The URL can be used to link to this page

1987-08-11CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.H.~.._T.TUES'DAY~ ~-'~i'~-'CHAM~ERs AUGUST 11.,t_~..198~7 10. pledge of Allegiance Approve the Minutes of the July 28, 1987, Regular Meeting, August 3 & August 4, 1987, Special-M'eetings pg. 2285-2294 PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Zoning Map.Amendment to Change the Zoning of a Portion of Blocks 1 and 11, all of Block 2, all in Seton Addition, from R-4 Multi-Family Residential to R-2, Single Family Residential (Case pg. 2295-2308 #87-641) PUBLIC HEARING: Application for a Revision of Conditional .... Use Permit to Allow on Site Open Storage 5300-5340 Shoreline Blvd., PID #13-117- 24 34 0076 (Case #87-655 - Balboa MN pg. 2309-2321 Co.) CASE #87-654: Jim Luger, 6195 Sinclair Lane, Lot 6, Block 17, The Highlands, ~equest~ Variance Application pg. 2322-2331 CASE #87-631: Donald Lobdell, 3367 Warner Lane, Lots I and 64, Block 12, Douglas-Whipple Shores pg. 2332-2345 ~~t: Variance Exterior Storage Ordinance Discussion pg. 2346-2358 Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present An Ordinance Adding Sections 250:25, 230:55 and 210:20 to the City Code, Adding Specific Authority for City Code Enforcement Officials to Issue Citations in Lieu of Arrest or Detention Resolution Appointing Election Judges as Recommended for the Special Referendum Election September 29, 1987 Pg. 2364 Page 2283 pg. 2359-2363 Payment of Bills INFORHATION/HISCELLAHEOUS ^. Monthly Reports for July as prepared by the Dept. Heads Notice from the Board of Hennepin County Commissioners about a Vacancy on the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board pg. 2404 C. Notice from Dowden Cablesystems regarding a restructuring of their services, increasing rates and adding new services. D. Notice from AT&T regarding changes in their rate structure. E. Memo from Patrolman john McKinley regarding the Region 12 K-9 Trials where they placed 2nd overall Pg. 2413 Planning Commission Minutes - July 13 and July 27 Article from Business Week Regarding No Smoking as furnished by Councilmember Liz Jensen. pg. 2365-2377 pg. 2378-2403 pg. 2405-2409 pg. 2410-2412 pg. 2414-2422 pg. 2423-2432 Page 2284 July 28, 1987 HINUTES - HOUND CITY COUNCIL - JULY 28. 1987 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota met in regular session on Tuesday, July 28, 1987, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those .present were: Mayor Steve Smith, Councilmembers Don Abel, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen, and Skip Johnson. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City Engineer John Cameron, Building Offi- cial Jan Bertrand, Park DiWector Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Del Rudolph, Fire'Chief Don Bryce and the following interested citizens: Gerald Berent, J. Ned Dow, Br~an Johnson, Paul Larson, Marshall Weber, Ken Weber, Mr. & Mrs. LaPointe, Kermit Sherman. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in atten- dance. The Pledge of Allegiance was 'recited. MINUTES MOTION made by Abel, seconded by Jensen to approve the minutes of the July 14, 1987, regular meeting, as presente~. The vote was unanimously in favor. Hotion carried. -PUBLIC HEARING: DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS The City Manager reported that the amount is down to $2,124.58. The Mayor .opened the public hearing. Mayor closed the public hearing. There was no response. The Johnson'moved and Abel seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION t87-139 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS IN THE AHOUNT OF $2,124.58 AND AUTHORIZING THE STAFF TO SHUT-OFF WATER SERVICE FOR THOSE ACCOUNTS The Vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE #87-651: GERALD J. BERENT~,. 5008 ENCHANTED ROAD~, LOT .2_..,t. BLOCK 21z___SH_AD_.YWO_OD POINT~ SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE 125 July 28, 1987 The Building Official explained the request. mission recommended approval. "' The Planning Com- Abel moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~87-139 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING CONHISSION TO APPROVE A SIDE YARD SET- BACK VARIANCE FOR LOT 2, BLOCK 21, SHADYI/OOD POINT, PID /13-117-24 11 0070, P & Z CASE #87-651 The vote was unanimously in favor· Motion carried. CASE t87-65Z: LEON & EVONNE HELLER, 4695 HAHPTON ROAD, LOTS 13 & PENBROKE~,,,N[NOR SUBDIVISON The Building Official explained the request. She asked that the following be inserted into the proposed resolution: " .... the request of the applicant for the waiver from the provisions of Section 330 of the..City Code and the request for property of less than 5 acres " The Planning Commission recommended approval Smith moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #87-140 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COHHISSION TO APPROVE A I~INOR SUBDIVI- SION FOR LOTS 13, 14, PART OF 29, 30 & 31 AND THE EAST 20 FEET OF LOT 28, BLOCK 9, PENBROKE; PID #19-117-Z3 33 0080/0087, P & Z CASE /87-652 The vote Mas unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE t87-653: J. NED DOW, 4994 NANCHESTER ROAD, LOT 12 BLOCK - ' .... The Building Official explained the request. mission recommended approval. The Planning Com- Abel moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION f87-141 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING CONNISSION TO APPROVE A LOT SIZE VARIANCE FOR LOT 12, BLOCK 33, WYCHWOOD, PID ~24-117-24 42 0005 (4994 MANCHESTER ROAD), P & Z CASE t87-653 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. mm 126 July 28, 1987 CASE #87-656: HARLEY JORDAN, 2193 CEDAR LANE, LOT 18 AND PART OF LOT 19z -BLOCK 2~'~RAHAM FR"I~K, 14 ~OT FRONT YARD-VARIANCE The Building Official explained the request. mission recommended approval. The Planning Com- Johnson moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION .#87-142 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE. 14 FOOT FRONT YARD VARIANCE AS REQUESTED FOR LOT 18 AND THE SOOTH 38 FEET OF LOT 19, BLOCK 2, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK, (2193 CEDAR LANE), PID ~13-117-24 32 0015, P & Z CASE ~87-656 CASE ~87-659: BRIAN JOHNSON/PAUL LARSON~ 49XX GLEN ELYN ROAD~ LOTS 17~_1~8~_19~z BLOCK 24.~ SHADYWOOD POINT~ MINOR SUBDIVISION The Building Official explained the request. The planning Com- mission recommended approval. The applicants were present and explained their problem. The Council discussed the request. Johnson moved and Smith seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #87-143 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APRROVE A MINOR SUBDIVI- SION FOR LOTS 17, 18 & 19, BLOCK 24, SHADYWOOD* POINT, PID t13-117-24 11 0094/0095, P & Z CASE #87-659' The vote. was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. STORM DAMAGE City Insurance Agent, Earl Bailey, told the public that if they incurred damage from Thursday's storm, they should contact their own insurance company to see what will be covered by insurance. JENNINGS BAY DREDGING - UPDATE Residents, Ken Weber and Marshall Weber, stated that they have two requests: That the City Council & Staff continue to work with them on the 2 dredges; and 127 July 28, 1987 That if for some reason the City's part of the dredge is not done in 1987, that the $10'~000 for the Jennings Bay dredge be carried over to the 1988 Budget. The Park Director explained that these are two separate dredges, a private one that the residents owning private lakeshore are paying for and the City's which will only be along Dove Lane for the Commons area. 'He further explained to the residents that they will be in charge of obtaining their own dredging permits from the proper authorities. The Council asked the citizens where the spoil would be hauled. The Webers stated that Illies and Sons in Minnetrista have agreed to take the sp6il. HOTION made by Smith, seconded the Abel to proceed with the two dredges, private and public and to authorize the carry over of the $10,000 in the 1987 Budget to the 1988 Budget if necessary. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion *'carried. COMHENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROH CITIZENS PRESENT There was no response. RESOLUTION TO ,ENTER INTO A JOINT COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH HEN- NPIN COUNTY 'TO---~"~'~"~--'F'"~E'-'-'~'~'"'-~'"~ couN-"~"~'"-'~'"O'-FJ'F['d'~')"i" DEVELOPHENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAH Abel moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION 187-144 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A JOINT COOPERATION AGREENENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY TO EXTEND THE URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PARKING ON GULL LANE The Fire Chief was present and recommended that the area on Gull Lane from Wren Road to the Commons remain as "no parking" either side of the road because if there was a car parked on either side it would not allow a fire or emergency vehicle access to the Com- mons. After d~scussion by the Council, Mr. LaPointe withdrew his 128 July 28, 1987 request for parking on one side of the street. No action was taken on this item. SIGN ORDINANCE MODIFICATION The Building Official explained that the Planner has prepared an amendment to the sign ordinance as it relates to "Area Iden- tification Signs". It was presented to the Planning Commission and they dO not recommend its adoption. They would rather address signs for shopping centers on a case by case basis. .. The Council .discussed the' Planning Commission's recommendation and the amendment submitted by the Planner. johnson moved and Jessen seconded the following: ORDINANCE #5 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 365:220, SUBD. 5.{c) OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO AREA IDENTIFICATION SIGNS The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF PERMITS MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Smith to authorize the issuance of the following: Our Lady of the Lake Church - Incredible Festival Public Dance & Charitable 3.2 Beer Permit The vote was 4 in favor with Councilmember Abel abstaining. Motion carried. PAYMENT OF BILLS The bili. s were presented for consideration· MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Abel to approve the pay- ment of bills as presented:on the pre-list, in the amount of $157,628.97, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS Notice of Seminar on Council-Manager Relations - Monday, September 28, 1987. I would appreciate all of you attending this with me. Please let Fran know as soon as possible. 129 July 28, 1987 Subscriber Statistics for January. through june, 1987 - Dow- den Communications. " Congratulations are in order for Sally Koenecke and her ef- forts and work with Local Access on Cable T. V. She traveled to Chicago to receive a first place award for the development of "Homework Hotline", a program developed through the school district to provide educational program- ming to students who need additional training in various curriculum offered by the school district. There were 450 nominations for 4 possible awards. Sally was also the chief official in coordinating the Mound City Days video program. Mound City Days received an award through the University of Minnesota,' for its presentation on the Local Access Channel. Notice from the Met Council on preliminary population and household estimates as of April 1, 1987. Notice from the Met Council of public meeting on their 'proposed 1988 work program and budget. Notice from A~&T regarding changes in AT&T's rate structure. Invitation from AMM (Association of Metropolitan Municipalities) to a breakfast meeting: · Date: Wednesday, August 5, 1987 Place: Plymouth Holiday Inn Time: 7:30 A.M. Please let Fran know by Friday, July 31, 1987, if you plan to attend. Memo from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regarding lake .'level, flow and precipitation for June, 1987. I. Letter from Curt Pearson regarding nonconforming uses - planning items. j. .'Planning Commission Minutes from July 13, 1987. K. Ind. School Dist. #277 Minutes from July 13, 1987. ExEcUTIVE SESSION The Council sent into Executive Session to discuss property nego- tiations at 8:30 P.M. and returned at 8:55 P.M. 130 July 28, 1987 HOTION made by Abel, seconded by Johnson to adjourn at 9:00 P.H. The vote was unanimously in'favor. Hotion carried. Edward J. Shu~le, jr., City Manager Fran Clark, CMC, CitY cler~ BILLS ...... JULY 28, t987 Batch 874071 Computer run Batch 874072 CompuLer run dated 7/22/87 dated 7/23/87. 81,961.89 57,539.06 SuperAmerica J.B. ConStruction Audio Visual Ketch-All Co. Paramount Chemical Andy's Hfg Lutz Tree Serv. Hclard & Assoc Gasoline Final-Vestibule Extension cable Pole Shine on Uti1 cover/anima!! truck Diseased tree removal Hoist 756.43 1,904.00 116.00 70.20 315.14 250.00 2,250.00 12~466.25 18,128.02 TOTAL BILLS 157,628.97 August 3, 1987 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - SPECIAL MEETING The City CounCil of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session on Monday, August 3, 1B87, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council :Chambers at $341 Maywood Road, in said city. .Those present were: Mayor Steve Smith, Councilmembers Don Able, Liz Jensen and Skip Johnson. Councilmember Phyllis Jessen was absent and excused. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Engineer John Cameron, Street Superi:ntendent Geno Hoff and Sewer & Water Superintendent Greg Skinner. The CounCil worked on and discussed a presentation to the business commUnity on the. proposed public works facility on the corner of Belmont Rd. and Lynwood B)vd. The meeting was adjourned at,9:30 P.M. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Fran Clark, CMC, City Clerk August 4, "1987 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - SPECIAL SESSION The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session on Tuesday, August 4., 1987, at 7:30 A.M. in the Council Chambers at 5341Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Steve Smith, Councilmembers.Don Abel, Liz.Jensen and Skip Johnson. Councilmember Phyllis Jessen was absent and excused. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Engineer John Cameron, Street Superintendent Geno Hoff, Sewer & Water Superintendent Greg Skinner and the following interested citizens: Don Ulrick, Orv Fenstad, Bill Koenig, Jerry Dodds, John Royer, Jerry L0ngpre, Chic Remien, Paul & Pat Meisel., ScOtt BKickley, Dick Schwert, John Bierbaum. The City Council presented their proposal for the new public works facility at the corner of Lynwood Blvd. and Belmont goad. There was a question and answer period following the presentation. The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 A.M. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Fran Clark, CMC, City Clerk 131 August 8, 1987 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - SPECIAL NEETING The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session on Saturday, August 8, 1987, at 7:00 A.M. in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Steve Smith, Councilmembers Don Abel~ Liz Jensen and Skip Johnson. Councilmember Phyllis Jessen was absent and excused. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Engineer John Cameron, Street Superintendent Geno Hoff and Sewer and Water Superintendent Greg Skinner. Mayor Smith called the meeting to order. City Manager, Ed Shukle, informed the Council as to the City Attorney's opinion on a deed restriction regarding the outdoor storage area proposed at the Bickmann site in relationship to the Public Works Facility issue. He indicated that a deed restric- tion is possible but that any future City Council could remove .the deed restriction by legal process. John Cameron then explained, some of the alternative sites that could be used for outdoor storage. Sites reviewed included Wes- tedge Blvd., and two areas adjacent to City Hall. After further discussion: MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Abel to remove the Bick- mann site from the Public Works Facility proposal and direct the City Nanager to prepare an amended resolution regarding the new amount for the September 29, 1987, Referendum. The amended amount is $790,000. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. In addition, the City Manager was directed to send a memo to the business community indicating the City Council's intent to take a different approach regarding the outdoor storage area. There being no further business, 8:30 A.M. the meeting was adjourned at Respectfully submitted, Edward J. Shukle, Jr. City Manager CITY OF HOUND HOUND, HINNESOTA 'NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ZONING HAP /~ENDHENT TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF A PORTION OF BLOCKS~I AND 11, ALL OF BLOCK 2, ALL IN SETON ADDITION, FROH R-4 HULTI-FAHILY.' RESIDENTIAL TO R-2, SINGLE FAHILY RESIDENTIAL NOTICE i$ HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, Aug. 11,'.1987, at 7:30 P.H. at the Hound City Hal1, $341Haywood Road, Hound, Hinnesota, a hearing'~ill be held to consider the nezoning of Lots 6, 7'and 8, Block'1; All of Block 2; and Lots 10 through 37, Block 1i; all in Seton Addition; PID Numbers 19-117-23 21 O020/O021/OO22; 19-117-23 22 0005/oo06/0007/0008/0009/0010/0011/0032/0036/0037/0038/0039/0040/0041/0031. from R-4.Multi'~Family Res!dential to R-2 Single Family Residential. ' · '~ All persons appearing at said hearing will be given, an opportunity to be' heard. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk AN ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN LANDS FROM MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-4) 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 LOTS 10-37, BLOCK 11, Seton; Lots 6-8, Block 1, Seton and Lots 1-9, Block 2, Seton is hereby deleted from the Multi-Family Residential (R-4) distirct; and Property described as Lots 10-37, Block 11, Seton; Lots 6-8, Block 1, Seton and Lots 1-9, Block 2, Seton is hereby added to the Single-Family Residential (R-2) district. The Zoning Map of the City on file with the City Clerk is hereby amended in accordance with these rezoning provisions. Attest: City Clerk 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 [:~ ~ 612/553-1950 TO: Planning C~,~;,issio~ and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner ~ DATE: June 2, 1987 SUBJECT:. Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment CASE NO: 87-641 VI~S FILE NO: 87-310-A23-ZO APPLIC. NFf: Norman T. Berglund LOCATION: ' 4622-4658 Kildare Road EXISTING ZONI/qG: Multi-family Residehtial (R-4) ~SIVE PLAN: Multi-Family Residential PRO~OS~: The applicant is proposing to rezone 28 lots from R-4 to R-2 with the intention of selling the property for the development of single-family residences. All of the land surrounding the existing R-4 zone is presently zoned R-2. Due to the configuration of the lots (see enclosed map), the property can be divided into a maximum of 10 building sites under R-2 zoning. The stacked tier of' lots in Block 11, Seton, provides building parcels which are approximately 40 feet by 200 feet which exceeds the 6000 square foot minimum 'lot size. Additionally, many of. the lots will have lots on Black Lake attached to them providing docking rights. The applicant has also petitioned for the vacation of Longford Road which, although a separate case, is closely related to this request. Vacation of Longford Road would result in seven contiguous lots with average dimensions of 40 feet by 340 feet. The existing R-4 zoning provisions allow single-family detached uses. Since the existin~ lots are Lots of Record, required setbacks under the R-4 zone ar~ 10 feet on one sideyard and six feet on the other. Lots of Record in the R-2 zone are permitted to have two 6-foot sideyard setbacks. Since the lots are only 40 feet wide, the applicant is trying to maximize the allowable building area. COMMENTS: In order for the property to be rezoned, either conditions must have changed or a mistake had to have occurred in the original zoning designation. For approximately the past 10 years, the applicant has been attempting to market the property for a multi-family use. Due to market conditions, the effort has been unsuccessful. The applicant feels that single- family homes in the area would be more marketable. From the City's perspective, single-family homes would also be lcwer density in an area which has very narrow rights-of-way and streets. Kildare Road provides existing street frontage to four of the 10 lots. These four lots will be developed as Phase I with the development of the remaining lots requiring, the westward e~xtension of Kildare Road.. Utility extensions to serve the second .phase will also be necessary. Mr. Berglund's proposed rezoning comprises a majority, but not all of the R-4 zoned land along Kildare Road. RezoninG of only Mr. BerGlund's holdings would result in small spot-zoned areas on bot. h the east and west sides of the subject property. In order to alleviate this situation, it is suggested that the rezoning review include all of the existing R-4 land in the immediate vicinity. The Planning Co~mission could recommend that the City Council's public hearing focus on the entire R-4 area rather than only on the property under Mr. Berglund's ownership. ~ATION: Staff recommends approval of the rezoninG from R-4 to R-2 and amendment of the comprehensive plan designation from multiple-family to single-family' residential for the property subject to the following condi t ions: The RezoninG and Comprehensive Plan Amendment shall include all of the R-4 designated land along Kildare Road. The City Engineer shall review the proposed lots to ensure that the provision of streets and utilities is feasible. Lots shall front on an approved public street prior to the issuance of a building permit. ~4. Review of the "Lot of Record" statUs by the City Attorney. e· 8LAGK Property owned by Mr. Bergland 4 · Planning Commission Minutes June 8th, 1987 Case No. 87-641 PUBLIC HEARING on proposed Zoning Map Amendment to change zoning from R-4 Multi-Family to R-2, Single .Family Residential of Lots 6-8, Block 1, Lots 3-6, Block 2, Lots 11-20 and 27-36, Block 11, all in Seton. Applicant Norman Berglund was present. The City Planner Mark Koegler reviewed his report on the proposal to rezone 28 lots from R-4 to R-2 with the specific intention of selling the property for development of single 'family residences; under the R-2 zoning, property can be divided into a maximum of 10 building sites (40 by 200 feet deep). Additionally, as. applicant has also petitioned for a vacation of Longford Road and part of Kerry Lane; if granted, many of the lots will have lots attached to them on Black Lake and would result in their being 340 feet deep. Koegler stated Mr. Bergland's land comprises the majority of R-4 'land, but does-, not include all of it which would result in a number of little spot zoned 'parcels and suggested the C~tl~-.~ssion could recu~l~nd the City Council's public hearing be published as one that would focus on rezoning that entire area .of R-4 to possibly R-2. The staff recon~nends approval of the rezoning and also amending the comprehensive plan designation from multiple-family to single family residential for the property subject to the 4 conditions in the Planner ' s report. The chairman opened the public hearing. The following persons had co~u, ents . and generally objected to the rezoning because of the density and narrow- ness of the proposed parcels: ~IM KUTZNER, JIM LANIEL, SALLY BOSIGER, HAROLD. KI/FZNER and GORDON WOLF. NORMAN BERGLUND stated all the lots are 40 foot wide; they are requesting R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning because that zoning is all around this area of R-4; they also ~ant to reduce the require- ment for side yard setbacks from 10 feet and 6 feet (R-4 requirement) to 6 feet on both sides which is allowed in R-2 Zoning for lots of record in order to allow the maximum building area on the lots. As there were no others wishing to be heard, the Chairman closed the public hearing. The Cc~nission discussed the proposal and had various cor~ents and questions. including possibly changing zoning to larger lots, such as R-1 with 60 foot frohtage required on the right-of-way. Some c~t,ents were that R-1 would be-spot zoning just as much as the R-4 seems to be; a variance from the LMCD would be required to put a dock on 40 foot wide lots, etc. The staff 'noted that there was a plan drafted during the road improvement to provide street access and utilities to the remainder of those lots in the future and this or some plan would have to be put in place before those lots would be issued building permits. Smith moved and Thal seconded a motion to recon~nend to the City Council to hold a public hearing on rezoning the entire R-4 area to R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning and further point out to the City Council that the official hearing area '{~i-i'i"~{eed'~t6' be"e~'_ande-_d~/--. 'i.' ....... ~[ '- The vote was Meyer and Weiland opposed~'"al'176%h~ in favor. Motion carried. The Council will be asked to set the public hearing for July 14, 1987. ~3 oo 7 Case No. ~'?-~,/1 CITY OF HOUND Fee Paid ~2~o -- D~te Filed APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) Street Address of Property Legal Description of Property: Lot ~7-~&,] Block Addition 4. Applicant (if other than owner): Name Address Day Phone No. 5. Type of Request: e ( ) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review (') Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. (~) Amendment ~ ( ) Sign Permit (~)*Other *If other, specify: ~resent Zoning District' Existing Use(s) of Property Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? ~ If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken 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 Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining end removing such notices as may be required b.y.law. Signature of Applicant Planning Commission Recommendation: Date Council Action: Resolution No. Date 4/82 Procedure for Zoning Amendments (2) Case D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections III.An Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance (Answer either A or B below) A. It is requested that Section of the Zoning Ordinance be amended as follows: Reason for Amendment: Note: Be .Amendment to Map: It is .requested that the property described below and shown on the attached site plan be rezoned from ~--~- - to ./~)-~_ . Address of Property: ~-/~ '7-~/-~w,~ '~r'/~5'~' ~/ J~ ~ Legal description of property (lot, block, subdivision or metes and bounds) Attach additional sheets, if necessary) Present Use of Property: Reason for Amendment: ~)n?e No application of a property owner for an amendment to the text of the ordi- nance or the zoning ~ap shall be considered by the Planning Commission within one year period following a denial of such request. 65 LONGFORD GALWAY .; RD ~,~ !~,o,~.~, .~1 GAVAN ' RO D RD C/~RLOW RD IB CASE #87-646 - This item was denied at the duly 14, 1987, Council Meeting. CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED VACATION OF PORTION OF LONGFORD ROAD FROM WEST SIDE OF LOT 20 TO EAST SIDE OF LOT 11, BLOCK 11, SETON, AND THAT PORTION OF KERRY LANE NORTH FROM LONGFORD TO WHOM IT MAY CO'NCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there will be a public hearing at the Mound City Hall, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, the 14th day of July; 1987, to-consider the vacation of portion of Longford Road from West'side of Lot 20 to East side of Lot 11, Block 11, Seton, and that portion of Kerry Lane North from Longford Road. · Such persons as desire lo be heard with reference to the above will be heard at this meeting. Fr~n-cene C. Clark, City Clerk LONGFORD 9'8 7 ?