30%. Included in this figure is the railroad footage between Northern Road and Seton Channel. If 27% is used as the City's share of the assessment, 73~ of $232,595.59 or approximately $169,794.78 would be assessed against private property. If the recommendations for assessments contained in this report are followed, a typical 80 x lO0 lot would be assessed $600.00 for storm sewer, $403.20 for curb and gutter, $~6.89 for a driveway apron and $227.20 for sidewalk for a total of $1,567.29. This compares with an assessment of $3,577.75 for the same size lot on the 1980 Street Improvement Project. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMF~NDATIONS Hennepin County is in the process of preparing the final plans for this project which should be ready for the City's final approval in late summer or early fall. The project would then be bin sometime in the winter of 87-88 with actual construction to start in the spring. Moune would be billed for 90~ of their share of the construction or approximately $243,000.00 at the time the contract is awarded. In the past, the City has been invoiced separately at a later time for their share of the right-of-way cost. The proposed assessments will not even begin to pay the City's share of the project; therefore, we would recommend the difference be made ge with money from Mound's State Aid Construction Fund. It is our opinion that the project is feaslble and can be accomplished as described herein. McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc. 12800 Industrial Park Blvd. Plymouth, MN 55441 612/559-3700 1-800-328-8322 Ext. 784 May 11, 1987 Engineers Planners Surveyors Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 SUB,~CT: Preliminary Engineering Report Street Lights County Road No. 15 ~KA #8259 Dear Mayor and Council Members: As requested, we are submitting herewith a Preliminary Engineering Report for new street lights on County Road No. 15. If you have any questions, or require additional information on anything in this report, we will be pleased to discuss this further with you at your convenience. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Oohn Cameron OC:jmj Enclosures GENERAL This report will investigate the cost and feasibility of installing a new street lighting system on County Road 15 from Commerce Boulevard to the Seton Bridge. At the present time, there exlsts eight (8) old style fluorescent street lights between Commerce Boulevard and the Post Office. These lights are obsolete and expensive to operate and maintain, in fact, the one in front of Century Auto Body had to be removed and has not been replaced. Two of the lights are within the area of proposed reconstruction on County Road 15 and probably will need to be relocated by the county's contractor. There are also 13 existing street lights mounted on N.S.P. poles at various locations between Belmont Road and Bartlett Boulevard. Most of these are located at intersections, but a few are in mid-block such as the two across from the apartment buildings. We believe these are all 100 watt high pressure sodium flxtures which were installed and are owned by N.S.P. LIGHTS The proposed lights would be a contemporary design to match the existing lights on Commerce Boulevard. The light standards would be 35 feet high with a 6 to 8 foot mast on the top of the pole. The lamps would be either 150 watt high pressure sodium or 250 watt high pressure sodium, the same as are in use along Commerce Boulevard. Electrical outlets would be provided for Christmas decoration lighting at a 20 feet height above the ground. This report will include two alternates for the City to review. Alternate No. i would be for thirty (30) new 250 watt high pressure sodium lights at 100 foot alternate spaclng along both sides of the street from Commerce Boulevard to Falrview Lane. If thls Alternate ls used, then the 6 exlsting N.S.P. lights between Fairview Lane and Bartlett Boulevard would remain in approximately the same location. Alternate No. 2 will investigate the feasibility of installing new 11ghts the entire length of the street improvement from Commerce Boulevard to Bartlett Boulevard. For this Alternate, nine - 150 watt high pressure sodium and seven - 250 watt hlgh pressure sodlum lights would be aaded to Alternate No. i for the area from Fairview Lane to Bartlett Boulevard, with the lower wattage lamps used in the residential area. The existino fluorescent liohts provide approximately 1.7 foot candles at street level compared to an average o? 2 foot candles ?or the 250 watt fixtures with 100 foot alternate spacing and approximately i foot candle ?or the 150 watt fixtures at 200 foot alternate spacing. The existing fluorescent lights cost the City $156.60 per fixture per year and the 100 watt high pressure sodium cost $115.20 per fixtures per year to operate. The new high pressure sodium fixtures would cost $54.60 for the 150 watt and $?6.20 for the 250 watt per fixture per year to operate. N.S.P. will maintain the new fixtures at no additional expense, whereas they do not maintain the existing fluorescent lights. At the present time, the existing system from Commerce Boulevard to Bartlett Boulevard, which includes only 2i lights, cost the City $2,?50.40 per year to operate. A new lighting system for this entire area, as suggested under Alternate No. 2 with 46 fixtures, would cost $3,334.00 per year to operate and maintain. COST ESTIMATES As previously mentioned, two of the existing fluorescent lights are within the proposed construction limits for County Road 15 anO would need to be relocated by the county's contractor. If the City installed new lights, the County would pay for two new bases and the wiring necessary for two lights. The total cost for each Alternate is as follows: Alternate No. 1 Alternate No. 2 $ 127,353.00 $ 202,373.00 The credit for the two bases and wiring to be paid by Hennepin County would amount to approximately $3,000.00 and would be deducted from each of the Alternates, if the existing lights interfere with the street construction. A breakdown of the estimated cost for each Alternate is enclosed. COST ESTIMATE - ALTERNATE NO. 1 ITEM QUANTITY UNIT PRICE Poles and Fixtures (250 Watt) Bases Wire Conduit Control Centers 30 EACH $ 1,100.O0/EA 30 EACH $ 550.O0/EA 26,000 L.F. $ 1.25/LF 600 L.F. $ 7.20/LF 3 EACH $ 2,100.O0/EA Contingencies Total Estimated Construction Cost Engineering, Legal, Fiscal and AOministrative Costs Total EstimateO Cost Alternate No. 1 COST ESTIMATE - ALTERNATE NO. 2 ITEM QUANTITY UNIT PRICE Poles and Fixtures (250 Watt) Poles and Fixtures (150 Watt) Bases Wire Conduit Control Centers 39 EACH $ 1,100.O0/EA 7 EACH $ 1,O00.O0/EA 46 EACH $ 550.O0/EA 44,000 L.F. $ 1.25/LF 900 L.F. $ 7.20/LF 5 EACH $ 2,100.O0/EA Contingencies Total Estimated Construction Cost Engineering, Legal, Fiscal and Administrative Costs TOTAL 33,000.00 16,500.00 32,500.00 4,320.00 6,300.00 $ 9~262.00 $101,882.00 $ 25~471.00 $127,353.00 TOTAL $ 42,900.