~c. ~/$64 752 - ! RD ~ ' RECEIVED JUN 8 1987 ~~. McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc. 12800 Industrial Park Blvd. Plymouth, MN 55441 612/559-3700 1-800-328-8322 Ext 784 3une 3, 1987 Jan Bertrand Planning & Zoning City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 SUB,]EcT: Street Vacation Longford Road & Kerry Lane Case #87-646, MKA File #2113 Dear Oan: As requested, we have reviewed the the proposed vacation of a portion of Longford Road between Blocks I and 2 and Block ll, Seton and Kerry Lane from Longford Road to the lake and have the following comments and recommendations. Engineer. Planners Surveyors We would suggest that the City consider for vacation all of the right~of-way for Longford Road between Black Lake Lane and Kings Lane. At the present time, this platted R/W is not used by the City for either street purposes or City utilities and it appears it would not be feasible for such'use in the future. All the lots'in Blocks i and 2 adjacent to the proposed vacation are owned by the same parties that own the properties in Block ll, with the exception of Lots i and 2, Block 2. These two lots are owned by separate individuals who do not own any other property in the vacinity. For the City to completely vacate this street right-of-way, they would be denying these owners access to their property, even though both lots are completely in the flood plain. In discussing this matter with Sim Fackler of the Parks Department, we have learned that there are designated dock sites within the Kerry Lane R/W, but these sites'are presently not used. From the information we have, it appears the City.should not vacate Kerry Lane if they wish to retain dock sites in this area and if Longford Road is vacated, the City would need to retain some type of easement for pedestrian access to Kerry lane and also Lots i and 2, Block 2. A.15 foot wide easement would be more then adaquate for pedestrian access. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact us. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Oohn Cameron OC: dj k ~ "~ F,~i 2 7 1987 ~i APPLICATION FOR STREET VACATION ,~ CITY OF HOUND .... /~. ~,,..... ~ ~ ,, · LEGA~ DESCRIPTIOh OF PROPERTY OWNED'BY APPLICANT: PID CASE NO. 87-646 FEE SISO.O0 DATE FILED LOT BLOCK '' SUBDIVISleN STREET TO BE VACATED ~On~_~KO/ /~ojoJ---~ ..... ,~' , ~ , ' t ' O~ ~ ///,~jo{~ II ~ ~ .',~u ~r~7 ~ ~k' '-'~ .... ~a~')'~ ' · ~so, ~o~ ~. . ~ ,~'.' :j.~ to~..'. ~,o~ 7A,~ ...z~. ~ Appl icant's SIGNATURE ADORESS / Interest in Property' Residents and owners of property abutting.the street to be vacated: (Please:attach lis[.-Certified mal]ing list'can .be obtained from Hennepin County by Calling 348-3271') RecommJnded by Utilities: NSP Recommended by City: Public Works .Chief ; Other Departments ; Minnegasco I~.. ; Fire Chief Continental Telephone · ,; Engineer Poli ce Planning'Commission Recommendation: Date Council Action Resolution No. '' Date Planning Cuu~,~ssion Minutes' June 8, 1987 - Page 5 frontage required on the right-of-way. Some co~a.ents were ~ha~ R-1 would be spot zoning, just as much as the R-4 seems to be; a variance from the ~ woLlld be required to put a dock on 40 foot wide lots, eto. The staff noted that there was a plan drafted during the road improvement to provide street access, and utilities to the remainder of those lots in the future and this or some plan would have to be put in place before those lots would be issued building permits. Smith moved and Thal seconded a motion to reco~,end to the City Council to hold a public hearing on rezoning the entire R-4 area to R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning and further point out to the City Council that the official hearing area will need to be expanded. '" '[ ':The v~e was Meyer and Weiland opposed, all.others in favor. '}~0tlon carried. The Council will be asked to set the public hearing for. July 14, 1987. Road and Kerry ~ane north from Longford :"' Applicant Norman Berglund was present. - . -.' The City Planner noteed that the City Engineer had put together some co~ts on 'the proposal to vacate Longford Road between Black Lake Lane and Kings Lane; it is not.usable for public right-of-way and part of it is below the Flood Plain elevation. The City has dock sites on Kerry Lane and Lots i and '2~ Block 2, Seton are under separate., ownership. The City Engineer had s~ate~ a 15 foot wide easement would' be adequate for pedestrian a_...ccess. The Chairman opened the public .hearing and as no one responded, he closed the public hearing. The OaL~ission questioned what benefit' there would be to vacate street. Koegler stated it almost becomes a legal issue that you would make those lots contiguous rather than have public right-of-way running in the middle of them. C~,ission discussed it was probably a matter of making lakesbore lots out of them for dockage. Mr. Bergland has tried to purchase Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Seton. Weiland moved and Sohns seconded a motion to rec~,end denial of the re- .quested vacation. The vote was Smith opposed and all others in favor of · the .denial. Reason given %fas that it was not needed for access or lot area to'make buildable sites and a concern for protection of public docks and to-give the City some say in what future marina deveiopment might be. The public hearing will ~e set for July 14, 1987. '. e Case No. 87-642 Fence material variance for 2241 Southview Lane Part of Lot !, Block 12, Mound Terrace; PID 14-117~24 34 0004 Mr. and Mrs. Cooper were present· Meyer moved and Sohns seconded a motion to recommend approval of the staff reconv~endation for fence material variance. The .Commission discussed request briefly and JenSen stated she did not see a hardship except maybe financial and that is not considered a hardship. She feels that maybe ordinance should be changed for large parcels rather than grant CASE NO 87-655 CITY OF MOUND Mound, M~nnesota NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPLICATION FOR A REVISION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW ON SITE OPEN STORAGE AT 5300-5~40 SHORELINE BOULEVARD~ PID NUMBER' 13-117-24 34 0076 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, August II, 1987, at 7:30 P.M. at the Mound.City.Hall, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota; a hearing will be held to consider the application for a revision to the Conditional Use Permit to allow ON SITE OPEN STORAGE for 5300-5340 SHORELINE BOULEVARD legally described as follows: BLKS 5 At~ 6 SYLVAN-HEIGHTS ADON TO CREVIERS SU~D LOT 36 LAFAYETTE PAE. K 170 At;O THAT PART OF E 25 FT OF S~ AND S OF A LIHE PAR HITH AND 50 FT ADJ VAC ST EX ST ALSO BLK Il ASRAHAM INCL PART OF VAC ST AHD LOTS ~ THRU SUBJECT TO ROAD MOUSED AHD LOTS lO THRU 15 IHCL L P ALSO E ~5 FT OF LOT 36 ALq3 SU~D NO I/~ OF S~,~ 1/~ LYIHG H OF SAID LOT ~6 SLY FROH CTR LI~E OF BN RR R/W IHCL LIHCOLN ADD~ TO LAKESIDE PARK EX ST 26 INCL KOEHLER'S ADDN TO HOUND PID # 13-117-24 34 0076 All persons appearing at said hearing will be given an opportunity to be hea rd. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk '°~ '" CHURCH RD OF LOT /Sy L..VAt'3 £I 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 TO:. Planning C~ission and Staff FRC~: Mark KDegler, City Planner DATE: July 1, 1987 SUBJECt: Conditional Use Permit Modification APPLIC_a_NT: Balboa Minnesota Company LOCATION: 2340 Shoreline Boulevard CASE NO: 87-655 %~S FILE NO: 887-310-A14-ZO EXISTING ZONING: Light Industrial (I-l) (~IVE P[,N~: Industrial BACKGROUND: In 1985, Balboa received a Conditional Use Permit establishing the Planned Industrial Area (PIA) in the old Tonka plant. The resolution approving the PIA contained the following stipulation: j. No outside storage is permitted except by operations permit. Parking of vehicles exceeding 24 hours is prohibited except delivery vehicles in designated spaces and trucks in loading berth areas. Operations permits for various businesses that have been issued have excluded truck and trailer parking outside of loading berth areas. Toro HID and C.R. Manufacturing have recently expressed the need for short term trailer storage/marshalling. Accommodating such a request can only be done by modifying Balboa's original Conditional Use Permit. The applicant is proposing to establish a 4%00 square f99~ trail.r ~rk{"? ~t~_ west end of the parkin_~ ~ of t~ no~h s~ of ~ building.. wire--this ~rea, a five foot wi~ ~n~ete ~d will ~ ins~ll~ ~ ~le t~ l~d ~ ~ feet of ~ ~iler..dollies. The area will have a total capacity of 12 trailers, all of which will ~ ~ck~ uR ~ ~e ano~er for s~{~ pu~es. Trailer parking is being requested to allow short-term storage of outgoing product shipments and incoming raw materials. In discussing specific needs with both C.R. Manufacturing and Toro [{ID, they stated that under normal circumstances, trailers will be retained on site for only two to three days. DISCUSSION: The Balboa property is zoned light industrial and as such, the owners and occupants have the right to reasonable use the property fo~ industrial purposes. It is important, however, that this use be accomplished in a manner which does not adversely affect surrounding properties which along the north side are predominantly residential uses. Potential issues include traffic and aesthetics. Truck traffic is currentiy pert of business operations on 'the Balboa site. The intent of the proposal is not to increase truck traffic but to allow on-site parking of trailers for short periods of time. The aesthetics of p~rked trailers is a subjective topic. Trailers, like truck traffic, are part of industrial operations and it may be possible to partially screen the parkin9 area to enhance the appearance of the north side of the building. ~ATION: Staff feels that short-term trailer perking is a valid use of the Balboa property. Approval of .the Conditional Use Permit is recommended subject to the following conditions: All existing construction the area debris within shall removed immediately. Dust-free surfacing in the trailer parking area shall be maintained at all times. Prior to issuance of the Conditional Use Permit, Balboa Minnesota shall submit a landscaping plan showing screening along Lynwood Boulevard for review and aproval by the City Planner. Trailers and trucks within the parking area and on the remaining Balboa property shall be directly involved with tenant businesses. trailers shall be allowed to remain the site for longer No perked on than 30 days. 43// .Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1987 5. PUBLIC HEARING'ON APPLICATION TO'REVISE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW "ON SITE OPEN STORAGE" Balboa. Minnesota Company, 5340 Shoreline Boulevard; Metes and Bounds descrip- tion, BloCkS 5'& 6, Sylvan Heights Addn., etc.;-PID No. 13-117L24 34 0076.. There were no-rePresentatives from Balboa. MarkKoeg)er reviewed'his letter of,July 1, 1987 discussing background and his recommendations.' Chai'rman Reese ques~ioned the use of thirty days'to have trai]ers parked on the property. Weiland was concerned that Balboa might'move one (trailer)..out and replace it with another immedlat~ly, thus constituting permanent parking. :The Chairman opened the pub)lc hearing for discussion by the audience and asked for comments:. Jerry Kohls, 5424 Lynwood Boulevard~ requested to have a stipulation to clean up .their existing mass before they cause more of a n~ss. Sohns questioned having acceptable landscaping. Harley Jordan, 2193 Cedar Lane, ag-~ees with the necessity to clean up the area and allow the parking of trailers. The public hearing was closed; then there were comments by the Commission. 'Weiland questioned how to control the number of days to allow parked trailers to'remain on the property. Smith suggested that it real]y doesntt matter how many days a. trailer is there, because they only have "X"-number of slots to park trucks in to begin with. Meyer agreed. Weiland moved and Meyer seconded.a motion for approval of on site open storage '-with staff recommendation. The vote was unanimously in favor. Council will set a public hearing forAugust ll, 1987. J c TY or MOUND ~ ..... 'I ~ MO -~.~ PLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION . . ."~;J(Please type the fOllowlng information) Case No. Fee Paid. ,Ro~ Date Filed ~-~-F7 1. Street Address of Property 5300-5340 Shoreline Blvd. 2. Legal Description of Property: Lot See Exhibit A attached )~X~O. See attached 0wner' s Name BALBOA MINNESOTA COMPANY Address 5340 ShOreline Blvd., Mound, MN 55364 Day Phone No. 472-1400 4. Applicant (if other than owner): Name Balboa Minnesota Co. Address (same as owner) Day Phone No. 5. Type of Request: e ( ) Variance (x) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review (') Wetland Permit ( ) P'.U.D. *If other, specify: ~resent ~oning District I-1 Light Industrial ( ) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit ( )~Other Existing Use(s) of Property Small business light manufacturing/office space on a Lease Agreement with Balboa Minnesota Co. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? Yes If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s)7/11/-8'5 Resolution No. 85-83; 8/13/85 Resolution No. 85-87; Resolution 85-97 8/27/85 Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that all.of the above statements and the stat&ments 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 Mound for the' purpose of inspectin/~, or of posting, maintaining and removing such no'rices.as-may be require~'"~d~'A~~}~] ~" ~7_~) Signatur.e of' Applicant ~ ~..- DateI ~77 Planning Commission Recommendation: pproval with the staff recommendation Date 7-13-87 ,Council Action: Resolution No. Procedure for Condltlonal Use Permit (2) Case D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction. · F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staf~ and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. III Request for a Conditional Use A. All Information requested below, a site plan as described in Part II, and a development schedule providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the construction must be provided before a hearing w111 be scheduled. B. Type of development for which a Condltional Use Permit is requested: I. Conditional Use (Specify): Outside/overnight storage of semi- trailers/containers for the Toro HID company at 5330 Shoreline 2. 'Current Zoning and Deslgnatlon in~ the future Land Use Plan for Hound I-1 Light Industrial Ce Oevel~pmen't Schedule: 1. A development schedule shall be attached to this applicatlon providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development. 1 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 2. Estimate of cost of the project: $. - O.' Density (for reslde~tial developments only): 1. 'Number of .structures: 2..Dwelling Units Per Structure: a. Number of type: '. E. fflclency 2 Bedroom 3. Lot area per.dwe11Ing unit: q. Total lot area: IV. Effects of the Proposed Use Re List impacts the proposed use w111 have on property In the vlcl'nlty, In- cluding, but not llmited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and, describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the Impacts. ,,131c/ 1 - RESOLUTION NO. 85-87' RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLtRNING C0HHI$SION RECOMMENDATION GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO BALBOE MINNESOTA COMPANY FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PLANNED INDUSTRIAL AREA - 5340 SHORELINE BLYD. ADDIN~ ITEH'J. AND K. AS RECOMHENDED WHEREAS, Balboa Minnesota Company (applicant) ha~ appl. ied for a Conditional Use ?ermft for the establishment of a ?1armed Industrial Area for the property Eeneral!y. known 'as the Tonkawest Business Center at 5340 Shoreline B.oulevard; and -. . %~HER'EAS, the property i~ presently zoned I-1 an~ ~lanne~ Industrial Areas are conditional uses in.the I-1 zone; and :~ ~' WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a Conditional Use''~*'. .. Permit to facilitate the full utilization, of the Tonkaw. ezt'~ Business Cente~ structuF'e through the establishment of one or more business e~terprises either on a lease or sale basis,. thereby expanding' employment opportunities in th9 City. of Mound ~' cont~ibutin~ to the improvement.-of the economic'climate i~~ ' surrounding area; and WHEREAS, th6 C%ty of"~ound has de~ermined that' the' .. efficient couk~ be and the establishment of a Planned' Industrial Area is a usage of the existing structure and' land accomplish.ed under traditional I-1 z'oning. more than BE'IT RESOLVED by the City Council of' NOW, THEREFORE,. . . . City of Mound, Minnesota: the 1. It i's hereby determined that the proposed' Planned Industrial Area is consistent with the land use and economic development policies of the City and is consistent with the general purposes'and interest., of- the. Zoning .Code 'of the City. ' 2'..The Conditional .Use Permit is granted ~.n accordance with the following conditions: .. Modification or' alteration of the exterior of the building is expressly prohibited pending. submittal of the · 'comprehensive exterior remodeling plan for the entire structure by Balboa Minnesota Company or'by approval of an Operations Permit for portion of the structure. b; In accordance with the performance standards of the Hound Zoning Code, industrial, ware'house, storage and handling of bulk goods facilities August 13,. 1985 ·. are required to h~ve at least one parking space for each employee on maximum shif. t'or one space ' for each two thousand (2,000) square f.eet of 'tross floor area, whichever is larger. The redevelopment plan for Tonk~west Business Center (Exhibit 1) has identified qZ7 total parking spaces. AS u~es occupy this building, their parking requirements will be verified at the time of Building Permit or Operations Permi~ application. If a parking shortage occurs a~ any time during the development (leasing or sale) of the building, the applicant shall be responsible for providing additional parking for the use of all applicable businesses. Loading access areas (loading berth~) shall be restricted to the locations shown on Exhibit Z unless mcdi£ied by t~e subsequent approval of an Operations Permit for a portion of the.'building. All loading berths shall . cqnform · to the provisions of Section 23.717 of the Hound Zoning Code. 'Within 90 days of approval of this Conditional Use Per,it, the applicant shall prepare 1.and$capin. g plans' for all parking.areas, k entrance areas, and common areas on the property. '- Such plans, clearly identifying species, caliper..' and root type shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Planner· Tonkawest Business Center' shall be combined ihto one tax parcel· Balboa Minnesota Company. shaYl prepare a comprehensive signage plan· of the entire" structure depicting locations of concentrations of wall signs, the general signage theme and the location and design pylon signs. S'ign permits for individual business establishments shall be. withhefd until such time as a comprehensive sign plan is submit{ed and approved. Subdivision of the Tonkawest Business Center structure in two or more units shall require review and approval by the Hound Planning Commission and City Council· Subdivisions shall be consistent ~:ith all applicable Ordinances ~nd at the time of subdivision application, the City Council shall make determination of park dedication requirements. JL3J~ h. l~o change in the external mechanical devices The P~ater son and : · The The following none. No outside storage Operations-Per,mit. exceeding 24 hours is shall be permitted unless authorized Operations Permit for a portion of the building. : Additionally, no roof vents or emission stacks ~ shall be constructed without Operations Permit" ~-pproval. ' ., Proposed improvement along the north aide of structure including but not limited ~o ~alkways~ and drive, aMs between the building and~ the~ existing parking lo: shall.be reviewed by %he" Burlington Northern Railroad or'subsequen:~ o~ner. - " -" is perm itte~' excg~: Parking wehicle.g~. prohibited, except delivery~.. vehicles in designated spaces and trucks iff. loading berth areas k. Balboa Minnesota Company shall submit~gO~.,the~ City $1,000 to be put' in an esc~ow.accounttto' cover staff review .'and administration. . foregoing resolution was moved, by Coun'cilmemb~ seconded by. Counci~member Jessen. · following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative':.~ Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson, Polston'and'Smith. " ~'":~] Coun'cilmembers voted in the negative: ~_tt. est: City Clerk .. May or RESOLUTION ~85-87 '~ .~ (EXHIBIT 1)" ' ',' · ~ '.. I~O..t.;:l:.;.t.]:~.:!g~'/~ ~- - .. . ...... · . · ============================= ~. I o ...... ..~.. ! ~.~i~!-~i~i~xd-~ · '"- -- --~- '.'.-'.". -.~: ...... ._J I i L.~:~:::::I . " ' "-.. I · "-~ .... · ~ -..--,'~"-L':" ......... · : · ~ .0,~ I ....... · .......... ~-"' 11; "'" .... . ....:-.. · ~...r ~,ll .J ' '"... "'L. · ~- ~ :1: tU ' '"-. I ' :~:. ~!!~ · ! _ - . . '*,II · ' ! ~-~- :-i · · I, · . o.,~0 , ,. · .~-rn, I~ : ~ .'..'..~ ./ 'I I . . . IL. . · : .Il ' ----4: t .-,..~..& · I~ ~. I. ' . I~ · I~ e~' · ..... ' .... ' ........... li ! :~: :,,,... · . . ~.. _..--.-.I -I .~ · ..."' ~"., '-x. i i :..-::.iFl' .- : . '",1,' 'gl ) ..... . // 'I ' . ' · u~ ;t1 .: - . · -': . : : ,: X ~":'"'°.d' o '1 RESOLUTION ,~B5-87 · (EXHIBIT ,. "1 ! / -,-/ .,. / / o'1 3030 Harbor lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/591950 TO: Planning C~n~ission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler DATE: July 6, 1987 SUBJECT: Variance Application APPLICANT: Jim Luger LOCATION: 6195 Sinclair Road CASE NO.- 87-654 VHS Y~. NO: 87-310-A14-ZO EXISTING ZONING: Two Family Residential (R-3) (~~IVE PLAN: Single Family Residential : ~ '-~ ~ --a~rage~ yBACK(~OND:' The applicant is proposing to bui.l,d a detached two-car g /with a seccnd floor apartment. The structure will total 1568 square feet with \ (784 square feet devoted to. the residential use and .784 square feet of ga.r..age ~space. Mr' Luger's lot zs approximately 50 feet wzde by 220 feet deep with a / ~total area of 11,100 square feet. The lot, which is an R-3 zone, fronts on // The'~ires that two-family d~a~hed structures have a total of 12,000 square feet of land area. Two-family lots, by ordinance, must be 70 feet in width and must observe a 30 foot front yard setback and a minimum sideyard setback of 6 and 10 feet for lots of record. Additionally, Section 23.410 requires 840 square feet per dwelling as the minimum residential floor area requirement. Approval of the subject request will require the granting of the f011 wing variances: 900 square foot lot area variance (11,100 square feet vs. 12,000 square feet required). 2. 2 foot sideFard setback variance (4 .feet vs. 6 feet required). 3. 20 foot lot width variance (50 feet vs. 70 feet required). .25 foot front yard setback variance (29.75 feet vs. 30 feet--presumably, this variance could be omitted by slightly modifying the building). .o 56 square foot minimum floor area variance (748 square feet vs. 840 square feet required). DISCUSSION: In order to grant a variance for this case, as well as in any other case, the Planning Co~m~ission must determine that a hardship exists. The hardship test consists of the Criteria for Granting Variances which is listed in Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Zoni, ng Code. In support of the · variance, the applicant indicates that similar uses exist within the immediate vicinity of his lot. In fact, many duplexes do exist as well as a couple of garage/apartment uses. Of these uses, some may meet the existing ordinance criteria, some may have conformed with previous ordinances (grandfathered uses) and some may have been illegally constructed. The fact that similar uses exist does not create a precedent for this case unless variances for each of. the other uses were approved under the existing zoning ordinance. If Mr. Lu~er's lot could accommodate a second housing unit in compliance with the ordinance, it would have the full support of the City of Mound. It does not comply, however, due to lot area, setbackS, lot width and minimum structure square footage. Since the proposed structure cannot conform to the existing ordinance requirements, it, in essence, becomes an accessory apartment rather than a second legitimate housing unit. Over the past few years, the City of Mound has extensively reviewed the issue of accessory apartments and determined that no support exists for modifying the ordinance to allow such uses. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the proposal due to the fact that the proposed variances do not meet the Criteria for Granting Variances found in Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Zoning Code. Under the ordinance, Mr. Lurer could ad~ either attached bedroom space and an attached garage to the existing structure or could add attached bedroom space and a new detached garage. NOTE: The Inspection/Planning staff 'received the application as a Conditional Use for an oversized accessory structure. After review by the City Planner, Mark Koegler, it was determined that the app]ication should be filed for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance provisions. A public hearing notice has been sent out for the agenda of July 13, 1987. Since that date the applicant has become i11 and would like the Planning Commission to postpone action on this item untll July 27, 1987, training meeting. Planning CommissiOn Hinutes July 27, 1987 Case No. 87-654 PUBLIC HEARING on application for conditional use permit for an oversized accessory building with living space at 6195 Sinclair Road Lot 6, Block !7, The Highlands; PID 23-117-24 34 0071 Jim and Shirley Luger were present. The City Planner stated this request started as a conditional use permit and. after he looked at it, it was clear it should have been a variance (conditional use permit language does not allow the second living unit that is being pro- posed;, it does allow oversized garages). We are dealing with the variance provisions.of the R-3 Zoning because we are setting up a double dwelling. This opinion was reviewed with the City Attorney and he concurred. There is a d~f- ference in filing fee down from $200 to $50 and %his s~ould be refunded to the applicant. The City Planner than proceeded to review his report on the request .outlining.that approval would require granting. 5 variances and a determination that-ahardship exists would be required. -Staff is reconTnending denial. In conciusion, he notes that applicant could add either some attached bedroom space and an attached garage or bedroom space and'a new detached garage. Note: Vari- ance % 5 should read 56 square feet minimum floor area (784 sq. ft. vs. 840 sq. ft.'.required). The Chair.opened the. public hearing. Mr, Luger explained they have'8 children and 5 grandchildren and when they come home fOr visits, they don't have enough space. Recently they had 15 of thei. r family here at the time of his recent'opera- tion. He made'the point that the proposed apartment would only be family used and there are many duplexes in their area on 50 foot wide lots. He also stated the garage with' living, space could be relocated to meet the 6 foot sideyard setback. In response, to Jensen's question on why they would not %~nt to add unto the existing.house, Shirley Luger stated house was not set up for adding onto; Jim Luger mentioned they'd like to have some separate space for their family. He co~nted that aesthetically, the structure would blend with the neighborhood. He also questioned if a deed restriction could be recorded limiting the use of'the proposed structure. It was talked about that it could not be enforced. No others present wished to speak on this request; the Chair closed the public hearing. The City Manager arrived from another meeting. The Commission had various questions and ~scussed at length. Thal moved and Sohns seconded a motion to rec°~end denial of the request because it reqUires too great a variance situation. The vote %~s Michael and Andersen against the denial; Smith abstained from. the vote and all Others voted in favor. Motion to deny carried. This variance will be referred to the City Council on August 11, 1987. iJ : .~,.,..Z?J~//. i,~ CItY OF HOUND . . (Please type ~he Case'.o. ?'7- Fee Paid, .Z~.~ Date Filed &-~¢-~ 2- Legal Description of Property: Lot 6 Block '1 ? Additi'on. Hi~hlan~s Owner' s Name ~/'~ ~ u_ C~ F_~ PID No. A.~ -// ~ - ,2 M .~,-,-?,f ~7/ Day Phone No. 87'!-08q! Address 6195 Sinclair RoaS, Noun~ Mn. ~36~ ~. Applicant '(if other than owner): Name Day Phone No, : Address Type of Request: e ( ) Variance (X) Conditional Use Permit ( .) Amendment ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Sign Permit ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( )*Other *If other, specify: Present Zoning District Existing Use(s) of Property Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or .other zoning procedure for this property? ~D If so, ]ist 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 ~he entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Hound for the purpose of inspecting, o~ of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as.may be required by law. "-Signature of' Applicant Planning Commfssion Recommendation: Denial 7-27-87 Date Council Action: Resolution No. Date Procedure for Conditional Use Permit (2) Case D. Location of: 'Signs, easements, underground utilitles, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction. F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. , III Request for a Condltional Use A. All information requested below, a site plan as described in Part II, and a development schedule providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the construction must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. B. Type of development for which a Conditional Use Permit is requested: 1. Conditional Use (Specify): ~ouble Garage with small apartment ~ Apartmen~ will not be ~ental/ bu~ fo~ use by our family members. 