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 25,300.00 $ 55,000.00 $ 6,480.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 14~718.00 $161,898.00 $ 40~475.00 Total Estimated Cost Alternate No. 1 $202,373.00 ASSESSNENTS On the previous street light project along County Road 110, approximately 1/3 of the total cost was assessed to the abutting private properties. On this project, we would recommend that a minimumof 40% of the total cost be assessed to the private property abutting the improvements. The assessable footage for each Alternate breaks down as follows: Alternate No. 1 Commercial Property Residential and Multiple City Owned and Unassessable Total Alternate No. 2 Commercial Property Residential and Multiple City Owned and Unassessable Total 4,300 L.F. 100 L.F. 1~740 L.F. 6,140 L.F. 4,725 L.F. 2,875 L.F. .~270 L.F. 10,870 L.F. On the previous street light project, the commercial property was assessed 1-1/2 times the rate of the residential Property. If the same procedure is used, the proposed assessments for each Alternate would be as follows: W[THOD A - 40% OF THE TOTAL COST ASSESSED TO PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY Alternate No. 1 Amount to be Assessed Would be Cost Per Foot for Commercial Property Cost Per Foot for Residential Property $50,491.00 11.67 7.78 Alternate No. 2 Amount to be Assessed Would be Cost Per Foot for Commercial Property Cost Ret Foot for Residential Property $80,950.00 12.19 8.13 ~ETHOD B - 50% OF THE TOTAL COST ASSESSED TO PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY Alternate No. 1 Amount to be Assessed Would be Cost Per Foot for Commercial Property Cost Per Foot for Residential Property $63,677.00 14.58 9.72 Alternate No. 2 Amount to be Assessed Would be Cost Per Foot for Commercial Property Cost Rer Foot for Residential Rroperty CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS $101,187.00 15.24 lO.16 With the reconstruction that is scheduled for County Road 15, this is the best opportunity the City will ever have to install street lights in the remainder of their downtown area. It is the opinion of the Englneer that the proposed project is feasible, and can best be accomplished as described herein. STREET IMFROVEMENTS STREET LIGHTS (ALT. NO. 1 WITH METHOD A ASSESSMENT) SUBTOTAL PROJECT SUMMARY COUNTY ROAD NO. 15 ASSESSI~ENTS PAID BY CITY TOTAL PRO..1ECT COST $169,795 + $161,724 = $331,519 ,$ 50~941 + $ 76~412 = $127~353 $220,736 + $238,136 = $458,872 WATERMAIN REPLACEMENT -0- + $ 55~000 : $ 55;0D0 TOTALS $220,736 + $293,136 : ~'513,872 STATE AID REIMBURSEMENT DEFICIT FUNDING -,$189~600 * $103,536 $148,547 IF ALTERNATE NO. 2 WITH "METHOD A" ASSESSMENT IS USED FOR STREET LIGHTS. $90,000 IF ALTERNATE NO. 1 WITH "METHOD B" ASSESSMENT IS USED FOR STREET LIGHTS. $128,311 IF ALTERNATE NO. 2 WITH "METHOD B" ASSESSMENT IS USED FOR STREET LIGHTS. -.5 COST ESTIMATE WATE~4AIN REPLACEMENT FOR COUNTY ROAD 15 FAIRVIEW LANE TO FERNSIDE LANE 8" WATERMAIN 8" GATE VALVES 3/4" & 1" SERVICE CONNECTION 3/4" & l" CURB STOP i 1/2" SERVICE CONNECTION 3/4" COPPER SERVICE RIRE i 1/2" CORRER SERVICE PIPE FITTINGS HYDRANT 6" GATE VALVE 6" HYDRANT LEAD GRANULAR MATERIAL MOBILIZATION 1270 L.F. ~ $ 15.00/LF = 3 EACH ~ 500.O0/EA = 20 EACH ~ 40.O0/EA = 20 EACH ~ IO0.O0/EA = 3 EACH ~ 200.O0/EA = 700 L.F. ~ 8.00/LF = 50 L.F. ~ ll.O0/LF = 3000 LBS ~ 1.O0/LB = i EACH ~ 900.O0/EA = 2 EACH ~ 400.O0/EA = 25 L.F. ~ 12.00/LF = 200 TONS ~ 8.00/TN = i L.S. LUMR SUM = $ 19,050.00 1,500.00 800.00 2,000.00 600.00 5,600.00 550.00 3,000;00 900.00 800.00 300.00 1,600.00 3,000.00 CONTINGENCIES 4~300.08 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $44,000.00 ENGINEERING, LEGAL, FISCAL & ADMIN. COST ll~O00.O0 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROOECT COST .................... $55,000.00 /3/,2... BILLS--' MAY 12, 1987 Batch 874043 ', Batch 874044 Computer Run dated 5/5/87 Computer Run dated 5/7/87 52,960.81 68,768.78 Preferred Paving Howard Simar Loren Kohnen Lynwood & Tuxedo Recycling work Bldg inspections 3,800.63 288.00 520.00 Total B|lls 126.338.22 zZZ ZZZz ZZ ZZZz ZZ ~ZZZ ZZ Z 0000 ~ ZZ oooo ~ ~ ZZZZ ~ ~ 0000 ~ ~ ZZZZ ZZZZ Z 0 <: I- O~ n,, uJ .? I- n~ I- Z 0 U ...J 0 ZZ oo ZZ :z-t- oo miff oo oo Z ~ ~ ~ OZ~Z~Z ~ZOZ 0 0 ~00000 0000 0 0 0 000000 0000 o ! Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ::2 :2 :~) '"J :~ :~ ::~ h ii. LI. I~ b.. b. h h ~ UJ LIJ ~J ~J bJ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z bJ Z 00000~ 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I I I I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I I I I I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I I I I I I I I I I L~ Z ~- 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z Z Z Z Z ~' Z Z Z Z Z Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,y Z Z 0 Z Z L~ N Z =.~ LL 0 C~ Z 0 U Z t~ 0 0 I- 0 m Z glo -J )- -r' 0 Z X 0 Z · I- Z 0 oo oo oo ~ oo oo oo oo oo oo Z o Z ~=~ /$/$ LIJ 0 Z 0 ~J 0 "r' /$/7 Z 0 ..I I- Z I-. Z Z ~o~0 oo U~ oo Z 0 0 .J 0 .J 0000000000 0000000000 0000000000 oooooooooo X oo U # UJ UJ 41. D~ U. tl.I # 0.1 # X Z 0 D~ {.3 .J 0 I I I TTT 777 # · I 41, I 4~ # · Z 0 0 0 -r I- I- 1- 000 ZZZ hi hi hi X UJ 0 Z ,.I Z 0 U~ O~ Z 0 0000000000 Z UJ UJ 0 T' t ~,0 ~1 ~o ooo ooo CO o oooooooooo oooooooooo U I · Z 0 n, 0 Z Iii 000 ZZZ ZZZ ZZZ 000 X X 0~ O0 ~ O0 O0 O0 O0 ~ O0 O0 O0 mm -- ~ oo m~ Z o U1 iff iff ooo o oooooo o oooooo o o o o o iff U~ iff ~ iff · o · · OJ ~ · O~ · · · ,iff * ,,o '~ ~ · · oJ # (U ~JOJ · · (U · t%l OJOJ · I Iff I oo ! ! oo I~lOJ I~1~ ooo Z 0 Z · O. 0 OLd Zn,. I--Itl I 0 O0 I-I- O0 ILO. bJUJ I-I-- ZZZ ZZ O0 I-I- I-,I- ZZ O0 I-I- 030) 00000 00000 00000 XXXXX 00000 XXXXX I- Z o oo oooo ~oo~ ~0 ooo ooo Z 0 14 0 ~- Z oo oooo0ooo oooooooo oo oo ooo ooo ooooo ooooo I 0 ! o ! P.D.. I I I I oo NlM · t' '~' I I MMM I I I I I I o~o r,'l M M I I I M Z 0 X hi ~0 0 0 Z UJ · 0 / hi >- 0 ..I N N 0 .~. 0 0 I- Z 00~. I I "r .J ..I ,~ .J_li I-I-F- I I I OD'" NNIW I I I UJ I,I LiJ 000 ZZZ Z % I.- Z Z 0 I- Z Z I (0 0 I.- 0 Z O. Z I- 0 -I Z 0 .J C~ 0 U. 0 I- 0000 00~ ~0~ O0 O0 0 · O0 miff O0 MM oo o o Z ~C -/- ~0~0 oo o o M 41, ~o I I I'11'1 I I I ! U t 41, ,I, IIIIIIIII 000000000 O~ UJ (~ I O.J O< ZZ ZZ O0 ~U Z 0000000~0 ZZZZZZZ~Z ZZ~ZZZZ~Z I1[111111 000000000 0 ~ O0 O0 ~0~ 000 O0 ~~ O0 ~ ~ O0 ~ ~0~ 000 OO ~ O0 ~ # o * a) c0 # $- 00o000o00 oooo0o0000 ~r,~' I I (uoJ oJ I (ti ~r I oo i~1~. ! ! Z 0 ~,, Z LUll Ii.U. O0 ZZ ZZ I I O0 Z 0 Z I- U bJ Z m, hi I-- --I UJ 0 ,r UJ f- >. o31 U I- 4: ,s- O N N Z I-- 0 I-- C3 Z I-- ~: Z 03 Z 0 0 0. 0 Z Z mm mm _.1--1 .d N X ~J Z 0 LqUlo ~ OJ 0 0 0 U'I U1 o o 0 Z bJ 0 /32,'7 75 YEARS CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155 May 5, 1987 TO: FROM: RE: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER JIM FACLKER, PARKS DIRECTOI~---~ APRIL 1987 REPORT GENERAL COMMENT Currently there is a staff of six working with the Parks Department. The staff is as follows: 1. Dock Inspector - Dell Rudolph 2. Cemetery Grounds - Howar Simar 3. Downtown Mowing - Phil Haugen .4. Parks Maintenance - Bob Johnson and John Taffe 5. Parks Director - Jim Fackler The parks mowing crew will begin approximately June 1st. The crew will be made up of two full-time seasonal employees, Heintz Proft and Andy Manthei. We also hope to have two tree trust workers to help on mowing and litter pick up. The City crew has begun with the rip rapping. We have finished Avalon Park and have begun back filling areas at the Carlow and Fairview dock areas. There currently is a lot of work to be done in the commons and parks. The lower water level of the lake has made great access for rip rapping and fill, but we are pressed to do other projects such as equipment repair and mowing. We are handling the work by priority. Additional seasonal help will be looked into for 1988. COMMONS DOCKS There are three main projects at this time: 1. Rip rapping 2. Jennings Bay dredge 3. Black Lake Channel dredge With low water in Minnetonka, the rip rapping is being performed with easy access. But on the other hand, it has created limited access to PARKS DEPARTMENT APRIL REPORT May 5, 1987 Page 2 docks by boats. We are looking at amending the Jennings Bay dredge at the request of private lake shore residents and getting a permit for Black Lake Channel. More information will be forth coming to you on this. The issuing of Commons docks for 1987 has been completed and the Dock Inspector has begun inspection of docks and shore line repair. A list for rip rapping is being set up for this summer and the winter of 87-88. We have received compliments on the shore line improvements from residents. There is much work to be done on the commons areas. The 1987 budget will greatly aid the commons in repairs. PARKS The Parks Commission is looking at the projected costs for replacing parks play equipment. This is a much needed increase so as to provide a fun and safe area for children to play. This cost breakdown will be in my 1988 budget request. CEMETERY Howar Simar, caretaker for Union Cemetery, is working hard to have the grounds ready for Memorial Day. The monies spent last winter for tree trimming at the cemetery will be appreciated by the visitors to the cemetery this year. TREE REMOVAL In May we cut five trees down on the commons, three of these were trees damaged by beavers. The other two were dead elms. Six trees were removed from city boulevards and vacant city lots. Also, we have two areas of brush removed. JF:Is 75 YEARS CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155 May 6, 1987 TO: FROM: RE: CITY MANAGER CITY CLERK APRIL ~ONTHLY REPORT The City had two regular Council Meetings in April .with 26 resolutions and 1 new ordinance. The City sold 2 parcels of land: one to Nell Weber completing a process that started in 1984; the other was to Andrew Cummings who lives across the street from Grimm's Grocery. The City dealt with the following tax forfeit lots: One lot which the City asked for conveyance for park and wetlands. Two parcels that were released for public sale because they comply with the City's zoning ordinance or building codes. Nine parcels that did not comply with the City's zoning or building codes and are slated for sale to and combination with adjoining properties. I did research and prepared a-report for the City Council on Hennepin County's assessing services vs. private contract assessing services and the local Board of Review. I will be submitting this report to the' League of Minnesota Cities for their files because they had absoluting nothing on this type of study and they have asked for the report· I spent a considerable amount of time inputing reports that you have given to the City Council at the work sessions. Hennepin C6unty has sent notices of the upcoming tax forfeit land sale to everyone within 300 feet of property to be sold at public auction and to all persons owning property adjoining land that is unbuildable. This has resulted in at least two to three calls per day asking for information on these properties. This is all / 33d Monthly Report - April May 6, 1 987 property that was dealt with by the City in 1986. So you see it takes a considerable amount of time after we act for the County to get the sale going. The encouraging point to all this is that there are a lot of people out there looking to purchase these parcels and add to their existing lots. I am working on at least 7 more parcels of tax forfeit property. Some of these needed to go to the City Engineer for a determination on how much of the land is wetlands and needs to be retained for that purpose. These will be forthcoming to the Council for action. There were 31 voter registration transactions processed in April. There were two meetings with the group~working on.the optical scan voting pKocddures and election judges training manual. These meetings are running smoothly and efficiently and we are really making headway. fc I$$1 75 YEARS CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYVVOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155 May 7, 1987 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Ed Shukle City Manager Greg Skinner Water & Sewer Supt. April's Activity Report In April we pumped 27,606,000 gallons of water. There were 8 new accounts, 15 summer ~-ons, 11 t-off's for non-payment and 8 turned back on, 0 water main breaks, and 43 final readings. Road restrictions were lifted this month and construction is in full swing. Watermain for the fire line and domestic line for the new bank is in and completed. We did some repairs on the Tele-step system for the well's this month. Ail seems to be working fine now. With the dry weather we have had we are still able to maintain an ample supply of water. At this point I see no problem or need to impose any watering bans. SEWER DEPT. The Sewer Dept. had 1 back-up this month. There was no damage to any houses, but very time consuming for the City. We started flushing wet wells this month. This project takes approximately 3 weeks. After flushing the wet wells we start at .the beginning again to flush filters, this takes about ! week. This all should be completed by the end of May. We will then begin to clean the sewer lines for the rest of the summer. 