2. 'Current Zoning and Designation in the future Land Use Plan for Hound R-3 C. Development Schedule: 1. A development schedule shall be attac~ed to this application providing reasonable guarantees for the completion of the proposed development. 2. Estimate of cost of the project: $ 20.000 O..Density (for residential.developments only): 1. Number of structures: One o~ooose~ to replace garage presently 2. Dwelling Units Per Structure: a. Number of type: Efficiency. ' 2 Bedroom 3. Lot area per dwe.lling unit: per apartm~ln~ct'' 1 Bedroom 3'Bedroom X q. Total lot area: 11,100-s~uare ft. IV. Effects of the Proposed Use Re List impacts the proposed use will have On property in the vici'nity, in- cl.uding, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking, and, describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts. No negative impacts One positive impact will result...a more safe egress/exit from driveway which presently has blocke~ view of traffic coming ~own Sinclair RosCo CITY / / ell Y OF MINNETRISTA / RD ' ' (SHORE LINE£ ii RIDGEW~ DD .! Photo ) ZO o:' 15 ,t4 ~SINCLAIR .. //75 .... 828.34 F?e's..... 'ge of J~ou Village of Mirinefris I I £7- / 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 SOB3= 'Planning Commission and Staff Mark Koegler, City Planner July 22, 1987 Lobdell Variance The Lobdell case has forced an overall review of the practice of "recognizing" non-conforming variances. I have reviewed this matter extensively with the City Attorney and based upon our conversations, we are suggesting a modification to the language currently used in variance resolutions. Prior to reviewing recommended language cha.nges, additional comments on the Lobdell case are in order. In past planning cases, if an applicant had a residence with a non-conforming side yard setback and desired to build a new attached, conforming room addition, a variance was granted to recognize the non-conforming side yard setback. The variance was granted because the applicant wanted to physically improve the property but under the ordinance, could not do so because of the non-conforming structure. The word "recognize" that has been used previously is somewhat ambiguous. The City's intent has been to allow the addition (in this example) but not to create a conforming sideyard setback by the variance action in .lieu of the existing nonconformity. Consistent with the intent, if a natural disaster damaged the hypothetical house in excess of 50% of its value, it could not be reconstructed on the same foundation which would re-establish the non-conforming side yard setback. Variances are reviewed on a case by case basis and in all cases with the exception of Lobdell, variances have been initiated due to proposed improvements. The Lobdell proposal was to approve a variance for the non-conforming aspects of the property to reduce insurance costs. Insurance costs are an economic factor and economic matters are not characteristically valid reasons for granting a variance. Recognition of the Lobdell variance does one of two things: either it ~rants conforming status to the structure which,, presumably, is the desire of the mortgage company in this case; or it is a totally useless action. If the recognition of Lobdell's non-conforming structure makes it conforming, approval of the case essentially defeats the entire purpose of the zoninG ordinance which relates to having all properties eventually conform to the adopted district requirements. If the recoc3nition does nothing more than say that the City has reviewed the property and agrees that it is nonconforming, what has been accomplished? The bottom line on the Lobdell case is that no physical improvement or expansion is bein~ requested. The sole purpose of granting the variance is for an economic reason which is not valid to sustain the hardship test. In.. retrospect, the City was probably in error in originally accepting the application. The L~bdell case has been valuable to the City because it has focused attention on the term "recognize" existing nonconformities. As was mentioned earlier, the intention of the term is clear but the-actual wording is ambiguous. A new approach may help clarify this situat{on. Previous variance resolutions have recomm~'nded variances to recognize non-conforming situations. The purpose of the variance is to Permit new expansion or m~dification. Consistent with this purpose, it is suggested that fr~m now on, the City should focus on the proposed action rather than on the non-conforming situation. The best way to accomplish this is to approve variances to~ the non-conforming provisions that prohibit the intensification of. non-conforming structures. The following two examples illustrate this point: Exhibit 1 is an example resolution containing the verbage used to date. Exhibit 2 is an example of the proposed language. It is suggested that Exhibit 2beused for all applicablevarianceapplications in the futUre. Exhibit I RESOLUTION NO. 85- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING ACCESSORY BUILDING SETBACK FOR 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE WHEREAS, the United States Government, the owners of the property described as 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, have applied for a variance to recognize an existing nonconforming accessory building setback in order to construct an addition to theprincipaldwelling; and WHEREAS, the existing accessory structure is nonconforming due to a .63 foot encroachment into the public right-of-way and a 2.8 foot side yard setback; and ~qEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 zone which according to the City code, requires a 20 foot front yard setback and a 4 foot side yard setback; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend the variance to recognize the existing accessory structural setback. NOW, 'THEREFORE, 'BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby recognize the existing nonconforming accessory structure setback at 1600 Pennyslvania' Avenue. 2339 Exhibit 2 RESOLUTION NO. 85- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING ACCESSORY BUILDING SETBACK FOR 1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE WHEREAS, the United States Government, the owners of the property described as 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, have an existing nonconforming accessory building which does not meet zoning code setback requirements; and WHEREAS, the existing accessory structure is nonconforming due to a .63 foot encroachment into the public right-of-way and a 2.8 foot side yard setback; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 zone which according to the City code, requires a 20 foot front yard setback and a 4 foot side yard setback; and WHEREAS, SECTION 23.404 Subd. (8) provides that alterations may be made to a building containing a lawful nonconforming residential unit when the alteration will improve the livability thereof but the alteration may not increase the number of units, and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend that the City Council reco~.ize the existing accessory structural setback and authorize the alterations set forth below pursuant to said Subd. (8) with the clear and express understanding that the use remains as a lawful nonconforming use subject to all the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404, and WHEREAS, it is determined that the livability of the residential unit will be improved by authorizing the following alterations to the nonconforming use property: Expansion of the principal structure in an oval shaped configuration consistent with the site plan dated July 22, 1987. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby recognize the existing nonconforming accessory tructure setback at 1600 Pennyslvania Avenue. 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 TO: Planning Co~mission and Staff FROM: 'Mark Koegler, City Planner ~/ DATE: May 6, 1987 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Donald Lobdell CASE 'NO: 87-631 VHS FILE NO: 87-310-A20-ZO LOCATION: 3367 Warner Lane EXISITNG ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-i) (~~ PLAN: Residential . PROPOSAL: Mr. Lobdell has applied for a variance to recognize existing, non-conformin~ setbacks. This request has been submitted to satisfy mortgage requirements. No changes and/or additions are being proposed for any of the structures on the property. The ex'isting single family structure has a 4.2 foot setback along the northern property, line. The required setback in this area is 10 feet resulting in a 5.8 foot sideyard variance. The garage, which is an accessory structure, sits 1.3 feet from the front lot line and 2.9 feet from the side lot line. Since the garage door does not face the street, required front and side yard setbacks are 8 feet and 4 feet respectively. This situation results in a 6.7 foot front yard variance and a 1.1 foot side yard variance. The. property contains one additional accessory structure which is labeled on the survey as a storage building. The storage building sits approximately 10 feet from the lakeshore resulting in a possible lake setback variance, the exact amount of which is impossible to calculate due to a lack of available contour information. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the fact that all of the variances requested by the applicant are to recognize existing conditions and that no expansion or intensification of any of the three existing structures is proposed, staff recommend~ approval of the noted variances to recognize existing conditions- e MOUND Case Fee Paid -sD. APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) , Street Address of Property ~ ~/~ ~ /~,//~/~-~-u~t.- ,[;~,~ Appllcant (if other than o~ner): ~ - ~ Address ~/f ~ '~' ' ' Type of Request: ~) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( .) Amendment () Zoning Interpretation & Review (') Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ) Sign Permit )*Other *If other, specify: J~resent 'Zoning District ' '/~D_ / --- Existing Use(s) of Property - (/ L/ · ._.. . Has an application ever been made for zoning, v~r,i~,nce, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? ~/ ~] If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and ~rovide 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 Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining'and removing such notices as may be required by law. Sign'ature of Applicant ' planning Commission Recommendation: Recommend staff recommendation with provision that this has to come back for any additions. Council Action: Date 5-11-87 Resolution No. '. ?337 Date 5-26-87 Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) Case D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. II1..Request for a Zonin~ Variance A. All information below, a site plan, as described in Part il, and general application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. B. Does the present use of.the property conform to ~l use regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (~) No ( ) If "no", Specify each non-conforming use: -C. Do the existing structures comply with all area height and bul~.regula{ions for the zone district in ~hich it is located? Yes ( ) No If "no", S~ecify each non-conforming use: J , reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) .Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil ( ) Too. small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface ( ) Too shallow ( ) .Shape. ( ) Other: Specify= Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No ~/~) If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (/~)', If yes, explain: Are.the conditions of hardship for'which you request a v~iance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes .'(~)~) No ( ) If no, how many other properties are similarly affected~ H. What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, slte. p]ans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) I. Will granting or'he variance be materlally detrimental to property !n the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? .~,',~.;~ DONALD LOBDELL Prepared for: /5' / LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Par 1: 'The Northerly 1/2 of Lot 1, Block 12, Douglas, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 1, which is also the point where the Northerly line of the lot'intersects the Westerly line of Warner Way. From this point in a Southwesterly direction following the Southeasterly line of Lot 1, 120 feet, more or less, to a point in said Southeasterly line which is equally distant from the Northeasterly corner and the Southeasterly corner of said Lot 1. From this point in a straight line to the shore of Lake Minnetonka to a point on said shore line which is equally distant from the Northwesterly corner and the Southwesterly corner of said Lot 1. From this point in a Northeasterly direction along the shore of Lake Minnetonka to the Northwesterly corner of the lot, which is also the point where the Northerly line of said lot intersects the shore of Lake Minnetonka and from this point in an Easterly direction following the Northerly line of said Lot 1 to the point of beginning, according to the recorded plat there.of, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Par 2: Lot 64, Whipple Shores, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. x 9 51.5 GENERAL NOTES: Denotes iron monument Proposed top of foundation elev. - Denotes cross chiseled in concrete Proposed basement floor elev. - Denotes existing spot elevation Proposed garage floor elev. - Denotes proposed spot elevation Denotes surface drainage BENCHMARK: Dashed contour lines denote proposed features Solid contour lines denote existing features I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was ALL-NIETRO LAND prepared by me or ~nder my direct super~ision and the= SURVEYORS........ Itheamstate~Minnesota.a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws 2~40 P~niel$ Street , '~J~"/~/ Long Lo~e,'Minnasoto 55~56 Planning Commission Hinutes Hay 11, 1~87 Case No. 87-631 Variance to recognize existing nonconforming setbacks 3367 Warner Lane; Part of Lo% l, Block 12, Douglas and Lot 64, Whipple Shores; PIDNo. 25-t17-24 24 0056 Don Lobdellw~s present. .~Tte City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed his report stating that applicant is not proposing any changes or additions; request is v~riBnce to recognize existing non-conforming setbacks in order to satisfy mortgage requirements in order to sell the prgperty. He stated that in.addition to v~rian~es for the house ~nd garage, the storage building may ~equire a vmriance. The building'needs to be above the ordin~ry~ighw~ter level and contour informa- · ti0n is not available. The staff recommends approval.of the noted~-ariances to recognize existing conditions and noting that no expansion or intensifi- cation of any of the three existing structures is proposed. The Co~m~ission discussed request and all we're doing is recognizing existing. Weiland mo~ed and Michael seconded a motion to reco~Ll~,end staff recom- mendation with the provision that thi~has to come back for any additions. Commission questioned age of garage. Aportion to the.wes%w~s added year and it ~-as thought by stakes that were pointed out, g~rage ~s con- forming. New survey shows lot lines with garage at angle to lines. The vote on the motion%fas unanimously in favor. This will be on the City Council agenda on May 26, 1987. 93 May 26, 1987 over curb. This would have to be done at his own expense and he would need a permit from the city. Item #5 on the Agenda was withdrawn. ROCO INVESTMENTS, 5950 BARTLETT BLVD., LOT 55, AUDITOR'S suBDIVISION NO. 168, PID ~23-117-2q 13 0032, LOT WIDTH VARIANCE & SUBDIVISION The applicant was not present. The Planning Commission recommended denial. Mr. James Lewis and Mr. Ray Hanson', neighbors, were present urging denial. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jessen to concur with the Planning Commission to deny the request. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. E #87-631: DONALD LOBDELL, 3367. WARNER LANE, LOTS BLOCK 1~ DOUGLAS. WHIPPLE SHORES~ pID..~25-117-2~ 2q O0~,..VARIANCE. TO RECOGNIZE...AN EXISTING NON~ ,,~ONFORMING PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE SETBACK AND AccessoRY, BUILDING SET~AC~ The Building Official explained the request and that the Planning Commission had recommended approval. The City Attorney suggested that this item be tabled and sent back to the Planning Commission, having the Commission review the proposed resolution because it does not address the factual findings to allow a variance. MOTION made by Abel, seconded by Johnson to table this item and send the proposed resolution back to the Planning Commission so that they can address the factual findings to allow a variance. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE ~87-632: JAMES STILLE, q512 MONTGOMERY ROAD,. LOTS 9 & 10, BLOCK 9, AVALON, PID #19-117-23 31 0023, FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval, if a new survey were submitted. The applicant was present and asked if he could locate the property monuments instead of having a new survey done because of cost.~ The Council agreed. The proposed resolution to be amended accordingly. Jessen moved and Abel seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~87-99 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL OF A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE AND EXISTING NON- Planning Co~nission Minutes June 8, 1987 BOARD OF APPEALS ..... 1. Case No. 87-631 Variance to recognize exi. sting nonconforming setbacks at 3367 Warner Lane; Part of Lot 1, Block 12, Douglas and Lot 64, Whipple Shores; PID No. 25-117-24 24 0056 (The City Council at their' May 26th meeting referred this request back to the Planning C(~,~Lission because . the City Attorney stated they have not addressed the factual findings to allow a variance. ) The Chair stated that he did not.understand the Attorney's comment and the difference between nonconformancies which we have recognized all the time. The Planner stated the Attorney questioned that there is any hard.s, hip that is evident in this'par~icular case since the applicant is not pro- posing to change anything; it is simply on the economic basis that it would make it-easier to not have to obtain insurance on the mortgage .and that was not grounds for a variance. The issue the Planner asked for clarification on was difference between .a. nonconfoimSn.' g use and a .variance and when you grant a variance, do you alleviate the nonconforming, use por- tion of the ordinance? T~e responSe was that wouid take more .review, but the feeling was if a variance were granted, and the structures were des- troyed by an act of nature, it could be reconstructed in the exact !oca- tion it is in now. The C~,L~ssion discussed the case including that when Island Park was annexed, the structures became nonconforming-under the provisions of the ordinance. Koegler stated apparently the Attorneys feel there is a dif- ference between granting a variance and having a nonconformity and the point they brought up was that every nonconforming property could now come in for a variance and than they would not have a nonconforming struc- ture anymore; than there would be no room for this body to review the property; when an applicant is seeking to do something, there is grounds for a variance based on the proposed change and that is considered a hard- ship. C~,,ission discussed using "practical difficulty" for granting a variance. Smith moved and Michael seconded a. motion to grant the varianCe and .the finding by the Planning Co~dssion that .,Per qualifications in Section 23.506.1 that 'in fact the circumstances in this case are practical dif- 'ficulty in the use of his land and further condition of this resolution should be that any additional modifications to structure would have to comeback to the Planning C~ission and City Council'for approval. The C~ission discussed the case and had questions on consequences of motion. Jensen stated, that not having a cle .ar definition or,what practical difficulty is, and being hesitant to open that. so we can do anything that we want to and considering the possibilities of what this could mean given the nature of the properties we have in Mound, she is hesitant to support the motion. Jensen moved and Thal seconded a motion to table and ask applicant and/ or new owner to be present at the next meeting and further, get informa- tion on 1) title insurance issue, 2) specifically how this case is dif- ferent from other nonconforming cases and 3) definition of practical difficulty. The Chair asked clarification of "significance of recognizing what a nonconformancy is as opposed to granting a spe.cific variance". All' were in favor of the-motion. This will b~ back on the Planning C~,~.~ssion A~enda of June 22, 1987.' Planning Commission Minutes June 22, 1~87 Case No. 87-631 Variance' to ~'ecognize existing noncon, forming sei:backs for 3367. Warner Lane; Part of Lot 1, Block 12, Douglas and'.Lot 6/4, Whipple Shores .1elf Vint, new owner of the property, was present. " Chairmar~ Tom Fteese, discusSed'the las~: meeting and tl~e reason for tabling the" item. Jeff .vint was in attendance, to 'explain the Mortgage Company's require- ~nent for over-insuring his property at the closing for the new mortgage until a variance would be granted. Ken Smith stated some of the insurance rules per- raining to over,insurance. Chalrman'dlscussed previous action by the Commlsslon[- regarding 'recognizing nonconform!ng uses and setbacks. He stated he fel.t the City Attorney would be forwarding an opinion regardlng thls matter. Geoff Michael discussed recognizing the existlng nonconforming setback as proposed, but to change the wording. Motion by Bill "Tha] to table the item, seconded by Bill Meyer. The vote was .8 for and .1 .nay. Motion ca.~rled. Ken Smith stated he felt the Com- mission, has recognized.exlsting nonconforming uses and setbacks in previous a ct-i on. Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1987 BOARD OF APPEALS Case No. 87-631 Variance for Property at 3367 W~rnerLane Par% of Lot l, Block 12, Douglas ~dLot ~4, Whipple Shores The City planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed his report which focuses on the prac- rice that has been labeled recognizing non-conformingw~riances and the City Attorney ~nd he are suggesting a modification to the language currently used in v~riance resolutions. The purpose of a ~riance is %o permit new ex--ion or modification that doesn'tintensify the non-conforming structures. Lobdell's request~sn't for an improwement .or expansion and if recognition of his NC structure makes it conforming~ approval defeats entire purpose of the ordinance which relates to having all properties eventually conform to the district re- quirements. Purpose of this request %fas economic a~d that is n6t a v~lid ~eason for granting a v~riance. He stated they will be working on better language for the future resolutions they'll be providing the Commission and Council; they will focus on a new approach/element which will allow applicant to intensi- fy,.exp~nd/change the structure itself if it fits the overall framework of the ordinance and not focus on the non-conforming aspects as we were. The intent Of the resolution was not always Clear. He stated resolutions should state up front existing building does not meet zoning code and than reference Section 23.404.8 which authorizes alterations which are spelled out and with the express understanding use remains as a lawful non-conforming use subject to all the provisions and restrictions of the code and we are not granting perpetual life status. He noted that the Lobdell case is still open to whatever your recom- mendation would be; but %he City Attorney and staff do not feel this is grounds to review and suggest perhaps the Commission should reco~,end a fee refund be made.' The Con~ission discussed the report and questioned if "recognize the existing NC setbacks" in the last paragraph of Exhibit 2 ns not contradictory? Mark will confer withthe City Attorney on a revision. It %~as discussed that every- thing done to a non-conforming property would require v~riance consideration even though the improvement itself would meet all .requirements and that the Commission should clarify this further at a future work session. The consensus of the Conm%ission w~s that these v~riances should come back through-, the process. Weiland moved and Meyer seconded a motion that Planning Con~ission, after fu~rther review, found there w~s not original grounds for submission of the application and therefore, a~riance is not in order and that applicant's fee be refunded. The vote w~s unanimously in favor. 44. 59 5 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 DNa: SOaJ: City Council and Staff Mark Koegler, City Planner August 5, 1987 Exterior Storage Ordinance Enclosed is a copy of the Exterior Storage Ordinance as modified by the Planning Commission. It is suggested that the City Council review the draft in a discussion format prior to actually holding a public hearing. Staff will be present at Tuesday's meeting to.present this item and to address any questions that the Council may have. 23.702 Exterior Storage In residential districts or on property used for residential purposes, all materials and equipment shall be stored within a building or fully screened so as not to be visible from adjoining properties, except for the following: laundry drying and recreational equipment, see definition (92), construction and landscaping materials and equipment currently [within a period of thirty (30) da~fsj being used on the premises, off-street parking of licensed and operative passenger automobiles and pick-up trucks. Storage of recreational equipment shall be subject to the following: (1) Storage of recreation equipment shall be considered either transient or seasonal. Transient storage is defined as the placement of recreation equipment for periods not exceeding fourteen (14) consecutive days for a specific purpose such as active maintenance or short term living quarters for visitors. Transient storage is permitted providing that it complies with all other sections of the Mound Code of Ordinances. Seasonal s~~ shall comply with all of the provisions stated herein. (2) Recreation equipment may be stored on private property in yard areas consistent with the following setbacks: a® Front yard - TWenty (20) feet from the curb o_r edge of the traveled roadway. Side yard - Setbacks shall conform to the setbacks for accessory buildings for the applicable zoning district. Ce Rear yard - Setbacks shall conform to the setbacks for accessory buildings for the applicable zoning district. (3) t~heFOr purposes of exterior storage, corner lots shall considered as having one front yard. The front yard shall shortest dimension fronting on a public right-of-way. be Stored equipment shall be currently registered to, owned leased to or rented to the owner or renter of the property. (4) Storage of recreational equipment including boats, boat trailers, travel trailers, self-contained motor homes, truck toppers, race cars, fish houses, unoccupied trailers, jet skis and snowmobiles shall be limited to no more than one ~ of equipment for every fifteen hundred (1500) square feet of lot area up to a maximum of seven (7) pieces of equipment. (5) Race vehicles stored under the provisions of this ordinance - ' must have a current annual permit issued by the City of Mound. Existing uses shall comply with this provision within twelve (12) months following enactment of this Ordinance. In all districts, the City may require a Conditional Use Permit for any exterior storage if it is demonstrated that such storage is a hazard to the public health, safety, convenience, morals, or has a depreciating effect upon nearby property values, or impairs scenic views, or constitutes threat to living amenities. (ORD. 488. 