1332, 75 YEARS CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYVVOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155 May 7, 1987 TO: Ed Shukle City Manager FROM: Greg Bergquist Shop Mechanic SUBJECT: April's Activity Report The Street Department was the biggest user of shop time this month, starting with sweeper repair, it was our 1970 sweeper with a burned out main broom drive bearing. Next our 73 Chev. Tanker needed a starting motor, then it was on to making ready the blacktop and patching equipment, these include roller and trailor, oiler, jack hammer and dump trucks, services to these include oil changes, filter, tune ups, etc. Next some preventitive maintenance was preformed on Unit #15 (83 Ford LT 9000) dump truck body was sandblasted, primered and repainted Highway Orange. This procedure was also done on 2 sanders, one wing plow and 1 front plow. This procedure is done approximately every 3 to 4 years to each truck and piece of equipment to prevent premature rusting because of the close and frequent contact with salt sand. Unit #5 also required 2 new front tires, tie rod ends, drag link to the steering for the truck to be operated saftley. Mowers were on top of the list for the Parks Dept., complete servicing included oil changes, filters, batteries, tune ups and blades. Normal service was preformed on many of the squad cars, also 2 of the older squads were dismantled and sent to the Hennepin County Auction. IND 75 YEARS CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155 May 7, 1987 TO: Ed Shukle City Manager FROM: Geno Hoff Street Supt. SUBJECT: April's Activity Report The first half of April was spent on our spring cleanup. We completed our sweeping on the 15th, we made good time this year because of few breakdowns and also we had a very mild winter. I made up a list showing you the date, area, hours and the amount of debris picked up in our spring cleanup. DATE AREA HOURS LOADS (4 yd.) 3/24 County 15 & 110 8 9 3/25 Bartlett, Wilshire, Maywood 8 10 Three Points Three Points Three Points Tonkawood Edgewater & Shirley Hills Emerald & Island Pa~k Island Park Island Park Parking lots, Cty. Rd. 110 City Hall, Island Park Island Park Highlands Highland & Dutch Lake Parking lots, Dutch Lake TOTAL 3/26 8 16 3/27 8 13 4/1 8 9 4/2 8 10 4/3 4 4 4/6 10 21 4/7 10 22 4/8 10 7 4/9 5 6 4/13 10 10 4/14 10 10 4/15 4 8 111 155 After the cleanup.was finished we spent about a week working on equipment. We started out dismantling snow equipment and sandblasting and painting plows and sanders. After work was completed they were stored in the Balboa building. We also took the sweepers back to Balboa and moved the oil tanker and roller back to the shop to get them ready for patching. We plan to start our blacktop patching the 4th of May. We pulled weight restrictions off the 10th of April. That is the~ earliest that I can remember. We hung the Mound City Days Banners the 22nd and 23rd. We installed 6 new street sign~ and posts. We purchased 3 tons of cilica sand for blasting at $48.00 a ton or $144.00 CEMETERY WORK Staked out 2 greaves and 2 stones. /333- 75 YEARS CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYVVOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155 May 7, 1987 TO: Ed Shukle City'Manager FROM: Joyce Nelson SUBJECT: April's Recycling In April we received our $4.00 per ton payment from Met Council for t~he months October 1986 to March 1987. We apply for this twice a year. Starting March 28, 1987 thru May 2, 1987 the city supplies a person for the compost site at Minnetrista. The City of Minnetrista takes care of it during the week and Mound had someone there for 6 Saturdays. This site will also accept grass clippings during the summer months. Next fall it will be open for leaves again. On April 30 Dan Huschke Hennepin County Recycling Coordinator came out to talk with Mound, Minnetrista, St. Boni. and Spring Park about a joint power agreement for recycling in this area. He would like to see all 4 towns together with 1 contract. We have been receiving alot of old tires from this area. We charge $1.50 per tire. Tonson the company that picks up these tires and recycles them picked up 186 tires, 14 truck tires and 2 tractor tires. I'm thinking of raising this to $2~.00 per tire, some people are dropping off their tires and not paying for them. April's pick-up was 11.44 tons. MOUND 5344 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612)472-1155 75 YEARS May 6, 1987 TO: FROM: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER AND CITY COUNCIL JOHN NORMAN, FINANCE DIRECTOR RE: APRIL 1987 MONTHLY FINANCE REPORT AUDI T The audit was presented to the Council on April 28th. The preparation of all the statements for the audit takes time. However, there is a signigicant cost savings on our audit bill with us doing the statements internally. I am now preparing a summary of the 1986 financial statement for publication in the local paper. Also, there are forms required by state statutes that must be filed with the State Auditors Office. COMMERCE PLACE TAX ASSESSMENTS Hennepin County sent us a schedule of property tax values for Commerce Place for 1987 and 1988 taxes. After examining the valuations, it be- came apparent that the values were low. After checking with the City Manager, I contacted Hennepin County regarding the valuations. It turns out that the county did not assess the proper amount. There was an assessing agreement signed by the developer'; the City HRA, and Hennepin County setting a minimum assessed value for taxes in 1987 and 1988. The County then sent out corrected tax statements for 1987 and valuation notices for 1988 which reflects the increase in taxes at Commerce Place. This correction is very important since the tax in- crement is used to pay off the principal and interest on the bonds. FINANCE DEPARTMENT APRIL REPORT MAY 6, 1987 PAGE 2 INVESTMENTS The following is the April investment activity: Balance 4-1-87 Bought: FNMA 6.5 Due 10-1-87 Dain CD 6.6 Due 7-1-87 St. Bank - Mound CD 6.5 Due 6-25-87 St. Bank - Mound CP 6.7 Due 10-19-87 Piper CP 6.4 Due 6-4-87 Marquette CP 6.6 Due 6-25-87 Piper Repo 6.4 Due 5-5-87 Marquette Matured: CP 6.1 Piper BA 5.8 First Minneapolis CD 5.65 Marquette CP 5.71 Marquette CP 5.8 Dain CP 6.45 Piper CD 5.85 Marquette CD 6.1 St. Bank - Mound CP 5.8 Dain BALANCE 4-30-87 $6,534,831 500,000 420,000 150,OO0 200,065 180,684 240,238 3OO,OOO (73;687) (100,008) (260,000) (100,158) (200,011) (179,230) (175,000) (18o,ooo) (149,593) $7,108,131 COMMERCE SQUARE TIF DISTRICT Balance 4-1-87 TIF Expenses (includes relocation expenses Mound Medical Clinic) April Interest Balance 4-30-87 $159,814 (22,675) 739 $137,879 Currently we have two funds to account for regarding Commerce Place. The debt service fund takes in all the revenue from the property tax increment_and pays all of the bond principal and interest. This fund will be on the City's books until all of the bonds are retired. The capital projects fund detailed above is used for acquisition, demolition, and site preparations. This fund will end sometime this year with any remaining balance transferred to the debt service fund. JN:ls LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Telephone 472-3711 Mound, MN 55364 Dispatch 544-9511 EMERGENCY 911 TO: FR OM: SUBJECT: Ed Shukle, City Manager Len Harrell, Chief of Police Monthly Report for May, 1987 I. STATISTICS The police responded to 645 calls for service in the month of April. for Part I offenses were 27; including 2 assaults, 8 burglaries, 15 larcenies, 1 vehicle theft, and 1 arson. Calls Part II offenses accounted for 73 calls; including 4 child abuse/neglect, 5 forger~/NSF checks, 15 criminal damage to property, 1 weapons violation, 3 narcotics violations, 14 DWI's, 4 assaults, 10 harassmen{ complaints, 5 runaway/incorrigibility, and 11 other offenses. The patrol division issued 261 adult citations; including 24 parking vio- lations. Juveniles received 29 citations for various driving offenses. A total of 163 warnings were issued. One adult and one juvenile were arrested for felonies during the month. Twenty-four adults and 8 juveniles were arrested for misdemeanors. The department responded to 15 medicals, 7 property damage accidents, and 5 personal injury accidents. Animal calls accounted for 103 complaints. The department assisted neighboring communities on 18 calls. Property valued at $18,906 was stolen during the month of April. II. INVESTIGATION Two child abuse/neglect cases were worked accoUnting for 5 hours of investigative time. The trial of another child abuse case accounted for an additional 15 hours of officer time and preparation. The investigation of 8 burglaries during themonth accounted for a good amount of investigative time also, Additionally, the department investi- gated 6 worthless check complaints, an assault, 2 runaway children, two damage to property, and two harassing communications complaints. Sgt. Hudson also attended a 40 hour seminar dealing with child abuse. III. MANPOWER Officers used a total of 13 shifts for a varietyof time off. of comp-time was used, nine vacation days, and one sick day. Three days An additional four shifts were moved to plain clothes to assist in routine follow-ups and in school presentations. IV. OVERTIME Approximately 20 hours of over-time was paid out in April,, One shift of overtime was to cover for sickness. Other hours involved court appearanc6s and late breaking arrests. V. TRAINING Eighteen shifts (144 hrs.) were used for training. Officers attended schools regarding child abuse, communication skills, and {ntoxilyzer re-certification. Each officer received firearms training in April accounting for an addi- tional 24 hours of training. VI. POLICE RESERVES The police reserves donated 144 hours of sergice to the department for the mOnth. Their calls included one emergency call out, three community service details, ride-alongs, reserve squad assignments, and training. The reserve account balance is approximately $6,600. Homicide Criminal Sexual Conduct Robber~ Assault 2 2 1 1 Burglar~ 8 Larceny 15 1 Vehicle Theft 1 Arson 1 .. TOTAL 27 ? 2 1 1 PART II CRIMES Child Abuse/Neglect 4 2 Forgery/NSF Checks . 5 2 4 4 Criminal Damage to Property 15 3 1 1 Weapons 1 i 1 Narcotic Laws 3 3 3 Liquor Laws . DWI 14 14 12 Simple Assault 1 1 1 Domestic Assault 3 .2 2 Domestics (No Assault} 1 Harassment 10 2 Runaway/Incorrigibility/Truancy 5 3 1 1 Public Peace 7 5 1 1 All Other Offenses 4 2 1 3 TOTAL 73 17 30 24 · 8 PART III'.&'~PART IV property Damage Accidents 7 Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents 0 Medicals '~ 15 Animal Complaints 103 Mutual Aid 18 Other General Investigations 397 TOTAL 545 TOTAL ACTIVITIES, 645 13"11 POLICE/CRIMEACTIVITY~RT MONTH YEA 1 87,, ACTIVITY SUMMARY THIS THIS YEAR LAST YEAR MONTH TO DATE TO DATE Hazardous Citations 26~ 699 -'357 Non-Hazardous Citations 65 243 205 Hazardous'Warnings 51. 195 171 Non-Hazardous Warnings 65 440 477 Verbal Warnings 87 307 - Parkin~ Citations 24 160 313 DWI 14. 47 45 ovER .10 10 34 31 Property Damage Accidents 7 30 22 Personal Injury Accidents 5 14 8 0 0 ccidens . Adult Felony Arrests 3 26 "15 Adult Misdemeanor Arrests 31 123 191 Adult Misdemeanor Citations 3 28 31 Juvenile Felony Arrests 1 23 8 Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests 8 36 45 Juvenile Misdemeanor Citations 5 18 15 Part I Offenses 27 .. 118 92 Part II Offenses 73 288 303 ..Medicals 15 63 64 Anim~! Complaints 103 398 389 Other General Investigations 397 1,'622 1,544 """:'"-" 1,263 4,913 4,296 ists 50 174 294 51 186 151 Follow-Ups PRC~PERTY LOSS/RECOVERY SUHtLRRY Bikes, Snowmobiles ITEM Boats, Hotors, Trailers Clothing Currency, Notes, Etc. 3ewelry & Precious Hetals Guns Home Furnishings Radlo & Electronic Equipment Vehicles & Vehlcle Equipment Miscellaneous TOTAL STOLEN $6,989 20 1,392 2,183 1,760 5,400 1,162 $ 2 $18,906 $ 2 RECOVERED City. MOUND Month APRIL 19 87 CITATIONS ADULT JUV or OUl lz 2 More than .10% BAC 8 2 Carel ess/Reckl ess Dri vi ng Driving AFter Susp. or Rev. 5 Open Bottle 4 Speeding 114 No DL or Expired DL 1 Restriction on DL Improper, Expired, or No Plates 24 Illegal Passin9 Stop Sign Violations Failure to Yield 9 Equipment Violations 17 H&R Leaving the Scene No Insurance 15 Illegal or Unsafe Turn )vet the Centerline Parkl, ng Violations Crosswalk 8 Do9 Ordinances Derel icl Autos MisCellaneous Tags 17 TOTALS t 261 WARNINGS No Insurance Traffic 29 44 Equlpment Crosswalk 5 Animals Trash/Derelict Autos 10 13 Other TOTAL ARRESTS "I Fe 1 on y 2 Mi.sdemeanor 7 9 1. 