9-2-86 ) (89A) Race.Vehicles - Any operational vehicle built for or modified for the purpose of racing. Such vehicles are intended for use on paved' tracks, dirt tracks, ice or drag strip facilities. (92) Recreation Equipment - Play apparatus such as swing sets and slides, san~x)xes, picnic tables, barbeque stands, and similar equipment or structures but not including tree houses, swimming pools, play / houses exceeding twenty-five (25) square feet of floor area, or -sheds utilized for storage of equipment. Recreation equipment shall also include, but not be limited to, boats, boat trailers, travel trailers, self-contained motor homes, truck toppers, race?~r~, fish houses, u~occupied trailers, jet skis and snowmobiles./ Fire wood piles shall not constitute recreation equipment. .3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 Planning Co~t~ission and Staff Mark Koegler, City Planner July 8, 1987 Exterior Storage Ordinance The attached Exterior Storage Ordinance attempts to address all of the items discussedat the last. Planning Commission meeting. It specifically broadens the definition, removes length provisions, establishes setbacks, contains lot coverage provisions and classifies corher lots in a manner establishing only one front yardarea. Please review the new draft ordinance and note any appropriate comments for further discussion at Monday's meeting. Proposed Revision 1 23.702 Exterior Storage In residential districts or on property used for residential purposes, all materials and equipment shall be stored within a building or fully screened so as not to be visible from adjoining properties, except for the following: laundry drying and' recreational equipment, see definition (92), construction and landscaping materials and equipment currently [within a period of thirty-six (36) hours] being used on the premises, off-street parking of licensed and operative passenger automobiles and pick-up trucks. Storage of recreational equipment shall be subject to the following: (1) Storage of recreation eguipment~ shall be considered either transient or temporary. Transient storage is defined as the placement of recreation equipment for periods not exceeding seven (7) consecutive days for a specific purpose such as active maintenance or short term living quarters for visitors. Transient storage is permitted providin~ that it complies with all other sections of the Mound Code of Ordinances. (2) Recreation equipment may be stored on private property in yard areas consistent with the following setbacks: ae Front yard - Twenty (20) feet from the curb or edge of the traveled roadway. b. Side yard - Six (6) feet from the property line. c. Rear yard - Six (6) feet from the property line. For purposes of exterior storage, corner lots shall be considered as having one front yard. The front yard shall be the shortest dimension fronting on a public right-of-way. (3) Stored equipment shall be registered to, leased to or rented to the owner or renter of the property. (4) Storage of recreational equipment including boats, boat trailers, travel trailers, self-contained motor homes, truck toppers, race cars, fish houses, unoccupied trailers, jet skis and snowmobiles shall be limited to no more than one (1) piece of equipment for every fifteen hundred (1500) square feet of lot area up to a maximum of seven (7) pieces of equipment. (89A) (92) Existing uses shall comply with this provisionwithin twelve (12) months following enactment of this Ordinance. In all districts, the City may require a Conditional Use Permit for any exterior storage if it is demonstrated that such storage is a hazard to the public health, safety, convenience, morals, or has a depreciatin~ effect upon nearby property values, or impairs scenic views, or constitutes threat to living amenities. (ORD. 488. 9-2-86 ) Race Cars - Any four wheel operational vehicle built for or modified for the purpose of racing. Such vehicles are intended for use on paved tracks, dirt tracks, ice or drag strip facilities. Recreation Equipment - Play apparatus such as swing sets and slides, sandboxes, picnic tables, barbeque stands, and similar equipment or structures but not including tree houses, swimming pools, play houses exceedinG twenty-five (25) square feet of floor area, or sheds utilized for storage of equipment. Recreation equipment shall also include, but not be limited to, boats, boat trailers, travel trailers, self-contained motor homes, truck toppers, race cars, fish houses, unoccupied trailers, jet skis and snowmobiles. Fire wood piles shall not constitute recreation equipment. Existing Mound Ordinance 23.702 Exterior Storage In residential districts, all materials and equipment shall be stored within a building or fully screened so as not to be vlsible from adjoining properties, except for the following: laundry drying and recreational equipment, see definition (92), construction and landscaping materials and equipment currently (within a period of thirty-six (36 hours) being used on the premises, off-street parking of licensed and operative passenger automobiles and pick-up trucks. Storage of recreational vehicles including but not limited to boats, boat trailers, travel trailers and self-contained motor homes is permissable subject to the following conditions: 1. Such equipment shall be stored on private property in yard areas excluding the front yard setback area. 2. Stored equipment shall be registered to, leased to or rented to the owner or renter of the property. Stored equipment shall be limited to.no more than four (4) recreational vehicles. Stored equipment shall not exceed thirty (30) feet in length. Existing uses shall comply with this provision within twelve (12) months following enactment of this Ordinance. In all districts, the City may require a Conditional U~e Permit for any exterior storage if It is demonstrated that such storage is a hazard to the public health, safety, convenience, morals, or has a depreciating effect upon nearby property values, or impairs scenic views,' or constitutes threat to living amenities. (ORD. 488. 9-2-86) (92) Recreation Equipment - Play apparatus such as swing sets and s11des, sandboxes, poles for nets,: picnic tables, lawn shairs, barbeque stands, and similar equipment or structures but not including tree houses, swimming polls, play houses exceeding twenty-five square feet of floor area, or sheds utilized for storage of equipment. Recreation equipment shall also include recreation vehicles not exceeding thirty (30) feet in length including but not limlted to boats, boat trailers, travel trailers and self-contained motor homes. (Ord. 488. ~-2-86) Planning Commission Ninutes July 27, 1987 - Page 4 Case No. 87-660 will be on the Commission agenda for August 10, 1987; there is no staff recommendation as it came in too late for this agenda. EXTERIOR STORAGE The City Planner reviewed that, at a previous meeting, the Commission decided to look at the. ordinance and~come back with any further thoughts they might have. The Commission' decided to take each item and get the thoughts and consensus of the members as follows on Proposed Revision # 1 of the City Planner's report dated July 8, 1987. The majority thought "thirty-six hours" in first paragraph was unreasonable and should be changed to 30 days. Item 1. Term transient was discussed and the City Planner was asked to come up with a different term. They discussed length of time allowed for mobile homes, etc. and whether permit should be .required for longer period; permit was thought to be difficult to administer. They asked what group thought of changing 'to 1114 daysII. Five were in favor; 3 against. 2a. Front yard setback of 20 feet minimum. The vote'was 7 in favor. It was questioned if a height limitation could be put on recreation equipment. b & Commissi.on discussed making, setbacks the same for side yards and rear yards c. .. as accessory structures. The vote was 5 in favor. The 'Commissionlwere infavor of including "currently 'registered ..... " and adding or owned by. the owner or renter of the property. 4. No change 89A. Change tot' "Race vehicles .... " Delete four wheel. Commission discussed having a permit proces~ for race cars. A recommendation would be that procedures be established to issue- permits for race vehicles. Tarping of race cars was discussed'and only Meyer was in favor of requiring tarping. 92. No change. The proposed revision of this ordinance will go to the Council on August ll, 1987; the Council will have a public hearing September 8th. "The City Manager, Ed Shukle, discussed the proposed Public Works site and alternatives. He noted the Council was h~ving a special meeting with the 'business people relative to the proposal. A party for Ken Smith was discussed; the date will be Friday evening, August 21, 1987 at Bill Meyer's home. ADJOURNMENT Andersen moved and Thal seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m. All were in favor. Attest: Thomas Reese, Chairman 353 RECEIVED,!UL281987 July 24, 1987 Ms. Jan Bertrand Building Inspector City of Mound 5341MayWood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ms. Bertrand: I Lucille Maas residing at 5901 Glenwood Road in the city of Mound and have been,a resident in Mound-for 35 years am writing to formally file a complaint with the City of Mound against the owners and residents of the property at 5909 Glenwood Road in Mound, Myrtle and Richard Janke. The nature of this complaint is the unsightly, cluttered, dirty rat infested collection of debris and junk at the property adjacent to mine at 5909 Glenwood Road. Approximately ten years ago the owners and residents of the dwelling at 5910 Glenwood Road in Mound filed a complaint against the Jankes, it was brought before the Mound Council and the Jankes were instructed to clean up their premises. The hauled eight truck loads of junk off the premises, it did improve the situation short term, but not for long. I believe the city has ordinances restricting residents from collecting junk to this extent and turning their property and dwellings into a rat infested, fire hazard. I now have a rat problem in my garage, which is a real danger to my grandchildrens safety. Their property should be inspected immediately, without notice, including an inside inspection of the dWellings to confirm that all the buildings are a fire hazard and should be condemned. The former residents across the street from the Jankes had to lose (discount) their home when they sold it by $8,900.00 because of the following quote by the reality company, Coldwell Banker, "The house across the street from you is a particular eye sore and is lowering the value of your home, I realize this lack of upkeep is not your fault. But because it does exist, the value of your home is depreciated." - 2 - I~ the city o~ Mound does not take ~mmed~ate action to correct the situation I will be forced to take action through the legal system to do so. Please review the attached pictures. Mr. Janke was driving a large truck that isn't even shown in the pictures, but note,truck, jeep and tractor in the front yard. How would you like to live next door to this? Please do your best to resolve this problem as soon as possible. I await your reply. Sincerely, #7~ - ~.~o 6 Lucille Maas Encl. Council approves "nuisance" ordinance In early ;June the City Council revised Minnetonka's nuisance -ordinance provisions regarding property and building maintenance, outside parking and storage, and other requirements. At the same time, Council adopted a policy to enforce the ordinance requirements only upon complaint from someone in the neighborhood. Both actions were taken after several months of discussion and hearings about the proposed changes. The ordinance changes and policy adoption are expected to provide a better response by the City to an increasing number of complaints about the use and condition of some properties in Minnetonka. The revisions became effective July 15. Highlights are listed below. · The number of vehicles regularly parked or stored outside is limited to four per dwelling, and any vehicle parked in the front yard must be on a paved or graveled area. Watercraft, snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles and small trailers are excluded from these . requirements. · Any stored vehicle must belong to a resident of the'property. · Vehicles having Minnesota weight classifications of "G" through "T" may not be parked on residential property for more than'2'hours, unless providing service or delivery to the property. · Buildings, fences, and other structures must be properly maintained, including necessary repainting. · All woodpiles must be neatly and securely stacked. · The height of vegetation on established lawns is limited to 10 inches. Garden areas and other plantings are excluded from this requirement; as are wetlands and floodplains and properties adjacent to natural areas of vegetation. Existing provisions of the nuisance ordinance prohibiting the open storage of junk, trash and other debris were strengthened and clarified. The enforcement policy by the Council calls for the nuisance ordinance to be enforced upon complaint by one or more neighboring residents, or when a condition poses an immediate threat to public health or safety. No enforcement action will be taken by the City without such complaint. Through these provisions, the policy acknowledges that neighborhood standards vary throughout Minnetonka's neighborhoods, and enforcement action should normally be taken only when violations become offensive to neighboring residents. Obviously, the Council believes all residents should take steps to comply with the ordinance requirements which have been designed to promote a more enjoyable and attractive environment for Minnetonka'$ residential areas. Residents' cooperation in meeting these standards will be appreciated by neighbors and the City. Residents who need help in identifying locations to dispose of junk, debris, or other items; or those needing actual assistance with removal, may contact the Community Development Department, 933-2511. WURST, LAW O F'F'fC£S PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & IIOO FIRST BANK PLACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA SS402 July 27, 1987 IV~ ERTZ' Te' L~.PHON ~' (~12) 338-.4200 Ed Shukle City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Compliance Officials Dear Ed: The 1987 Legislature adopted a issuance of citations to licensed peace authorized by ordinance. law which restricts the officers unless otherwise I have prepared an ordinance the fire- inspector, the building service officers to issue citations arrest or detention. .. which specifically authorizes inspector and our community for code compliance in lieu of I believe that these ordinances, when the underlying authority for our code continue writing citations. adopted, will provide compliance people to JDL:td Enclosure V~y truly you. rs, ORDINANCE 1987- AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTIONS 250:25, 230:55 and 210:20 TO THE CITY CODEr ADDING SPECIFIC AUTHORITY FOR CITY CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS TO ISSUE CITATIONS IN LIEU OF ARREST OR DETENTION The City of Mound does ordain: 1. The following Section 250:25 is adopted: Section 250:25 Community Service Officers. The City Manager may appoint Community Service Officers to be paid members of the Police Department. A Community Service Officer shall perform duties as assigned by the Chief, including the enforcement of City ordinances through the issuance of notices, warning tickets, or citations in lieu 'of arrest or detention. ~ 2. The following Section 230:55 is adopted: Section 230:55 Fire Code Compliance Official. The City Manager may designate a Code Complian~eA~Qfficia~-. from among the members of the Fire Department~c~x~~~ duties as assigned by the Fire Chief, including the enforcement of the Fire Prevention Code, Section 235 hereof, through the issuance of notices, warning tickets or citations in lieu of arrest or detention. 3. The following Section 211:20 is adopted: Section 210:20 Code Compliance The Building Official shall enforce Section 300 of this Code and all statutes, codes and ordinances relating to building and zoning, and may achieve enforcement through.the issuance .of notices, warning tickets, or citations in lieu of arrest or detention. Attest: Mayor City Clerk MINNESOTA BOARD OF PEACE OFFICF. R STANDARDS AND TRAINING ~ SIBLEY STREEt (SUITE 495) ST. PAUL, MINN~TA .~101 Executive Director (612) 296-262O DATE: Ouly 15, 1987 TO: Chief Law Enforcement Officers FROM: Mark K. Shields Executive Director SUBJECT: UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE This letter is to inform you of the provisions of an important bill passed during the 1987 Legislative Session. I am referring to Chapter 334, commonly known as the Unauthorized ~Practice legislation. This new law will take effect on August l, 1987. It has significance for every law enforcement agency and officer in our state. I encourage you to familiarize yourself with it thor- oughly and to contact me if you have any questions about it. Please share this information with the licensed officers within your agency. Background - A decision was made by law enforcement representatives of the various law enforcement associations prior to the 1987 session, to seek a bill which would assist the law enforcement profession to prohibit non-licensed individuals from practicing law enforcement. The easy way to accomplish this seemed to be a matter of simply writing into law a provision that would make it a misdemeanor to practice law enforcement without a license. The sticky issue, however, was arriving at a consensus as to what the "practice" of law enforcement actually is. Common sense and the historical development of our field have established the day-to-day duties and responsibilities of the job as we know it today. Unfortunately, statutory law until now did not contain the practical components of these duties and responsibilities. Therefore, we found ourselves faced with the task of identifying and writing into law the duties and responsibilities which 'would fall only within the scope of a peace officer, part-time peace officer or constable. We settled on three components which we considered to constitute the basis for common sense areas which are germane to the practice of law enforcement. We addressed the following questions and sought legislation which provided reasonable answers to them. 1. Who, through the use of marked squad cars,' should be permitted to stop the motoring public?; 2. Who should be permitted to operate marked squad cars?; and 3. Who should be permitted to issue citations and court notices? AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER Page TWo The substantive elements of the bill are found in Sections 1, 5 and 6. sections and comments about each are provided below. These SECTION.1 of the bill addresses the first two questions. Subd. la. [VEHICLE STOPS.] .Except a_~s otherwise permitted under sec- tions 221.221 and 29gD.06~ only ~ person who i._~ licensed as a peace officer~ constable~ O__Epart-time peace officer under sections 626.84 to section 6 may use ~ moto____E vehicle governed by subdivision 1 to stop a vehicle as defined in section 169.01~ subdivision 2__~. Comment: Only licensed peace officers, part-time peace officers and constables have authority to stop vehicles! 221.221 and 299D.06 refer to state employees involved in truck enforcement. This provision permits these employees to con- tinue on with their unique duties as specified in their particular sections of.. statute. ~ : ~ Subd.-lb. [OPERATION OF MARKED VEHICLES.] Except as otherwise per- mitted under sections 221.221 and 299D.06~ a motor vehicle governed by subdivision ~ may only b_~e operated by~ person licensed as a peace officer~ constable~ o__crpart-time peace officer under sections 626.84 t_~o section 6~ This prohibition does not apply to the following: (1) ~ marked vehicle that i_~s operated for maintenance purposes onlY; (2) a marked vehicle that is operated during a skills course approved by the peace officers standards and training boardl (3) ~ marked vehicle that i_~s operated to transport prisoners o__E equipmentl o__E (4) a marked vehicle that is operated by~ reserve officer providing supplementary assistance at the direction of the chief law enforcement officer or the officer's designee, when a licensed peace officer as defined in sectio6 626.847 subdivision ), para- graph (c), who is employed by that political subdivision~ is on duty within the political subdivision. Comment: This section spells out some of the needed common sense exemptions to who has authorization to drive around in marked squad cars. I draw your atten- 'tion to exemption #4. This area addresses the use of reserve officers (com- munity service officers and other non-licensed auxiliary personnel) who heretofore, as a matter of assignment, have driven marked squad cars. The intent of the new law is to allow reservists and others to use marked vehicles if they are on special assignment, for example, driving from point A to point B in order to direct traffic at a parade. Another example would be the use of the marked vehicle to proceed on a specific assignment such as vacation home checks. On the other side of the coin, the intent was to prohibit non-licensed personnel from getting into marked squads and proceeding with an assignment of routine Page Three Patrolling. Patrolling, pulling a shift of preventative patrol, is now statu- torily authorized for only peace officers, part-time peace officers and constables. SECTION 5 addresses the third question. Sec. 5. [626.862] [POWERS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS.] Excep~ a__~sspecif~cally provided by statute~ on~ ~ peace o~icer~ con- stable~ and part-time'peace officer may: (l) issue ~ citation in lieu o~f arrest or continued detention unless specifically authorized by ordinance; .(2) ask ~ person receivinq a citation to give ~ writen promise to appear in court; or (3) take ~ person into custody as permitted by section 629.34. Comment: Numbers 2 & 3 from above are reserved exclusively for licensed' officers. Number 1 permits non-licensed personnel to-issue citations if authorized to do so by ordinance. This needs some explanation because you might be thinking that non-licensed personnel such as building inspectors, animal control officers, and fire prevention personnel have been issuing citations all along without having ordinance authority to do so. Does this now mean you will have to seek an ordinance to continue on with something you have been doing all along? .The conservative answer, in my opinion, is yes. This is a case where agencies may ~have been doing certain things where the authority to do so may have been, as they saY, hazy. Legislators legally cannot grandfather in authority if the authority legally doesn.'t exist, Therefore, their sentiment was to let the local officials decide to whom they want issuing citations. They recognized the implications for liability and felt that the decision as to who at the local level should be writing citations was best made by local officials rather than the state. · SECTION 6 of the bill is the Unauthorized Practice section and is farily straight forward. Sec. 6. [626.863] [UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE.] .(a) ~ person who is not ~ peace officer~ constable~ or. part-time peace officer is guilty of a misdemeanor if the person: makes a representation o..~f being ~ peace officer~ constable~ or part-time peace officer~ or'(2) performs or attempts to perform an act~ duty~ or responsibility reserved by law for licensed peace officers~ constables~ and part-time peace officers. (b) The board shall desiqnate the appropriate law enforcement agency to investigate violations of this section. The attorney general shall prosecute violations of this section. Summary. We believe the new law to be workable and it should eliminate a great deal of confusion. As with all new legislation, I urge you to share this infor- mation with your legal counsel. MKS:mb ~ August 11, 1987 RESOLUTION NO. 87- RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES AS RECOMMENDED FOR THE SPECIAL REFERENDUM ELECTION SEPTEMBER 29, 1987 BE IT RESOLYED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the following list of election judges for the Special Referendum Election September 29, 1987. ', Gundhild Anderson Ann Bitney Holly Bostrom Emma Brandenburg Eunice Bren RObert Carlson ' Karol "Pinky" Charon Marion Davidson Elsie Dressel Theresa Gauvin Marian Gilbertson Arlene Gilmore Virginia Jerdee Betty Johnson Jeanette Johnson Kathy Kluth Bernie Lister Joanne Mason Helen Maxwell Fernando Mazoleny Lee Mondloh Dotty O'Brien Joyce Nelson Jeanne Olson Kathy Oman Marsha Peickert Shirley Phleger Irma Psyck Bernice ~Putt Charlotte Rogers S~irley Romness Allen Schwingler Ann Schwingler Barbara Sidders Bud Skoglund Ardelle Skoglund Marsha Smith Lemuel Sprow Linda Strong Frances Swanson Sandra Wilsey Clifford Wilson John Wilson Sandi Woytcke Carolyn Zachow Sharon Meier The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember. The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor Attest: City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 87- RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 87-110 WHEREAS, on j~ne 9, 1987, the City Council adopted Resolution 87-110, entitled "Resolution Determining the Need to Acquire and Equip a New Public Works Building and to Issue General Obligation Bonds to Pay for the Same and Calling an Election", and; WHEREAS, that resolution estimated the cost to the City of not to exceed $998,700; and WHEREAS, the City Council, on August 8, 1987, decided to remove the Bickmann site from the public works facility ~ proposal for outdoor storage of material which lowers the es- timated cost of the project to $790,000. HOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLYED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby amend Resolution #87- 110 to read as follows: RESOLUTION DETERHINING THE NEED TO ACQUIRE AND EQUIP A NEW PUBLIC WORKS BUILOING ANO TO ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS TO PAY FOR THE SAME AND CALLING AN ELECTION WHEREAS, the City Council has studied the need for new facilities to provide public services needed by this growing City and has determined that a new public works building is needed; and WHEREAS, in order to finance said improvements and ac- quisitions, it is necessary that municipal bonds be issued pledg- ing the full faith and credit of the City to their payment; and WHEREAS, in order that such bonds may be issued as .general obligation, it is necessary to submit the question of the issuance to the voters of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEO by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City Council of the City of Mound has been informed and has investigated the need for additional public facilities and has found that a public works building is necessary to store, repair and protect City owned equipment, and has determined and does hereby find and declare that it is necessary and expedient for the City to make such improvements at an estimated cost to the ,' % August 11, 1987 City of not to exceed $~ and to finance the same by issuing bonds as authorized by Chapter 475 of the Minnesota Statutes. That the question of providing monies to acquire, con- struct and equip said facilities shall be submitted to the voters of the City at a special City election to be held on Tuesday, the 29th day of September, 1987, and that the special election shall be held with the polls being open from 7:00 A.M. and remaining open until 8:00 P.M. on said date, and there shall be six voting precincts. The election judges who are appointed t'o conduct said election are set forth, in another resolu- tion. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to cause printed ballots to be prepared for the use in said election in which the proposition shall be stated in substantially the following form: OFFICIAL BALLOT SPECIAL BOND ELECTION CITY OF HOUND SEPTEHBER 29, 1987 SHALL THE CITY OF HOUND ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS IN AN AHOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $790,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING HONEY FOR THE ACQUISITION AND EQUIPPING OF A NEW PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING WITHIN THE CITY? INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS: Voters desiring to vote in favor of the foregoing proposition shall mark an "X" in the square opposite the word "YES"; voters desiring to vote against the foregoing proposition shall mark an "X" in the square op- posite the word "NO". (Blue Ballots - See'M.S.A. 205.17, Subd. 4) The City Clerk shall cause noti.ce of said election to be given by publication in the official newspaper f the City at least two weeks prior to said election and by posting said notice in at least three public places in the City at least ten days prior to said election. She shall also publish a sample ballot in the official newSpaper at least one week prior to the election and shall post a sample ballot in her office an in each polling place at least four days before the election. The election shall be held at the usual voting places August 11, lg87 for the state general election and as set forth in Ex- hibit A attached to this resolution, and said election shall be held and conducted in accordance with the statutes of the State of Minnesota applicable to City elections. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember and seconded by Councilmember The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative: The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: Mayor ~-~cest: CT~erk 3 August 11, 1987 'EXHIBIT A' NOTICE OF SPECIAL ELECTION REGARDING THE ACQUISITION AND BETTERMENT OF A PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING FOR THE CITY OF MOUND CITY OF MOUND HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA SEPTENBER 29, 1987 NOTICE is hereby given that a special election for the City of Mound, Minnesota, will be held Tuesday, September 29, 1987, between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. for the purpose of submitting to the voters of the City the following proposition: SHALL THE CITY OF MOUND ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEEO $790,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING MONEY FOR THE ACQUISITION AND EQUIPPING OF A NEW PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING WITHIN THE CITY? Polling places for' said election will be as follows: Precinct #1 - Mount Olive Lutheran Church (Education Bldg.) 5218 Bartlett Blvd. Mound, MN. Precinct #2 - Indian Knoll Manor 2020 Commerce Blvd. Mound, MN. Precinct #3 - Island Park Hall 4843 Manchester Road Mound, MN. Precinct #4 - Seahorse Recreation Building 5430 Three Points Blvd. Mound, MN. Precinct #5 - The Depot at Mound Bay Park 5801 Bartlett Blvd. Mound, MN. Precinct #6 - Westonka Community Services (North Entrance by the Pond Arena) ~Oe=5-3~Lynwood Blvd. Mound, MN. City of Mound, Minnesota' BILLS ....... AUGUST 11, 1987 'Batch 874073 Batch 874074 Computer run dated 8/5/87 Computer run dated 8/6/87 59,001.83 72,149.58 Total Bills 131,151.41 I LA 1 o I- o ~. ~ W W Z W u. Z Z~Z . Z~ZZ ZZZ~ Z~ZZ Z~ ~ W~WW ~ ~ ZZZZ ~ ~ 0000 000 ~ ~ o ooo oooo ~ 0 000 0000 0000 o W .J o o TTT I I I I I I 0 ..J .J W OJ OJ n Z 0 z ZZ ~ n-n- O WW O0 OO 0 0 O0 O0 -r uJ Z 0 C) LU ~ZZZ 0000 ZZZZ 0000 I , t 'el' T OJ I IJ.l .J _1 LIJ W -J hi 'r n,, LIJ Cd I Z Z U.I W ~ .J 0 _J ~ .oo ~ oo O0 Illltllll IIIIIIlll 0 ,'~.~ :;~ ~ 000000000 h9 b9 6~ 6'9 L?~ b9 69, b', Z W o Ld~ 0 p. 7 0 > <1: Z ~ OJ ~ oJ O0 00000 0 W Z 0 0 z ~Z~ZZZZZZ 000000000 W 0 Z hi W n. o ~J _1 UJ w >- .J Z 0 o o o o 'Ir I 0 Z i.,4 I-- hi .J -J m 'I- )- n :::) Z I~ I oN X 0 _J D 0 h ,l~ 0 u ;; 00000000~00~ W Z 0 W W W O~ X W l.~ Z X W 0 I- 0 >- -J 0 W Z mn W L~ Z W I'- 0000000000 Z~'Z lO00 X I I ..J 0 n 0 ..I 1 I oo I I I ! 0 ~ Z .37 %%% ~0 '03 ~4 "%%. *% ~ 03 i"- ~" z LU I I I I o o I I 0 · W I 0 W _1 W o 0 W .J W -,I I 0 0 hi z~ r,I OJ .~ OJ 0 bJ W o o I ~J I 1 I- fl.. W W .J W 0 0 01 I .J ~l.o 0 I n UJ "~1-- (.9?' '"~0 O0 O0 O0 Z Z: 0 Z I Z 0 ~n 0 Z Ld Z 0 U. 0 n- Z: 0 0 0 'r n- .d ~J Z 0 n- I-- t~ .J Z M 0 Z Z 0 0 0 U. 0 0 z )- 0 I 7, 0 0 I-- ,.n 0 L~ 0 0 Z 0 I- I- I m ~C l- oJ nj W I--- la. m .J W Z W 0 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYVVOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155 75 YEARS August 6, 1987 TO: FROM: RE: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER AND CITY COUNCIL JOHN NORMAN, FINANCE DIRECTOR JULY FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT COMPUTER UPDATE We spent many hours entering data into the new computer system. We have entered the beginning balances and are in the process of adding the activity of all the months up to July. Our plan is to run parallel records in August (using LOGIS and new system). If all goes well, we will drop off of the LOGIS Finance system in September. 1988 BUDGET The budget worksheets were generated in July. We included the June activity on our worksheets to enable us to examine how we are at the halfway point in the 1987 budget. I have started looking at the revenue budget for 1988. The department heads are preparing their budget requests to be reviewed by Ed. PARK DEDICATION FEE Phyllis Jessen asked me a question regardi'ng park dedication fees. (Mound Ordinance 330.120) collected by the City. The fee is entered as income in the General Fund and along with other revenue, is used to finance General Fund expenditures, of which parks is a department. The parkldedication fee has not been set aside specifically for park expenditures. The following is a listing of park dedication fees collected by the City: 1987 (projected) 1986 1985 1984 $2,500 $3,020 $12,665 (included SuperAmerica, Port Harrison and Shirley Hills Townhomes) $ 440 I JULY FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT PAGE 2 INVESTMENTS The following is July investment activities: Balance 7-1-87 $7,616,407 Bought: CP 6.9 Due 10-5-87 Piper 196,000 FNMA 7.25 Due 1-4-88 Dain 200,000 CP 7.0 Due 4-1-88 Dain 285,204 CD 6.85 Due 4-1-88 State Bank of Mound 90,000 CD 6.95 Due 1-15-88 Dain 90,000 T Notes 6.9 Due 7-25-88 Marquette 200,000 T Receipts 8.2 Due 8-15-90 Piper 84,170 Matured: CD 6.6 State Bank of Mound 420,000 Govt Trust American National 50,000 CD 6.5 State Bank of Mound 100,000 Balance 7-31-87 $8,191,781 TAX INCREMENT SETTLEMENT We received the tax settlement for Commerce Square in July and the amount appeared to be low ($5,600). The May Finance Report explained the error made on the valuation of Commerce Square development. The County corrected the valuation, sending out corrected tax statements. However, the procedure the County uses to make tax increment settlements is based upon a formula established when the original tax statements are sent out. The valuations were originally undervalued, and con- sequently the settlement for the tax increment district was less than it should have been. i talked to the County about this and they will be making adjustments to the October settlement. After the adjustments, the City will receive the proper amount to pay off the TIF bonds. If the County would not have adjusted the October settlement, the taxes paid by Commerce Square above the original formula would have been allocated to all taxing districts (the City is approximately 17% of all taxes.). This "windfall" to the taxing districts would have caused a shortage in the tax increment fund. JN:ls 75 YEARS CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYVVOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155 August 5, 1987. TO: Ed Shukle City Manager FROM: Greg Skinner Water & Sewer Supt. SUBJECT: July's Activity Report The Water Department pumped 32,665,000 gallons of water in July. There were 5 new accounts in July. 1,014 meter were read, 5 T-off for non- payment, 47 final readings and 4 outside readers installed. The recent storms have kept us busy with repairs. Well house #1 was hit by lighting causing some minor damage to the electrical panel. The parts have been repaired and it is back in service. Well #7 is down seems that a micro-switch burned out from the electrical storm on July 26. That part is still on order at this time. This first part of the month was normal bBsiness, meter installation and repairs. Have been slowly geting ready for our annual inspection from the Minnesota Health Department in August. SEWER DEPARTMENT The Sewer Department has been busy with sewer line maintenance, jetting lines 3 days a week and manhole repairs. During the storm all but 2 of the 29 lift stations were running~ The 2 that were out were knocked out because of power outage. CITY OF MOUND 75 YEARS 5341 MAYVVOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155 August 5, 1987 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Ed Shukle City Manager Joyce Nelson Recycling Coordinator July's Recycling In July we received payment from Metropolitan Council of $236.68. This will be our last tonnage payment from Met Council as they have stopped reimbursing cities the $~.00 per ton. July's pickup was on July 3, only 301 stops were made. I'm sure our pickup was lower because of the 4th of July Holiday. July's pickup was 12.6 tons. 75 YEARS CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYVVOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155 August 4, 1987 TO: Ed Shukle City Manager , FROM: Geno Hoff Street Supt. SUBJECT: July's Activity Report The first 2 weeks we were working.on getting the rest of our roads patched for sealcoating. We finished patching the Fire Station and City Hall and are in the process of overlaying Tuxedo Blvd. from Cty. Rd. 125 to Clyde. We were about halfway done when the first storm hit on the 2Oth, that one didn't give us much trouble, we had some trees down and alot of branches, we spent 2 days cleaning up the mess. The second storm was a different story, our storm sewer system is not built for 10" to 14" of rain, and no one elses is either. We had some flooding. All of the catchbasins in town were open before the storm, one of the big problems is we have alot of driveways that are gravel or rock and when we get alot of rain they wash out into the street and end up in the. catchbasins and storm sewer lines which restricts the flow of storm water. We had 3 retaining walls come down and damage to 2 others that I know of. We are working on getting bids to repair them. The city is looking at about ~18,000 for the 3 that are down. From the 24th, the day after the storm our time has been spent cleaning up the dirt and debris on the streets. 2 sweepers, 1 dump truck and the frontend loader, we also had a backhoe to clean out some ditches. We will be back patching the 4th of August. 2382-- Page 2 STREET MATERIALS PURCHASED 202 tons of blacktop 994 gallons of tac oil 18 tons of 3/4 dust CE'METERY Staked out 2 graves and 6 stones. SIGN WORK 5 No Parking 1 No Parking here to corner 3 Stop signs 3 Street name signs 75 YEARS CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYVVOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155 August 4, 1987 TO: Ed Shukle City Manager FROM: Greg Bergquist Mechanic SUBJECT: July's Activity Report This month the Street Department required the bulk of shop time. Due to the heavy work load needed by the sweepers, breakdowns were a common occurance. This was due in part because of preparing for the upcoming sealcOating and of course the heavy storms we all experienced. In conjunction with the sweepers our Vac-all which is mostly used for cleaning storm sewer catchbasins required extensive repairs due to its age and the amount of work it must preform. I was able to manufacture the parts needed to effect these repafrs here in our shop to keep costs down. Other Street Department maintenance include~ normal service to some of the vehicles such as oil changes, brake and clutch adjustments. The Police Department had its usual number of service requirements along with preventive maintenance proceedure. The animal wardens truck was outfitted with a topper this month and it required the building of separate cages inside. With materials we had around the shop I was able to preform this task with very little downtime to the vehicle. The Park Department as always had its rash of daily repairs to the mowers, weed whips and other equipment used to preform their daily work. LEN HARRELL ChiefofPolice / TO: Ed Shukle, City Managervy?-~ FROM: . Sgt. Hudson, Acting Ch~f/~ Po~e SUBJECT. Monthly Report for Jul~,~7 MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Telephone 472-3711 Mound, MN 55364 Dispatch 544-9511 EMERGENCY 911 I. STATISTICS The police department responded to 764 calls for service in July. There were 31 Part I crimes reported which consisted of 1 criminal sexual conduct, 1 robbery, 6 burglaries, and 23 larcenies. Part II crimes accounted for 78 calls for service. Part II crimes reported consisted of 9 child abuse/neglect, 2 forgery/NSF checks, 17 damage to property, 3 weapons, 1 narcotic, 2 liquor, 12 DWI's, 7 simple assaults, 2 domestic assaults, 1 domestic, 8 harassment calls, 6 runaway, 1 incorrig- ibility, 4 disturbing the peace, and 4 all other. The patrol division issued 189 citations which included 30 parking citations. 11 citations were issued to juveniles. A total of 159 warnings were given. 27 adults were arrested and 8 juveniles for Part I and Part II crimes. The department responded to 16 medicals, 10 property damage accidents, 2 pesonal injury accidents, 100 animal complaints, and assisted other depart- ments on 15 mutual aid calls. II. INVESTIGATION III. Approximately 45½ hours were spent investigating 6 different child abuse/ neglect cases. Other cases investigated for the month consisted of 1 runaway, 1 liquor background, 2 thefts, 1 damage to property, 1 possession of stolen property, and 1 forgery. ~ 19 formal complaints were signed for the month of July. The complaints consisted of 2 Gross DWI's, 2 speeding, 4 No Fault Insurance, 2 animal, 2 DAR, 3 possession of stolen property, 1 negligent fleeing, 1 careless driving, and 2 open bottle. The department has had 47 child protection cases filed with the department as of July 31, 1987. MANPOWER Officers used 9½ days of vacation, 9 days of comp time and earned a total of 5 3/4 days of comp time. Robert Meuwissen, our college intern, worked with the animal warden and patrol officers observing, learning, and in some cases, handling minor calls. July Monthly Report Page Two IV. OVERTIME There were 163 hours overtime used to cover short shifts and late cases and .arrest situations. V. TRAINING TIME The only training time spent during the month of July was 4 hours spent by Chief Harrell, Sgt. Hudson, Sgt. Roy, and Secretary Shirley Hawks, on the new computer. VI. POLICE RESERVES The police reserves donated 235.5 hours to the police department in July. The hours consisted of 41½ for call-outs, 74 reserve squad details, 34½ for community services, 83½ for ride-alongs with regular officers, 12 for monthly meetings, and 50 for administration duties. One reserve officer resigned during the month of July leaving a total of 6 officers in the unit. City ..... Mound Month J~ly CITATIONS 87-,' ADULT JUV :)WI or OUI 11 More than .10~ BAC 3 1 1' Careless/Reckless Drlvln9 Driving After Susp. or Rev. Open Bottle Speeding 71 No DL or Expired DL Restriction on DL Imprope. r, Expired, or No Plates 1 II.l.egal Passing Stop Sign Violations 32 Failure to yield Equipment Violations H&R Leaving the Scene No Insurance 3 :al'ok Unsafe Turn 1 Over the cente~line Park'in~'Vi~Ia~'ions 30 Crosswalk 2 Dog Ordinances 4 Derelict Autos 3 5 Felony Hisdemeanor Other 3 TOTAL 145 WARNINGS No Insurance' 20 4 Traffic 42 4 Equipment 43 6 'Crosswalk Animals 18 Trash/Derelict Autos 19 14 ARRESTS 2 4 3 ..~ Miscellaneous Tags 6 TOTALS J 178 11 PROPERTY LOSS/RECOVERY SUMMARY B i kes Snowmobiles ITEM STOLEN $ 210 RECOVERED $100 Boats, Motors, Trailers Clothing Currency, Notes, Etc. Jewelry & Precious Metals Guns Home Furnishings Radio & Electronic Equipment ~ehicles & Vehicle Equipment Miscellaneous TOTAL' 5,500 408 2,550 170 1,148 1,268 1,707 f $12,961 4 $104 PART I CRIMES ~ ~ · ~ ° ° ADULT. JUV Homicide Cr_~al Sexual Conduct 1 1 Robbery 1 Assault Burglary 6 1 1 Larceny 23 2 3 3 Vehicle Theft .Arson TOTAL 31 1 1 3 4 3 PART II CRIMES' , . Child Abuse/Neglect 9 1 5 1 1 Forgery/NSF Checks ' 2 'Criminal Damage to Property 17 1 ,1 Weapons 3 1 2 2 2 Narcotic Laws 1 Liquor Laws 2 1 1 DW--~ 12. 12 11 1 Si~ppie Assault 7 1 3 .5 Domestic Assault 2 2 2 DOmestics (No Assault) 1 Harassment 8 1 1 Runaway/Incorrigibility/Truancy 6 2 3 3 Public Peace 4 1 3 4 · ~ 4 ~ 1 1 All Other Offenses TOTAL 78 1 11 30 27 · 8 PART III::.&~PART IV Property Dammge Accidents 10 .Personal InjUry Accidents 2 Fatal Accidents 0 Medicals 16 Animal Complaints 100 Mutual Aid 15 O General Investi ations 515 TOTAL 655 - TOTAL ACTIVITIES 764 2 12 33 31 11 MONTH GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY POLICE/CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT JULY YEAR -19R7 THIS THIS YEAR LAST ~ MONTH TO DATE TO DATE Hazardous Citations 97 823 '~'862' Non-Hazardous Citations 35 363 365 Hazardous WarninRs 37 270 311 Non-Hazardous Warninss' 56 552 669 Verbal Warnings ' 79 501 - ParkinE CitatiOns 30 239 477 DWI 12 67 81 OVER .10 3 43 55 Property DamaEe Accidents 10 59 43 Personal Injury Accidents 2 24 18 Fatal Accidents 0 0 0 Adult Felony Arrests 6 34 36 Adult'Misdemean~r Arrests 31 184 291 Adult Misdemeanor Citations 12 56 61 Juvenile Felony Arrests 3 38 31 Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests 11 . 85 93 Juvenile Misdemeanor Citations 1 35 29 Part I Offenses 31 200 218 Part II Offenses 78 492 536 .Medicals 16 111 103 Animal Complaints 100 672 702 512 3,120 3,012 Other General Investigations TOTAL 1,162 7,968 7,997 Assists 30 276 497 36 301 317 Follow-Ups - MOUND POLICE RESERVES MONTM JULY ~F2%R1987 ACTIVITY tt5 R6 R16 iR12 ~ .R23. R24. TOTALS co r T,Z SmVICES HOCKEY/FOOTBALL GAMEs TRAINING J~J.¢TION Activities This Month; Wayzata Fireworks Spring Park Crazy Days Raspberry Festival ports OFFICERS: R5 Th0~Pson Sgt, R6 Hawks .Sgt~ R16 Niccum R17 )Ianthei R23 Vogel R24 Stahlbusch 75 YEARS CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155 August 4, 1987 TO: FROM: RE: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER AND CITY COUNCIL JOEL KRUMM, LIQUOR STORE MANAGER JULY, 1987 MONTHLY REPORT July's sales were fantastic, with $87,478.00, we had our third busiest month ever in the history of the Mound Liquor Store. The stretch of unusually hot and humid weather we have been having has caused our beer sales to rise dramatically. Beer sales have accounted for 51% of the total business this month. Last year at the end of July, gross sales for the year were $459,279. This year so far sales have totalled $477,943. In the course of a year there ~re four major holidays that liquor stores must be closed; Christmas, New Year's, Thanksgiving and the 4th of July. This year an unfortunate event occurred, the 4th of July fe'll on a Saturday, our busiest day of the week. By law, we were forced to be closed. So we ended up missing a day we would normally have been open. So when you look at the month's sales and compare them with July of last year ($81,190.) the results are even more remarkable. With the store being closed the 4th and people being aware of this fact, Friday the 3rd proved to be quite eventful. Panicky customers had to stock up for the entire weekend! What transpired on the 3rd was the busiest day ever on record here at your friendly Municipal Liquor Store. Sales for the day topped $12,000., and we had slightly over 800 people for the day. Things tend to get frantic when you have that many customers in and out of here a day in our small confines. To add to the crampness, both in here and in our parking lot, I decided to hold a tasting on a new frozen complete cocktail. The product is called Tropic Freezers, and it comes in four frozen slushy flavors; margaritas, peach daiquiris, strawberry daiquiris and strawberry margaritas. It was a natural and easy sale considering the timing. Everyone was picking them up. We went through approximately 15 cases. The mid-year inventory process is almost complete. I should be able to have all the information and be able to report to you some of the finding in my next monthly report. JK:ls 2 p£ DEPART~-~T~ : .T.' A'nHrp,~p'2 G. Anderson 'G. Babb J. Beauchamp · D, Bovd D. Bryce , S. Co]]~n~ ?,,'. I~avi d B. Ericks&n' · S. Erickson .G. Garvais L. Heitz C[ Henderso~ G. Johnson' M. Kleegerg~r B] Landsman R. Marschke - J. Nafus'" M. N~lson A. Opi~z ' B. Palm G. Palm. M. Palm D~ Platzer DRILI~ .; T. Rasmussen L'. Savage T. S~a~man T. Swenson ',~'. Swenson " Tobev T. Williams IDRILL WAGES I;~/N. TOTAL WAGES HOUES '"J 6.'00 O '~' 3' · ~. y 3~ FIEE WAG~ 6.00 6.50 6.00 6.00 ,~V-...-' 6.00 · 6.25 ~ ~. 6. oo ,2 9~--.-- 6.00 I&D.~ 6. oo 6.00 6. oo /~..- 6.oo by/-- · 6.00 /~ 6.00 6 .'00 6.00 6 O0 6 O0 / ~o~ .oS MONTH OF HONTH HONTH TO DATE TO DATE ~OUND - F~RE EHERBENCY HINNETRISTA - ' FIRE EMERBENCY EMERGENCY EMERGENCY SPRING PARK- FIRE EHERGENCY MUTUAL AID - FIRE EMERGENCY TOTAL EMERGENCY' CALLS RESIDENTIAL INDUSTRIAL G~SS & MISCELLANEOUS AUTO F~SE TOTAL TOTAL -M'TRISTA FIRE ... - .O~ONO F~.[ EHERGENCY EHERGENCY TOTAk -MUTUAL AID FIRE EMERGENCY TOTA~ TOTAL DRILL HOURS TOTAL FIRE HOURS TOTAL FIRE'& EMERGENCY HOURS HUTUAL AID RECEIVED KUTUAL AID GIVEN MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 DRILL REPORT Date Disclpllne .and Team %~ork Crltlque of Fires .PreLPlanning i;' 1 nsp'ectlons ~ools & Apparatus Identlfy)ng Hand Extlngulsher Operati Wearing Protective Clothing Films FirSt ASd and ResCue Operation U~e of Self-Contalned Hasks Time Pumper Opcr~tlon Fire Streams & Friction Loss itouse Burnings · }latural ~; PrOpane r, ns Talk Ladder Evolutions Salvage Op.eratl ohs Radlo Oper~tlons Uouse Evolu'tlcm~ NozZle & llose Al linnce Time Inhalator Operation : Hou'r:s' Tralnlng Paid X Excused X U,mxcus~.d 0_0- P, csent, Uot Pald _~- J Andersen' D .~S D S ~Y/j_ J .Garvais " '~t~L~ ':L He i tz Babb 3t/j_ C Henderson Beauchamp ~/:z. G Johnson' Boyd i~Y/~ M Kleeberger Bryce 'JY/~ B Landsman ~Y/~t_R Marschke Bryce -~Y~.. J Nafus Carlson Collins' ~ ~/~.. M Nelson - ._~ A Opitz David Erickson ~Y/j_B Palm ~ I/;Z. G Palm Erickson Palm Pederson Platzer Rasmussen Savage Stallman Stallman Swenson Swenson Tobey Williams Williams MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 D R I L L R E P 0 R T Date Discipllne .and Team i~ork Crltlque of Fires PreLPlannl ag. S' I nspectlons Tool s ·Hand l,/ear |ag 'Fi 1ms First Aid U~e of & Apparatus Identifying Extlnguisher Operation ProtectiVe CJothJng and Res'cue OPeration Self-contained Ha. sks Time Pumper Oper~tlon Fire Streams & Frlctlon Loss llouse Burning:~ Natural ~; Propane (;,as Talk & Dcmonstrat~¢ms Ladder Evolutlon.~ Salvage Op.erat ions Radio Operations ltouse EvoltftJons Nozzle & llose Allinnce Inhalator Operat Son NOTE: Hou'ds 'Training Paid X Excused X Unexcus~d 0 Pmcsent, Uot Paid ~l/j__ J -Babb '..'~)/~ J Beauchamp ~/~__ D Boyd ~/~ D Bryce '~Lq~I.S Bryce '~i/~D Carl son ~/j__ S Col 1 i ns ~M David ~/~- B Erickson ~'0 S Erickson ~J_l/~ 0 Garvais ' L 'He i tz . C Henderson ._~ G JohnsonI ~M Kleeberger '~/3.. B Landsman ~/j_R Marschke ~ ~/;L.. J Nafus ~)/j._ M Nel son ~/~-- A Opitz ~Y/.~, B Pa lm ~)~/J_ G Palm ~'./~-. M Palm '~/~ G Pederson '~... D Platzer ~T Rasmussen ~%L_.M Savage ~/a_.R Stallman ~m/~L_ T Stallman ~ I/j._ T Swenson ~Y~.W Swenson ~ I~ M Tobey ~ R Williams ~O 'T .illiams MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT TOTAL MAINTENANCE FOR ...~"'u~ 19&? 6' 5 $ J. Andersen G. Anderson J. Babb J. Beauchamp D. Boyd D. Bryce S. Bryce D. Carlson S. Collins M. David · B. Erickson S. Erickson MEN ON DUTY ~ M. Nelson ~ A. Opitz ~ B. Palm ~_ G. Palm M. Palm ~ G. Pederson ~ D. Platzer ~ T. Rasmussen 9 ~-- M. Savage T. Stallman T. Swenson W. Swenson ~ J. Garvais _~__~M. Tobey .~ L. Heitz · ~ C. Henderson '~ G. Johnson ~ /~ M. Kleeberger O B. Landsman O R. Marschke ~ J. Nafus [~ R. Williams ~ T. Williams I ! ~. TOTAL MONTHLY HOURS 75 YEARS CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYVVOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155 August 2, 1987 TO: FROM: RE; CITY MANAGER AND CITY COUNCIL JIM FACKLER, PARKS DIRECTOR JULY PARKS DEPARTMENT REPORT GENERAL COMMENT July has been a unique month. The start of the month was a drought that allowed us to keep up with mowing and do some repairs to recreational equipment. With the low lake level, the shorelines were dry and easily accessible. We made great progress in rip rapping and filling of low · areas. By mid-month we had repaired 290 feet of Commons on Three Points Crescent Park with rip rap and fill, 250 feet on Centerview and had begun to top dress the Commons off of Carlow and Eagle. Then the storms hit, bringing the lake level up and making earlier traversable areas inaccessible. Not to mention damage done to the beaches from the heavy flow of rain run off. So currently, we are repairing areas damaged in the storm and have moved our efforts on to the projects made available by CDBG monies, such as sand box construction, berming play apparatus with timbers and sand and ordering of equipment such as benches. CEMETERY' The cemetery came through the storm with only a few branches being felled. The rains have really helped to green up the grass. A sign has been placed on the maintenance shed giving the name and established date. COMMONS The LMCD has proposed a substantial increase in their 1988 budget. This will affect the Commons dock by raising the license fees. In the past, the license was figured on $10.00 per dock. Now it is a graduating scale determined by boat size, and is charged per boat on each dock. This line item had to be increased from $4000 to $8000. .1378' PARKS DEPARTMENT JULY REPORT PAGE 2 TREE REMOVAL We had a large Cottonwood that was damaged from the storm. The removal cost was $1030 and charged to the Commons fund. This line item is over budget now. From city properties we removed six trees at a cost of $840. And trimed large trees obstructing sight of traffic or obstructing maintenance access of vehicles at a cost of $330. SUMMER PARKS The summer program has ended and a report will be forthcoming. PARKS We are hoping to spend more time in the parks this fall, At this time we are cleaning up the remaining rip rapping on Commons. The work to be done in the Parks will be the removal of old equipment and the improvements made available through CDBG funds. JF:ls TO: City Manager and Members of the City Council FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official SUBJECT: July, 1987 Monthly Report During the month of July, the Inspection Department attended two Planning Commis- sion meetings on July 13th and 27th, and two City Council meetings on July 14th and July 28th. The Inspection Department had 22 working days in July. Marge attended one Planning Commission meeting and the Park Commission meeting with six and a half days of vacation and comp time. I had three and a half days of vaca- tion and comp time during the month. There was one holiday on July 3rd. The following inspections were conducted during the month of July: * Site inspections Footing inspections Framing inspections Insulati'on inspections Drywall inspections Final inspections Progress inspections E~osion/Grading House moving inspections ** Heating. inspections Plumbing inspections Fire sprinkler/suppression Complaints Total 42 10 10 8 25 14 0 1 6 12 2 14 159 The monthly report for June was submitted to the City Manager during the month. Zoning reports were submitted to the Planning Commission.' The Planning Commis- sion referred 8 zoning cases to the City Council for action which required two public hearings; 4 variances, 2 subdivisions.and 2 conditional use permits. Writing of correspondence, resolutions and Planning Commission reports were sent out from the Department. CorrespondenCe received during the month were reviewed; recording of inspections were made on a daily log. A substitute inspector was called in for 16th and 17th of July. Additional office help was called in from Kelly Services for the Planning Commission 'meeting of July 13th and the 10th through the 16th of July. One formal complaint was signed during the month of July as well as 2 citations were issued. ¥oo July Monthly Report August 4, 1987 - Page'2 Due to the extensive storms durin§ the month of July, I have made many inspec- tions of various sites to determine some of the extent of damage. Many erosion control problems were evident, structural problems from trees falling on homes, and construction sites having wash-outs of basement.walls and necessary shoring to prevent future collapse of foundations. Meetings were held with Contel during July to correct the plans for the remodel- ing of the former HEI building. Discussed several fire inspections with the Fire Department. Orders were issued to Westonka Estates and corrections will be neces- sary at the Arvin Senne Woodworking'Shop to correct Fire Code problems. The budget was submitted to the City Manager'for his review during the month of July'. The Inspection Department met with Public Works, Engineering, and the City Planner to discuss construction, plan request and corrections to various properties. I attended the staff meeting during the month of July. Plan review was conducted on numerous homes and additions as well as the remodeling for Contel in July. The normal shopping trips were made during the month of July; gasoline at Super- America and picking up printed material at SOS Printing. The total number of building permits issued in the month of July was 45 with.a valuation of $1,190,741. The valuation figures are attached on the Building Activity Report for July. In addition, our Department prepared the monthly calendar of the August City meet- ings and events. We arranged with the Public Works Department to have a grave site staked out and-also several sites for markers in the Mound Union Cemetery. Marge handled the purchase of a grave site and brought the cemetery records up-to-date for the last six months .which involves preparing a burial card with information on the purchase of graves, completing an ownership card for each lot, entering the names of the deceased in a Cemetery Book and typing up a deed for graves sold which needs to be signed by the Mayor and City Manager prior to being mailed out. Marge prepared the Park Commission agenda and wrote the minutes as well as typing some material for the Parks Department. JB/ms Attachment * Site inspections include the review of the Planning Commission requests and re- quirements', complaints and follow-up to.code compliance such as, no building per- mit, 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 heating inspections during the construction of project are included under the framing and final inspections of the building. The heating installations mentioned are for separate equipment being placed in homes and businesses. Several of the inspections for framing involved framing and insulation of the same structure. nc, ur.