1 9 29 5 5 8 18 LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLIC 5341 Maywood Road Telephone 472-3711 Mound, MN 55364 Dispatch 544-9511 EMERGENCY 911 MOUND POLICE RESERVES MONTHLY HOURS APRIL 1987 OFFICER ECO RS RA TR Bob Brown 11 Butch Hawks 5 Dan Niccum 14 Dave St. Cyr 7½ 8½ 2 Connie Stahlbusch 14 3 Debbie Thompson 1 8 8 Ruth Vogel 4½ 6½ IN CS 10 10 2 2 2 2 2 2 TOTAL 13 17 16 18 24½ 37 18½ Totals 1 37 40 15 19 2O 12 144 ECO - Emergency Call Out Officer needed keys RS - Reserve Squad RA - Ride Along with Regular Officer TR - Training of Members Gun Training by Officer Grand IN - Instruction given by members CS - Community Service Details High'.School Dance Operation Clean Sweep MT - Monthly Meeting Submitted by, Debbie Thompson, Sgt. TO: City Manager and Members of the City C0unciI FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official ~ SUBJECT: April, l~87 Monthly Report During the month of April, the Inspection Department attended two Planning Commis- sion meetings on April 13th and 27th, two City Council meetings on April 14th and 28th. The Inspection Department had 22 working days in April with one day taken off as comp time. Marge attended two Planning Commission meetings and Park Commis- sion meeting. There was some overtime hours during the month of April. The fol- lowing inspections were conducted during the month of April: * Site inspections 41 Footing inspections 29 Framing inspections 7 Insulation inspections 5 Drywall inspections Final inspections 2O Progress inspections 13 Erosion/Grading Moving inspections **Heating inspections Plumbing inspections 16 Fire Sprinkler/Suppression Complaints 20 Total 173 The monthly report for March was submitted to the. City Manager during the month. Zoning reports were submitted to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission refered the Lost Lake Report, 7 variances, ! conditional use permits and 2 sub- divisions to the City Council for action. The road restrictions were lifted early during the month of April. You will note the larger number of footing inspections 'compared with the month of March. Writing of correspondence, resolutions, and Planning Commission reports were sent out from the Department. Correspondence re- ceived during the month were reviewed; recording was done on the substitute inspec- tion service for the one day the Inspector was gone from the office in April as well as the daily inspection logs were made. I met with the City Prosecutor for discussion to start prosecution proceedings for the Balboa facility and a pre-fab house that was placed at 4628 Bradford Road by Sun Gold Corporation, Steve Coddon. We also went over the list of complaints April Monthly Report May 5, 1987 - Page 2 for status of items ' A report was submitted to the City Manager on the condition of City Hall for a repair and maintenance program over the next five years. Meeting was held with Balboa of Minnesota to discuss building revisions for their floor drains, as well as the compliance listed on the Temporary certificate of Occupancy. I attended a Building Inspector's lunch in Medina with the topic being manbfactured trusses, and repairs. A meeting was held Inver Hills Community College by the State Code Division with the topic of "Every Building Must Have An Exit". It was a Nation wide Telecommunications meeting with other states responding to a question and answer session after the presentation was made of the Code as viewed by an interpretor, a plan reviewer, and also a Fire Marshal. The Plumbing Inspec- tor and myself manned an information booth Saturday, April llth, 1987, at Knox Lumber in Hopkins during the Building Safety Week. Plan review was conducted during the month for six new homes, the Smith Heating building facility, and several home additions. The City vehicle ~as taken in for oil change, lubrication and repair of vacuum switch on the air conditioner with normal gasoline fills during 'the month. The total number of building permits issued in the month of April was 50 with a valuation of $794,356. A copY of the Building Activity Report is attached. The total valuation for the year of 1987 is $2,354,062. In. addition, our Department prepared the monthly calendar of the April City meetings and events. Also we arranged with the Public Works Department to have two grave sites staked out for burials in Mound Union Cemetery. Marge prepared the Park Com- mission agenda and wrote the minutes as well as typing some correspondence for the Park Department. JB/ms Attachment * Site inspections include the review of the Planning Commission requests and require- ments, complaints and follow-up to code compliance such as, no building permit, re- check of compliance notice, review status of various sites for the City Prosecutor, pre-construction meetings, at the site for building permit applicants or realtors, fire damage and periodic commercial inspection updates. ** The h eating inspections during the construction of project.are included under the framing and final inspections of the building. The heating installations men- tioned are for separate equipment being placed in homes and businesses. Several of the inspections for framing involve framing and insulation of the same structure. CITY OF HOUND City 5341 Maywood Road StreetAcldress Mound. MN. 55364 City and State BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT ~nth of Apri 1 . .o,.~ ~.m,y Un,, 6 6 517,626. 21 1,827,339. (Group A Torsi No. Family N~ NO~RESIDE~L N~ ~MtM Total No~Resldiat~l 1 ~'*~: 108,300 1 108,300. I RESIDENTIAL Y~ · ..*~;' [4,}06 22 204,874 ToIIIRo~dInIlll '' 30 ~;~x,~ 137.720, 56 328,038 NON-RESIDENTIAL ADDF N~ ~. ~--'~' "~' 2 ~" 5,310 10 64,985 .' TOTAL MONTH AND ~" ~ 2,354,062. YEAR TO DATE 41 794,356. CONVERSIONS ' Per~ U~ Total Totll Demolition~ I 2 1 PERMIT~ INSPECTION~ ~ Pe~ht N~ Po~ ~ ~ ~EES Fence/Ret .Wa 1 I 6 7 ~o. 3 l 0 ~*OTAL 69 189 Smith Htg. 75 YEARS CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYVVOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155 Hay 6, 1987 TO: FROM: RE: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER AND CITY COUNCIL JOEL KRUMM, LIQUOR STORE MANAGER APRIL 1987 MONTHLY REPORT April of 1987'was a record breaking month. Sales for the month were $67,578.96, making this April the best on record, eclipsing '1985 when we had $66,012.01 in sales. Easter, a spring promotion, and fantastic weather all contributed to this success. For the year we are $10,419.OO ahead of last year. In addition, we have had 359 more customers to this point compared to this time in 1986. Thus, we seem to be right on course as to where we have to be in order to break even (profit wise) with last year's profits. What has pleased me recently is that I am seeing some of our past customers we haven't seen in awhile coming back to shop our store. They seem to be realizing that overall, we do indeed have the lowest prices in the lake area. In our continuing effort to search for ways to minimize our overhead, I have decided to cancel our present pest exterminating company (Bradley) who were charging us $40.00 per quarter and switch to a new company (Plunkets) who made us an offer of only $30.00 per quarter. Plus they will assure us the same quality service we were getting before. This will save us $40.00 per year. With the never ending escalation in waste and refuse removal, I have opted to make a change in our garbage hauling procedures. Blackowiaks were charging us $46.00 per month in 1986 to remove our trash. The new rates for 1987 are $58.00 per month. Prior to the end of April, Black- owiaks had been coming to the store three times a week. Not only would they empty our dumpster (that we had previously been sharing with Gifts and Greetings) but they would also come into our store to pick up excess cardboard. By compacting our own cardboard and throwing it in the dump- ster, Mr. Blackowiak has conceded that this will save his employees time (thus money), and has agreed to roll back the cost of his service to what it was in 1986. A savings of $144. a year for us. It will mean a little bit more time and effort on our part, which I am sure we can handle when we have some slack moments in the business. JK:ls 13q 4901 Manitou Road, Tonka Bay, Minnesota 55331 Tel. 474-7994 May 6, 1~87 MAYOR Ruth Sherman COUNCIL L.H. Haug Douglas Keller Lawrence Niccum Kent Ottum ADMINISTRATOR Kirk McDonald Mr. Edward O. Shukle, Or., City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Shukle: I am writing to inform you of the third informational/meeting luncheon for Mayors, Administrators, anO Councilmembers in the West Lake Minnetonka Area. The meeting will discuss current Watershed District issues and concern. MEETING DATE: TIME: PLACE: COST: May 28th, 1987 11:30 AM to 2:00 PM Minnetonka Country Club $5 per person Representatives fro~ the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will be present to cover such items as Lake Level, 509 Plan Implications, Financial Assistance~ and BoarO Representation. Mr. Oames Mahady, Watershed Assistant, and perhaps two other commissioners will be present to discuss issues important to this group of communities. The communities inviteO are (Mayors, Administrators and Council People): Excelsior Deephaven/Greenwood Long Lake Minnetonka Beach Minnetrista Mound Orono St. Bonifacius Shorewood Spring Park Tonka Bay Please R.S.V.P. to my office by Monday, May 18, 1987. We look forwarO to seeing you and other Councilmembers from your community present at this meeting. Sincerely, 1551 KM/RL$':cah CITY OF TONKA BAY ~ Kirk McDonald, City Administrator Meeting Chairman MINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 27, 1987 Present were: Chairman.Thomas Reese; Commissioners Vern Andersen, William Meyer, Kenneth Smith, Brad Sohns, and William Thal; Council Representative Elizabeth Jensen; City Manager Ed Shukle; City Planner Mark Koegler;.Building Official Jan Bertrand and Secretary Marjorie Stutsman. Absent. and excused were Commissioners Geoff Michael and Frank Weiland. Also present were the following interested persons: Stuart Chazin, Mark Rosenbaum, David Rosenbaum, Dorothy Hallin and James Lewis. MINUTES The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 13, 1987 were presented for consideration. Smith moved.and AnderSen seconded a motion to approve the minu~es as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. The Chairman had a question of the ~uilding OffiCial on."30 inches or'less" (referred to in Case No. 87-621). He.thought that should be grade level. The Building Official said that refers to stoop and it is not defined in Zoning Code; but she refer6ed to 30 inches because the~Uniform Building Code does not require a-"guardrail or handrails on stairs 3 risers or less and that's what she feels is definition of stoop. The Com- mission discussed putting'that inlthe Ordinance and also defining what a "practical difficulty" is. The Vote On.the motion was unanimously in favor... BOARD OF APPEALS 1. Case No. 87-622 Lot Width Variance and Subdivision - 5950 Bartlett Boulevard Lot 55, Auditor's Subdivision No. 168; PID No. 23-117-24 13 0032 The applicant, Mark Rosenbaum, was present and also neighbors, Dorothy Hallin and"James Lewis were present -' The Building Official briefly reviewed the proposal and that elevations had been added to the survey. There. will be new sewer and water services and a new lift station will be required if this subdivi.sion is approved. The..rear lot line for proposed Parcel 2'could be changed.'to make a conformi~.,rt~[r~tru6ture on Parcel 2 has a nonconforming front yard setback of 20 feet instead of the 30 feet required; variance is the lot width (25 feet) for Parcel 1 which would than have deeded driveway. The City Engineer could review the drainage and possibly would recommend drainage easements. Applicant Mark Rosenbaum was present; he advised he had written to Ms. Hallin and the Lewis' informing them they have no intention of subdividing rear parcel more; they want to separate two structures so properties can be..sold to tenant resi- dents. He commented rear lot lin~ could be swung 90° to give Parcel 2 more land and a conforming rear yard setback. James Lewis was concerned that mo6e homes could be put in and make appearance of crowdiness and diminish spaciousness they have now. Ms. Hallln commented she does[ not think this is orderly planning. Ray Hanson, neighbor to the west, questioned kind of structure to be put on parcel 2; he stated tenants of that house have been type that play loud music until 3 A.M. and he did not feel a family would want to purchase and live in that small a house. He's opposed to more homes in this area. Planning commission Minutes April 27, 1987 - Page 2 Rosenbaum stated his intention is to make two self-sustaining parcels which can be sold to t~o parties. He would not object to having a restriction placed in the deed. limiting the d.i-visJon'to two sites. In response to the Commission's question, the Planner stated he believed because there is a variance involved, approval could be made subject to. having a deed restriction placed on Parcel 1 and have that reviewed by the'City Attorney. The Commission discussed.'the.request..at length;-the nonconformin~ size of the house on Par. cai 2; the. length. Of. time |~ has been unoccupied and whether 'it could be re-rented; there we. re.several suggestions for ways of splitting the land; discussed whether $0~ of value.