~, MN. 55364 CItyanu BUILDING Ac"rI¥1TY REPORT NTIAI. .~RE~IOE~ R~ID~NTIAL ADDITION5 I )N- RES~DENTIA~ ADDF TIONS & ALTERAT. ION5 Tolal NomResideflflll TOTAL MONTH AND YEAR TO DATE )NVERSIONS DEMOLITIONS Total Demolition~ 917,475. 137,~ 12,020. 216,196. 907,812. 57,070. 224,455. I 35 1"'""1l,l~0,74,. , 5,3,4,564. ~ I l I I Fenc~/Ret.Wal 1. J 6 Install g~s~~Finkl~r 1 . tank J CITY OF MOUND 75 YEARS 5341 MAYVVOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155 August 6, 1987 TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: CITY CLERK RE: JULY MONTHLY REPORT The City had 2 regular Council Mee{ings in July with 21 resolutions and 1 new ordinance. There was Agenda preparation for each meeting and items to clear up after each meeting. Of the 21 resolutions, 6 related to tax forfeit property. These resolutions along with variou~ State and County forms (county easement grant forms, rec'onveyanoe forms and request for reconveyance forms) had to be filled out and submitted to Hennepin County. The sale of a piece of City owned land was finalized and Submitted for filing with Hennepin County. I researched further the costs to contract with other than Hennepin County for assessing services and presented a report to you for the City Council to review. Letters requesting election judges were sent out. The County was notified that we are having an election on September 29. This was done in order to have current computer printouts available for the .election. I edited and typed the Park Director's report on the Jennings Bay Dredging. I worked on the new computer, inputing the 1988 Dock Application, the last agenda and the minutes for the last meeting in July. Storm damage to both public and private land was looked at and calls from residents were handled. fc d KAY MITCHELL FHON~ BOARD. OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 5548? August 4, 1987 Ms. Francene Clark, Clerk City of Mound 5341Mayw°od Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board Vacancy Dear Ms. Clark: A letter.was communicated to the Hennepin County Board at their meeting on July 22, 1987 from Michael Carroll informing the Board that he had completed his move to a new home, which currently is not within the boundary of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District; thereby creating a vacancy on the Watershed Board for a term expiring March 8, 1989. Although there is no technical legal requirement, we are allowing affected municipalities within the watershed district 60 days to submit nominations for persons .to serve on the Watershed Board. Any individual being nominated shall be a resident of the district and may not be a public officer of the county, state or federal government. The closing date for this process is September 21, 1987. Please forward this information to my office and I will submit the names to the County Board for consideration. If three persons or more have been' nominated by the above date, the Board may then select from the list of nominees. 'However, if less than three nominees are received, additional eligible candidates will be allowed to submit applications under the County's open appointments process. Sincerely, jc KAY MITCHELL PHONE CLERK TO THE BOAP..D 34~-5433 BOARD OF HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 2400 GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 5546? August 5, 1987 MS. Francene Clark, Clerk City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board Vacancy Dear Ms. Clark: A letter was communicated to the Hennepin County Board at their meeting on August 4, 1987 from Bruce Battaglia informing the board that he had moved and no longer resides in the District; thereby creating a vacancy on the Watershed Board for a term expiring March 8, 1990. Although there is no technical legal requirement, we are allowing affected municipalities within the watershed district 60 days to submit nominations for persons to serve on the Watershed Board. Any individual being nominated shall be a resident of the district and may not be a public officer of the county, state or federal government. The closing date for this process is September 28, 1987. Please forward this information to my office and I will submit the names to the County Board for consideration. If three persons or more have been nominated by the above date, the Board may then select from the list of nominees. However, if less than three nominees are received, additional eligible candidates will be allowed to submit applications under the County's open appointments process. Sincerely, Clerk~Sf the Board jc Dowdea Cablesystems July 31, 1987 Mr.. Ed Shuckle City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Shuckle: Please be advised that Dowden Cablesystems is in the process of restructuring its services, rates and adding new services to enhance the value of its basic cable lineup. Please see the enclosed subscriber letter and information which explains the changes and date of rate adjustment. This information will be mailed to our customers shortly. I am most willing to meet with you and other officials and representatives if you have any further questions. Sincerely, Mary A. Smith Regional Manager MAS:cJ Enclosures CC: Cabte~:CQmmi~sion.~M~mbers Managed By Dowden Cable Partners, L.P., 2381 Wilshire Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota 55364 (612] 472-6394 Dowden Cablesys_tems July 30, 1987 Dear Dowden Cablesystems Customer: We appreciate your support as a valued cable service customer of Dowden Cablesystems, and h6pe that you are enjoying the choice, convenience, and clear reception cable television has added to your television viewing. In our effort to continually improve the quality of service we offer, we listen closely to the comments and suggestions made by our customers. We do this through research and by evaluating the suggestions made through letters and telephone calls to us. Our findings indicate that the decline in premium channel subscriptions like HBO, Showtime, etc. is a result of overpricing. At the same time we are hearing that our customers place a much higher value on basic services than we expected. , Based on.our research, we are pleased to announce that we have made some changes and additions to our basic cable service which will add to the variety, convenience and accessabllity of your service. These improvements either have occurred or will be occurring throughout the next few months. Cable television rates are being restructured as well; we'd like to take this opportunity to share all of these changes with you. (See enclosed Progrsmming Changes and New Rate Card.) To bring our services more in line with their true value to our customers, we are changing our prices. Monthly rates for added outlets, remote controls, FM service and multi-pay packages will be decreased November 1, 1987. This improved structure with basic service at $14.95 per month will better reflect the value of basic cable service. We are making these changes to serve you better and many of you, depending on your current level of service, will see no change or even a decrease in your monthly service rate. Should you have any questions about our service and/or your reception, our customer service representatives will be pleased to assls~ you. · We will continue to strive to keep you a satisfied customer and sinc'erely appreciate your patience and understanding as we make these .changes. Thank you for being a Dowden Cablesystems customer. Sincerely, Dowden Cablesystems Mary A. Smith Regional Manager Managed By Dowden Cable Partners, L.P., 2381 Wilshire Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota 55364 (612) 472-6394 Dowden Cablesystems July 30, 1987 Dear Dowden Cablesystems Customer: .' We appreciate your support as a valued cable service customer of Dowden Cablesystems, and hope that you are enjoying the choice, convenience, and clear reception cable television has added to you~ television viewing. In an effort to continually improve the quality of service we offer, we listen closely to the co~ents and suggestions made by our customers. We do this through research and by evaluating the suggestions made through letters and telephone calls to us. Our findings indicate that th~ decline in premium channel subscriptions like HBO, Showtime, etc. is a result of overpricing. At the same time we are hearing that our customers place a much higher value on basic services than we expected. , Based on our research, we are pleased to announce that we have made some changes and additions to our basic cable service which will add to the variety, convenience and accessability of your service. These improvements either have occurred or will be opcurring throughout the next few months. Cable television rates are being restructured as well; we'd like to take this opportunity to share all of these changes with you. (See enclosed Programming Changes and New Rate Card.) To bring our services more in line with their true value to our customers, we are changing our prices. Monthly rates for added outlets, remote controls, FM service and multi-pay packages will be decreased Novemberl, 1987. This improved structure with basic service at . $14.95 per month will better reflect the value of basic cable service. Preferred Customer Discount for Current "Limited Basic" Customers - We've kept in mind your interest in an economical service and ~the fact that you have been a loyal Dowden customer. Although our service, known to you as "Limited Basic", will no longer be offer%d to new customers, you will receive a special discount off the new monthly service rates while receiving the expanded basic service at preferred customer rates through December 31, 1987. Here is how it works: Preferred Your Service Current Rate* I/1/85' Customer Rate* Savings Basic Service $7.35 $14.95 $II.95 $3.00 *All rates subject to Minnesota Sales Tax. New rates effective ~1 /1/87. Should you have any questions about our service and/or your reception, our.]customer serv~ice representatives will be pleased to assist you. (Phone numbers listed on rate card.) We will strive to keep you a satisfied customer and sincerely appreciate your patience and understanding as'we make these changes. Thank you for being a Dowden Cablesystems customer. Sincerely, Dowden.Cablesystems Mary A. Smith Regional Manager MAS:cJ 2 3 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 36 METRO AREA CHANNEL LINE UP KTCA (2) CNN WCCO (4) KSTP (5) NICKELODEON LIFETIME PUBLIC ACCESS/GOVERNMENT & COMMUNITY CHANNEL KMSP (9) ESPN - NFL Package KARE (11) USA WGN WTBS CNN HEADLINE NEWS ARTS & ENTERTAINMENT KTCI (17) THE WEATHER CHANNEL LEASED ACCESS/CABLE CLASSIFIED PUBLIC A~CESS PROGRAMMING & EDUCATIONAL CVN WOR KTMA (23) FNN/SCORE/DBC MarketWatch VH-1 MTV NASHVILLE NETWORK THE LEARNING CHANNEL KITN (29) C-SPAN I C-SPAN II CBN PTL KXLI (41) ELECTRONIC PROGRAM GUIDE CINEMAX HOME BOX OFFICE DISNEY services Basic - One Outlet Each Additional Outlet TV, FM Stereo, VCR Each VCR Hookup Remote Control Premium Channels First Premium Each Additional Premium Monthly $14;95 $ 1.95 -0 - $ 3.00 9.95 6.00 Reconnect Charges~ Transfer - House-to-House within 30 days Reconnect - Same Resident to Same ~utlets Each Additional Outlet or VCR hookup Reconnect - Non-Pay Account Other Charges Upgrade of Premium Channel Downgrade of Premium Channel Change of Premium Channel Upgrading One Additional Outlet Each Additional Outlet Same Time Relocation of Outlets Service Charqes Collection Charge NSF Return Check Charge Installation $ 4.95 $ 9.95 $ 9.95 -- 0 FREE $ 4.95 $ 9.95 $25.00 $ 4.95 -- 0 -- $ 9.95 $25.00 $ 9.95 $25.00 $25.00 $15.00 For Customer Service Please Phone: (612)472-6394 or 1-800-642-2915 Suite 950 400 North Robert Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 July 29, 1987 To: City & County Clerks The attached information regarding changes in AT&T's rate structure is being sent to you for your information. Please post or distribute this information to those in your organization as you see fit. Assistant Manager-External Relations attachment RATE CHANGE NOTICE AT&TCommunications of the Midwest, Inc. ("AT&T") has filed new price lists that refleCt changes in its intrastate basic long distance and private line services. Basic long distance rates will increase by approximately $1.7 million. This increase is necessary to offset a corresponding increase in access charges required by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission ("MPUC") in the recently decided Continental Telephone Company access charge proceeding. For example, on a ~five-minute direct-dialed call from Rochester to Minneapolis, the rates would increase as follows: OLD RATE NE5{ RATE Day rate $1.77 $1.81 Evening rate $1.20 $1.23 Night/Weekend rate $ .88 $ .90 Private Circuit rates will be~increased by approximately $1.5 million in order to cover the incremental cost of providing the service. In addition to the above changes, a special surcharge of 14.74% will be applied to all of AT&T's intrastate services to reflect recent legislation enacted during the Minnesota 1987 Legislative Session which increased the gross earnings tax on AT&T. This change is retroactive to January 1, 1987. All of the above rate changes will become effective on September 1, 1987. The special surcharge will terminate on December 31, 1987, and thereafter, a 7.15% gross earnings tax will be stated separately on customer bills. For example, the same five-minute direct-dialed call from t~Dchester to Minneapolis would be assessed a state tax as follows: EFF. 9/1/87 (14.74% tax) AFTER 1/1/88 (7.15% tax) Day rate Evening rate Night/Weekend rate $1.81 + $ .27 $1.23 + $ .18 $ .90 + $ .13 $1.81 + $ .13 $1.23 + $ .09 $ .90 + $ .06 (continued) Customers with questions regarding these changes may call AT&T toll-free at '1-800-325-0138 (business customers) or 1-800-222-0300 (residence customers). A copy of AT&T's proposed price list is available for review by the public during normal business hours at the Department of Public Service, 790 American Center Building, 160 E. Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul, MN 55101 and at the AT&T Oo~unications Marketing Office, 8300 Norman Center Drive, 9th Floor, Bloomington, MN 55437. AT&T regrets the necessity for these price increases. Every effort is made to contain costs, however, gross earnings taxes and access charges are costs over which AT&T has no control. AT&T COMMUNICATIONS OF THE MIDWEST, INC. INTEROFFICE Sgt. Willi~' FROM: Patrolman John McKinley SUBJECT: Region 12 K-9 Trials MEMO DATE 98/o5/g7 This is to inform you that on 08/02/87 through 08/04/87 I, along with my K-9 partmer 'REX attended the Region 12 Trials held in Algona Ia. There were 33 K-9 teams that participated in the trials. This was a nationaly sanctioned trials. Out of a possible 700 points my partner and I received a score of 682.84. The following is a break down of the scoring-. Obeidence 119.17· out of 120 Agility Article ~x False run 15 50 out of 60 68.17 out of 70 108.67 out of 110 out of 15 49.67 out of 50 98.50 out of 100 Recall Attack Attack W/ Gun 99.33 out of 100 Handler Protection74'33 Out of 75 We did place 2nd over all in the regional trials. We tied for first' in obeidence, placed 3rd in article search, placed 2nd in box search and 2nd in total attack work. MINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 13, 1987 REVISED 8-4-87 Present were: Chairman Tom Reese; Commissioners Vern Andersen, William Meyer, Geoff Michael, Ken Smi.th,.Brad Sohns, William Thal and Frank Weiland; Council Representa- tive Elizabeth Jansen; City'Manager Ed Shukle; City Planner 'Mark Koegler; City Engi- neer John Cameron; Building Official Jan Bertrand and Secretary Holly McLaughlin. Also present were the following interested persons: Gerald Berent, Gene Berent, J. Ned Dow, Dixie Dow, Leon. Heller, Harley Jordan, Jerry Kohls, Paul Larson, Brian Johnson'and Paul and Pat Meisel. The meeting was called to o~de.r at 7:30 p.m. Chairman Reese added a 17%~rade to.the June 8, 1987 minutes on page 3. He als~ questioned the'process.ofmaking corrections; he stated, not having the entire con- text could have a bearing'on future.decisions. Smith.moved'and Meyers seconded a motion 'to approve, the minutes as amended. The vote was: unanimously in favor. The m~nutes of June 22, 1987-~correct the recognition of Steve Smith as the Ma~or and add the.phrase "availability of land to park R.V.'s".- Weiland moved and Sohns seconded a.motion'tp'approve as corrected. The vote was unanimously in favor. BOARD 0F APPEALS ~ 1. Case No. 8~-651 Side .yard setback variance for 5008 Enchanted Road; Lot 2, Block 21, Shadywood Point; P!D 13-117-24 11 0070; Gerald Berent was present. A variance request for a 3.3.foot sideyard setback to the.west property line. Berents stated that to. go outward.to the lake is objected to by the neighbors. He needs~to build up for the addition of two bedrooms pnd a full bath for his wife and two.children. Jensen proposed to treat this as practical difficulty and Sohns agreed. Smith moved to approve a 3.3 foot variance including a 12 inch overhang. Motion was seconded by Weiiand; The vote was unanimously in favor. Goes before the Council on July 28th. Case No. 87-652 Mi.n°r subdivision for 4695 Hampton Road; Lots 13 and 14, part of Lots 28,29,30 & 31, Block 9', Pembroke; PlO 19-117-23 33 0080/0087; Leon Heller was present. A subdivision request for a portion of the rear of Lot 13 from Paisley Road to correct a driveway encroachment on the adjoining property. Andersen moved and Weiland seconded a motion for approval of the subdivision. The vote was unanimously in favor. 3. ' Case No. 87-653 Lot size variance for 4994 Manchester Road; Lot 12, Block 33, Wychwood; PID 24-117-24 42 0005; J..Ned and Dixie Dow were present. Mr: Dow is requesting addition of 6.5 feet with conforming setbacks. Dow states that his home is too small to .add a second floor; the first floor would be ruined. Smith states that this is "back to the commons problem again". The Council is not in favor of expanding on 4700 square foot lots; it's a case of practical dif-' ficulty. With'the commons and two roads on either side, there is breathing roo~ Weiland favors the comment that he can't consider it as his property for enlarge- ment--it is part of the commons. The commons are for everyone's use. Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1987 - Page 2 Andersen moved and Michael seconded a motion to approve the variance. vote was unanimously in favor. This goes before the Council on July 28, 1987 The 4. Case No. 87-654 Public Hearing for conditional use permit for an oversized accessory building with living space at 6195 Sinclair Road This item was tabled until the Planning Commission meeting of July 27, 1987 at the applicant's request. ~ 5. PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION TO REVISE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW "ON SITE OPEN STORAGE" Balboa Minnesota Company, 5340 Shoreline Boulevard; Metes and Bounds descri.p- tion, Blocks 5 & 6, Sylvan Heights Addn., etc.; PID No. 13-117-24 34 0076. There were no representatives from Balboa. Mark Koegler reviewed his letter of July l, 1987 discussing background and his recommendations. Chairman Reese questioned the use of thirty days to have trailers parked on the property. Weiland was concerned that Balboa might move one (trailer) out and replace it with another immediately, thus constituting permanent parking. The Chairman opened the public hearing for discussion by the audience and asked for comments: Jerry Kohls, 5424 Lynwood Boulevard, requested to have a stipulation to clean up their existing mess before they cause more of a mess. Sohns questioned having acceptable landscaping. Harley Jordan, 2193 Cedar Lane, agrees with the necessity to clean up the area and allow the parking of trailers. The public hearing was closed; then there were comments by the Commission. Weiiand questioned how to control the number of days to allow parked trailers to rem'ain on the property. Smith suggested that it really doesn't matter how many days a trailer is there, because they only have "X" number of slots to park trucks in to begin with. Meyer agreed. Weiland moved and Meyer seconded a motion for approval of on site open storage with staff recommendation. The vote was unanimously in favor. Council will set a public hearing for August 11, 1987. Case No. 87-656 14 foot front yard variance for 2193 Cedar Lane; Lot 18 and part of Lot 19, Block 2, Abraham Lincoln Addn. to Lakeside Park, PID 13-117-24 32 001~ A front yard variance of 14 feet is being requested by the applicant to construct an attached 24 X 24 foot garage. Resolution 83-136 approved the same request, but that resolution has expired. Planning CommissiOn Minutes July 13, 1987 - Page 3 Reese questioned the necessity of having a 24 foot garage, instead of a 22 foot structure. Jordan stated he needs the additional room to do car repairs on his own vehicle. Andersen moved and Smith seconded a motion to approve the variance. The vote was unanimously in favor. 7. PUBLIC HEARING ON APPLICATION TO ALLOW RETAIL MAIL ORDER IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A. Paul Meisel, 2339 Commerce Boulevard'; Lots 2 & 3, Aud. Subd. 167 & Part of Lots 13, 14, 15 & 16 lying west of east 70 ft., Kennedy's subd. of Lot 56, Lynwood Park; PID 14-117-24 44 0002 Mark Koegler reviewed his letter Of July l, 1987 discussing background and his recommendations. The Planning Commission Chairman opened discussion by the audience: Meisel presented sketches stating it will make the downtown look better. Meisel will be purchasing both the land and the building. They will continue membership in the downtown parking association. Reese questioned the issue of dock deliveries. Meisel stated they will be having one to two deliveries per day with semi-trucks. Meisel also stated that Phase Ill of their plans will close the alley off to 12 feet. Harold Meeker, 5132'Waterbury Road, stated that the Meisels gave their best shot to the City of Mound for "Mound City Days". Public hearing was closed. Koegler stated there should be two separate motions. Thai moved and Andersen seconded a motion for approval of the required ordinance modification allowing mail order uses as a conditional use in the B-1 Zone. The vote was unanimously in favor. Weiland moved and Andersen seconded a motion for approval of the conditional use permit contingent upon the three cOnditions stated in Koegler's recommenda- tion. The vote was unanimously in favor. Public hearing before Council will be on August llth. Case No. 87-658 Minor subdivision for 5325 Waterbury Road; Lot 54, Whipple Shores; PID No. 25-117-24 21 0154/0153. Mr. Lepisto was not present. Bertrand discussed applicant's request to subdivide two properties into 9~00 and 7980 square feet. They recommend the deflection line be moved, the legal des- criptions be approved by City Engineer Cameron and that a public hearing be waived. The Commission discussed that this would be creating 2 undersized lots where only one is currently undersized. The Commission discussed that there is an error in the numbers--a difference of~14OO square feet between the original sur- vey and the survey presented to them. Commission decided to table the subdivi- sion until they receive more information and verification of the lot size. Jensen moved and Weiland seconded a motion to table. It carried unanimously. This will be on the next Planning Commission agenda with a full report. Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1987 - Page 4 Case No. 87-659 Minor subdivision for 49XX Glen Elyn Road; Lots 17, 18, 19, Block 24, Shadywood Point; P!D Numbers 13-117-24 11 0094/0095. Paul W. Larson was present (Larson is a realtor representing the seller). Applicant is requesting subdivision to remove an encroachment of the building located on Lot-17 to allow conforming sideyard setback to the structure, and waiver of the public heari.ng provision of the subdivision ordinance. The previous owner of Lot 17 built over the property line. A survey didn't show the property line when it was purchased. Meyer proposed to make Parcel A conforming area by increasing the parcel to at least 10,000 square feet. At this time, the sale of Parcel B is not closed; it is delayed pending approval of this subdivision. Reese suggested tabling;' Larson state "no". Brian John- son inquired as to the legality of 9,OO0 square feet for Parcel A. Reese stated the need to recognize a maximum 10% variance mandated; Brian will try to get over 9,000 square feet. Brian suggested approval contingent upon the change by the time it will go to the Council. Thal suggested it be tabled until the 27th and then to turn it around to the Council Weiland moved and Sohns seconded a motion to table until July 27th and pass it on to the Council July 28th, 1987, The vote was unanimously in favor. DISCUSSION 1. Harold Heeker is interested in building a hotel on 40 acres and wished to deed back the unused land. He is asking for opinions from the Commission for the Lost Lake Request for Proposal. Reese questioned the benefits of buying 40 acres and selling back 38 acres. Jensen asked if he was asking to see .if it was protected. Smith questioned if any of it was salable or marsh. He also asked about potential problems with the DNR. The City now owns the property. The Commission showed an interest in Mr. Meeker's proposed submittal and they suggested he proceed. 2. Public.Works Facility Ed Shukle and John Cameron;made a presentation of their plan for a downscaled version of the public works facility to be located at Belmont and Lynwood. There was much discussion by the Commission questioning alternative si~es, other methods of storage for stock pile,.screening and future plans Andersen protested stating this was the l'ast of the retail sites and that many people will fight over that location of the proposal. Sohns agreed. Thal stated that Mound has plenty of retail space potential available along Com- merce Boulevard and Meyer agreed. Jensen stated that the City Council is behind this plan. Planning Commission Minutes July 13, 1987 - Page 5 Sohns suggested moving the location east on Lynwood Boulevard to keep it away from downtown and possibly where the land may be cheaper. Shukle will look into moving the facility to this location for next time. 3. Signs Meyer questioned why'signs can't be addressed on a case by case basis for shopping centers rather than changing the law. Meyer moved and Sohns seconded a motion to recommend a case by case decision be made for shopping centers and no ordinance change to the sign provisions is. recommended by the Planning Commission. The vote was Jensen and Thal opposed,~Michael abstained and six were in favor. Motion carried. Tabled exterior storage for next meeting, except for making the correction of inserting the sentence,"Temporary storage is controlled by the restrictions found herein" St 23.702 item (1) after the last word in the paragraph (ordi- nances). Also brief discussion as to the inclusion of a grandfather clause. 5. Housing Maintenance Code. Question of whether it is internal, external, or both. Other questions that surfaced included how to deal with internal, the prospect of running into health aspects, what city/state laws may apply. Primary attention should be for external maintenance, but we have to address both. It will need an ordinance to take care of the issue, it should be applied to both owner occupied and renters. The inspection could take place at the sale of the property. Sohns suggested that we are starting at the wrong end; there should be some upfront analysis first. We need to talk to people, seek alternatives. Com- mittee agreed to gather information to enable committee to approach public for input. 6. Does committee wish to continue advertising meeting dates? Yes, unanimously. 7. Interview dates for position on Commission--August 24, 1987 was decided upon. ADJOURNMENT Weiland moved and Meyer seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:20 p.m. All were in favor so the meeting was adjourned. Attest: Chairman Thomas Reese MINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JULY 27, 1987 Present were: Chairm~nThom~s Reese; Coramissioners VernAndersen, William Meyer, GeoffMichael, Kenneth Smith, Brad Sohns, Willi~mThal mnd FrmnkWei- l~nd; Council Representative Elizabeth Jensen; City Manager Ed ghukle who arrived about 8:30; City Pl~runer Mark Koe~ler; Building Official Jan Bertrand and Secretary Marjorie Stutsman. Also present were the following interested persons: Jim and Shirley Luger, Brian Johnson, Paul W. Larson, Catherine Kasprzak, CraigKasprzak and John Scruton. MINUTES The minutes of the Planning Co~,~Lission meeting of July 13, 1987 were presented for consideration. The C~ission suggested the following corrections be m~de: Verb be changed'from "motioning" to "moved" throughout the minutes; On page 1, Case .87-653,~add con~nent on bottom of page, "The Commons are for everyone's use". Page 2, Case No. 87-654 ~-as tabled until the July 27th meeting at the applicant's request ~nd the motion on Case No. 87-655 should state "to move approval of' on site Open.storage with staff's recommendation". Page~3~' second line should read "structure" rather than v~ri~nce; sixth paragraph should read "..discussion by the audience"; under Case No. 87-658, Co~,~iss~on stated the point they made%fas missed in the minutes (there w~s an error in numbers--a difference of 1,400 square feet between the original survey and the survey presentedto them). Page 4, change word sights to "sites"; next to last sentence should read, ,,~,re- tail space potential available alonq Co~nerce and..."; motion on Case 87-659 should read, "moved to table until the 27th and pass it on to the Council on July 28th (so applicant would not have a two week delay); add at the end of Discussion Item 1, "The CommissiOn showed an interest in Mr. Meeker's submitted proposal and suggested that he proceed". Page 5, change first'sentence to read, "...Lynwood Boulevard to keep it aw~y from downtown and possibly where the land maybe cheaper"; ~nder signs in Meyer's co~:~,ent and the motion, it should read, ".. a case by case b~sis for shopping centers.."; after Item 5 second paragraph add comment, "Primary attention should be for external m~intenance, but we have to address both" and on the fourth paragraph, Sohns stated his point ~as that there should be some up-front analysis first and he did not mention expenses--omit phrase "and see what expenses are involved". The Commission discussed timing of gettSng minutes corrected, etc. parti- cularly whether or not the Council was ~etting the right information. Jan stated she'd have last set of minutes corrected ~nd brought ba6k to the COnm~ission. Weiland moved and Smith seconded a motion to accept the minutes as ameDded. The vote ~ras unanimously in favor. BOARD OF APPEALS Case No. 87-631 Variance for Property at 3367 Warner Lane Part of Lot 1, Block 12, Douglas and Lot ~4, Whipple Shores The City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed his rePOrt which focuses on the prac- tice that has been labeled recognizing non-conforming~-ariances and the City Attorney and he are suggesting a modification to the language currently used in v~riance resolutions. The purpose of a v~riance is to permit new expansion or modification that doesn'tintensify the non-conforming structures. Lobdell's request wasn't for an improvement or expansion and if recognition of his NC structure makes it conforming, approval defeats entire purpose of the ordinance which relates to having ~11 properties eventually conform to the district re- quirements. Purpose of this request ~*as economic and that is not a v~lid reason Planning Con~,ission Minutes July 27, 1987 - Page 2 for granting a variance. He stated they will be working on better language for the future resolutions they'll be providing the Con~nission and Council; they will focus on a new approach/element which will allow applicant to intensi- fy, expand/change the structure itself if it fits the overall framework of the ordinance and not focus on the non-conforming aspects as we were. The intent of the resolution was not always clear. He stated resolutions should state up front existing building does not meet zoning code and than reference Section 23~404.8 which authorizes alterations which are spelled out and with the express understanding use remains as a lawful non-conforming use subject to all the provisions and restrictions of the code and we are not granting perpetual life status. He noted that the Lobdell case is still open to whatever your recom- mendation would be; but the City Attorney and staff do not feel this is grounds to review and suggest perhaps the Con~nission should rec~,~,end a fee refund be made.. The Co~ission discussed the report and questioned if "recognize the existing NC setbacks" in the last paragraph of Exhibit 2 was not contradictory? Mark will confer with the City Attorney on a revision. It was discussed that every- thing done to a non-conforming property would require variance consideration even though the improvement itself would meet all requirements and that the Co~ission should clarify this further at a future work session. The consensus of the Co~ission was that these variances should come back through', the process. Weiland moved and Meyer seconded a motion that Planning Co~ission, after further review, found there was not original grounds for submission of the "application and therefore, a variance is not in order and that applicant's fee be refunded. The vote was unanimously in favor. Case No. 87-654 PUBLIC HEARING on a~plication for conditional use permit for an oversized accessory building with living space at 6195 Sinclair Road Lot 6, Block 17, The Highlands; PID 23-117-24 34 0071 Jim and Shirley Luger were present. The City Planner stated this request started as a conditional use permit and after he looked at it, it was clear it should have been a variance (conditional use permit language does not allow the second living unit that is being pro- posed; it does allow oversized garages). We are dealing with the variance provisions.of the R-3 Zoning because we are setting up a double dwelling. This opinion was reviewed with the City Attorney and he concurred. There is a dif- ference in filing fee down from $200 to $50 and this should be refunded to the applicant. The City Planner than proceeded to review his report on the request ..outlining that approval would require granting 5 variances and a determination that a hardship exists wouldbe required. -Staff is reco~ending denial. In .conciusion, he notes that applicant could add either some attached bedroom space and an attached garage or bedroom space and'a new detached garage. Note: Vari- ance ~ 5 should read 56 square feet minimum floor area (784 sq. ft. vs. 840 sq. fi. required). The Chair opened the public hearing. Mr. Luger explained they have 8 children and 5 grandchildren and when they come home for visits, they don't have enough space. Recently they had 15 of their family here at the time of his recent oper~ tion. He made the point that the proposed apartment would only be family used and there are many duplexes in their area on 50 foot wide lots. He also stated Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1987 - ?age 3 the garage with living space could be relocated to meet the 6 foot sideyard setback. In response to Jensen's question on why they would not w~nt to add unto the existing, house, Shirley Luger stated house was not set up for adding onto; Jim Luger mentioned they'd like to have some separate space for their family. He commented that aesthetically, the structure would blend with the neighborhood. He also questioned if a deed restriction could be recorded limiting the use of the proposed structure. It was talked about that it could not be enforced. No others present wished to speak on this request; the Chair closed the public hearing. The City Manager arrived from another meeting. The Commission had various questions and discussed at length. Thal moved and Sohns seconded a motion to recommend denial of the request because it requires too great a variance situation. The vote was Michael ~ and Andersen against the denial; Smith abstained from the vote and all others voted in favor. Motion to deny carried. This variance will be referred to the City CounCil on August 11, 1987. Case No. 87-658 Minor Subdivision at 5325 Waterbury Road Lot 54, ~ipple Shores; PID Numbers 25-117-24 21 0154/0153 Applicant, Mr. Lepisto, was not present. The Building Official clarified a-.portion of the subdivision; prior to 1977, the original survey w~s done by Carlson & Carlson and this %~s prior to the flood plain ordinance adoption. In 1987, Schoell and Madson redid the survey and that is where the discrepancy came in, as nothing below the flood plain eleva- tion could be used to compute lo'5 area. %%~en Carlson and Carlson did the survey, they assumed where the line w~s; it w~s not set by ordinance as it is now. (929.4 Ordinary high water ele~ration of Lake Minnetonka). When subdivision w~s approved, lakeshore lot was 10,092 square feet and it should have been 9,600 square feet. She stated her report should show that if he redivides, the angle should be no less than 9600 on that lakeshore lot as was previously approved by the 1977 sub- division. She stated actual real difference in lot area caused by using OHWwas 594 square feet. It was discussed that Engineer stated present :survey area of 17,580 square feet should be used. Parcel A (lakeshore) lot would be 9600 S.F. and Parcel B (off of Warner Lane) would be 7,980 S.F. The Commission discussed at length. ~ Weiland moved and Meyer seconded a motion to table indefinitely until the applicant can be present. All voted in favor except Michael who was opposed to the table. Case No. 87-659 Minor Subdivision for property, 49XX Glen Elyn Road Lots 17, 18, 19, Block 24, Shadywood Point; PID Numbers 13-117-24 11 0094/0095 Paul Larson and Brian Johnson were present. The Building Official reviewed that the proposed subdivision is now in line with criteria (within'l~ of the lot area requirement). Mr. Larson advised that they worked out the change in the lot line. Smith moved and Michael seconded a motion to recommend approval with the staff's recommendation. The vote was unanimously in favor. This is to be referred to the City Council on July 28, 1987. ~/ Planning Commission Minutes July 27, 1987 - .Page 4 Case No. 87-660 witl be on the Commission agenda for August lO, 1987; there is no staff recommendation as it came in too late for this agenda. EXTERIOR STORAGE The City Planner .reviewed that, at a previous meeting, the Commission decided to look at .the ordinance and. come back with any further thoughts they might have. The Commission' decided to take each item and get the thoughts and consensus of the members as follows on Proposed Revision # 1 of the City Planner's report dated July 8, 1987. The majority thought "thirty-six hours" in first paragraph was unreasonable and should be changed to 30 days. item 1. Term transient was discussed and the City Planner was asked to come up with a different term. They discussed length of time allowed for mobile homes, etc. and whether permit should be .required for longer period; permit was thought to be difficult to administer. They asked what group thought of changing 'to "14 days". Five were in favor; 3 against. 2a. Front yard setback of 20 feet minimum. The vote was 7 in-favor. It was questioned if a height llmitation could be put on recreation equipment. b & Commission discussed making, setbacks the same for side yards and rear yards c. . as accessory structures. The vote was 5 in favor. 0' The' Commission'were in favor of including "currently 'registered ..... " and adding or owned by the owner or renter of the property. 4. No change 89A. Change rd:' "Race vehicles .... " Delete four wheel. Commission discussed having a permit process for race cars. A recommendation would be that procedures be established-to issue- p~rmits for race vehicles. Tarping of race cars was discussed'and only Meyer was' in favor of requiring tarping. 92. No change. The proposed revision of this ordinance will go to the Council on August 11, 1987; the Council will have a public hearing September 8th. The City Manager, Ed Shukle, discussed the proposed Public Works site and alternatives. He noted the Council was having a.speclal meeting with the business people relative to the proposal. A party for Ken Smith was discussed; the date will be Friday evening, August 21, 1987 at Bill Meyer's home. ADJOURNMENT Andersen moved and Thal seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at I0:30 p.m. All were in favor. Attest: Thomas Reese, Chairman THE REAL COST OF RAISING THE MINIMUM WAGE THE SOCIAL REVOLUTION SWEEPING AMERICA HOW BUSINESS IS DEALING WITH SMOKING RESTRICTIONS NEW WAYS TO KICK THE HABIT THE IMPACT ON THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY PAGE 40 NW SI30d¥2NNIW ZOb~SfldO'OI~ W~ iS HI~ S 00I 3q2~ N~IS~MHi~0N IO~ ~gE2~ ~blgl~bOZ I090 WOULD-BE QUITTERS TRYING "RAPID SMOKING" AVERSION THERAPY: C$GARr. m mm~ CONSUMPTION MAY DROP BY 3% THIS YEAR 'NO SMOKING' SWEE AMERICA SMOKERS ARE FAST BECOMING OUTCASTS---BOTH SOCIALLY AND LEGALLY Go ahead, light up. But look around. You don't see any ash- trays, do you? Maybe you can't smoke here anymore--no more than you can smoke at work, in restaurants, on airplanes, in public buildings, or even in a few hotels. "It's getting so bad that pretty soon the only place you'll be able to smoke is the closet," laments one high-technology executive who was re- cent]y lambasted by an angry bystander after lighting a cigarette in an airport lounge. "W'ho do you think you are, pol- luting this air?" she demanded. No doubt about it, No Smoking is fast becoming the status quo. Ten states and more than 260 communities already have laws that restrict smoking in public places. In California alone, communities have passed 15 smoking-related ordi- nances since December. Officials of the tiny Colorado town of Telluride were so fed up with smoking that they banned it in all public places in June. And on July 14 the House of Representatives ap- proved a measure that would ban smok- lng on most airline flights. BcuE-COU. AFL The smoke is clearing even faster at work. Some 30% of the nation's corporations limit employees' smoking on the job, and the National Center for Health Promotion predicts that number will leap to 80% within two years. Proclaims Harvard University's John M. Pinney, executive director of the Institute for the Study of Smoking Behavior & Policy: "We are now' becom- ing a nonsmoking society--and policies reflect this." So do tobacco sales. Although per cap- ita consumption of cigarettes has been slipping since the 1960s, overall sales kept growing until the early 1980s be- cause of a growing population and new smokers--mainly minorities. Since then, sales of cigarettes have been dropping. They took their most dramatic plunge ever in 1986: 2%. Today, 32~ of the adult population smokes, down from a high of 42% in 1967. Those statistics tell only part of story. Most of the country's remaim,,6 53 million smokers are blue-collar work- ers and the poor. The middle classes and 40 BUSINESS WEEK/JULY 27, 1987 COVER STORY professionals are abandoning tobacco. In fact, a $100 million industry is springing up to help them kick the habit. And more and more businesses are catering to a smoke-free clientele, a strategy that would have been economic suicide only a few years ago. How about the jazz club in Atlanta that relegates tobacco addicts to the parking lot? There's no'blue haze at Jer- ry Farber's Place. By day it's a regular bar. But at night, ashtrays are pulled off the tables and replaced with No Smok- ing signs. Then jazz fans who like clean air as much as a good saxophone riff begin filling the llS-seat night spot. By closing time, "the outside of the place looks like a butt factory," admits Farber, who is allergic to smoke. SIMPLY GROSS. What used to be accept- ablc cven hip--is now simply gross in many quarters. "I feel better physically, but I feel better socially, too," says Kris M. Schmidt, a Chicago secretary who licked a two-pack-a-day habit five otnths ago after 15 years of smoking. u're really the outcast these days if smoke." The shift is profound. For 25 years, antismokers fought the tobac- co industry on a shoestring. But sudden- ly the movement looks like a juggernaut. "In 20 years we'll shake our heads and say: 'How could anyone ever have COVER STORY smoked?'" predicts an ebullient Regina L. Carlson, executive director of New Jersey Group Against Smokers' Pollu- tion (GASP) and a 15-year veteran of the movement. Carlson may be jumping the gun. Af- ter all, tobacco has been ingrained in the culture and economy for nearly 450 years. Christopher Columbus became the first European smoker shortly after he was greeted by the Indians of San Salvador, who had already invented ci- gars, snuff, and pipes. Keeping newly addicted Europeans supplied made Maryland, Virginia, and the Carolinas the most prosperous and powerful New World colonies during' the 17th and 18th centuries--so much so that officials had to order the eager colonists to grow food crops. Later, tobacco was the salvation of a South ravaged by the Civil War. Things really got rolling when, in 1911, R.J. Reynolds Industries produced the first blended cigarette, Camels. Com- petitors quickly followed with Lucky Strikes and Chesterfields. Soon cigarette smoking became ubiquitous--chic, mod- em, celebrated. There was the Marlboro Man, the redcap calling for Philip Mot- ris. Slogans such as "so round, so firm, so fully packed" became .part of the American idiom. Several generations re- vered puffing stars from Groucho Marx to Humphrey Bogart and James Dean. Still, the Golden Leaf--or Evil Weed, as it is less affectionately known--has always had enemies who reviled the hab- it and suspected that it wasn't especially healthy. As early as 1604, King James I, repulsed by pipe-smoking Londoners, blasted smoking as "a custom loathsome to the eye, hateful to the nose, harmful to the brain, and' dangerous to the lungs." In the mid-1800s reformers preached that it undermined morals and led to heavy rum drinking. During Pro- hibition public opinion raged so strongly that nine states prohibited cigarettes. C~CKEO ARMOR. Without hard evidence that smoking was harmful, the periodic outbursts of antitobacco sentiment could never stand UP to the tobacco interests' political clout. The industry's muscle in Washington kept tobacco products ex- empt from laws that regulate almost all other products. The Food, Drug & Cos- metic Act, the Consumer Product Safety Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act do not apply. Tobacco processors don't even have to register their ingredi- ents or submit their products to stan- dard safety tests. "Today no one could introduce a product that we know is as dangerous as this one," says Carlson. It was medical data proving that smoking shortens lives that began to BUSINESS WEEK/JULY 27, 1987 4.1 crack the industr~s armor. The first sal- vo was a report by the Surgeon General in 1964 that decisively linked smoking with lung cancer. The federal govern- ment slapped warning labels on ciga- rette packages, and organizations such as the American Cancer Society cam- paigned to warn smokers. By the early 1970s cigarette advertisi.ng had disap- peared from television and radio. But the most serious blow came from two. reports released last winter, one from the National Research Council and the other by U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop. They presented evidence that "environmental tobacco smoke" in- haled by unsuspecting nonsmokers can cause lung cancer and other serious dis- eases. Although the industry challenges the validity of those studies, they changed the whole complexion of the antismoking movement. Now smokers are on notice: You may have the right to kill yourself, but not others. "Many people are willing to take on risk, even an enormous risk~ them- selves," explains University of California at~ Francisco epidemiologist Michael J. Martin. "But very. few are willing tq tolerate even a small risk imposed on them." So the activists, some of them veterans of other consumer movements, shifted 'tactics: They stopped harassing smokers "for their own good" and sim- ply demanded the right to breathe clean_ air. Nowadays "we're just telling smok- ers to step outside, not how to live their lives," says Mark A. Pertschuk, execu- tire director of Americans for Nonsmok- ers' Rights. Meanwhile, companies are telling em- ployees who smoke to give it up because · of simple economics. In 1984 treatment of diseases caused by smoking, coupled with lost earnin_~s from tobacco-related illn~.~.~ and ?~mature dea~, cost the country, aimo~ $60 billion, according to one study. So such companies as AT&T, 'Todayno one could introduce a product that we know is as dangerous as this one' Westinghouse, Bristol-Myers, and Boeing are taking steps to stamp out smoking among their employees. Hon- eywell Inc. has pledged to become smoke-free throughout its U.S. opera- tions. Atlanta's Turner Broadcasting System Inc. won't hire those who smoke. UE DEr~C~Ona Even more adamant about having nonsmoking employees is the 5-year-old Non-Smokers Inn in Dal- las. There, job seekers get a polygraph test to prove it's true. Nonsmoking em- ployees are absent less, more productive, and less accident-prone, says Lyndon W. Sanders, president of Kandue Inc., which owns .the inn. And Sanders has had no trouble filling the inn's 135 rooms. He has hosted such staunch to- bacco haters as Surgeon General Koop and the star of Dall~s, Larry Hagrnan: Employers that i~,nore their nonsn' ers' ~leas for clean air do so at their c peril. They could be inviting "an ashes: tos-style wave of litigation when non- smokers get smart/' says consultant Robert A. Rosner, executive director of Seattle's Smoking Policy Research Insti- tute. Already, nonsmokers have won court battles to force companies to limit smoking. Far more worrisome to em- ployers was a decision last December by the Washington State Appeals Court. The court said that Helen McCarthy, an ll-year employee of the state's Human Services Dept~, could sue for damages. She claimed her allergy to smoke was so exacerbated by workplace fumes that she developed chronic pulmonary dis- ease--and that her employer was liable. The tobacco indust~'y, however, staunchly maintains that secondhand smoke claims are spurious. The Tobacco Institute, a Washington-based trade group that is the industry's major politi- cal arm, has doubled its staff to 90 over the past 11 years and continues to churn out reports that make its case. It con- tends that the government's studies on secondhand smoke are based on surveys, not actual measurements of exposure to smoke, and that they examined expo~ in the home, not at work or in pu places. RJR Nabisco claims that it takes a nonsmoker some 24 hours in a tiny, smoke-filled bar in New York to inhale A SIGN OF THE TIMES: SMOKERS HEED NOT APPLY In 1985, Pacific Northwest Bell Tele- phone Co. put its 15,000 employees on notice: In three months there'd be no smoking, allowed at work~any- where, anytime. The company went ahead even though some managers feared it would prompt pretests, law- suits, and an exodus of loyal workers. What happened? Nothing. Nobody sued, 'nobody resigned. Most of the · company's 4,000 smokers cut down and, within six months, 350 of them had kicked the habit. Even the union was pleased. "I'm really glad we were ahead of the vogue," says Susan C. Pisha of the local Communications Workers Assn. "Nobody really has a right to smoke in the workplace." That's what more and more compa- nies are saying. Corporate giants from General Motors and Heinz UsA to Tex- as Instruments, Boeing, and Du Pont are tightening policies on smoking or banning it entirely. In Minnesota, Con- trol Data Corp. has joined the local Coalition for a Smoke-Free Society. At Em'on Corp. in Houston, employee as- sistance director Helen K. Kreller says the company is considering lowering medical insurance deductibles for non- smokers as an incentive: "We want em- ployees well and off cigarettes." ~rr on sparr.. Industry is learning what life insurers~including Franklin Life Insurance Co. and CNA Insurance Cos., both owned by tobacco inter~ ests~have always known: Smokers are expensive. Estimates v~,-----'~'~ Group Health Cooperative, a Seattle- based health maintenance organization, concludes that by creating a smoke- free workplace, a company could shave costs by $5 for every dollar it spent~in just two years. "Smokers cost money 42 BUSINESS WEEK/JL~LY 27. 1987 COVER STORY the nicotine equivalent of one cigare~. The real problem in the workplace, nl~Iltains the Tobacco Institute, is not ~ but the sick building syndro e. D2~ng the energy crisis of the 1970s, building owners plugged cracks and cut back on ventilation to save energy. The result: indoor air pollution. Tobacco spokespeople argue that restoring ade- quate ventilation would eliminate the problem. "If you see tobacco smoke hanging in the air, that's a sign of bad ventilation," says Walker Merryman, vice-president of the Tobacco Institute. PRIVA'm EYF_ In its effort to counter the opposition's research, the institute has drawn charges of questionable tactics. James L. Repace, an indoor air specialist at the Environmental Protection Agen- cy, wrote a highly publicized report in 1985 concluding that up to 5,000 people die annually of lung cancer induced by secondhand smoke. Repace says he has since become the victim of a smear cam- paign. After the release of his report, Representative Don Sundquist (R-Tenn.), a supporter of tobacco interests, wrote to ErA officials questioning Repace's ac- ademic credentials and suggesting that his outside consulting activities--which included work for nonsmokers' rights groups--constituted a conflict of inter- "When I read Sunquist's report," recalls, "I said: 'My God, they've a private detective.'" The tobacco companies' at-tempts to mold public opinion are very well fund- ed. Philip Morris Inc. and RJR Nabisco lavishly support political action commit- tees. Philip Morris Ma#azine is sent to MARK PERTS~, HUK~ CRUSADER "Our goal is to see the tobacco industry go out of business," declares the 29-year-old lawyer and ex-. ecutive director of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, the nation's largest antismoking lobby. 7 million smokers. The New York com- pany also sends newsletters with advice on how to defeat smoking restrictions. Last year it countered the annual Ameri- can Cancer Society "Smokeout" with "The Great American Smoker's Kit." This spring RJR mailed some 10,000 para- phlets to executives, urging them to keep the issue of smoking at work in the private domain. The tobacco interests have effectively in sick leave, insurance premiums, le- gal liability, building maintenance, and morale," charges Gaff Warden, presi- dent of Group Health. Some employers have become sur- prisingly aggressive. Because workers at usa Corp.'s ceiling-tile division are exposed to potentialiy cancer-cansing fibers on the job, the Chicago company said it would dismiss those who don't quit--both on and off the job. Experts, however, warn companies against being too zealous. '°the point is not to attack the smoker but to create a smoke-free workplace," says Robert A. Rosner, who helps firms set up poli- cies through the Seaffie-based Smok- lng Policy Research Institute. He says programs work best when workers are given plenty of notice, the company of- fers to pay for smoking-cessation treat- ment, and policies apply everywhere-- from switchboard to boardroom. Even so, some smokers are angry. Take David Brenton, an engineering assistant at Motorola Inc.'s facility in ANR was formed in 1981 and now has about 15,000 me/nbers. Its budget of $300,000 and its hundreds of volunteers have helped push through some 250 local and state ordinances, inducting one mandating nonsmoking areas in Berkeley (Calif.) restaurants enlisted minority groups--the only seg- ments of the population that are still increasing their cigarette consumption. Tobacco companies make hefty contn~ou- tions to black and Latin political groups, such as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the League of United Latin American Citi- zens. It urges them to oppose smoking restrictions as discriminatory, since the ?roportion of minorities who smoke is Chandler, Ariz. He formed the Smok- ers' Rights Alliance, whose 190 mem- bers are mainly local residents, to fight all smoking restrictions. His employ- er's program "is a message that my feelings and what makes me happy are not important to Motorola," says Bren- ton, who has vowed to leave his job if the company bans smoking indoors. But not many. smokers are lining up to join such groups. A poll at Texas Instruments Inc. found that 90% of all employees favored policies to protect nonsmokers. So far, Rosner contencLs, -'there's been little opposition to work- place smoking policies, and no policy has yet been rescinded. Tobacco companies argue that cour- tesy by smokers is a better way to protect nonsmokers at work than for- mai policies. But Boston smoking-poll- cy consultant Rita Addison says many of her corporate clients found that the polite approach failed. To nonsmokers convinced their health is in danger and companies keeping tabs on health care costs, courtesy just doesn't cut it. By Joan O'C. Hamilton in San Francisco TAKE IT OUTSIDE: A SEATTLE WORKER FIRES UP ON THE FIRE ESCAPE BUSINESS WEEK/JULY 27, 1987 43 ~ Y,~ '~ COVER STORY higher than that of whites. Also, minor- ities are less likely to work in private THERE'S A WHORE INDUSTRY offices where smoking may be allowed. Despite bitter charges of racism, OUT TO HELP YOU KICK THE HABIT Cleveland City Councilman James Roka- kis won a yearlong battle for smokin' $ ~ i, I'm Jim, and I'm powerless back into the ashtray. Some research- ~estrictions in February. "I've taken ~ over nicotine," a young, well- . ers estimate that up to 90% of Ameri- real beating, but that's O. K.: They'll live · · dressed man announces to a ca's 55 million smokers have tried to longer, I may not." Another restriction small group gathered in a San Francis- quit at one time or another. Of all the in New York City, now tied up in the co social club. people who make a serious attempt to courts, is opposed by the N~ACP. "Hi, Jim," a dozen eager voices quit, only about 25% make it through a. The industry's tactics have helped to reply, year, says psychologist Stephen Tiffa- water down-even defeat--a few pieces "I'm a little embarrassed to say it's ny of Purdue University. of legislation, including a measure in only been about 45 minutes since my Solid evidence on what kinds of pro- Connecticut to ban smoking in restau- last cigarette." grams work best is still sketchy. Start- rants. And they have played on the fears "That's O.K.," somebody laughs, ford University researcher David P.L. of business, such as restaurant owners, drawing a round of applause. But Jim Sachs, who has analyzed more than 450 that smoking bans will cost them dearly is not amused. "I've just got a new published smoking-cessation studies, m lost sales. Ultimately, the tobacco job," he says "and they don't want a says that rapid smoking combined with companies hope to create a backlash. "A smoker in it." behavior modification counseling yields lot of smokers and nonsmokers think it's It's true, Jim. Lots of people want the best results. Other methods--in- gone too far," says William I. Campbell, you to give up smok- cluding hypnosis, sup- executive .vice-president for marketing ing these days. And as ~11~ port groups, and medi- at Philip Morris USA. Jim is finding out at~ tation--simply have In the long run, the industry cam- Smokers Anonymous, . · not been thoroughly palgn may backfire. Indeed, there is lit- there are also a lot of studied. Acupuncture, fie evidence that the antismoking cru- people willing to help. , he says, is "a current sade is losing steam. Activists in New As restrictions on fad," but has not prov- Jersey are lobbying to strengthen laws smoking spread, the en any more helpful that forbid sales of cigarettes to minors. ranks of smoking-ces- i than placebos. ,¥Iaine has already ripped out tobacco sation programs are The two sides of the vending machines where minors have ac- swelling, addiction--chemical cess to them. The state health depart- Smokers wishing to and emotional--are ment in Minnesota has mounted a cross into the "non" what make it so hard $600,000 advertising campaign to turn section will shell out to kick the habit, teens off the habit by highlighting ' an estimated $100 mil.i ,~i~o~i Withdrawal ls accom- social liabilities: "Get Bad Breath in '~ lion this year, accord- am MINNEAPOLIS · panied by a craving Flavors," says one billboard under draw- ing to a recent Salo- for the drug, plus a ings of two cigarette butts, one regular, mon Brothers study, and the amount is panoply of ills from stomach pains and one menthol. likely to grow to $250 million by 1991. headaches to dizziness, irritability, and PEER pRmum'- In Washington, increas- They are being hypnotized or listening drowsiness. To ease those symptoms, ingly well-funded activist groups are set- tn stop-smoking records, getting their smokers last year bought $50 million ting up shop across town from the To- ears stapled or having acupuncture worth of Nicorette, the nicotine-laced bacco Institute. Such organizations as treatments, being injected with. novo. prescription chewing gum sold by Mer- kction on Smoking & Health (~,SH), a 19- caine or vitamins, chewing nicotine tell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. year-old, lobbying group, and the Coali- gum or taking Chinese herbal medi- Researchers are exploring several tion on Smoking or Health formed by cines. Then there's aversion therapy, or other drugs, including antihypertensive national health organizations such as the "rapid smoking." Smokers are asked to medications such as Boehringer Ingel- American Cancer Society, "will radically puff so fast it makes them sick. heim Pharmaceuticals Inc.'s Catapres, change the way Congress acts on smok- Aside from going cold turkey, the that seem to reduce the desire to ing issues in the future," predicts John Smokers Anonymous program, which smoke. Eli Lilly & Co. is testing Pro- F. Banzhaf, director of AStt. Congress is is modeled after Alcoholics Anony- sac, an appetite inhibitor that may also considering a raft of bills that v~ql fur- mous' famed "12-step" program, is one curb the craving for nicotine and possi- ther hobble the industry: banning tobac- · of the few ways to quit that's free. bly alcohol as well. co ads, prohibiting smoking on airplanes, Smokenders, which is offered by Com- But the chemical withdrawal fades raising excise taxes, and strengthening prehensive Care Corp., of Irvine, Calif., much faster than the emotional reli- smoking regulations in federal buildings.. charges $295 for a six-week program ance on cigarettes. Says Lee E. Wahl, Ultimately, legislation may prove less of gradual cutting-down and behavior- Smokenders' general manager and a effective than the force most smokers modification therapy. The Schick Cen- former smoker: "I was sure my car say propelled them into the habit in the ters .charge $575 for two straight wouldn't start unless I had a lit ciga- first place--peer pressure. Admits one weeks of mild electrical shocks and rette in my hand." smoker trying to give it up: "A lot of group support. Eventually, it all seems to come smokers secretly hope their employers ~ORRzwr PAD.' Some smokers actually down to one thing--a smoker has to ban smoking to help them quit." Clearly, kick the habit after going through one want to stop. And the incentive has smokers are getting a different message of these programs. Smokenders claims never been greater. If smokers prepare these days: Put that damn thing ou~ a success rate of 55% to 60% after six themselves for the inevitable, Tiffany By Joan O'C. Hamilton in San Fr, months. Yet the statistics are skewed ' insists, "anyone can quit." ¢o and Emily T. Smith in New York, ~h by those who fall off the wagon and By Joan O'C. Hamilton in San Francisco Paul Angiolillo in Bosto~ Reginald Rhein Jr. in Washington, and bureau reports BUSINESS WEEK/JULY 27, 1987 COVER STORY BIG TOBACCO'S FORTUNES ARE WITHERING IN THE HEAT rom his rooftop garden, fourth-gen- eration tobacco dealer Tazewell M. Carrington III looks out over downtown Richmond. The golden leaf reigned for more than a century in this Virginia city, where Shoekoe Slip and Tobacco Row were home to tobacco deal- ers, brokers, and factories. But now the historic buildings are fast turning into offices, bars, and shops. The 69-year-old Carrington is the last tobacco holdout on the Slip--and he's switching to real es- tate. "You just got to find another way to make a dollar," Carrington says. "To- bacco is kind of a dirty word." The changes in Richmond are a sign of the times in the $35 billion U. S. tobac- co industry, which runs the gamut from small dealers such as Carrington to gi- ant producers such as the $7.1 billion Philip Morris UsA. The business has [rathered past years of bad news, from geon General's reports to tax hikes. But the forces that turned tobacco into a dirty word are accelerating more and more as social, legal, and financial storm clouds gather over the industry. "We're under a hell of a siege," says Harold A. Grant, marketing vice-president of Lig- gett & Myers Tobacco Co. BArn. E CmE~ With little hope of revers- ing the slide in sales, tobacco companies are responding by cashing in rather than fighting back. Consolidation is sweeping the tobacco belt, thinning the ranks of farmers, dealers, distributors, and manu- facturers. F~or the survivors, cost-cut- ting, international expansion, and diver- sification are the new battle cries. To bolster revenues, the tobacco companies are resorting to price hikes-despite the damage this strategy does to consumly tion in the long run. "The handwriting is on the wall," says Goldman Sachs & Co. analyst Lawrence S. Pidgeon. "The idea is getting it while the getting's good." For the first .time since 1954, unit sales of all tobacco products fell last year, according to the Agriculture Dept. Cigarette sales have been sinking since the early 1980s, and things are getting worse. Last year's retail slide of 2% was more severe than the most bearish pre- dictions, and Prudential-Bache Securities Inc. analyst George E. Thompson ex- pects sales to fall 3% to 5% a year for the next five years. Meanwhile, prices keep spiraling high- er. For 'the past five years wholesale cigarette prices have increased much faster than inflation, and higher taxes have helped nearly to double the aver- age retail price of a pack to $1.15. In the past year alone the cost of smoking has jumped more than 15%. Some analysts see price hikes of as much as 10% in 1987, or more than double the expected inflation rate in consumer goods. While the increases are raising sales and profits, they're making the market shrink faster. Higher prices reduce de- mand, and they affect teens--potential new smokers--more than adults. "One more price increase and people say, 'That's it,'" an Atlanta-based tobacco EVEN THOUGH CIGARETTE SMOKING IS FALLING... '80 '81 '82 '83 '84 '8,S DATA: AGRICULTURE DEPT. ... TOBACCO COMPANIES KEEP RAISING PRICES TO BOOST REVENUE... · .. BUT THAT STRATEGY IS PROVING LESS AND LESS EFFECTIVE 1.00 , -- I ; llg '80 '81 '82 '83° '84 ' ' '80 '81 '82 '83 '84 '85 '86 · FEDERAL EXCISE TAX DOUBLED TO 16C PER PACK DATA: TOBACCO iNSTITUTE DATA:. AGRICULTURE DEPT. COVER STORY BUSINESS WEEK/JULY 27. 1987 4.7 DEALER CARRINGTON: "YOU JUST GOT TO FIND ANOTHER WAY TO MAKE A DOLLAR" distributor complains, noting that even some of his employees have kicked the habit because of high prices. "And they buy wholesale," the vendor moans. Still higher state and federal excise taxes may be on the way. The Senate Finance Committee supports doubling the current federal tax on a pack of cigarettes to 32¢ late this year. Al- though many House members oppose the move, tobacco's support is waning in Washington. "The decline is going to be rugged if they double the excise tax," says Salomon Brothers analyst Diana K. Temple. If it goes through, she predicts, unit sales will fall at least 7% in 1988. 'FOR 'FARMERS, TOBACCO When federal excise taxes doubled in 1983, unit sales plummeted 5%. The deteriorating tobacco market is also hurting makers of paper, packr ing, and materials. Cigarette advertisL in newspapers and magazines plummet- ed $250 million, or 25%, from 1984 to 1986. And retail outlets such as conve- nience stores rely heavily on cigarettes as traffic-builders. "There is a tremen- dous dependency on cigarette sales," as- serts Peter Strauss, owner of New York tobacco distributor Metropolitan Distri- bution Services Inc. HOUSE DIVIDED. The industry is trying to fight antismokers with fire of its own. It has stepped up its lobbying on Capitol Hill and widened its reach to defend it- self in state and local battles. It some- times provides legal help for smokers trying to combat restrictions. And it con- tinues to counter a sea of adverse re- search on tobacco with its own scientific views. The industry argues that evi- dence to date doesn't show any indisput- able link between tobacco and health problems. Companies hope to drum up a grass-roots backlash against anti- smoking crusaders by likening them to narrow-minded Proh~itionists. While legislators from tobacco-produc- foll~ who 'live.h~re caIf.~he arc. Of from .. Virginia?to i Ge0rg~a.. Nothing takes, to. the blistering~ dry. SUmme~... quite so _well as. the: golden' leaf,-~ for dearly 400 years .tobacco has beeh a. way of _life for.the:region's 'ninny small farmers:. Even today, ifew'.cr0ps bring in more than the$3,500 that one acre · of top-grade qeaf~..fetchesJ'at, the' late>r-_ summer auctions::- ~p~of~ts:,nm i~ as $1,000 an acre, .'. '-: i '(' · But demand is down,, imports"are the ~on~e-fierce toba~b/lobby..in Wash;: ington is weakening~and tobacco's~ grip on Southern life is loos.ening. ,TMs. season, farmers are tending just'half' '. the acreage they did a .decade. I:i ~ne:a~e. everywhe~:',:Weed~thriVF-'iK f~ow ffelds~ Weathered c~j,gbarns;i /' roofs' sagging,' stand abandbrie~. ters of'stumps'mark Where'th~.state's famous tall pines .were cut to .sell for' quick cash.. . .'-:': .'. Tiny patches of tObacco' still grow. the fl'ont yard~ of small Ouses~' e~en schoolyards, to provide a [i~e~%aSh fo~Chr~tm~.'Yet in :. North ii C'~llna and..'...Kentucky''- alone,,'. . wh '.e~o~thirds ' Of:-.the :-natiOn's= ~ue- CUred: '.~d,i:bufley :leaf':grows,:/rough!y.,.: ' Panthe~;~i)B~eh,'~ a':,. hamlet's: n ~ea~.~ Ra:~ le~e:,'.~ he/sllys:.!fNOw ydu could/i'~e~d': .. _ :., : , . ..... ~.. .,, . ~...)~ ~. · them ..tO=church -on S ~unday.?: .%~;'.:~-,~.~..=; the ?Agrl_eal~:~re DePt.'~?which~:cohtrois. tobacco/~-PrddUction ..... ~ pro~m; is o-~r'lo.of an additional 24. .: In A1 Bi Moi~0'me~ is trying ~ hold on. with a mere nme acres', of~'.tobaeeo under afltivation- "sell. '/when you're '~,..withoUt a ~' 'school diplo~,' you: ~l°n't have '¥ 'many choiceS,,! he: says,."' .'~'. '.... ' -- Switching to 6ther C~Ops is not much 48 BUSINESS WEEK/JULY 27, 1987 ~q 30 COVER STORY ing states still have an important voice in Congress, the industry concedes that clout has slipped. Southern Demo- from tobacco states have lost important committee chairman- ships in recent years. Tension between farmers and companies, which are turn- ing to cheaper, imported leaf, is dividing industry influence, too. "It's helped lose a powerful force on Capitol Hill," says Horace R. Kornegay, former chairman of the Tobacco Institute. Faced with declining sales for the foreseeable future, tobacco companies are concentrating on their margins. At the Philip Morris cigarette plant in Rich- mond, tobacco shavings are carefully swept from the floor, reconstituted into sheets, and pushed through the factory again. The industry is bracing for more plant consolidations and layoffs after a big round of cutbacks two years ago. In early June, R~R offered an early retire- ment package to 2,800 of its more than 16,000 tobacco workers. Like other manufacturers, cigarette makers are automating more. As part of a $2 billion modernization begun in 1980, rjR opened a state-of-the-art Tobacco- ville (Va.) plant late last year. Machines handle the cutting, drying, and blending once performed by hand. Reynolds fig- the plant eventually will produce 110 billion cigarettes annually, double the output of an older facility that has three *Ames as many employees. For much of the industry, however, the big gains from plant automation and consolidation have already been seen. As a result, the industry's profit growth, which had averaged 15% a year for the first half of the decade, has now slowed slightly to about 18%. Much faster ciga- rette machines would take a quantum leap in technology, and all but RJR and Philip Morris have shrunk to just a sin- gle plant. "We can't consolidate much more," says Thomas E. Sandefur Jr., president of Brown & Williamson Tobac- co Corp., the U.S. tobacco arm of Lon- don-based BAT Industries PLC and the na- tion's third-largest cigarette maker. Proc.: w~R? The market contraction is taking its worst toll on the small play- ers. Cigarette sales and profits are fall- ing into the hands of the industry's two biggest prddueers, Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds, which commanded a com- bined share of about 70% of the market last year. Unit sales over the past three years at American Brands Inc. and Lig- gett fell at a compound annual clip of 6.86% and 6.73%, respectively, according to BUSINESS WEEK estimates. While companies have raised prices, they have also begun to offer low-priced generic, private-label, and discount brands to keep price-sensitive customers smoking. Off-price cigarettes, which sell for about 25% less than name brands, accounted for about 9% of U.S. unit sales last year, up from less than 1% in 1981. While the growth of no-name gen- erics slowed last year, discount brands such as I~R'S Doral are taking off. A few years ago, companies began offer- ing packs of 25 cigarettes for the same price as packs of 20. Now, Liggett is test marketing a 30-cigarette pack. But the pricing competition threatens the margins the .industry is working so hard to expand. Off-price cigarettes are less than one-third as profitable as full- priced brands, where margins can ex- ceed 25%. Only Lorillard Inc., the tobac- co unit of Loews Corp., refuses to enter the off-price market to maintain share. Lorillard President J. Robert Ave says that tactic only cannibalizes sales and the h~gher profits in the full-margin la- bels. Instead, Lorillard focuses on niches, such as its fast-growing Newport brand, which is now aimed at young blacks. Most executives doubt that a full-scale price war will erupt, but recent experi- ences in Canada offer a cautionary tale. After per capita consumption .of ciga- rettes tumbled a stunning 14% from ~:.:f~o~ Selm~ and Kenly are flocking'to -.'.support jobs at laboratories in search Triangle Park eutside Durham. :::'The growth there is also cz'earing a market for nearby farmland. Durham real estate agent Albert/~ Hight sold' ':~!,~.98-acre: farm. for $2.5 mglion. !~Tith :.:~at. kind of money, you're, crazy to digging in the dirt," he says.' ~re far from-common- gore often there's the farmers who are locked tobadco/:Bn%ing buyers with a ~.lham or'.fifth of whiskey at auction was but nowadays some bigger risks. Buy- ers-cOmPlain of farmers "nesting," or the bottom of tobacco bundles even hot, es, Jot-tire slivers:- r. remain hopeful .that: some farm: Confess '~'ffeel:mg': gmqty about - ' of.anti: he has" kicked his Sunb~lt~g :45~acrc :.crop~ ~Says Dick-. dn~ving his ;::the. age .of 5: ?ye got' life' in~sted in this." ~:.: ~: ::)'::', '~",':'i'.''~. ;~ : ~ ' .- 7 .~ :-:. '-. .'i~.:~ ' : ' . I COVER STORY BUSINESS WEEK/JULY 27, 1987 49 ~ I~'"~/i .1982 to 1985 because of higher taxes and a successful antismoking campaign, Rothmans of Pall Mall Ltd. began offer- ing a 30-cigarette discount pack. Before the ensuing war ended late last year, the industry rang up losses of about $75 million, estimates Neil Wickham, a con- sumer-products analyst at Toronto's Walwyn Stodgell Cochran Murray Ltd. "It was a stupid game," Wickham says. wOm. D CONOOESr. Despite the recent problems in Canada, the U.S. tobacco industry is eyeing international markets for growth. Although demand is falling in countries such as Britain and Japan, worldwide unit volume is rising at about 1% annually. For some U.S. marketers, international unit sales are growing by as much as 5% a year. "The whole world is an opportunity," says Frank E. Res- nik, president of Philip Morris USA. The whole world may not prove to be as profitable as it sounds, though. With all the major U.S. companies counting on overseas sales, fierce competition and higher foreign excise taxes are likely to squeeze margins in international mar- kets. Kidder, Peabody & Co. expects RJR's international sales to grow 17% this year but earnings to in- crease only 7%. At American Brands Inc., international mar- gins of 3.9% pale in comparison with the 24.8% profit it com- mands on sales in the U.S. "But we Continue to want more unit sales to help underwrite the costs of production in our plants," explains the newly named chairman of American Brands, William J. Alley. The tobacco industry .is even looking for ways to cash in on the growing antismoking move. ment. Early this year, Pinkerton Tobac- co Co. began test-marketing a chewing product called Masterpiece Tobacs, made with finely ground leaf mixed with a cinnamon- or peppermint-flavored gum- like base, intended for use by smokers when they can't light up. "We needed to find a more convenient and discreet to- bacco product," explains Robert B. Sei- densticker, Pinkerton's president. .~ouR~ous EMOK~--' Brown & William- son is taking a stab at innovation, too. In January it began testing Capri, an ul- t2aslim cigarette about 30% thinner than other styles and aimed at women. It will give off fewer noxious fumes to annoy nonsmokers. "It's a more courteous and conscientious smoke," says one industry executive. Even better, the new ciga- rettes could be much more profitable, because they contain less tobacco. Tobacco company executives also hint that there's hope for a high-tech, "safe" cigarette. The advent of the filter tip in the 1950s sent the industry on an un- precedented growth path for two de- 52 BUSINESS WEEK/JULY 27, 1987 cades, and low-tar cigarettes have been hot products, too. Now, Moloney Mfg. Corp. in Chicago may introduce Health Shvers, a cigarette with a filter that sup- posedly delivers only 5% of the tar and nicotine in current brands. Bat the idea of a safe cigarette doesn't pass muster with antismokers. "It gives smokers a false sense of security," complains Ron- ald M. Davis, director of the U. S. Office of Smoking & Health. Others don't believe the hunt for a safe cigarette will pay off, and the~ in- dustry clearly isn't pinning its hopes on it. So the diversification moves by the tobacco companies are picking up speed. American Brands has spent nearly $4 billion and acquired more than three dozen companies over the past 20 years. Once the largest U.S. tobacco company, American now em- braces a wide ar- ray of brand names, including NOVELTIES~ TOBACS MIXES TOBACCO AND GUM. CAPRI IS ABOUT 30% THINNER Titleist golf products, Jergens lotion, Cheez-it crackers, Master Locks, Frank- lin Life Insurance, and Pinkerton's secu- rity services. In 1985, Philip Morris swallowed Gen- eral Foods Corp., and RJR merged with Nabisco Brands Inc. Now, RJR Nabisco has sold its Heublein Inc. wine and spir- its business and'its Kentucky Fried Chicken unit. Analysts believe that RJR Chief Executive F. Ross Johnson is mov- ing to clean up the company's balance Sheet for more acquisitions. Even tiny, private Liggett is talking about diversi- fying into other consumer goods. "By 1997, you won't recognize these compa- nies,'' says Montgomery Securities ana- lyst Emanuel Goldman. But while the tobacco companies can diminish their reliance on the golden leaf, they'll have a hard time replac- ing its profits. "There isn't anything you can buy with the same profits as tobacco," says Furman Selz Mager Dietz & Birney Inc. analyst John C. Maxwell Jr. "There's just nothing more lucrativ~ than those little white tubes." Still, RJR's Johnson considered spin- ning the company's tobacco unit into a master limited partnership earlier this year, prompting rumors that RJR might abandon tobacco altogether. Ross and other RJR officials insist that they ar~ committed to the tobacco business. But Johnson has already repackaged r~R's U. S. and foreign tobacco operations into tidy units that could be sold easily. With- in five years, says one analyst, "I think they'll try to sell tobacco." MISMATCHES. While the combination of RJR and Nabisco is widely applauded, the industry has had its share of ill-fated acquisitions. Such problems are one rea- son tobacco stocks are trading at some of their low- est multiples in histo- ry-nearly a 45% dis- count to the overall market, compared with an average 16% discount over the past five years. Investors may also be shying away from tobacco stocks because of a darker shadow across the indus- try: the prospect of product liability. Companies have never lost a tobacco liability case, but now the industry is defending itself against a new wave of aggressive lawsuits seeking damages for smoking-relaW" deaths or illnesses. In recent wee. judges in closely watched cases in New Jersey and Mississippi have dealt serious blows to the industry, ruling that compa- nies must reveal damaging technical in- formation and internal .documents that they had tried to keep confidential. Plaintiffs' lawyers are now optimistic despite two decades of court losses be- cause rulings by state courts in person- al-injury lawsuits are making it much easier to win liability cases against man- ufacturers. The stakes for the industry are enormous. A conservative estimate by public health officials attributes 350,000 deaths to cigarette smoke every year, and each death is a potential liabil- ity for cigarette makers. "In the long run, I think we're going to win," says John F. Banzhaf III, director of Action on Smoking & Health. "With just one victory, the dike will be broken." Even if lawsuits flood the industry, however, few people believe that tobacco will soon be washed into the history books. Tobacco is addictive, after all, and the slides in sales could level off once only hard-core, heavy users remain. But even diehard fans won't deny that these are the most trying of times for tobacoo, and it's looking more and more lik~ beginning of the end. By Scott Ticer in Atlanta, with Resa W. King in Stamford and bureau reports COVER STORY INTEROFFICE MEMO FROM: SUBJECT: Ed Shuke, City Manager Len Harrell, Chief of Police Federal Disaster Assistance DATE August 11, Today I attended a meeting regarding the availability of FEMA and State funds to assist the City in repairing public damase from the recent storm. An application was submitted, at that meeting, to start the process with FEMA. The City will need to document all personnel and repair costs caused by the storm. An assessor will then come out to Mound and do a pre- liminary.assessment of all the public damage sustained in our area. That assessment will be reviewed and we will then be notified of the covered damage. FEMA will reimburse 75% of the covered damages and the State will pick up 15%, leaving the City responsible for 10% of the covered damages. The process will take from two to six weeks, dependent upon the extent of the damage.