~ule appl'ied; whether if they created the lot with 'the nonconforming structure, '~t would be back for more variances; also discussed past. decisions on simi. lar lots on Bartlett and whether they'd be creating more problems. It was noted'that lot is 1.38 feet wide at the street and, if'no house Were on' it, two conforming lots could be made---also noted that they'd be back to the bowling lane type lots, The.Planner clarified that.the small' structure can be rented again provided it has not.been vacant a year; ha'also stated that. sma1.1 house .does meet setback requirements and if separate Parcel, It could be added onto to meet minimum house size. Smith moved a motion to deny the request; motion was seconded by Jensen. Smith' stated the reason .for the motion was can'~t see reason to create more problems. The vote'was: Andersen, Jensen,. Reese, Smith and Sohns in favor of the denial and Meyer and Tha! against the denial. Motion carried. This will be on the Council'agenda for May 12, 1987. 2. Case No.. 87-624 Sign Variance for Shorel:ine Plaza Shopping Center, 5229 Shore- line Bou]evard; Lots 7-20.& 26-35 including vacated alley, parking-area and Park, Block I,' ShirleyHills Unit F; PID. No. 13-117-13 23 0072 Stuart Chazen was present fo'r'Mark Saliterman, owner of'the Shopping Center · The City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed his report. The existing sized sign is grandfathered in and is 8 X .10 feet and 28 feet in h~igh~; the ordinance limits free standing signs to 48 square feet and 25 feet in height..The replacement sign proposed for one on Shoreline is requested to be 10 X 12 feet and 30 feet in height. The proposed sign along Wilshire Boulevard for Domino'S Pizza conforms to the ordinance and does not require a variance. Koegler commented the visibility on Shoreline seems to be quite, good and the staff is recommending denial of the variance for the increased, sized'sign.' Mr. Chazln diSagreed on the visibility on Shoreline; he stated some of the tenants have requested a larger sign be put bp; the proposed sign would be two feet wider and 2 feet higher which'would make it more noticeable and bring tenants back to Mound. He d!d not believe that was too large a sign for a 28,000 square foot shopping center. If they can 9et more tenants,' they would like to expand with a 8,000 square feet addition onto the east of the structure. The Commission discussed the sign ordinance and one member commented ordinance may be a little restrictive and that the Commission, at the time of ordinance adoption, had stated they could consider visual impact on a case by case basis. The subject of the parking lot problems was also brought up. Planning Commission Minutes April 27, 1987 - Page 3 Thai moved and Sohns seconded a motion to recommend denlal of the request because it is against the ordinance. The .vote was Meyer, Reese and Smlth against the denial; Andersen, Sohns, Thal and Jansen for the denial. Motion carried 4 to'3. This will be on the Councll agenda for May 12, 1987. HOUSE HAINTENANCE CODE The City Planner, Hark Koeg)er, reviewed his'report on Housing Haintenance Code and commented that most communities~[h"codes have'a, similar purpose and that the real difference' is how they treat requirements for certifying of housing compliance. Some communities take a passive approach and check only on co~plaints while St~.Louls Park is intensely active and requires, inspection when a structure changes occupancy or ownership and it is requi.red to meet code. He stated we need to define what Hound's needs are and early on,~determine how active this community.wants to be. The Building Official' stated most complaints are from renters; she stated City would have to consider housing'maintenance; some homes rented were never built for year around use and are being rented as year around structures and also sold and then people wonder why pipes break, etc. She also discussed possibly looking into a land use ratio for undersized homes on undersized lots, etc. The CommisSion discussed the subject and questioned how big a problem we have. The Chairman suggested appointing a committee to identify types of problems and get .information from whatever sources available. Reese moved and Jansen seconded a motion to establish a sub-committee of the Commi'ssion with the task of defining the. problems that currently exist that cguld~' perhaps be reso)ved by some kind of housing maintenance ordinance and further asked 'that Bill Thai be Chair of that group. Geoff Michael's name was suggested to be on the Committee and Brad Sohns volunteered. The vote on the motion was un- animously in favor. The Commission discussed what is a fair amount of time to do carefully and thoroughly. It was decided to ask the subcommittee to report back by the 2nd meeting in Septem- ber. Jan Bertrand and the staff will work with the committee. EXTERIOR STORAGE . ' The City Manager explained.that the City CoUncil has asked that the Exterior Stor- age come back to the Planning Comm'ission for recommendations and to hold hearings to get public input, The Council would like this. done by' August. It was suggested that the slides of exterior st0~age taken by the staff be shown at'Hay:llth meeting. The Council Representative, Liz Jenseg, mentioned various:things that came up at the Council meeting and'some Councilmembers feel ordinance may be too restrictive · 'and asked 1) Why not put boat/recreational vehicle on lot especially if ! have room?; 2) What constitutes storage?; and 3) They want Commission to get public input and to encourage people to talk about problems as well as blight. The Commission discussed the subject briefly. ADJOURNMENT Hayer moved and Jansen seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 P.H. were in favor and meeting was adjourned. All Chairman Thoms Reese Attest: