1988-11-29 CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1988
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. Pledge of Allegiance.
Approve Minutes of November 15, 1988, Regular
Meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING: Delinquent Utility Bills ~
Report from Building Official on property located
at 5909 Glenwood Road.
Pg. 2784-2790
Pg. 2791-2792
Pg. 2793
Request:
Request:
Minor Subdivision.
Setback Variances.
Pg. 2794-2811
CASE #88~730:
Request:
Frank BuYsse, property at 2017
Commerce Blvd., PID %14-117-24 14 0038.
Variance for the "After the Fact"
Construction of a Parking Lot Within
the Five Foot Setback.
Pg. 2812-2824
CASE #88-736:
Unit "B" PID %24-117-24 12 0041·
Request:. Front Yard Setback Variance.
CASE #88-737: Bradley Blazevic, 1871 Shorewood
Lane, Lot 2, Block 12, Shadywood
Point, PID %18-117-23 23 0061.
Request: Side Yard Setback Variance.
Michael Blunt, 4771 Island View Drive.
Donald R. Bonnicksen, 2539 Emerald
Drive, Lot 7, Block 6, Shirley Hills
Pg. 2825-2838
Pg. 2839-2849
Request:
To leave existing platform on Devon
Commons.
Pg. 2850-2851
Page 2781
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
James Miller, 4781 Island View Drive.
Request:
To leave existing platform on Devon
C onunons.
Howard Hagedorn, 1748 Avocet Lane. Follow-up on
tree trimming done on Wiota Commons.
Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present.
Pg. 2852-2853
Pg. 2854-2856
Lost Lake Park Development Plans presented by the
University of Minnesota Architecture Dept.
Resolution Requesting an Increase in M.S.A.
Maintenance Funds Due to Increased Maintenance
Costs on City of Mound M.S.A. Streets.
Recommended def~-~*~, nf "resident" for cemetery
fee schedule.
Request for 2200 block of Westedge
Blvd. ,
Sign ordinance modification.
Proposed Affirmative Action P~n ~?~.
Tour of new Public Works Building, Island Park
facility and goal setting session -
January 7, or January 14, 1988 - Mayor Smith.
Payment of Bills.
INFORMATION/MISCELT.%NEOU8
A. Financial Report for October as prepared by
the Finance Director.
Lake Level, Flow & Precipitation Summary for
October 1988,
c~
Planning Commission Minutes - November 14,
1988.
Do
Pg. 2857
Pg. 2858
Pg. 2859-2860
Pg. 2861-2863
Pg. 2864-29f7
Pg. 2918-2933
Pg. 2934-2935
Pg. 2936-2938
Pg. 2939-2946
Park Commission Minutes - November 10, 1988. Pg~ 2947-2952
Request for comments from the City regarding
the renewal of existing management policy and
operating procedures for Gray's Bay Headwaters
Control Structure. This information has been
given to the Park and Planning Commissions. Pg. 2953-2963
Page 2782
175
November 15, .1988
MINUTES -- MOUND CITY COUNCIL -. NOVEMBER 15t 1988
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in
regular session on Tuesday, November 15, 1988, 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, and Phyllis Jessen. Councilmember Skip Johnson was
absent and excused. Also present were: City Manager Edward J.
Shukle, Jr, City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson,
City Engineer John Cameron, City Planner Mark Koegler, and Build-
ing Official Jan Bertrand and the following interested citizens:
Jeri Forster, Ardy Forster, Tom Forster, Les and Charlotte Jen-
sen, Lucille Maas, Mary and Alan Burkness, Juli and Tim Seehusen,
Donna and Gerry Smith, Jeff and Denise Olsen, Lois and Earl
Sandquist, Kyle Wilberry, G. Michael Brown, Mike Barlow, Harlan
Dugstad, Bob Brown, Andrea Ahrens, Leon Hesselgrave, Dorothy and
Bill Netka, Larry Shaw, Pat and Paul Meisel, Tim & Karen King,
John Kuhlman, Bill Reutiman, and John Wagman.
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 October 25, 1988, Regular Meeting and the
November 9, 1988, Special Meeting as submitted. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO T~E MOUND CITY CODE, SECTION
23.415 (4) q, RELATING TO FENCES
The City Planner explained that currently the wording in the or-
dinance is as follows: "If the material used in fence construc-
tion is not finished on both sides, the finished side of the
material shall be on the outside facing the abutting property."
This.has caused some confusion in the past with which side faces
abutting.property. The new proposed Wording for this section as
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission is as
follows: "Fences shall be installed such that the finished side
faces abutting properties. The finished side shall be the side
which provides maximum coverage of posts and stringers. Board-
on-board, basket-weave fences, and similar design shall be deemed
to have two finished sides."
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
Mayor closed the public hearing.
There was no response. The
176
November 15, 1988
Abel moved and Jessen seconded the following:
ORDINANCE %19-1988
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING APPENDIX B, SEC-
TION 23.415 (4) g, OF THE CITY CODE
RELATING TO FENCES
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
B. CASE ~88-732: CONSIDER ISSUANCE OF ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
FOR CENTURY AUTO BODYt 5533 SHORELINE BLVD.,
PID ~13-117-24 33 0007/0008
The Building Official reviewed her ~emo regarding an inspection
of the property at 5533 Shoreline Blvd. She reported that OSHA
and Hennepin County will follow-up on their violations and will
send a report by December 15, 1988.
The Mayor reopened the public hearing.
BOB BROWN, 5430 Three Points Blvd., stated that he has been
in the establishment and in his opinion it is a clean place.
VIC COSSETTE, owner of Century/ARCO, stated that he agrees
with all the conditions in the proposed resolution.
The Council discussed the 12 items
Official's report.
in the Building
The City attorney suggested that action on this Conditional
Use Permit could be delayed until all reports from Hennepin
County and OSHA are in and all items are corrected. He also
stated there are also penalties due to OSHA from 1984 which
have now been turned over to the State Attorney General's
Office for collection.
GREG KELLER, attorney representing Vic Cossette, stated that
those penalties from OSHA were against the corporation. Mr.
Cossette is now operating under sole proprietorship.
VIC COSSETTE, objected to item #6 in the Building Official's
report requiring a supply of make-up tempered air because it
'is too expensive to install and he does not feel it is
necessary.
The Building Official stated the requirement for make-up
tempered air has been in the State Building Code since 1972.
BOB BROWN asked why the City is .getting involved in items
required by OSHA. The City Attorney stated that the City
has no authority to waive state, county or federal regula-
tions.
2
177
November 15, 1988
MOTION made by ~bel, seconded by Jessen to continue this
public hearing and delay action on this Conditional Use Per-
mit until more items on the Building Official,s list are
completed and a follow-up report from Rosemary Lavin, Hen-
nepin County Environmentalist, is received in December.
Item to be brought back at the December 27, 1988, Council
Meeting. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
CASE #88-728: JOEL DOKKEN, (5042) AVON DRIVE, LOTS 8-12, BLOCK
4, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT B, PID ~24-117-24 12 0018,
MINOR SUBDIVISION
The City Planner explained that this was tabled at the October
25th Meeting to be brought back this evening.
Mr. Larry Larson, builder for the potential owner of this
property, stated that the lot is not buildable with the 30 foot
set.back requirements. He requested that the Council grant a
variance for 20 foot setbacks.
The-City Attorney explained that a variance request needs to come
before the Planning Commission for their recommendations before
it comes before the city Council for consideration.
Donna Smith voiced objection to a large house being placed on the
newly created lot because it is not in the best interest of the
neighborhood.
The city Attorney pointed out that the property descriptions in
the proposed resolution for the subdivision are incorrect. The
Planner stated that the resolution in the packet was for the sub-
division if the vacation had been approved.
The Council discussed the Planner's recommendations for the sub-
division, specifically #5 which reads, "The applicant is dividing
the property with full knowledge of the setback constraints on
Parcel A.. Future setback variances for Parcel A will not be
recommended for approval."
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Abel directing the Staff
'to prepare a corrected subdivision resolution to the next
meeting incorporating the correct property descriptions and
incorporating the Planner,s recommendation relating to no
future setback variances for Parcel A. The vote was unanim-
ously in favor. Motion carried.
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
There were none.
178
November 15, 1988
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ClfAPTER V OF THE MOUND CITY CODE, SECTION
510:40, SUBD. 2 & 6; SECTION 520:00, SUBD. I a (1), SUBD. I a
(2), SUBD. lf, SUBD. i g, SUBD. 3, RELATING TO FEES
The City Clerk explained that this amendment will bring the Code
Book up-to-date, deleting the 1987 fees and incorporating the UBC
fees that were adopted in the recodification.
Smith moved and Abel seconded the following:
ORDINANCE %18-1988
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER V OF THE
MOUND CITY CODE, SECTION 510:40, SUBD. 2
& 6; SECTION 520:00, SUBD. I a (1),
SUBD. i a (2), SUBD. lf, SUBD. 1 g,
SUBD. 3, RELATING TO FEES
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PETITION FROM PROPERTY OWNERS REGARDING CONDITION OF PROPERTY LO-
CATED AT 5909 GLENWOOD ROAD
Mr. Tim Seehusen, 5910 Glenwood Road, presented the petition with
24 signatures which read as follows:
"Petition concerning property located at 5909 Glenwood Road,
Mound, and occupied by Richard Janke:
The people whose signatures appear below request that the
property be inspected to determine its condition and its af-
fect on properties located nearby.
- Exterior of house and garage in disrepair.
- Garage is approximately 3 feet from fence belonging to
adjacent property.
- Garage appears to be full of paper, old tools and dis-
carded junk.
- Rats and other rodents in and near property.
Interior of home has wall in cellar that is collapsing.
- Four trucks are parked in yard.
- Consensus of many neighbors is that house should be
condemned as uninhabitable."
Mr. Seehusen presented some pictures taken that day of the
property.
Ms. Lucille Mass, 5901 Glenwood Road, reviewed her letter of com-
plaint about ~he Janke property, and the her claim that this un-
sightly house is lowering the value of all the property around it
as well as being a health and safety problem.
The City Attorney explained that there is a hazardous building
statute but that in order to obtain a search warrant .it has to be
proved in court with sworn evidence that the people living in
4
179
November 15, 1988
the home are putting their safety, health and welfare in danger.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Abel directing the Build-
ing Official to go out with a camera and list infractions to
the nuisance ordinance that can be sited for abatement and
report back to the Council at .the next meeting. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
REVIEW OF REQUEST TO DNR TO DREDGE A PORTION OF LOST L~KE CHANNEL
BY LOST LAKE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
The City Manager explained that the DNR routinely sends these
dredging applications to us for comments. The Planning Commis-
sion and the Park Commission have reviewed this and see no
problem. The application is to dredge approximately 200 feet
from the mouth of the Lost Lake ChaDnel under the bridge, 4 feet
deep.
Tim King, 2447 Lost Lake Road, was present representing the Lost
Lake Homeowners Assoc. who have made the application.
Pat. Meisel, 5501 Bartlett Blvd., owner of property on one side of
the Lost Lake Channel expressed concern about the width of the
dredge and the possibility of causing the sides of the channel to
erode.
Bill Reutiman, attorney rePresenting John Wagman, 5469 Bartlett
Blvd. voiced objections to the application for dredging because
his client owns the property for {his channel and he and the
other property owner abutting the channel have to maintain the
channel sides. He recommended denial of the request for the
dredge.
The city Attorney pointed out that the City has no jurisdiction
to approve or disapprove this application. It was sent to the
city only for comments.
No action was taken by the City Council.
PROPOSED .AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MINNETRISTA AND THE CITY
OF MOUND RELATIVE TO PROVIDING SEWER UTILITY SERVICE TO TWO MIN-
NETRISTA PROPERTY OWNERS
The City Engineer explained that this Agreement has now been ap-
proved by the City of Minnetrista with two minor changes. The
last Whereas on the first page should read as follows: "Whereas,
the parties have mutually agreed that it is in the best interest
of public health, safety and welfare to provide sanitary sewer
service from the Mound system to the Minnetrista property owners,
and that Minnetrista and the Owners of said properties will pay
to Mound the following established a~ounts and will abide by the
rules and regulations established for the Mound system and as set
forth in this Agreement."
5
180
November 15, 1988
Minnetrista also asked the %14 be added which reads as follows:
"14. This Agreement and provision of sewer service shall not be
considered as evidence in any detachment or annexation
proceedings."
The two properties to be served by Mound's sanitary sewer are:
PID #15-117-24 41 0001 and #15-117-24 41 0002.
Jessen moved and Abel seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION %88-176
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND
CITY NANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF MINNETRISTA AND THE
CITY OF MOUND RELATIVE TO PROVIDING
UTILITY SERVICE TO TWO MINNETRISTA
PROPERTY OWNERS
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PAYMENT REQUEST ~6, PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY
The City Engineer stated he has reviewed the payment request from
Loeffel-Engstrand in the amount of $11,065.60 and recommends ap-
proval. They are also recommending a 5% retainage, $34,950.35,
to assure final acceptance.
MOTION by Abel, seconded by Jensen to authorize payment
request %6, to Loeffel-Engstrand in the amount of $11,065.60
for work completed on the Public Works Facility through Oc-
tober 31, 1988. The vote was ~nanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
STATE GAMBLING LICENSE RENEWAL FOR THE AMERICAN LEGION POST ~395.
The City Clerk explained that unless the Council has a problem
with the State renewing a Gambling License for American Legion
Post #395 operation of' pull-tabs, they need not take any action.
No action was taken.
LICENSE RENEWAL - ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT - JOCK CLUB
'Motion by Abel, seconded by Smith to authorize the issuance
of and Entertainment Permit to the Jock Club, 5241 Shoreline
Blvd. License period 12-1-88 to 11-30-89. Approval contin-
gent upon all required forms., insurance, etc. being turned
in. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PAYMENT OF BILLS
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Jensen to authorize the
payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount
of $221,716.08, when funds are ,available. A roll call vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
6
INFORMATION/MISCELLkNEOUS
ae
1~1
November 15~ 19~
Department Head Monthly Reports for October 1988.
Lake Level, Flow & Precipitation Summary for September 1988.
REMINDER: Last Regular Meeting in November will be November
29, 1988.
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Abel to adjourn at 9:30
P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Fran Clark, CMC, City Clerk
· .Delinquent Water and Sewer 11-22-88
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
0130
0130
0160
0190
0250
0280
0280
0460
0550
0640
0672
O76O
O76O
O85O
1030
ll20
ll~O'
1240
1360
1360
1690
1690
1692
1692
1750
1750
1990
2020
2140
2200
123
423
931
721
391
541
571
121
301
243
932
123
301
751
422
632
O62
391
031
093
272
544
212
871
O62
181.
241
O92
272
$143.46
89.93
245.56
150.51
66.46
176.01
150.16
154.54
222.83
126.84
196.76
123.71
155.96
132.29
243.80
185.02
139.48
102.79
72.16
72.42
168.76
115.30
176.21
164.46
172.50
124.67
178.05
285.58
192.64
138.03
$4666.89
Delinquent Water and Sewer 11-22-88
11 0130 123
11 0130 423
11 0160 931
11 0190 721
11 0250 391
11 0280 541
11 0280 571
ll 0460 121.
!1 O55O 301
ll 0640 243
11 0672 932
ll O76O 123
ll O76O 301
ll O85O 751
ll 1030 422
ll ll20 632
11 llSO 062
11 1240 391.
11 1360 031
11 1'360 093
11 1690 272
11 1690 544
11 1692 212
11 1692 871
11 1750 062
11 1750 181
11 1990 241
11 2020 092
11 2140 272
11 2200 241
$143.46
89.93
245.56
150.51
66.46
176.01
150.16
154.54
222.83
.... ~23.71
132.29
243.80
185.02
139.48
102.79
72.16
72.42
168.76
115.30
176.21
164.46
172.50
124.67
178.05
285.58
192.64
138.03
$4666.89
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
sUBJECT:
November 22, 1988
City Manager and City Council
dan Bertrand, Building Official
5909 Glenwood Road
Richard danke's Property
At. the City Council meeting of November 15, 1988 I was asked to
contact Mr. danke and look over the property For possible viola-
tions to City ordinances.
Delinquent Water and Sewer
11-22-88
11 o13o 123
11 0130 423
11 0160 931
11 0190 721
11 0250 391
11 0280 541
11 0280 571
11 0460 121.
!1 0550 301
11 0640 243
11 0672 932
11 0760 123
11 0760 301
11 0850 751
11 1030 422
11 1120 632
11 1120 062
11 1240 391.
11 1360 031
11 1'360 093
11 1690 272
11 1690 544
11 1692 212
11 1692 871
11 1750 O62
11 1750 181
11 1990 241
11 2020
11 2140 272
11 2200 241
$143.46
89.93
245.56
150.51
66.46
176.01
150.16
154,54
222.83
19 6 6
.'i23.71
'155.96
132.29
243.80
185.02
139.48
102.79
72.16
72.42
168.76
115.3o
176.21
164.46
172.50
124.67
178.05
285.58
192,64
138,03
$4666,89
CITY
of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
sUBJECT:
November 22, 1988
City Manager and City Council
Jan Bertrand, Building Official
5909 Glenwood Road
Richard danke's Property
At. the City Council meeting of November 15, 1988 I was asked to
contact Mr. Janke and look over the property for possible viola-
tions to City ordinances.
In 1983, 1984, and 1985 the City received complaints regarding
his property. A formal complaint was issued in September 1984
for violations under the provisions of City Code Section 23.702
for exterior storage. After lengthy negotiations with the City
prosecutor and Mr. danke he did install a storage building and
enclosed his exterior storage with a privacy fence. After the
council meeting on November 15, ! attempted to contact Mr. danke
and succeeded to talk to him and Myrtle danke on Friday and
Saturday of that week~ At the time of this letter, ! have not
been able to gain access inside of the structure, and the gate to
the privacy Fence was frozen shut. I asked Mr. Janke to respond
to the accusations of the neighbors and report back to the City
Council or Manager on November 29, at ?:30 p.m.
JB:pj
An equal opportdnit'/ Employer that oo¢~,__ not d~..ciimina,, on tnt: bas~s $' race color rla1~ooal origln, or
handicapped sta!t;s r~ the agmtssidr, of access to. or treatmetl! or er,,plo/rnent ~n ~:s prorjram$ and acliv~ttes
Proposed Resolution
Case No: 88-728
RESOLUT~li~i
RESOLUTION i~[~ViNG REQUIREMENTS OF
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE FOR SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT B
LOTS 8, 9, 10, 11 AND 12, BLOCK 4, '
PIDt 24-117-24-12-0018
AND RECOGNITION OF AN EXISTING REAR SETBACK
VARIANCE FOR PROPOSED PARCEL B.
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to waive the requirements of the
subdivision ordinance and recogniti'on of an existing 4 foot rear
setback variance for Proposed Parcel B as shown on the Certificate
of Survey dated 7/15/88; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-l, Single-
family zoning district, which according to city code requires a 30
foot rear setback because of an existing alley; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does
recommend approval of both the waiver and the variance,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
1. That the requirements of the Ordinance of the City of Mound,
Section 330:15, rela-i~g to the conveyance of parcels of land
are hereby waived to permit conveyance in a manner generally
described as follows~
PARCEL A
All of LOts 8 and 9, and that part of Lot 10, Block 4, Shirley
Hills. Unit B, according to'the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, lying northeasterly of the following
described line: Commencing at ~e southwesterly corner of said
Lot 10: thence northeasterly along the northwesterly line of
said Lot lo a ulstance of 16.67 feet to the point of beginning
ofthe line to be described; thence southeasterly, deflecting
to the right from said northwesterly line, an angle of 90
degrees, 07 minutes, 10 seconds for a distance of 56.00 feet;
thence southeasterly, deflecting to the right from the last
described line an angle of 12 degrees, 55 minutes, 20 seconds
a distance of 50.35 feet more or less to the southeasterly
line of said Lot 10 and said line there terminating.
PARCEL B
All of Lots 11 and 12, and that part of Lot 10, Block 4,
Shirley Hills Unit B, according to the recorded plat thereof,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, ly.ing southwesterly of the
following described line: Commencing at the southwesterly
corner of said Lot 10; thence northeasterly along the
northwesterly line of said Lot 10 a distance of 16.67 feet to
the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence
southeasterly, deflecting to the right from said northwesterly
line, an angle of 90 degrees, 07 minutes, 10 seconds for a
distance of 56.00 feet; thence southeasterly, deflecting to
the right from the last described line an angle of 12 degrees,
55 minutes, 20 seconds a distance of 50.35 feet more or less
to the southeasterly line of said Lot 10 and said line there
terminating.
Driveway access for Parcel A shall be from Avon Drive.
The applicant shall.pay one park dedication fee at the time
of building permit issuance for Parcel A.
All applicable unit charges shall be paid.
The City Engineer shall review and approve utility connections
for Parcel A.
The City does hereby recognize the existing nonconforming
principal structure rear setback at Avon Drive and Park Lane,
PID# 24-117-24 12 0018, with an approximate setback of 26
feet.
The applicant is dividing the property with full knowledge of
the setback constraints on Parcel A. Future setback variances
for Parcel A will not be recommended by staff for approval.
The City Council recognizes the existing structural setback
violation pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) with the
clear and expressed understanding that the use remains as a
lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions
and restrictions of Section 23.404.
This variance is being granted for the following legally
described property:
Par. cel B as proposed on the developers certificate of survey
dated 7/15/88.
This variance shall be recorded with the county recorder or
registra~ of titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota
State Statutes, Section 462.3595, Subdivision (4). This shall
be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
10.
The property owner shall have the responsibility for filing
this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for
such recording. The building permit for Parcel A shall not
be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the
City Clerk.
Adopted this 28th day of November, 1988
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND
BY
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Proposed Resolution
Case No. 88-728
RESOLUTION 88-
RESOLUTION WAIVING REQUIREMENTS OF
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE FOR SHIRL,EY HILLS UNIT B,
LOTS 8, g, 10, 11 AND 1.2', BLOCK 4,
PIDI 24-117-2~i2-0018
AND RECOGNITION OF AN ~'~XISTING REAR SETBACK
VARIANCE FOR~°i~OPOSED PARCEL B
AND THE GRANTING OF SE/T~BACK VARIANCES FRON PARK LANE
AND THE ADJACENT/ALLEY FOR PROPOSED PARCEL A.
WHEREAS, the applicant h/e/s applied to waive the requirements of the
subdivision ordinancea~nd recognition of an existing 4 foot rear
setback variance for Proposed Parcel B as shown on the Certificate
of Survey dated 7/15/88 and 10 foot setback variances from
unimproved right-of-way along Park Lane and the alley on the
northwest part of Parcel A as shown on the Certificate of Survey
dated 7/15/88; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-l, Single-
family zoning district, which according to city code requires a 30
foot rear setback from all improved and unimproved rights-of-way;
and,
WHEREAS, the variances comply with Section 23.506.1 of the Mound
Zoning Code in determining that hardship exists due to the shape
of the property; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does
recommend approval of both the waiver and the variance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
That the requirements of the Ordinance of the City of Mound,
Section 330:15, relating to the conveyance of parcels of land
' are hereby waived to permit conveyance in a manner generally
des'cribed as follows:
PARCEL A
All of L6ts 8 and 9, and that part of Lot 10, Block 4, Shirley
Hills Unit B, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin
County, Minnesota, lying northeasterly of the following
described line: Commencing at the southwesterly corner of said
Lot 10: thence northeasterly along the northwesterly line of
said Lot 10 a distance of 16.67 feet to the point of beginning
of the line to be described; thence southeasterly, deflecting
to the right from said northwesterly line, an angle of go
degrees, 07 minutes, 10 seconds for a distance of 56.00 feet;
thence southeasterly, deflecting to the right from the last
described line an angle of 12 degrees, 55 minutes, 20 second's
a distance of 50.35 feet more or less to the southeasterly
line of said Lot 10 and said line there terminating.
PARCEL B
All of Lots 11 and 12, and that part of Lot 10, Block 4,
Shirley Hills Unit B, according to the recorded plat thereof,
Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying southwesterly of the
following described line: Commencing at the southwesterly
corner of said Lot 10; thence northeasterly along the
northwesterly line of said Lot 10 a distance of 16.67 feet to
the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence
southeasterly, deflecting to the right from said northwesterly
line, an angle of 90 degrees, 07 minutes, 10 seconds for a
distance of 56.00 feet; thence southeasterly, deflecting to
the right from the last described line an angle of 12 degrees,
55 minutes, 20 seconds a distance of 50.35 feet more or less
to the southeasterly line of said Lot 10 and said line there
terminating.
Driveway access for Parcel A shall be from Avon Drive.
The applicant Shall pay one park dedication fee at the time
of building permit issuance for Parcel A.
All applicable unit charges shall be paid.
The City Engineer shall review and approve utility connections
for Parcel A.
The City does hereby recognize the existing nonconforming
principal structure rear setback at Avon Drive and Park Lane,
PID# 24-117-24 12 0018, with an approximate setback of 26 feet
and grants 10 foot setback variances from Park Lane and the
alley northwest of proposed Parcel A.
The City Council recognizes the existing structural setback
violation and grants the setback variances from the alley and
Park Lane pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) with the
clear and expressed understanding that the use remains as a
lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions
and restrictions of Section 23.404.
These variances are being granted for the following legally
described properties:
Parc. els A and.B as proposed on the developers certificate of
survey dated 7/15/88.
These variances shall be recorded with the county recorder or
registrar of titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota
State Statutes, Section 462.3595, Subdivision (4). This shall
be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility for filing
this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for
such recording. The building permit for Parcel A shall not
be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the
City Clerk.
Adopted this 28th day of November, 1988
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND
BY
Mayor
ATTEST:
City' Clerk
CITY of MOUND
5~41 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUN~. MJNNESOTA 55364
(612i 4,"2-1155
Mr. Joel Dokken contacted City Hall on November 18, 1988 by
telephone with the following request:
Mr. Dokken would like to change his ~ariance Request dated
10-13-88 to include Parcel 'A' to have 20' setbacks from
the side streets (Park Lane and the alley), which would be
a 10' variance from each side street.
The 4' variance request for Parce 'B' from the alley will
remain as originally requested.
,r~,,he 8dm:s$on Or ac:ess tc dr treatment Or emr..oyment ~n.!!s F.%~'ams 2no 3c~;, ~es
3030 Harbor Lane North
Bldg. II, Suite 104
Minneapolis, MN 55447-2175
612/553-1950
PLANNING REPORT
TO:
FROM:
Planning Commission and Staff
Mark Koegler, City Planner~[~
DATE,: October 4, 1988
SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
Joel Dokken
Ralph V. Reeves - Contract Holder
Donald A. Knobloch - Fee Owner
Avon Drive and Park Lane
CASE NUMBER: 88-728
VHS FILE NUMBER:
88-310-A18-ZO
EXISTING ZONING: R-1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Sin,gle Family Residential
BACKGROUND: This item was the subject of two previous staff
reports', on.e dated September 20,'1988 and the other dated September
27, 1988. Both of those previous reports are being replaced 'by
this planhing report.
On September 26, 1988, the Planning Commission reviewed this minor
subdivision 'request and tabled action until a potential alley
vacation 'could be analyzed by staff. At this time, the City
Engineer is looking into the potential of vacating the alley and
will prepare a .separate report for the Planning Commission on this
issue. The potential alley vacation was discussed in the context
of the review of Parcel A (developers certificate of survey dated
7/15/88). Par'ce.1A as proposed contains 10,000 square feet of area
but has limited building area due to public right-of-way on three
sides. Parcel A as originally proposed can contain a conforming
single family residence which meets minimum square footage
reQuirement~ for floor area (840 sQ. ft.). [×hibit 1, prepared by
staff, depicts the required setbacks. This configuration results
in a total building area of approximate.ly 1790 square feet.
If the alley that borders Parcels A and B can be vacated, one half'
of the land area will be attached to each 'of the parcels. More
importantly, the removal of the alley will make the existing
structure conforming (rear setback) and will significantly expand
the building area of Parcel A. Exhibit 2 shows the required
setbacks assuming that the alley is vacated. This configuration
results in a building area of approximately 4490 square feet which
can easily accommodate a new single family structure.
RECOMMENDATION: Since the status of the alley vacation is unknown
at this time, this report presents recommendations in two forms.
If the alley.vacation is denied, approval of the minor subdivision
is recommended since Parcel A meets a-ll of the requirements of the
Mound Zoning Code. This approval is subject to the following
conditions:
1. Driveway access for Parcel A shall be from Avon Drive.
2. The applicant shall pay one park dedication fee at the time of
building permit issuance for Parcel A.
3. All applicable unpaid unit charges shall be paid.
4'. A 4 foot rear yard setback variance shall be granted for the
existing house on Parcel B. The applicant shall immediately
complete a variance application an remit the appropriate fee.
5. The applicant is dividing the property with full knowledge of
the setback con'straints on Parcel A. Future setback variances for
Parcel A will not be recommended for approval.
6. The City Engineer shall review and approve utility connections
for Pancel A.
If the alley vacation is aPproved, approval of the minor
subdivisiQn is recommended subject to the following conditions:
D~iveway access for Parcel A shall be from Avon Drive.
2. The applicant shall pay one park dedication fee at the time of
building permit issuance for Parcel A.
3. All applicable unit charges shall be paid.
4. The City Engineer shall review and approve utility connections
for Parcel A.
'B
-1-
X
ill
I ' t
¢~'<~d? ~q~ ~, PPLICATION FOR SUB.DIVISION OF LAND
· . ~' ~, .. Sec. 22.03 ~
· ~ FEE I .~'"'~
FEE OWNER
Le~iti~ ~d templet, legll d~$cripti~ of p~erty ~e be divic~d:
Lo-t-5 <~,q, ~0, il, I~, BioaR
~ttachments, etc. must
be submitted In co .
I,ltech survey or scsi, dr~wi~gshewi~g~dj~cent sVee~, dim~sieeofpr~l
. A WAIVEI~ IN LOT SIZE IS RE.JESTED FOR:
New Lot No. : Fram ~;_'re feet TO Sq~m feet
T~is ipplictti~ must k silned by Ill ~e OWNERS of
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Subdivision approved subject to the conditions
set forth in the staff recommendation.
DATE 10-10-88
COUNCIL ACTION
Resolulio~ No.
DATE
APPROVAL OF THIS DIVISION IS DEPENDENT ON THE LEVYING OF ANY
DEFICIENT SPECIAL ASSES,.~IENTS BY WAIVER. THE FILING OF THE DIVISION
AS APPROVED AND THE NECESSARY PAYMENTOFTAXESBY THE FEE OWNER
WITHIN 1 YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE RESOLUTION OR IT BECOMES
NULL AND VOID. .
MAILED TO HARK KOEGLER 9-2-88. pj
~ li~""~ef rssid~m[, ,n~ ~w. sr, of--p~o, psrty witMh'"'"~O f,st-mu,t be ,tt~ched.
I~Ivls Ion I
-_ This application was submitted to recognize and
· .a variance for an existiciTY ~ HOUND nonconforming lot
APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COHHISSION
(Please type the following .information)
Street Address of Property
Legal Description of Property: Lot
Addi%ion -~-f~ i ~ L~
Owner's Name :D-ZPC~-- ~-
Address ~T~ ~. ~~;e/~ /~'
Applican: (if other than owner):
Fee Pa i d ~
Date Filed 1.
Day Phone No.
Name
Day Phone No.
Address
5. Type of Request:
/
(L/) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit
( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review
( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D.
( ) Amendment
( ) Sign Permit
( )*Other
*If' other, specify:
Present Zoning District
Existing Use(s) of ProPerty.
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? /L~O : If sb, llst 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 a11 of the above sta.tements and the statements contained in any required
papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. ! consent to the entry In
or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City
of Hound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such
notices as may be required by law.
.'Signature of A'pplicant ,(~~2 Date
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Date
Council Action:
Resolution No.
05'
4182
Locatlon of: Slgns, easements, undcrgr0und utilities, et~.
Indicate North compass direction
Any addltlonal Information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff.
and appllcable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
iii. Request for a Zonln~ Variance
All.lnformation below~ a site plan, as described In Part I], and general
application must'be provided before a hearlng~111 be scheduled.
Does the present use of the property'conform to all use regulations for
the zone district In ~hlch it is located? Yes (~' ~o ( )
If ~!no"", specify each ~on-conformi. ng use:
C, 1)o the exlstlng structures comply with'all area height.and bulk regulatlons
for the zone district In ~vhlch It Is.located? Yes (L/) No' ( )
.If ~no~, speclfy each non-conforming use:
D, .l~hlch unique physical characteristics of the subject property I~revent Its
reasonable use for any of the uses.permltted In that zoning district?
( ) .Too narrow ( . ) Topography ( ) Sol!
· ( J. Too. small ( ) Drainage. ( ) Sub-surface -
· ( Too shal!c~ ( )' Shape ( ) Other: SpeclJ;y.,
E, ~/as the hardship d~scrlbed above created by the action ot~ anyone having
property l.nterests In the land after. 'ch, Zoning Ordinance was adopted?
Yes ( ) No (~ If yes, expla!n,.
l~as the hardship created by any'other man-made change, such as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (t/x) 'If yes, explaln:
Are the conditions of hardship for ~vhlch you request a varl. ance pecullar
.only to the property described In this petition? Yes (t/~ No ( )
If no~ how many other properties are similarly affected?
FI. ~/hal; Is the 'mlnlmum~ modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations'
that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using
maps~ site plans ~Ith dimensions and v~ritten explanation. Attach additional
sheets, if necessary·). .
I. ~'111 granting of the variance'be materially detrimental to property In the
same zone~ or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
Planning Commission Meeting
October 10, 1988
4.a. Case No. 88-733: Alley between Avon DriVe and Avon Drive,
Joel Dokken, Shirley Hills Unit "B", Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
Block 4, PID #24-117-24-12-0018; VACATION (PUBLIC HEARING).
4.b.'Case No. 88-728: Avon Drive and Park Lane (5042 Avon
Drive); Joel Dokken; Shirley Hills Unit "B", Lots 8',. 9, 10,
11, 12, Block 4, PID ~24-117-24-12-0018; MINOR SUBDMSION:
'.CONTINUATION FROM SEPTEMBER 26, 1988 MEETING.
APplicant,. Joel Dokken, and a c~ncerned neighbor, Donna Smith
were present.
Recommendation by City Planner, Mark Koe=ler:
Mr. Dokken's request to vacate the subject alley has ·been
reviewed by the City Engineer, and due the property owner of lot
13 using· the alley for driveway access on the proposed Parcel B
side, he 'is recommending that the alley on the proposed Parcel A
side only be vacated (shown on Exhibit 2).
The' proposed Parcel A w6uld be 10,000 sq. ft. and Parcel B would
be 12,099 sq. ft. The existing structure on Parcel B 'is
presently nonconforming to the rear yard, it has a set back of
26' and should be 30', which would need the recognition of a 4'
variance if that alley .is not vacatedl It is the City Engineers
recommendation that that alley not be' vacated.
Staff referred to Exhibits I and 2 which shows the setbacks and'
proves the lot is buildable, it meets the minimum building code
requirements for a structure which is 840 sq. ft. If the alley
were to be vacated on Parcel A it would ~llow a larger house to
be built and be more conforming to the surrounding neighborhood.
There'is a home on lots 6 and 7 wh$ch has a nonconforming garage,
which would become conforming if the alley was vacated...
Chairma~ Reese opened public hearinq at 10:05 p.m.
Donna Smith of 2531 Avon Drive commented that she was a concerned
neighbor and..was attending to find the reason'for the vacation.
Ms. Smith said she originally wanted to buy the subject Parcel A
to keep it as a vacant lot and use as a neighborhood park area.
Ms. Smith ~as'shown Exhibits i and 2.
Joel Dokken had no comments.
Chairman Reese closed public heariDq at 10:11 p.m.
Planning Commission Meeting
October 10, 1988
MOTION made by Sm/th, seconded by Meyer to approve the vaca-
tion according to John Cameron,s recommendation. Motion
carried 7 in favor, 1 opposed (in .favor: Re·se, Thal,
Michael, Smith, Anderson, Sohns, and Jensen; opposed:
Meyer).
4.b. Case No. 88-728: MINOR SUBDIVISION.
Recommendation by City planner, Mark Koeqler:
staff recommends to approve the m~nor subdivision subject to the
following conditions:
1. Driveway access for Parcel A shall be from-Avon Drive.
The applicant shall pay one park dedication fee at the time
of b~ilding permit issued for Parcel A.
Ail applicable unit charges shall be paid.
City Engineer' is to review and approve utility connections
for. Parcel A.
A 4' rear yard setback variance shall be granted for the ex-
isting house on Parcel B. The applicant shall immediately
complete a variance application and remit the appropriate
fee.
The applicant is,to prepare and submit a new certificate of
survey subject to the vacation access approval by the City.
Council'·
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Anderson to approve the
staff recommendation. Motion.¢arrie~ 7 in favor, I opposed
(in favor: Re·se, Thal, Michael, Smith, Anderson, Sohns, and
Jensen; opposed: Meyer).
CaSe will be heard by the City Council October 25, 1988.
The Commission informed Ms. Smith that if the vacation is ap-
proved by ~he council her garage will become conforming.
10
/
DRIVE
· Denotes iron monument
BEARINGS eHOWN ARE A~UMED
GENERAL NOTE~
· Denotes Iron monument
x935.5 Denotes existing spot elevation
~ Denotel proposed spot elevation
)" Denotes sanitary sewer
,-- Denotes watermaln
~ Denotes oonlferous tre·
~ Denotes da¢iduoua tree
--oF-- Denotes overhead power Iinea
Solid contour linea denotea existing featuraa
~_RQ~'OSED PROPERTy DIVI$IONDKS~RIPT,,IONG:
All Of Lots 8 and 9 , and ~hat part. of Lo~ 10, Block 4, SHIRLEY HILL~
UNIT B, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County,
Minnesota, lying northeasterly of ~he following described line;
~om~enctng a% the southwesterly corz,er of said Lot 10; ~hence
,~or~heasterly along ~ho northwest,:rly line
,.,f 16.67 fee% ~o %he potn~ of beg~nning of %he l~ne to be described;
Lhence cou%hea~%erly, deflecting %o th~ right fro~ said nor~hwes~erl~
l t~e, au angle of 90 degrees
~,6.00 feet; thence ~ou%heas%erly, deflecting
[a~ described line an angle of 12 degrees 55 minu~es 20 ~econds a
distance of 50.35 feet more or less %o %he southeasterly l~ne of sa~d
~,~% 10 and ~ald l~ne ~here terminating.
All of'Lots 11 and 12, and 'Chat par% of Lo~ 10, Block 4, SHIRLEY HILLS
UNIT B,' according ~o the 'recorded plat ~hereof, Hennepl~ County,
Minnesota, lying sou~hwe~terly~ of the following described line;
(~ommencing aL the southwesterly corner of said Lot 10; thence
n,:r~heasterly along ~he northwesterly line of said Lot 10 a distance
~.,f 16.67 feet ~ the point of begi~nlag of ~he line ~o be described;
~.i~unc~ ~ouchea~urly, deflecting to ~he right from ~ald northwesterly
~Jl~e, hfl angle of 90 degrees 07 minuLes 10 seconds for a dl~ance of
h6.()0'l'eut; thence southeasterly, deflecting, to Lhe right from the
l.~L de~uribud t/ne an angle of 12 degree~ 5~ m~nu~es ~O seuonds a
d~utm~ce of 50.35 fee~ more or les~ to the southeasterly lt~e of ~aid
~o~ ~0 and said line ~hure ~ermlna%lng.
~.EAS:
PROPOSED PARCEL A - 10,000 square feet
PItOPO..qED P^Rt:EL B - 12,099 .~quar,~. fee%
III I
Proposed Resolution
Case No. 88-73'0
RESOLUTION 88-
RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FOR THE
'AFTER THE FACT' CONSTRUCTION OF A PARKING LOT WITHIN
THE FIVE FOOT SETBACK REQUIRED UNDER SECTION
23.716.1{4) OF THE MOUND ZONING CODE
FOR AN APARTMENT BUILDING LOCATED AT 2017 COMMERCE
BOULEVARD, PID~ 14-117-24-14-0038.
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a five foot variance to
recognize a zero {0) foot setback for the construction of a parking
lo~ located at 2017 Commerce Boulevard, PID~ 14-117-24-14-0038;
and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is required to observe a five (5)
foot setback for all bituminous parking areas from adjacent
properties; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant illegally constructed a bituminous parking
area With a zero (0) foot setback resulting in a five (5) foot
variance; and,
WHEREAS, this matter was reviewed in litigation before Judge David
M. Dully of the Fourth Judicial District Court of the State of
Minnesota after which Judge Dully stated, "With respect to the
Buysse case, this is the type of case which, I believe, should be
resolved short of a' jury trial with all its attendant expenses ".
and, ,,
WHEREAS., in accordance with the actions of the Court, the City of
Mound and..the applicant have reached a reasonable compromise that
permits .~he parking improvement to remain; and
WHEREAS, this case and the granting of the variance in no way
establishes, precedent for any future similar actions; and,
WHEREASj the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does
recommend approval of the variance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Hound, Minnesota, that the variance is hereby approved subject to
the following conditions:
The.applicant.shall erect a wooden bumper height barrier along
the northern 6dge of the bituminous paving within the limits
of Mr. Buysse's property. The barrier shall contain a minimum
post dimension of 6" by 6" and shall be designed to prohibit
the plowing of snow-onto the adjac~ent property. Plans for the
barrier shall be approved by the Building Official prior to
installation.
owner shall place signage along the north side of the
building restricting all parking to resident use only and
compact vehicles only.
The
If desired by the adjacent land owner to the north, Mr. Buysse
~ shall install a row of Pyramidal Arborvitae (Thuja
Occidentalis "Pyramidalis") along the bumper fence on the
adjacent land owners property. Minimum plant size at
installation shall be five (5) feet in height. If plantings
are desired by the neighbor, a planting plan shall be
submitted to the City Planner for review within 60 days of
City Council approval of the-variance and plant materials
shall be installed by June 1, 1988. All plant'materials shall
carry a one year full replacement and planting warranty.
Proof of warranty shall be filed with the City of Mound.
'4. ~ Striping of the parking area shall be expressly prohibited
with the exception of exclusionary striping in the drive aisle
area.
Adopted this 28th day of November, 1988.
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND
ATTEST:
'BY
Mayor
City Clerk
HEHORANDUH
TO: planning Commission and Staff
FROH: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: November 7, 1988
SUBJECT: Variance Request
At the Planning Commission on October 10, 1988, the Commission
tabled action on the Buysse variance request pending receipt of a
scaled plan which "will show parking lot layouts conforming to City
ordinances with the exception that stall size can be 9' x 18'"
Mr. Buysse has submitted a plan (Exhibit A) which shows t~e
existing striping pattern. The plan, however, does not represent
an 'acceptable design under normal site design standards.
Pertaining to the design of parking lots, the Zoning Code requires
that access drives not exceed 22 feet in width at the point of
intersection with streets. Additionally, the Code requires a stall
size of 10' x 20' which has been modified by the Planning
Commission in this case. Additional review criteria applied to
parking lots comes from normal site design standards from
organizations such as the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE).
Mr. Buysse's site plan shows a total of 10 parking stalls, three
at 90 degrees and 7 at approximately 60 degrees. Angle parking at
60 degrees.with 9 foot wide spaces requires a total minimum width
of 37 feet, 20 feet for parking stalls and 17 feet for the aiSle
driveway. All angle parking assumes one way driveway circulation
which is contrary to the "back out" exiting shown on the Buysse
plan~ According to the plan, only 28 feet of property exists from
the east wall of the apartment building to the property line.
Utilizing normal design standards, it is possible to install
parking with a total width of 28 feet. In order to do so, however,
parking must be installed at a 30 degree angle rather than the 60
degree parking shown on Exhibit A.
3030 Harbor Lane North Bldg.ll, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447-2175 612/553-1950
Exhibit B shows a parking layout which meets normal design
standards. The three 90 degree spaces on the north end are
conforming to the 9' x 18' revised space size and adequate
maneuvering room is shown to allow access to all three stalls.
Along the building, however, 30 degree angle stalls result in the
creation of only 2 parking spaces in lieu of the 7 shown on Mr.
Buysse's plan.
The previous information has identified that Mr. Buysse's plan does
not meet normal design criteria for parking lot design. If the
City determines that the application of normal standards should
prevail, the exiSting lot should be repainted to reflect a total
of 5 spaces (Exhibit B) instead of 10 spaces (Exhibit A).
RECEIVED'OCT 1. 8'i988 ,,2.o~,/.~
2009 Commerce
3 2
4
5
1
I
I
Exhibit B
(Prepared by Staff)
Scale: 1" - 16' N~:~
Property Line~k'
., , COPY TO MARK KOEGLER 9-20-8'8 ~se No. 88.-730
: ~"" SEJ0 I 6 I.c~8 ~. ' CITY OF MOUND Fee
' ' '~ ~ '~ %::'. APPLICATION TO PLANNING ~ ZONING COmmISSION
(Please type the follow~n9 ~nfor~tlon)
1. Street Address of Property ~C~ ~~ ~ / "- ,
2, Legal ~scrlptlon of Property: Lo~ flOf~ ~% ~.f. +~er~ · Block
~nnl leant' (if other th~n o~n~r) ~
Name ~' Day Phone .No.
Address ..
Type of Request:
(
If.0ther., specify:
Present Zoning District
Existing Use(s) of Property
~arlance (
Zoning Interpretation ~ Review
Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D.
) Conditional Use Permit
( ') Amendment
( ) Sign Permit
( )*Other
Has an appllcation ever been made for zoning, variance, or condltional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? ~~_. / If so, list date(s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken an~ R~ovide Resolution No.(s)
Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request.
I certify that all' of the above statements and th~ statements contained in any required
papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in
or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City
of Hound for the, purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such
notices as may be req~ired.b~law.
Signature of Applicant - / Date...
Plannlng Commission Recommendation: To h~ve no $±ripin~, ~×cep~ for the exclusionary striping
~long th~ no~th side of the p~rking Jot, ~nd ~pprov~ ~t~ff r~commend~tion including conditions.
Date 11-14-88
Council Action:
Resolution No.
Date
CITY of MOUND
October 1~, 1988
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
Mr. Frank Buysee
3534 Ivy Place
Wayzata, MN 55391
Dear Mr. Buysee:
The.purpose of my letter is to inform you of the action taken by
the City of Mound Planning Commission at their meeting held
October 10, 1988. Enclosed are the section of the minutes that
deal with your application for a variance and parking lot
setback. Please note that the final motion indicates that the
case has be~n tabled until you can provide a plan that will be a
scale drawing of the area and will shoW the parking lot design.
I..su.ggest that you contact Jan Bertrand, Building Inspector or
Mark-Koegler, City .- Planne~', as soon as possible. Mr. Koegler can
be reached at 553-1950. If you have any questions, please call
either Jan or Mark.
Sincerel',,
City Ma'n~ger,.
CC:
Ja.n Bertrand, Building Inspector
Mark Koegler, City Planner
ES:is
MINUTES OF THE
MOUND AOVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 1~, 198~
BOARD OF APPEALS ......
1. Case No. 88-730: 2009 and 2017 Commerce Boulevard? Frank
Buy%se; Mound Shores, that part of Lots llB, 114~ 115 !yfn~
south of north 178 Feet thereof, PID #14-117-24-14-0038[
VARI6NCE.~. pARKING LOT SETBACK,
Applicant, Frank Buysse was present.
Recommendation by City Planner, Mark Koeqler
This case was. tabled at the Planning Commission meeting on Oc-
tober 10, 1988, -until the applicant could submit a scaled drawing
of the area which will show parking lot layouts conforming to
City ordinances with the exception that stall size can be 9' x
18'.- Mr.' Bbysse submitted a-plan which shows the existing
striping pattern. The plan, howev~r,.does not represent an ac-
ceptable design under normal site design standards.
Considering the width oF the parking 1or, 28 Feet, parking must
be Installed at a 30 degree angle rather than the 60 degree park,
lng shown on Mr. Buysse's plan. The Planner presented a plan
whiCh meets normal design standards. The three 90 degree spaces
on the north end are conforming to the 9' x 18' revised space
size and adjacent maneuvering room is .shown to allow access to
all three stalls. Along the building, however, 30 degree angle
· stalls result In the creation of only 2 parking spaces tn lieu of
the 7 shown on Mr. Buysse's plan.
Mr. Buysse's plan does not meet normal design criteria For park-
ing lot design. IF the City determines that the application of
normal standards should prevail, the existing lot should be
repatnted to reflect a total of 5 spaces instead of i0 spaces.
Discussion=
Members of the Commission shared their experiences in attempting
to park 'In. the stalls as they'exist. It was determined that it
was difficult to maneuver in and out of the spots without driVing
on the neighbors property.
Mr. ~uysse stated to the Commission there have been no complaints
by neighbors or tenants, and there have not been any accidents.
Mr. BuysSe would like to keep as many stalls as possible, he is
willing to compromise and change the 'existing 7 stalls on the
south side to 5 stalls, but would not accept the suggested 2
stalls.
Mr. Buysse presented pictures which sh'owed cars parked within the
existing striping. Sohns commented that .the pictures did not
show three cars parked next to each other,'and he did not think
the' car' in the middle of the' three would be able to back out
without much difficulty.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 14, 1988
Chat.rman Reese suggested the striping be removed, from the parking
lot. The City Planner confirmed that striping is not required by
the City. .The Commission discussed limiting the number of cars
allowed to park in the lot, a number could not be agreed upon.
MOTION made by Thai, seconded by Michael to have no strip-
ing, except for the exclusionary striping along the north
Side of the parking lot, and approve staff recommendation as
follows:
1. The owner shall erect a wooden bumper height barrier
along the northern edge of the bituminous paving within
the limits of Hr, Buysse's property. The barrier shall
contain a minimum post dimension of 6" x 6" and plans
For the barrier shall be approved by the Butlding OFFI-
cial prior to installation.
Z. The o~ner shall place slgnage along or on the north
side of the building Indicating that spaces 4 through
· lO as shown on the applicants site plan are restricted
to compact vehicles only and shall be Further
restrl.cted to resident parking only.
If desired by the adjacent land owner'to the north, Hr.
Buysse shall .tnsta11 a row of Pyramidal Arborvitae
(ThuJa Occfdentsalfs "Pyramtdalls") along the bumper
Fence on the adjacent land owner's property. IF ap-
plicable, a planting plan shall be submitted to the
City Planner For review within 30 days of City Counctl
approval of.'the variance and plan the materials shall
be installed by June I, t989. All plant materfals
shal'1 carry a one year warranty and shall be replaced
by Hr. Buysse during the warranty period tf needed.
,Motion carried Five in favor (Reese, Thal, Michael:, Jensen,
Sohns), three opposed (Smith, Meyer, Andersen).
Case will appear before the City Council on Noven~er 29,
MINUTES OF THE
MoUND'ADVISORY PI2kNNIN~ OOI(I~T~SIONM~ETING
OCT0~K 10t 1~88
BOARD OF APPEALS
Case No. 88-730: 2009 and 2017 Commerce Boulevard, Frank
Buysse;'Mound Shores, that part of Lots 113, 114, 115 lying
south of north 178 feet. thereof, PID %14-117-24-14-0038;
VARIANCE; PARKING LOT SETBACK· '
Applicant, Frank Buysse was not present.
Recommendation by CSty Planner, Mark Koeq~er:
This case is in litigation, and the City Planner was informed by
the 'attorney,s office there are three steps; 1) an arraignment,
2) pbetrial conference, and 3) the actual trial. This particular
item got to the second stage of a'pretrial conference. There was
an intent by Mr. Buysse to plead guilty, and the judge has taken
this under advisement, which means there has not been action on
this case. If the City grants a variance it will be the end of
the case, if the City does not grant the variance, the attorney's
office feels the judge will reject the guilty plea and make it go
to trial. Mr. Buysse has until November 15th to get the variance
approved.
Mr. Buysse has submitted a plan showing 10 parking spaces, each
space is the size of a compact parking space. The proposed
spaces do not meet the City of Mound parking standards. There
was a recommendation to approve the variance in January 1988
based upon the premise that parking was lost as a result of' the
.improvements that took place on Commerce. Mr. Buysse was paid
$22,000 in damages by the County at that time for the taking. We
can not prove if parking was lost aue to the Commerce expansion.
The Staff Recommendation is for approval of the variance subject
to the following three conditions:
1. The .owner shall erect a wooden bumper height barrier along
the northern edge of the bituminous paving within the limits of'
Mr. Buysse's property. The barrier shall contain a minimum post
dimension of 6" by 6" and plans for the barrier shall be approved
by.the Building Official prior to installation.
2. ·The owner shall place signage along or on the north side of
the building indicating that spaces 4 through 10 as shown on the
applicants site plan are restricted to compact vehicles only and
shall be further restricted to resident parking only.
3. If desired by the adjacent land owner to the north, Mr.
Buysse shall install a row of Pyramidal Arborvitae (Thuja Oc-
cidentsalis "Pyramidalis") along the bumper fence on the adjacent
land owner's property. If applicable, a planting plan shall be
Planning-Commission Meeting
October 10, 1988
submitted to the City Planner for review within 30 days of City
Council a~proval of the variance and plan the materials shall be
installed by June 1, 1989. All plant materials shall carry a one
year warranty and shall be replaced by Mr. Buysse during the war-
ranty period if needed.
Discussion:
It was determined the legal definition for "compact car" is
unknown.
Chairman Reese reviewed some concerns the neighbors-had in
January 1988 of snow causing consequential run-off/flooding,
noise, and car fumes. The City Planner did not have an answer
for the. noise and fumes, however the bumper barrier would
preclude snow being pushed off of'Mr. Buysse's property, the snow
will have to be trucked out if it is extensive.'
R~stricting the amount of parking spaces allowed due to the ele-
ment of safety, and the size of the spaces was discussed. The
option to table the case until Mr. Buysse submits a more ap-
propriate drawing, or to make a decision for him since he did not
appear was considered. The number of spaces allowed can be
determined with architectural standards.
'MOTION made by Anderson, seconded by Sohns to approve the 5'
variance subject to compliance with Staff Recommendation
items I and 3, and subject to striping being in conformance
with architectural standards.
Discussion:
concern was expressed that if under-sized parking is going tO be
accepted, it should be stated in the motion. The compact parking
space size allowed in St. Louis Park is 8' x 15', and can be 30%
of .gross parking area which is what Mr. 'Buysse's plan follows.
Allowing parking sp~ces to be 9' x 18' was considered.
Anderson and Sohns moved to WITHDRAW their previous motion.
,' MOTION made by Anderson, seconded by. Sohns to table the case
until such time that the applicant prepares a plan and
brings it back for further review, the plan will be a scale
drawing'of the area which will show parking lot layouts con-
forming, to City ordinances with the exception that stall
size can be 9' x 18'. Motion carried unanlmousl¥.
MOl
SHORES
°°%
............
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
Case No. 88-736
RESOLUTION NO. 88-
RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE
TO ALLOW STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS FOR LOT ?, BLOCK 6,
SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT "B"; P.I.D. NO. 24-117-24-12 0041
(2539 EMERALD DRIVE) P & Z CASE NO. 88-736
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to recog-
nize exlsttng nonconforming setbacks of Z4.2 feet to Emerald
Drive and 21.9 feet to the unimproved 10' alley way for the prin-
cipal Duildlng, a 4.3' setback for the accessory building and an
under sized lot of 6,500 square feet +/- to allow structural
repairs to a nonconforming 600 square foot dwelling on Lot
BIfck 6, Shirley Hills Unit "B"; P.I.D. No. Z4-]IT-Z4-1Z 004];
and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located in an R-I Single
Family Zoning district, whtch according to the City Code requires
a 30' front yard abutting the street 'front, and a 20' street
front setback for the accessory building, and a lO,O00 square
foot 1'or size, and a minimum 840 square foot dwelltng floor area,
and
WHEREAS, Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) provides that al-
terations may be made to a building containing a lawful noncon-
forming residential unit when the alteration will improve the
Iivablltty thereof, but the alteration may not Increase the num-
ber of units, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request'
and does recommend approval with modifications to the applica-
tion.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council, the City
of Mound, as follows:
That the City does hereby authorize the existing non-
conforming principal structure setback to the street
frontage at 2539 Emerald Drive, P.I.D. No. 24-117-24-I2
004l with a 24.2' and a 21.9' setback to the street
fronts for the principal building, a 4.3' setback to
the street front for the accessory building, and a 600
square foot dwelling size.
e
The City ~ounctl authorizes the' existing structural
setback and lot area violation and authorizes the addl-
tion setforth below pursuant to Section 23.404, Sub
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
Case No. 88-736
division (Bi with the clear and express understanding
that the use remains as a lawful nonconforming use sub-
Ject to ali of the provisions and restrictions of 5ec-
tlon Z3.404.
It is determined that the livabtlity of the residential
unit will be Improved by authorizing the following al-
terations to a nonconforming use property to afford the
owner reasonable use of the parcel: to raise the house
approximately 24" above the present basement top of
block, install new roof ~russes, and remodel the inte-
rior of the structure to be brought up to the minimum
current building code standards. Upon the conditions
as Follows:
be
No building permit will be issued unttl the ap-
plicant submits proof of ownership for Lots 7 and
6, Block 6, Shirley Hills Unit "B" to bring the
lot area to 11,600 square feet +/-, ~LJJi;~'~,~tL~.~
The nonconforming accessory building will be
removed or relocated with conforming setbacks to
the property lines.
The applicant may continue to add onto the struc-
ture with a future addition upon the condition
that the addition meet all current zoning or-
dinance requirements within one year of this
variance approval.
d. This var, lance is granted For the Following legally
described property: Lot 6 and ?, Block 6, Shirley
Hills Unit "B"; P.I.D. No. 24-II?-Z4-IZ 004I.
This vartance shall be recorded with the County Re-
corder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County
pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes, Section 462.3595,
Subdivision (4).
This shall be considered a restriction on how this
property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility for
ffl, tng this resolution with Hennepln County and paying
all costs for such recording. The building structure
shall not be occupied until proof of recording has been
Filed with the City Clerk.
2
CITY of MOUN'D
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
Case No. 88-736
TO: Applicant and Staff
FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Officja~,/~iz~
DATE: Planning Commission Agenda of November 14, 1988
CA~E NO.: 88-736
APPLICANT: Donald R. Bonnicksen
LOCATION: 2539 Emerald Drive
LEGAL.DESCRIPTION:
Lot 7, Block 6, Shirley Hills Unit "B";
PID No. 24-117-24-12 0041
SUBJECT: Front Yard Setback Variances
EXISTING ZONING: R-I Single Family Residential
PROPOSAL: You are familiar with the request of Donald Bonnicksen
who is applying for a front yard setback variance to allow struC-
tural repairs to a nonconforming 600 square foot dwelling on an
undersized 6,500 square foot +/- lot with a nonconforming front
yard setback for the accessory building off of Ruby Lane.
COMMENTS: The R-I zoning district requires a 30 foot front yard
setback to the street right-of-way. Lot 7 fronts on Emerald
Drive and Ruby Lane, which are improved right-of-ways, and an
unimproved lane 10 feet wide to the southwest. A front yard set-
back is. required by zoning code on the three setback areas.
However, an accessory building may be set 8 feet from the
property line with the doors Facing the side property line, or 20
Feet From the right-of-way with the doors facing Ruby Lane. The
appl. icant is requesting a 8.1' variance From the unimproved lane
access to the southwest and a 5.8' variance to Emerald Drive.
The long term plans of the applicant are the acquisition of lot 6
From the Hennepin County Tax Forfeit Division which would have a
conforming 11,600 +/- square Foot parcel. He has plans drawn to
add on a 24' x 38' split level addition with conforming setbacks
to the lot lines. However, at this time with his current
request, he would like to raise the existing house 24" on the
An equal opportumty EmDIoyer that does not diSCr~mmr ~' on tr]e basis of race Co!or national ongm or
iqand~capped status,n theadmls%c~n or access to or treatment or employment m ~ts programs and activities
CASE NO. 88-736
present basement, install new roof truss rafters and remodel the
interior oF the structure· The setback of the structure from the
curb oF Emerald Drive is approximately 35 Feet to the curb line
as the right-of-way has not been paved the Full width.
RECOMMENDATION: The present condition of the structure and the
remodeling being requested should be considered on this variance
request· The current valuation of the building appraised for the
1988 taxes is $31,400 for the building. With the remodeling
being considered, and the future'addition and combination of
lots, the value of the building will be greatly increased and the
tax parcel. At this time, the applicant is not requesting bring-
ing this structure to minimum square footage of the zoning code.
However, he has stated that his intent is to make' the parcel con-
forming by the purchase of lot 6. When granting a variance, the
criteria listed in Section 23.506.1 should be reviewed by the
Planning Commission. If the variance is determined to be the
minimum variance which would alleviate a hardship to the property
owner, the following would be conditions for variance approval:
NO building permit would be issued until the applicant would
submit proof of ownership for lot ? and lot 6, block 6,
Shirley Hills Unit "B".
The entire structure would be brought to minimum current
building code standards.
The nonconforming accessory building would be removed or
relocated with co~forming setbacks to the property lines.
The appl'icant may continue to add onto the structure with a
Future addition upon the'condition that the addition meet
all current zoning ordinance requirements.
The abutting neighbors have been notified.
Assessment records and plat map enclosed.
CITY OF MOUND
APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
(Pleas. e type the following information)
2. Legal Description of Property: Lot 7
Addition ~..~'~/cf ~l~l,%' i/f,~i~ '~Z)'
3. ~ner's Name ~ ~ _~;c~o~
Address ~~~~~ ~
Street Address of PrOperty
Date Filed /~/Z~//~'/
Block~
Day Phone No. ,,S~-~_~V ~;~. ?f~fCF' ....
A. Appllcant' (if other than owner):
Name Day Phone No.
Address
Type of Request: ~ Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit (. ') Amendment
( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Sign Permit
( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( )*Other
*If other.'., Specify: ..
.
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permi~ or
o~her zoning procedure for this proper~y? ~0 If so, lis~ date(s) of
'llst da~e(s) of application, action ~aken an~ provide Eesolu=ion
Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request.
I certify that all of the above statements and th& statements contained in a.qy required
papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. ! consent to the entry in
or upon the pr~mises described in this applicatlon by any authorized official of the City
of Mound for [he purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such
notices as may be 'required by law.
-
Planning Commission R~commendat~on: To approve ~he 8.1' variance from the unimproved Ruby Lane
access ±o ~he southwest, and a 5.8' variance to Emerald Drive, per the s±aff recommenda±ion.
Date 1 1-14-c
Counci 1 Action:
Resolut. ion No.
Request for Zon!.ng Varlance Procedure.
D.
E.
F.
Case
Location of:' Signs, easementst underground utllltie$) et~,
Indicate North compass direction
Any addltlonal Information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff.
and appllcable Sections .of the Zoning Ordinance.
! I1'. ,Request for a
.A.
Zonln~ Variance
A11.lnformation below, a slte plan, as described In Part II, and general
appllcatlon must'be provided before a hearing will be scheduled.
Does the present use of the property'conform to all use reg~lations for
the zone district In which It Is located? Yes ( ) No (~).
If I!no", specify each n~n-conforml.ng use:
C. Do the exlstlng structures comply with'all area height and bulk regulations
for the zone district In which It Is.located? Yes ( ) No' (/)
If "no' specify each non-conforming use:
,
D, .Which unique physical characterlstlcs of the sub~ect property ~revent Its
reasonable use for any of the uses.permitted In that zoning dlstrlct?
(~.~ .Too narro~ (.) Topography ( ) Soil
( Too. sma1] ( ) Drainage. ( ) Sub-surface
( ). Too shallo~ ' ( ).'Shape ( ) Other: Specify:
E. Was the hardship d~scrlbed above created by the action o~ anyone having
property Ipterests In the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted?
Yes ( ) No (~--') If yes, explaln:
Fe
Was the hardship created by'any'other man-made change, such as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (~-'-) 'If yes, explain:
G. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar
.only to the property described In this pe:Itlon? Yes ( ) No ( )
If no, ho, many other properties are similarly affected?
~al; Is the "minimum" modlflcatlon (variance) from the area-bulk regulations
~that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using
maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional
sheets, If necessary.)
!. Will granting of the variance be m~terlally detrimental to property In the
same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
Certificate of Survey
.flor Bonnicksen Builders
of Lots 6"and.7, Block 6, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT
:. ~Hennepin County, Minnesota
I hereby certify that this is a true
the boundaries of Lots 6 and 7, Block 6, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT B, and the location
of any existing buiidin§s thereon. It does not purport to show any other improve<,
ments or encroachments.
and correct
Scale : l" = 30'
Date : 6-20-88
o : Iron marker
~ib'COFFIN & GRONBERG,~',~NC. ~
'Mark'S. Gronberg Lic. No. 12755
Engineers, Land Surveyors and Planners
Long Lake, Minnesota
I.I.,ow
I
I
Planning Commission Meeting
NovemDer 14, 1988
Case No. 88-736: 2539 Emerald Drive, Donald R. Bonnicksen;
Shirley Hills Unit "B"~ Lot 7~ Block 6~ PID #24-i17-24-i2.
0041: VARIANCE: FRONT YARD SETBACK.
Owner, Donald Bonnicksen was present.
Recommendation by Building Official, Jan Bertrand:
This case was tabled at the Planning Commission Workshop of Oc-
tober 24th so the Commission would have proper time to review the
case. The applicant is requesting a 8.1' variance from the
unimproved Ruby Lane access to the southwest, and a 5.8' variance
to Emerald Drive. Approval would allow structural repairs to a
non.conforming 600 square foot dwelling on an undersized 6,500
square foot +/- lot, with a noncOnforming front Yard setback for
the accessory building off of Ruby Lane. The long term plans of
the. applicant are the acquisition of lot 6 which would make the
parcel conforming, and to add on a 24' x 38' split level addition
with conforming setbacks to the lot lines·
At. this time, the applicant is not requesting bringing this
structure to minimum square footage of the zoning code· However,
he has stated that his intent is to make the parcel conforming by
.the purchase of lot 6. When granting a variance, the criteria
listed in Section 23.506.1 should be reviewed by the Planning
Commission· If the variance is detePmined to be the minimum
variance which would alleviate a hardship to the property owner,
the following would be conditions for variance approval:
No building permit,,would be issued until the applicant would
submit proof of ownership for lot ? and lot 6, block 6,
Shirley Hills Unit "B".
The entire structure would be brought to minimum current
buit'ding code standards·
The nonconforming accessory building would be removed or
relocated with conforming setbacks to the property lines.
The applicant may continue to add onto the structure with a
Future addition upon the condition that the addition meet
all current zoning ordinance requirements.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 14, 1988
Discussion:
Mr. Bonnfcksen informed the Commission there will be no problem
with purchasing lot 6, he is waiting to see the decision of the
City Council. The Building inspector added that the building
permit will not be issued until he has a signed purchase agree-
ment.. Mr. Bonnfcksen informed the Commission he has read the
conditions on the Building Inspector's recommendation and has no
problems with them, in fact he is. planning on removing the old
garage, but would like to keep it ~or storage purposes until the
new garage is built.
MrS' Matachek, an abutting neighbor, was present and wanted to
recommend to Mr. Bonnicksen to Face his garage to Emerald Drive.
Mr. Bonnicksen's plans presently 'have the garage Facing Emerald
DPive.
MOTION made by Sohns, seconded by Meyer, to approve the 8.1'
variance From the unimproved Ruby Lane access to the south-
west, and a 5.8' variance to Emerald Drive, with the follow-
ing conditions:
1. .No building permit would be Issued until the applicant would
submit proof oE ownership for lOt 7 and lot 6, block 6,
Shirley Hills Unit "B".-
The entire structure would be brought to minimum current
buildlng code standards.
The nonconforming accessory building would be removed or
relocated'with conforming setbacks to the property lines.
The applicant may continue to add onto the structure with a
Future addition upon the condition that the addition meet
all current zoning ordinance requirements.
Motion carried unanimously.
Case wil.l 'appear before the City Council on November zg,
I988o
Planning Commission Workshop
October 24, [988
BOARD OF APPEALS:
Case No. 88-736: 2539 Emerald Drive, Donald R. Bonntcksen,
Shirley Hills Unit B, Block 6, Lot 7, PID #24-tt7-24-[2
004[; VARIANCE.
Building OFFicial, Jan Bertrand reported that this application
was received today (October 24, 1988), however the applicant
would' like the Commission to review the case and make a decision
if possible. The Building OFFicial informed the Commission that
Mr. Bonnicksen presently owns only flot 7, but plans on purchasing
lot 6 if the Commission will grant the requested variances.
Mr." Bonnicksen's plans are to raise the house 24" up From the
present basement, install new roof trusses, and remodel the
house. Following are existing problems:
l)
House is undersized, presently 20' x 30' =. 600 square feet,
the required minimum floor area is 840 square feet.
2)
Eot 7 is undersized FOr R-I zoning district, approximately
6,350 square Feet.
Existing garage is non-conforming, presently 4.3' from Ruby
Lane. ..
4) House needs a 5.8' and 8.]' variance in the front yards,
presently the. structure is 24.2' from Emerald Drive and
21.9' from the unimproved alley.
Mr. Bonnicksen plans on purchasing lot 6 increasing the lot size
to approximately 11,600 square. Feet which would create a conform-
ing lot, amd enlarge the house to approximately 2,200 square feet
which would make the house size conforming·
Discussion:
Mr. Bon6tcksen was addressed bY the Commission. Mr. Bonnicksen
explained he has already gutted the house, is presently homeless,
and would like to start work as Soon as possible. The Building
Inspector inf. ormed the Commission that Mr. Bonnicksen did not
have a builOing permit to gut the house.
Hr. Bonnicksen presented building plans to the Commission, and
the quality of the existing structure was discussed. The Commis-
sion agreed it would be an improvement to the area.
Planning Commission Workshop
October 24, i988
Mr. Bonnfcksen stated he has to pay $6,000 in cash for lot 6 and
wanted to be sure the Commission would approve the variances
before he purchased the lot. The Commission expressed to Hr.
Bonnicksen they would like to see a signed purchase agreement
contingent upon the Planning Commission and City Council approval
of the variances. The Commission discussed placing a contingency
in the motion for Mr. Bonnicksen to purchase and comDine lot 6.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Thal to grant the house
size variance, and the 5.8' and B.]' setback variances con-
tingent upon Mr. Bonnfcksen bQying lot G, combining lots G
and 7, and removing the existing garage.
Discussion=
It was determined that the motion .cannot include a time limit for
the house to be expanded to a conforming size.
Mr. Bonnicksen expressed he would like to keep the garage for
storage until the house is completed. The Commission informed
him they do not have control for building a conforming size
house, so removtng the garage could ensure this.
MOTION made by Sohns, seconded by Netland to table the case
until the nex~ meeting so the Planntng Commission can review
with proper notification and information. Motion carried
unanimously.
DISCUSSION INFORMATIONAl_
l. Shoreland Management Ordinance
City Plapner, Mark Koegler presented a copy of a state approved
Shoreland Management Regulations for the City of Prior Lake, and
recommended the Commission use this as a vehicle to continue our
investigation Into an appropriate.ordinance for the City of
Mound.
The City Planner proceeded to rev'{ew the Prior Lake Ordinance and
pointed out some areas where Mound's ordinance and this one would
be similar, such as on page'9, (Bi SUBSTANDARD LOTS and pages 2Z
& Z3, iA) ZONING PROV[SIONS.
It was decided the Planning Commission w0uld work as a whole
group on this Ordinance, and should work off of the Prior Lake
draft.
3
UNIT
D
PARt
T ~
EMEf
~196
N K A
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
Case No. 88-737
RESOLUTION NO. 88-
RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURE TO ALLOW STRUCTURAL MODIFICATIONS FOR
LOT 2, BLOCK 12, 5HADYWOOD POINT; P.I.D. NO. 18-117-23-23 0061
(1871 SHOREWOOD LANE); P & Z CASE NO. 88-737
WHEREAS, the applicant is proposing to construct a 26' x 30'
addition to the southeast portion of his existing dwelling for
Lot 2, Block 12, Shadywood Point; P.I.D. No. 18-117-23-23 0061;
and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-I
Single Family zoning district, which according to the City Code
requires a 50' setback to lakeshore ordinary high water eleva-
tion, 10' side yard setback, and a 30' front yard setback, acces-
sory building setback of 20' to th~ front property line and 4' to
the side property line,
WHEREAS, Section 23.404, SubdivisiOn (8) provides that al-
terations may be made to a building containing a lawful noncon-
forming residential unit when the alteration will improve the
livability thereof, but the alteration may not increase the num-
ber of units,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request
and does recommend approval of the application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council, of the
City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
That the City does hereby authorize the existing non£
conforming principal structure setback and accessory
building setback at I871Shorewood Lane; P.I.D. No. 18-
ll7-23-23 0061 with a 3.3' side yard setback of the
principal building and a 6.1' Front yard setback to the
accessory building.
The 'City Council authorizes the existing structural
setback violation and .authorizes the alteration set
forth below, pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision
(8) .with a clear and express understanding that the use
remains as ~ lawful, nonconforming use subject to all
of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
Case No. 88-737
It is determined that the livabil ity of the residential
unit will be aPProved by authorizing the Following al-
terations to a nonconforming use property to afford the
owner reasonable use of the parcel:
The addition of a 26' x 30' to the southeast por-
tion of the existing dwelling will be ap-
proximately 14' to the side property line, at or
above the minimum Flood plain elevation of 933.5
n.g.v.d., and exceed the 50' minimum lakeshore
setback above 929.5 N.G.V.D.
Upon the Further Following condition that the ex-
isting survey be updated prior to'building permit
issuance to indicate the proposed addition and
setbacks to the lot lines after a portion of the
street was vacated as well as assurance no
drainage problems have been in existence at the
northwest property line along the 3.3' existtng
principal structure setback.
This variance is granted For the Following legal ly
described property:
Lot 2, Block I2, Shadywood Point
P.I.D. No. 18-117-23-23 0061
This variance, shall be recorded with the County Re-
corder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County
pursuant to M'innesota State Statute, Section 462.3595,
Subdivision (4).
ThiS shall be considered a restriction on how this
property may be used·
The property owner shall have the responsibility of
Fi. ling this resolution with Hennepin County and paying
all costs For such recording.
The building permit will not be issued until proof
recording has been Filed with the City Clerk.
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
CASE NO. 88-737
TO: ApDI icant and Staff
FROM: Jan Bertrand, Bu.i iding OFFiet
DATE: Plannlnc~ Commission Agenda of ~[ovember
14, 1988
CASE NO.: 88-737
APPLICANT: Bradley Thomas Blazevic
LOCATION: 1871Shorewood Lane
LEGAL.DESCRIPTION: Lot 2, Block 12, Shadywood Pofntt
PID No. 18-117-23-23 0061
SUBJECT: Side Yard Setback Variance
EXISTING ZONING: R-I Single Family Res'tdentfal
PROPOSAL: The applicant ts proposing to construct a 26' x 30'
addition to the southeast portion of his existing dwelling.
addition would be approximately 14 Feet to the southeast property
line.
COMMENTS: The R-I zoning district with a 60' lot width requires
a 6' and a 10' side yard setback. The existing Owelltng, From a
survey dated September 11, 1970 indicates a 3.3' side yard on the
northwest portion of the existing buil cFin~he survey also in-
dicates a nonconforming setback to a detached accessory building
on the northeast portion of the lot. However, a por. tton of
Shorewood Lane was vacated some years ago, and the survey showing
a 1, 1' setback to the lot line in inaccurate at this ~ime. The
right-of-way width has been reduced to 50 feet. This would give
the accessory' building another 5 feet (approximately) to the lot
line. The required setback for iakeshore lots is 20' to the
front property line for accessory buildings facing the right-of-
way.
An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicapped status
in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities.
CASE NO. 88-737
RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends approval of the variance to
recognize existing 3.3' side--~a~Da'cR and the nonconforming
6' +/- setback of the existing accessory building conditioned
upon the addition construction being at or above a minimum Flood
plain elevation with conforming side yard setbacks of lO' or
more, and a conforming lakeshore setback from the ordinary high-
water elevation of 50' or greater. The proximity of the 3.3' ex-
isting setback shall not create any drainage problems from his
property onto adjoining property.
The applicant shall submit a curr~nt survey to the inspection
department at time of building permit issuance.
The abutting neighbors have been notified.
Copy of plat map enclosed.
". CITY OF MOUND
APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
(Please type the following' information)
Street Address of Property
Fee Pa id .~--~
D~te Fi led/0-~J~-~P
2. Legal Description of Property: Lot
Addition
3. Owner's Name
Address / ~ 9
Block
Day Phone
$4. Applicant (if other than owner):
Name , Day Phone No.
Address
Type of Request:
e
()4') Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Amendment
( ) Zoning Interpretatio~ & Review ( ) Sign Permit
(') Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( ~*Other
~resent zoning District'~ l
Existing Use(s) of Property
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or
other'zonin9 procedure for this Property? Np~+~3mv ~k/l,,~zlf so, list date(s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resdlution 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 applicatlon by any authorized official of the City
of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such
Signature of AppT{cant ~~ Date/O~~
Planning Commission Recommendation: To approve variance ?o recognize an exisfing 3,3' side yard
setback and .~he nonconfdrming 6~ (~) se?back of ~.he existing accessory building per s~aff
recommendafion, Ho?ion carried unanimously,
Date 11-14-88
Council Action:
Resolution No,
Date
Request for Zo'ni.ng Variance Procedure
(2)
D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
£. Ind|cate North compass direction
F.
Any addltlonal information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
III..Request for a Zoning Variance
A. All information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general
application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled.
B. Does the present use of. the property'conform to eJl use req.ulations for
the zone district in which it is located? Yes (~ No(~ ..
If "no", specify each non-conforming use:
Tk¢ ~o~ )s 3:~"-~o n~:~r (°4- ¼~v,¥ 6~.. d~/~ ~.~ ?~,%~
C. Do the existing structures' comply ~ith al1 area.height ~nd bulk regulations
for the zone district in which it ~s.located? ~s (~) No ( )
If "no", specify each non-conforming use;
D. Which unique physical characterlstl-cs of the subject property prevent its
~-~reasonable use for any of' the uSes permitted in that zoning district?
(~) .Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil
. Too small ( ) Drainage . ( ) Sub-surface
( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify:
E. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having
property interest~)n the land after the .Zoning Ordinance was adopted?
Yes (~) . No ~d..) !~ yes, explain:.A
F. Was the hardship created by any'other man-made change, such as the reloca-
'tlon of a road? Yes ( ) No (~ If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance pecullar
only ~o the property described in this petition? Yes' ~"~' No ( )
If no, how many other properties are similarly affected?
:' '~b..What 'is the "minimum" modiflc;tlon (variance) from the area-bulk regulations
that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using
maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanatlon. Attach additlonal
sheets, if 'necessary. ) (' ~Tc°~- a ~C~.~-C(-3}
I. ~i11 9ranting of the variance be materia11Y detrimental to property in the
same zone~ or to the enforcement of this ordinance~
I~h~, 13zWr, WA¥ ~
Planning' Commission Meeting
November 14, 1988
Case No. 88-737: 1871Shorewood Lane, Bradley T. Blazev~c~
ShaO~/wood Point) Lot 2. Block 12, rID #18-117-23-23 006l;
VARIANCE:.SIDE YARD SETBACK. -
Owner, Bradley Blazevic was present.
Recommendation by the Buildinq OFflcial~ Jan Bertrand:
The a~pltcant is proposing 'to construct a 26' x 30' audition to
the southeast portion of his existing Owelling. The addition
would be approximately 14' to the southeast property line.
The staff recommends aD,royal of the variance to recognize an ex-
isting 3.3' side yard setback and the nonconforming 6' +/- set-
back'of the existing accessory building conditioned upon the ad-
dition construction being at or abpve minimum Flood plain eleva-
tion with conforming side yard set~acks of 10' or more, and a
conforming lakeshore setback from the ordinary high water eleva-
tion of 50' or greater. The proximity of the 3.3' existing set-
back shall not create any drainage problems from his property
onto any adjoining property.
The applicant shall submit a current survey to the inspection
Oepartment at time of building permit issuance.
Discussion: The house as. it sits is 6/10 of I' From the Flood
plain elevation.
· The applicant, Mr. Blazevic was present and stated he had no
.problems with the staff recommendation.
MOTION made by Smith, Seconded bY Andersen, to approve the
variance to recognize an existing 3.3' side yard setback and
the nonconforming 6' +/- setback o~ the existing accessory
building with the.'Following conditions:
The` addition construction be at or above minimum 61oc~i
iplain elevation.
Conforming side yard setbacks of 10' or more, and a
conforming 1ak,shore setback From the ordinary high
water elevation of 50' or greater.
The proximity of the 3.3' existing setback shall not
create any drainage problems ~rom his property onto any
adjoining property.
The applicant shall submit a current survey to the in-
spection department at time of building permit is-
suance.
Motion carried unanimously. Case will be heard before the
City Council on November 29, 1988.
$
MINUTES OF THE
HOUND ADVISORY PARK COHMISSION HEETING
November lO, IDB
Mtehael Blunt~ 4771 Island Vle~ Ortve~ extst:tn,q pla~Fom
Devon Cc~,~.~ $
Park Director, Jim Fackler tnFormeQ the Commission that Dell
Rudolmh dlscovere~ the platform Outing his fall Oock inspections.
Mr. Blunt ~t~ acquIre a maintenance pePmit to construct the ex-
Isting retaining wail an~ riprapptng, however the platform was
not tncluded on the application. The 22' x 6' Platform does not
comply with City orOinances, It is too wi~e. The Dock Inspector
stated a 4' wt~e walkway could be acceptable.
It was determined the ~eck ts not needed, however the stairs are
needed due to the rtprapptng. The Commission agreed since
Devon Commons is Traversible Type B, it should be kept open. The
deck structure makes the area inaccessible and gives the ap-
pearance of private property whloh would discourage people to
walk across the deck.
M~. Michael Blunt spoke on his..behalf and stated he has spent
$1,500 on rtprap alone, and he cleaned out poison Ivy, poison
oak, and brush, and built the deck which made the area usable.
M~, Blunt believes he saved the City money for work they would
have done tn the near future anyway. Mr. Blunt feels the deck
makes It easier for people to walk from one end of the commons to
the other. Mr. Blunt also stated there was a rotten deck there
before which he only replaced.
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Clough that the deck
structure that
en~_c~~ on the publlc lands be removed.
Motion carried fouTln favor (Panetta, Anderson, Jessen,
Clough), one opposed (Byrnes).
Case will appear before the City Council on November 29,
1988.
Mr. Blunt questioned I'f he could be reimbursed for the improve-
ments he has done to the commons abuttlng his property. The Park
Director J.nformed Mr. Blunt the City does not reimburse property
owners for maintenance or Improvements (such as riprap) Gone on
commons,-
Park Commission Meeting
November ]0, ]988
'3. ~ 4781 sland Vle~ Drive: exlstln la form
The Park Director reported that the City plans on repair!nJ the
subject area with El il and recommends not to remove the plat:form
until next June when the repairs are completed.
Mr. Miller showed the Commission a letter he recelvecl ~=rom the
prev!ous C!ty Manager, John £1am which' acknowleclgecl a deck was
constructed on City property without a building or maintenance
permlt, and askecl that he submit a maintenance permit application
fo~' the deck. The letter also inEormed Mr, Miller that even It=
the deck ts approved, that anyone that wishes can use It since It
is..!ocated on pu. bilc property.
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Clough that the platt~ornq
whlch encroaches on publ lc lands be removed by the tlma City
does maintenance work on that property In June 1989. Motion
cart led unanimously.
Case will appear bet~ore the City Council on Noveff~a~r 29,
t988,
~"~ miller
q~l
Park Con~tssion Meeting
November ]0, 1988
Howard liagedorn, 1748 Avocet: follow-up on tree trl~.,,tng.
question extent of work performed under maintenance peri, it
granted in Wiota Commons
The Park Director, Jim Fackler, was instructed by the motion made
at the'Park Commission meeting on September B, I988 "MOTION moved
by Jessen, seconded by Baily to accep~--~-h-e-'"~equest to trim the
sumach to 3-1/2' under the Park Directors supervision, hard wood
trees are not to be cut. Motion passed Four in Favor,--one om-~
~°~=~=l~iJr~ O~osed).J' Jim reported he met with the contracted
tree trimmer and Mr. Hagedorn at the site and they discussed what
the City did, and did not want trimmed. Jim approved cutting of
one basswood tree. Jim went back to the property the next day to
inspect the work and confirmed it was okay. At the end of Oc-
tober Jim received a call From Mr. Hagedorn who was requesting to
tr[m more trees. Jim vis.fted the site and discovered someone had
done some additional trimming of some trees. Both Mr. Hagedorn
and the tree trimmer deny trimming any trees. The Park Director
recommends to discontinue ail trimming on Wiota Commons, so the
Park Commission can analy.ze this commons area using the flow
chart.
Mr. Hagedorn was present and spoke on his behalf. Mr. Hagedorn
Stated he Feels harassed and prejudged by the Park Director, com-
plained he had to take time off work in order to meet with the
Park Director, and claims Jim supervised the trimming For only 15
minutes, then left the site before the trimmer was Finished. Mr.
Hagedorn stated he.did not know who did the additional cutting,
however the branches that were cut were infringing on the walkway
of the commons. His t~eory is someone that uses this area took
it upon themselves to do this trimming.
The Park DireCtor presented pictures of the subject area which
shows the trees were cut on top of the htll in Front of Mr.
Hagedorn's, and in the middle of the hill as well as at the bot-
tom along the walkway.
The description of Wtota Commons was discussed: "Located on the
north slde of Harrisons Bay adjacent to Avocet, Bluebird, Canary,
Dove, Eagle, Finch and Gull Lanes. Total area is 1.5 acres with
approximately 1,400 Feet of lake Front. It is a high narrow
strip mostly cleared and has good solid sand bottom overlaid with
a shallow silt layer. It is used For residents docking and fish-
ing. Its proposed usage is a resident permit docking area and
Fishing area and because oF the contour oF the land will adapt
itself well as a nature area." The Commission would ltke to en-
sure this nature area is maintained.
Park Commission Meeting
November 10, 1988
The Park Director exmlained that two years ago 30 healthy trees
were removed From thts area without a maintenance permit. Thts
cutting created brush growth From the healthy roots that
remained, 14 these trees had been allowed to grow and then been
pr[oper, ly trimmed, a view through them would have been available.
MOTION ~de by Clough, seconded by dessen to discontinue all
.~-~ trtn~n!ng al,ong, the 1,400 feet of shoreline in the Wiota Com-
V~ mons In oroer to preserve as a nature area.
Mr. HageOorn commenteQ he is concerned with the value of hts
property, he pays to live on the lake and has no view.
Motion carried unanimously.
Will appear before the City Council on Nove~er 29, ]988.
City Council Minutes
August 23, 1988
The City Manager explained that the Park .Co~ni~=ion reco=mended
the following on Mr. Hagedorn's requests:
ApproVe the repla°-~ent of so~ on the "southwest corner
of Mr. Hagedorn's lot, which is in t. he co~ons.
A¢oept the request' to trim sumach to 3 1/2
the Park Director's supervision, hare wood
not %o be cut.
feet under
trees are
Mr. Hagedorn was present and stated' this was agreeable with him.
..~OTIO~ maae b~ Job-son, seoonaed b~ ~ensen to concur with
the Park Commission and approve a'Hainten~nce Permit on Com-
mons for Howar~ Hage~orn at 1748 Avocet. The vote was un-'-
· .ant~ousl~ in favor. .Motion carrie~.
RESOLUTION NO. 88-
RESOLUTION REQUESTING AN INCREASE IN
MAINTENANCE FUNDS DUE TO INCREASED MAINTENANCE
COSTS ON CITY OF MOUND M.S.A. STREETS
WHEREAS, Municipal State Aid streets are on a rotating
basis for seal coating; and
WHEREAS, some older constructed State Aid streets are
increasingly needing repair; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT R~.SOLVED, by the City Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota, that the City Manager is hereby
directed to write the State Aid Engineer requesting Mound's Main-
tenance Allotment be $33,000.00 per year because of the added
maintenance cost.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
and seconded by Councilmember
The following Councilmem~ers'voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
AtteSt: City Clerk
Park Commission Meeting
NovemOer lO, 1988
7. Definition oE "resident" ~or cemetery fee schedule
Recommended definition, "Individual is resident of Hound at time
of purchasing the cemetery lot(s)."
MOTION made by Clough, seconded by Andersen to accept the
definition oF "resident" for the cemetery fee schedule,
"l.ndtvtdual is a current resident of Mound at time of pur-
chasing the cemetery lot(s)." Motion carried unanimously.
Case will appear before the City Council on November
1988.
LEN HARRELL
Chief of Police
MOUND POLICE
5341 Maywood Road Telephone 472-3711
Mound, MN 55364 Dispatch 544-9511
EMERGENCY 911
November 14, 1988
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ed Shukle ~
Len HarrellC~{
Street Light - 2200 block of Westedge Blvd.
Attached is a petition requesting the addition of a street light in
the area of 2260 Westedge Blvd. The area is south of Lynwood Blvd.
on the dirt road portion of Westedge Blvd.
I am familiar with the area in question and travel the road frequently
at night. The stretch of road in question is extremely dark at night.
Several new homes have been constructed in the area and there have
been some complaints about cars congregating on the dark road.
I support the request for the addition of a light in the area between
2260 and 2274 Westedge Blvd. The addition would add to visibility in
the area and provide a measure of security.
3030 Harbor Lane North
Bldg. II, Suite 104
Minneapolis, MN 55447.2175
612/553-1950
HEMORANDUH
TO: Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler
DATE: July 20, 1988
SUBJECT: Sign Ordinance' Modification
Application and use of ordinances frequently reveals minor
problems which need correction. Use of the sign ordinance has
uncovered such an item. Section 365:05, Subd. 8. Violations,
states, "If the permittee or owner fails to remove or alter the
sign so as to comply with the provisions set forth in this
Section 365 within 30 days following .receipt of said notice:"
(The ordinance continues to outline legal options for removal)
The item in que'stion pertains to the 30 day removal period.
In a recent case, an illegal sign was placed in a residential
area which, in the opinion of neighboring properties, damaged the
value o.f their homes... After notification by Jan that the sign
was illegal, the owner indicated that he would remove it after 30
days. "
In reviewing this application, staff feels that very few cases
need 30 days to remove an illegal sign. It is recommended that
the phrase "within 30 days" be removed from this section. This
will allow the'Building Official some latitude in requiring sign
removals. Simple signs such as the case in point can be removed
immediately and more elaborate commercial signs may require 2 or
3 day. s for removal.
It is recommended that the Planning ~Commission call a public
hearing to review this proposed modification of the sign
ordinance.
Hound City Coda Section
Signs erected b~ a sovernmenta~ unit.
(d) S~gns as desc~£bed ~n Section 365:15, Subd. 9.
(e) S~s which a~e en~e~7 ~h~ a budding and ~ ~s~b~e f~om
outside s~ bu~ld~n~.
Subd. 5. Variances. The City Council may grant a variance frou the requt~.e-
merits'of this Section 365 as Co spec~c signs where it ~ sho~ that by '
r~son of ~opography or o~her condi~ions ~ s~r~c~ complhnce ~h
requir~s of chis Section 365 would cause a ~rdship. A var~nce ~y be
sran=ed only if ~he variuce does no= adversely affect
of ~h~ Sec=ion 365. ~ri~=~ applica~ion for a var~ce
=he Ci~ Clerk ~d s~ll s~a~ ~ully all fac~$ r~ied upon by =HS appl~an=.
The applicaCion sM1 be suppl~=ed vi~h mps, plans, or ocher data which
my aid ~ ~ u~ysis of =he ~==er.. ~e application
=he Pi~ Co~iss~n fo= its reco~enda=ion and report =o =he City
Council.
Subd. 6. .Exiatin~ Non-Conforming Signs. Any sign existing at the time of
adoption of this Section 365 which does not conform to she provisions hereof
shall not be .rebuLlt, altered, or relocated without being brought into
compliance with the requirements of this Section 365. After a non-conforming
sign has been removed, it shall not be replaced by another non-conforming
sign.
Whenever use of a non-conforming sign has been discontinued for a period of
three (3) months, such use shall not thereafter be resumed unless in conformance
with the provisions of this Section 365.
Subd. 7. Existing I11e~ai Signs. All illegal signs existing at the time of
adoption of this Section '365 which do not conform to the provisions hereof
shall be removed vithin three (3) months of the adoption of this Section 365
and sub. sequent notification by. the City.
Subd. 8... Violations. If the Building Inspector finds that any sign regulated
by this Section 365 is prohibited as to size, location, content, type,
number, height or method of construction, or is unsafe, insecure, or a menace
to the public, or if any sign has been constructed or erected without a permit
first being granted to the installer of said sign, or to the owner of the property
upon which said sign has been erected, or is improperly maintained, or is in
violation of any other provisions of this Section 365, he or she shall give
written notice of such violation to the owner or permittee thereof. If the
permittee or owner fails to remove or alter the sign so as to comply with the
provisions set forth in this Section 365,within 30 days following receipt of
said notice:
(a)
Such sign shall be deemed to be a nuisance and may be abated by the City
by proceedings taken under Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, and the cost
of abatement, including administration expenses, may be levied as a
special assessment against the property upon which the sign is located;
and/or
HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
NOTICE Of PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE
MOUND CITY CODE, SECTION 365:05, SUBDIVISION 8, RELATING TO
51GNS.
NOTICE. IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Pianntng Commission of the City
of Mound, Minnesota, will meet-tn the Council Chambers, 5341
Maywood Road, 7:30 p.m., on Monday, August ZZ, 1988, to consider
revision to the stgn ordinance provisions, Section 365:05, Sub-
division 8, described as follows:
"If the permttee or owner fails to remove or alter the sign
so as to comply with the provisions setforth in this, Sec-
tion 365, upon receipt of said notice:"
All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above
will be heard at this meeting.
Francene C. Cla'~, City Cl~rk
Publish in, "The Laker," August 8, IgBB.
CITY Of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(61Z) 47Z-1155
November 22, 1988
TO:
FROM:
RE :.
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL dc
7~
ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER
PROPOSED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN
Earlier this year, the League of Minnesota Cities informed all
cities in the State of Minnesota that had 20 or more full-time
employees that those cities were to have c-~{'ified-KTftq~
Action Programs by the State of Minnesota. The Minnesota
Legislature had passed a legislative amendment in the 1988
session that would require all local governments to have
Affirmative Action Programs. If cities did not have a state
certified Affirmative Action Program, there would be a cutoff of
all state funds in excess of $50,000 or more. Obviously, this
would affect the City of Mound's Municipal State Aid (MSA)
funding. Therefore, we were required to develop and submit to
the Minnesota Department of Human Rights, an Affirmative Action
Plan for the City of Mound. Attached is a proposed plan that I
have developed per the Human Rights Department's guidelines.
Also attached is a resolution approving the Affirmative Action
Plan. The city attorney has reviewed the plan and has said that
it is in' order. The deadline for submitting the plan is December
1, 1988, t.herefore, it is imperative that the Council take action
on this .plan at its meeting Tuesday evening.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
ES:Is
An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicapped status
~n the admission or access to. or treatment or empio',, men! m, ~ts programs and actiwties
November 29, 1988
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN EMPLOYMENT
WHEREAS, the Mound City Council acknowledges that equal
opportunity employment for all persons is a fundamental human
value; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mound does promote and encourage
full realization of human rights within City employment; and
WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota, declares that artifi-
cial barriers to employment, pursuant to M.S. 363.03, are unfair
discriminatory practices; and
WHEREAS, under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Section
363.073, businesses or firms which. (a) have more than 20 full-
time employees in Minnesota at any time during the previous 12
months, and (b) bid on a State contract for goods or services in
excess of $50,000 must have a Certificate of Compliance issued by
the Commissioner of the Department of Human Rights. Certificates
are issued to businesses or firms that have an Affirmative Action
Plan approved by the Commissioner Of the Minnesota Department of
Human Rights for the employment of minorities, women and disabled
persons.
WHEREAS, the city of Mound intends to reinforce Federal
merit standard principles and concepts by assuring that all seg-
ments of society have an opportunity to enter public service on
the basis of open competition and advance according to individual
ability:
NOW,. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mound City
Council reaffirms and declares the Affirmative Action Program of
Mound, dated November 14, 1988, to the extent that such declara-
tion is reasonable and realistic and is not in conflict with ap-
plicable laws of State or Federal authorities:
DECLARATION OF POLICY OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION
The City of Mound acknowledges that equal opportunity for all
persons is a fundamental human value. Consequently, it is the
policy of the City to provide equal opportunity in employment and
personnel management for all persons;' to provide access to, ad-
mission to, full utilization and benefit of training and promo-
tional opportunities without discrimination because of race,
color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital
status, public assistance status, veteran status, handicap or
disability; and to otherwise promote full realization of human
rights within the City to the extent permitted by law. To imple-
ment this policy, the City of Mound requires that every person
making application for, currently employed by, or applying for
future vacancies in the employ of the City of Mound will be con-
sidered on the basis of individual ability and merit, without
discrimination or favor. In furtherance of this policy, the City
of Mound establishes an Affirmative Action Plan, providing for
and assuring fair and equitable treatment in all phases of public
employment, including selection, compensation, benefits, training
opportunities, promotions, transfers, layoffs and other terms,
conditions, and privileges of employment. The concept of this
affirmative action policy is consistent and fundamental to the
maintenance of effective equal opportunity and shall be imple-
mented as an integral part of the City of Mound's personnel sys-
tem.
In the interest of advancing the goal of open competition and
equal opportunity in employment, the City undertakes the respon-
sibility for communicating its affirmative action policy to those
from whom it purchases products and services.
The city Council of the City of Mound hereby appoints Edward J.
Shukle, Jr., City Manager, as the Affirmative Action Officer, to
manage the Equal Employment Oppgrtunity/Affirmative Action
Program. Responsibilities will include monitoring all Equal
Employment Opportunity activities and reporting the effectiveness
of ~his Affirmative Action Program, as required by Federal, State
and Local agencies. If any employee or applicant for employment
believes he/she has been discriminated against, please contact
the City Manager, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN. 55364, or call
472-1155.
Employees and applicants are protected from coercion, intimida-
tion, interference, or discrimination for filing a complaint or
assisting in an investigation under the Minnesota Human Rights
Act.
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
CITY OF MOUND
AFFIRHATIVE ACTION PROGR~H
II.
III.
IV.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
CITY OF MOUND
AFFIRMATIVE /%CTION PI2tN
TABL~ OF CONTENTS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPpoRTUNITY POLICY STATEMENT
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR AFFIRMATIVE
ACTION PROGRAM
DISSEMINATION OF POLICY
A. INTERNAL
B. EXTERNAL
ORGANIZATION CHART
UTILIZATION ANALYSIS
ESTABLISHMENT OF GOALS & TIMETABLES
PROB~.FM IDENTIFICATION & CORRECTIVE ACTION
MEASURES TO FACILITATE IMPLEMENTATION
AUDITING & MONITORING
VENDOR - CONTRACTOR RELATIONS
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN FOR DISABLED
INDIVIDUALS
APPENDICES
1...' RECRUITMENT RESOURCES
2. MEDIA SOURCES
3.·' SAMPLE LETTER TO SUPPLIERS, VENDORS AND
CONTRACTORS INDICATING THE CITY OF MOUND'S
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICY
4. SEXUAL HARASSMENT STATEMENT OF POLICY
5. EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES THE LAW POSTER
PAGE
1
2
4
6
7
8
9
2O
21
22
31
33
35
41
42
43
44
45
48
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Relationship of the City of Mound to the State of Minnesota
The City of Mound acts as an agent of the State'Of Minnesota in
the enforcement of statewide standards and policies as defined in
rule and statute. For many years, the City has received Com-
munity Development Block Grant (CDBG) monies via Hennepin County.
These monies have been used for ecoqomic development, low income
housing programs, soil service programs and other purposes. In
addition, the City utilized federalo.revenue sharing funds begin-
ning in 1972 until the program was discontinued 'about 2 years
ag~:. Also, the City has made use of its Municipal State Aid
(MSA) money. CDBG funds allocated every year amount to ap-
proximately $60,000. MSA .funds-vary annually, but the City
re~eives approximately $191,025.
II. EQUAL EKPLOTHENT OPPORTUNITY POLICY STATEKENT
This is to affirm the City of Mound's policy of providing Equal
Opportunity to all employees and applicants for employment in ac-
cordance with all applicable Equal Employment Opportunity/
Affirmative Action laws, directives and regulations of Federal,
State and Local governing bodies or agencies thereof, specifi-
cally Minnesota Statutes 363.
The City of Mound will not discriminate against or harass any
employee or applicant for employment because of race, color,
creed, religion, national origin, sex, disability, age, marital
status, or status with regard to public assistance.
The City of Mound will take Affirmative Action to ensure that all
employment practices are free of such discrimination. Such
employment practices include, but are not. limited to, the
following: hiring, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or
recruitment advertising, selection, layoff, disciplinary action,
termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and
selection for training, including apprenticeship.
The City of Mound will."use its best efforts to afford minority
and female business enterprises with the maximum practicable op-
portunitY to participate in the performance of subcontracts for
construction projects that the City engages in.
!
The City of Mound will commit the necessary time and resources,
both financial and human, to achieve the goals of Equal Employ-
ment Opportunity and Affirmative Action.
The City of' Mound fully supports incorporation of non-
discrimination and Affirmative Action rules and regulations into
contracts.
-2-
The City Of Mound ~i!! evaluate the performance of its management
and supervisory personnel on the basis of their involvement in
achieving these Affirmative Action objectives as well as other
established criteria. Any employee of the City, or subcontractor
to the City who does not comply with the Equal Employment Oppor-
tunity Policies and Procedures as set forth in this Statement and
Plan will be subject to disciplinary action. Any subcontractor
not complying with all applicable Equal Employment Opportunity/
Affirmative Action laws, directives and regulations of the
Federal, State and Local governing bodies or agencies thereof,
specifically Minnesota Statutes 363 will be subject to ap-
propriate legal sanctions.
The City of Mound has appointed city Manager, Edward J. Shukle,
Jr....to manage the Equal Employment Opportunity Program. His
responsibilities will include monitoring all Equal Employment Op-
portunity activities and reporting" the effectiveness of this Af-
firmative Action Program, as required by Federal, State and Local
agencies. If any employee or applicant'for employment believes
he/she' ~has been discriminated against, please contact Edward J.
Shukle, Jr., City Manager, City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road,
Mound, MN. 55364, or call 612-472-1155.
III.
ASSIGNMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR
AFFI~HATIF~ ACTION PROGRAM
The Mound City Council authorizes the City Manager, to administer
the Affirmative Action Program on behalf of the City without ad-
ditional compensation. This accountability encompasses the
following:
1. Coordination of equal opportunity employment and affirmative
action activities.
2. Physical dissemination of policy information.
3. The conducting of all studies, surveys, job classifications
Which might be required by Federal and State law.
4. The development of guidelines for interviewing and selecting
employees, the construction of job advertisements, the
development of job descriptions, the review of job
qualifications to meet equal' employment opportunity stand-
... ards and the establSshment of a comprehensive personnel
policy to promote equity in all employer actions.
5. The establishment of contacts in recruitment for minorities,
handicapped and women....
6. The preparation of all reports that are required and the
design and implementation of audit and recording systems to
measure the Affirmative Action Program effectiveness.
7. The updating of the City of Mound's Affirmative Action
Policy in accordance with changes in State and Federal law.
8. The interpretation of Affirmative Action Program to all
emPlOYees', minority, handicapped, women,s organizations and
other'interested communitYand civic groups.
The "establishment of working relationships with organiza-
.tions representing minorities, handicapped and women for
recruitment purposes.
The establishment of annual affirmative action goals.
The provision of information to employees or applicants al-
leging discrimination of their rights under provisions of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended by the Equal Employ-
ment Opportunity Act of 1972 and the Minnesota Human Rights
Act; of legal options for registering a complaint; and in-
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
ment'.0Pportuni~y Act of 1972 and the Minnesota Human Rights
Act; of legal options for registering a complaint; and. in-
vestigation of all such complaints.
To receive complaints or alleged acts of discrimination by
the City, its agents or persons, firms or corporations, con-
tracting within the City or any'of its departments.
To investigate all such alleged acts of discrimination and
to record all material facts.
To report to the City Council good faith claims of dis-
crimination.
Each department' head with the assistance of the City Manager
shall have direct responsibility in ~promoting the Affirmative Ac-
tion Policy. Their responsibilities shall include:
1.... An in-depth understanding of the equal employment oppor-
tunity laws and all provisions of the City Affirmative Ac-
tion Policy.
2. Assistance to the City Manager in analyzing and discovering
'· areas of under-utilization of minorities, women, and hand-
icapped persons in their respective departments.
3. Development of departmental goals and objectives, proposing
timetables and evaluating internal discrimination potentials
Within their specific departments·
Regular discussion with line supervisors regarding equal
employment opportunities.
Annual evaluation of their supervisors on equal employment
oPportunity.
6. DePartment heads shall have the authority to discipline
employees found to be deliberately harassing minorities,
handicapped and women employees or displaying conduct incon-
sistent with the provisions and" intent of the Affirmative
Action Program.
IV. DISSEMINATION OF POLICY
ae
Internal Dissemination
1. A copy of the Affirmative Action Program for the City
of Mound will be communicated to every department head
in the City and subsequently a summary copy will be
made available to each of the City's employees.
2. The City Manager will instruct, inform and advise all
department heads of the responsibilities of employers
.. in promoting and effectuating the policy of non-
discrimination. The City Manager shall have the
authority and responsibility to monitor, audit and
review all books and records of the City and depart-
ments of the City to ensure compliance in carrying out
the duties and responsibilities required by the City
Affirmative Action Policy.
3. Department heads will be responsible for disseminating
the Affirmative Action Policy to all line supervisors
and all department employees.
4. A copy of the Affirmative'Action Policy and other re-
lated information shall be posted on departmental bul-
letin boards for employees reference as well as
centrally located bulletin boards for public reference.
5. Every applicant for employment with the City of Mound
or for participation in a City sponsored program shall
be informed of the equal opportunity policy of the City
of Mound and the procedure to follow if such applicant
in good faith feels that this policy has not been ad-
hered by the City or its agent at the time of applica-
tion for employment.
The Affirmative Action Policy statement shall be in-
cluded in the City's Personnel Policy.
7. Union representatives will be informed of the Affirm-
ative Action Policy.
Labor agreements between aDy union, federation, or
other authorized employee representative in the City
may contain a clause attesting 'to non-discrimination
and equal opportunity as part of the basis for any ne-
gotiated settlement.
External Dissemination
1. The City Manager will file copies of the affirmative
action declaration with the State of Minnesota Depart-
ment of Human Rights, State Employment Service, and
such minority, handicapped and womens' organizations
which benefit from open recruitment and merit hiring.
Efforts shall be made to communicate this policy to lo-
cal community agencies, schools and community leaders.
2. The City Manager shall distribute the Affirmative Ac-.
tion Policy to vendors and contractors who deal with
the City and shall encourage'them to follow similar
practices.
3. The City shall make readily available to minorities,
handicapped persons, women, and protected class groups
within the City the current listing of job oppor-
tunities in the City offices. The City will advertise
available positions in a manner determined by the City
to be most appropriate to each local minority, hand-
icapped and female residents.
4'. The City Manager will be available to discuss the
City's Affirmative Action Program and non-
discrimination policy with any interested communities
or civic groups.
-7-
V. ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
ae
VI. UTILIZATION AI~ALYSIS
Utilizatio~ Analysis
The City conducts separate in-depth utilization analyses of
each job group for minorities and for women (protected
groups). The purpose of these utilization analyses is to
determine if minorities and/or women are currently being un-
derutilized in one or more of our job groups. The results
of these utilization analyses then become the basis for es-
tablishing the objectives detailed in this document.
1. Work Force Analysis .
A work force analysis report is prepared annually.
This analysis contains job titles ranked from the
lowest paid to the highest paid within each department.
For each job title, the total incuMBents, by race and.
sex, and total incumbents, by the total males, and
females, are listed. This profile includes wage rate,
minimum and maximum, for union job titles and actual
wage for all other job titles.
Job Groups
The establishment of "job groups" is a part of the Af,
firmative Action Program prepared to meet standards
required by Revised Order No. 4. These job groups are
used solely in the context of the affirmative action
objectives of such Order. They have no meaning for any
other purpose. For affirmative action job groups see
Section VIII - Problem Area Identification.
Availability Analysis
a. -Availability data was developed for total
minorities and total women for each job group by
using data provided by "Job Group Weighting Factor
for Smaller Companies", MN. Dept. of Human Rights.
underutilization is determined annually for each
job group within the City.
The declaration of underutilization in any job
group does not imply or admit any form of dis-
crimination.
DEPAR?MENT - City Manager/c(erk ~tORKFORCE ANALYSIS COHPANY - City of Ho~ncl
ADDRESS - 5:~1Ma~ood Road
DATA AS OF - 11-1-88 (CURRENT BY DEPARTMENT) Hound, MN.
JOB TZTLES IdAGE RATE OR TOTAL EMPLOYEES HINORITY EMPLOYEES ('")
SALARY RANGE
HALE I FEMALE
TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL
KALE FEHALE I AZ/ A/ AZ/ A/
J B H AN PZ B H AN
PZ
Secretary/Receptionist 1566 1 1
City Cterk 2?43 1 1
City Manager 40811 1
· ;
!
Totats 3 I 2
(B) B - B[a'ck; H - Hispanic; AZ/AN -
American ]ndican/Ataskan Native;
A/PI - Asian/Pacific Islander.
-11-
DEPARTMENT - Finance
DATA AS OF - 11-1-88
I~:)R[FORCE ANALYSIS
¢~RRENT BY DEPARTHENT)
COMPANY
ADDRESS
- City of
- 5~41Maywood
JOB TITLES
Accounting Clerk
Utility Billing Clerk
Assessing Clerk
WAGE RATE OR
1740
1797
1865
TOTAL EMPLOYEES
TO
FEN
Sr. Accounting Cterk
Finance DJ rector
Totals
1865
3541
'AL
,LE
MINORITY EMPLOYEES
MALE
SALARY RANGE
TOTAL I TOTAL
1
AZ/
FEMALE
A/
Pl
A/
PI
(B) B - Black; H - Hispanic; AI/AN -
American Indican/ALaskan Native;
A/PI - Asian/Pacific Islander.
-12-
DEPARTMENT - Po[ice
DATA AS OF - 11-1-88
t~RKFORCE ANALYSZS COMPANY - City of Mound
ADDRESS - ~1 May~ood Road
(CURRENT BY DEPARTMENT) Mound, MN. 55~64
JOB TZTLES ~AGE RATE OR TOTAL EMPLOYEES MZNORZTY EMPLOYEES
SALARY RANGE
I
TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL 14ALE FEMALE
FIALE FEMALE Al/ A/ Al/ A/
B H AN PZ B N AN PZ
PoLice Secretary 1759 1 1
Parrot Officers 2406-2877 8 8
Sergeants 3125-3250 2
PoLice Chief 3?23 1 1
Totats !' 12 11 1
(a) B - Stack; H - Hispanic; Al/AN -
American Zndican/Ataskan Native;
A/P! - Asian/Pacific IsLander.
-13-
DEPARTMENT - PLanning & Lnspect$ons ~)RKFORCE ANALYSIS CO~PA#¥ - City of Mound
ADDRESS '
DATA AS OF.' 11'1'8~ (CURRENT BY DEPARTMENT)
JOB TITLES
Secretary
BuiLding Official
Totats
WAGE RATE OR
SALARY RANGE
1688
TOTAL
TOTAL EMPLOYEES
TOTAL
FEMALE
MINORITY EMPLOYEES
,,J
PI B H
2909
TOTAL
MALE
MALE
J ' S Al/
H AN
FEMALE
A/
PI
(B) B - BLack; H - Hispanic; Al/AN -
American lndican/A[askan Native;
A/PI - Asian/Pacific IsLander.
-14-
DEPARTMENT - Public Works
DATA AS OF - 11-1-~8
VORKFORCE ANALYSZS
(CURRENT BY DEPARTMENT)
COFtPANY
ADDRESS
- City of Mound
- 5~I Maywood Road
Mound, MN. 55364
JOB TZTLES
Secretary
Street Maintenance
Street Superintendent
Water & Sewer Supt.
Totals
WAGE RATE OR
SALARY RANGE
1729
~24
247'~
TOTAL
TOTAL EMPLOYEES
TOTAL
MALE
TOTAL
FEMALE
8
MINORITY EMPLOYEES
MALE FEMALE
Al/ IA/
AN PZ
2473
1
11 10 .'] 1
II
CB) B - Black; H - ~ispanic; AZ/AN -
American ]ndican/Ataskan Native;
A/PZ - Asian/Pacific Zstender.
-15-
DEPARTHENT - Parks
DATA AS OF
UORKFORCE ANALYSZS
(CURRENT EY DEPARTMEgT)
CONPANY
ADDRESS
- City of #ouqd
- 5Z~I #aym~cl Road
Mound, MU. 55364
JOB TITLES
Parks Director
gAGE RATE OR
SALARY RANGE
TOTAL EMPLOYEES
TOTAL
MALE
TOTAL
FEHALE
Totals
B
MINORITY EMPLOYEES (~)
HALE
247'$
TOTAL
Al/ A/
H AN PI S
FEMALE
(B) B - Black; H - Hispanic; Al/AN -
American Indican/Ataskan Native;
A/P! - Asian/Pacific Islander.
-16-
DEPARTHENT - Liquor
DATA AS OF - 11-1-8~
t~ORKFORCE ANALYSIS
(CURRENT BY DEPARTHENT) ·
COHPANY
ADDRESS
- City of Hound
- 5~41 Hay~ood Road
Nou~d, PIN. 55364
JOB TITLES
Asst. Liq. Store
Liquor Store PIanager
Totals
~AGE RATE OR
SALARY RANGE
1865
27~6
TOTAL EPIPLOYEES
TO
AL
TOTAL
HALE
TOTAL
FEHALE
1 1
NZNORITY EHPLOYEES (*)
I
I
HALE
AZ/
B N AN
FEHALE
A1 Al/
Pl B H AN
A/
P!
11
(S) B - Breck; H - Hispanic; Al/AN -
American lndican/Ataskan Native;
A/PI - Asian/Pacific Ist. ander.
-17-
JOB GROUP WEIGHTING FACTOR FOR SMALLER COMPANIES
1 2 3 4 5 6
JOB GROUP
HANAGER
PROFESSIONAL!
TECHNICAL '1
SALES
I,'ORKERS
OFFICe/
CLERICAL
SKILLED
CRAFTS
OPERATIVES
LABORERS
I
NUMBER IN I WEIGHTED
GROUP I VALUE
.25
.06
.25
.19
MINORITY
IN GROUP
4.3%
3.7%
5.6%
% MINORITY 1% FEMALE
WEIGHTED ) IN GROUP
0.7%
0.3%
1.1%
~9.6%
5.~%
25.6%
85.8~
7.3%
18.5%
%FEMALE
WEIGHTED
7.4%
0.3%
0
21.5%
0
1.4%
SERVICE
WORKERS 9 .25 7.6% 1.9~ 28.9'4 2.2%
TOTALS 36 1.0
AVAILABILITY = SUM OF WEIGHTED VALUES 4.7% 32.8%
1. Cotu~ #2 = Column #1 divided by the to[at of Cotunn #1.
2. Totht of Cotumn #2 shoutd atways equa[ 1.
3. Cotumn ~r3 comes from manpower information tab[es,
4. Cotumn #4 = Cotumn ~r5 X Co[urn #2.
5. Comes from manpower information tabtes.
6. Cotumn #6 = CotLxnn #5 X Coturan #2.
-18-
· AVAILABILITY/UTILIZATION/UNDER UTILIZATIO~
JOB GROUP
MANAGER
PROFESSIONAL/TECH
SALES WORKERS
OFFICE~CLERICAL
SKILLED CRAFT
OPERATIVES
LABORERS
SERVICE WORKERS
SHALL COHPAN¥
WEIGHTED
AVAILABILITY.
TOTAL
36
FEFU~LES
UTILIZATION AVAILABILITY
NLIHBER ~
,11 30.6X
iNUHBER ~
NIJHBER
UNDER-,
UTILIZED
UTILIZATION
NUHBER ~
0 0
HINOR~TIES
AVAILABILITY
NUHBER ~
1 14.7~
NUHBER
UNDER-
UTILIZ
*SOURCE OF AVAILABILITY ~
-19-
The city of Mound recognizes that it has an underutilization of
female and minority emDloyee~. (SEE AVAILABILITY/UTILIZATION/
UNDERUTILIZATION table on Page 21).
The City of Mound will work to fill any future employment
vacancies with females and minorities. It is estimated that the
underutilization of one female employee will be corrected by
January 1, 1993. It is also estimated that the underutilization
of one minority employee will be corrected by January 1, 1993.
These'assumptions are based upon vacancies that may occur within
the existing staff or in any additions that may be made in staff
within the next five years.
VII'I.
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND CORRECTIVE ACTION
A summary analysis of problem/deficiency areas at the City of
Mound indicates the following:
- The workforce composition is underutilized in two
areas.
- The total selection process dictates a need to expand
our recruiting efforts to attract qualified women and
minorities.
- No other problem areas were identified, i.e., applicant
flow composition, transfer and promotion practices,
company facilities and company-sponsored activities,
seniority practices and qontract provisions for same,
apprenticeship programs, company training programs,
.. workforce attitude, posters, application retention and
subcontractor notification.
IX. 'MEASURES TO
FACILITATE IHPLEHENTATION
To assure progress towards Affirmative Action goals and to
guarantee equal employment opportunity to all persons, the City
of Mound shall pursue the following actions relating to hiring,
promotion, training opportunities, classification, recruitment
and compensation.
The City of Mound's Personnel practices shall adhere to the prin-
ciples of equal employment opportunity and be conducted in ac-
cordance with the City Affirmative Action Program. The prin-
ciples of equal employment opportunity shall be introduced into
all City written personnel policies .and shall be reflected in all
negotiations between the City and labor unions who represent
authorized bargaining units of City employees.
A. Position Descriptions
1. A written position description shall exist for all per-
manent positions within the City of Mound. These
desCriptions shall include a position or job title - a
general description of the work - minimum qualifica-
tions required to perform the work, and shall be avail-
able to all employees and prospective job applicants
for review prior to application.
2. Position titles and minimum qualifications contained in
written descriptions shall be used in all recruitment
advertising.
3. The.minimum qualifications of each position shall be
periodically reviewed by the Personnel Director.to
· determine if all qualifications required are related to
actual job performance.
4. Position descriptions for managerial and supervisory
positions shall contain a section describing Affirm-
ative Action responsibilities.
B. Recruitment
1. The' City of Mound will advertise entry job openings in
the appropriate media for its labor market. Ail job
advertisements shall state the title of the position,
'-the minimum qualifications, where applications can be
obtained, and location of job if other than within City
Hall, how the position will be filled and other
relevant information. All job advertisements shall in-
clude the statement "An Equal Opportunity Employer".
In special circumstances the City may add or substitute
the working "Minorities and Women are Encouraged to
Apply". All job advertisements shall indicate the last
day of filing for application of the position adver-
tised. Those positions advertised as "Open-
Competitive" shall be posted for ten (10) days. All
job advertisements for open competitive and promotional
positions shall be posted ~n designated bulletin boards
in all conspicuous areas for employee or applicant
review.
a. The City Manager will. notify the area Job Services
Office of appropriate job openings.
b. The City Manager shall send appropriate job
vacancy announcements to appropriate governmental,
institutional, civic, educational, handicapped and
minority representative agencies within its labor
market area.
c. Announcements of appropriate job openings shall be
"regularly sent to organizations within the labor
market who specifically represent women,
minorities, and the handicapped.
d. Policy Statement in compliance with Section 3 of
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment Act of 1968:
Announcements of job openings shall be regularly
sent to organizations Within the labor market who
specifically represent women, minorities, and the
.handicapped. The 'City of Mound will make every
effort to recruit' and hire applicants from Hen-
nepin County who are from low income groups.
e. The City Manager will establish and utilize a list
of minority organizations and will develop con-
..
tacts for communicating mutual employment needs
and concerns.
f. Department Head and supervisory staff of the City
will encourage present employees to refer women,.
minority and handicapped applicants for City jobs.
g. The City Manager will inform job applicants of the
Affirmative Action Policy and furnish applicants
with a written statement of such policy.
City Personnel Policies
1. The City Manager shall provide for the revision and on-
going maintenance of the Personnel Policies detailing
employee benefits, terms and conditions of employment,
employer actions, employe~ obligations, and rights and
privileges of employees. These Policies shall be
revised and be consistent with the Affirmative Action
Program and be updated annually by the City Manager.
Each department .shall be apprised of Affirmative Action
goals and briefed regarding the City's commitment to
achieving the goals within targeted periods.
3 The employment application form currently utilized is
intended to eliminate artificial employment barriers by
not requiring irrelevant information as a part of
employee selection that is not directly representative
of an applicant's skills or qualifications to perform
the duties of any position.
4. It shall be inconsistent with this Affirmative Action
Program for any department head' or otherwise hiring
authOrity to consider race, color, creed, religion, na-
'tional origin, sex, age, marital status, public assis-
tance status, handicap or disability as a basis for
rejecting any individual applicant for employment.
To insure impartial selection and promotion of personnel, the
City Manager or designee shall:
a. Analyze all existing selection procedures, perfor-
mance reviews, education or experience ratings,
structured interviews, and other such devices to
be
Ce
determine their value, as a measure of job success.
Administer all 'appropriate tests under standard-
ized and uniform conditions and provide for impar-
tial evaluations of test results.
Declare all job opportunities and vacancies open
to male and female applicants unless given job is
proven exclusive for one sex on the basis of bona
fide occupational qualifications set forth in
Title VII and subsequent Court decisions.
Notify all qualified job applicants of the reason
for their rejection of employment and shall main-
tain such a record and provide access to such by
applicants rejected ~or employment.
Encourage the promotion of minority, disabled and
female employees.
Interview exiting employees to determine reasons
for leaving and identify possible sources of dis-
crimination, inadequate job placement or under-
utilization encountered while working for the
City. The City Manager shall implement uniform
procedures to conform with this Affirmative Action
Program. These will include job replacements, es-
.tablishing position qualifications, preparing job
notices, announcing and posting job vacancies, and
advertising when appropriate.
Assure that no person be given preference or
denied employment opportunity because of past
promises of a job, personal characteristics, per-
sonal reputation, political or union affiliation
or other qualities unrelated to job performance.
Screen application~ and determine applicant
eligibility for employment by utilizing ap-
-propriate selection procedures.
In accordance with the 'Minnesota Data Practices
Act, any information gathered by the employer
regarding reference checks, personal or criminal
history shall be made open and available to
Do
prospective job candidates upon request for pur-
pOSeS of inspections. Such persons shall have. the
right to challenge all such information.
Selection and Hiring
1. All applications for employment at the City of Mound
shall be reviewed to determine if applicants meet mini-
mum qualifications for the position. APplicants who do
not meet minimum qualifications shall be so informed by
written notice.
2. The selection process shall give prime consideration to
minimum qualifications necessary to perform the job.
The selection process shall give consideration to fu-
ture potential and extra ..qualifications of candidates
only when career ladders are structured so that
employees are likely to advance to a higher level posi-
tion within a reasonable'p~riod of time.
3. The City shall, make "good faith" effort to meet its Af-
firmative Action goals by giving maximum consideration
to those protected class candidates who possess minimum
qualifications for. City positions.
4. No applicant shall be prohibited from applying for a
City position because of a past criminal conviction.
Evaluation of Job Performance
1. All 'performance evaluation systems used shall be
directly related to actual performance on the job.
2. Performance evaluation of supervisors and Department
Heads shall 'include an appraisal of their performance
in implementing and adhering to the City Affirmative
· Action Program.
3. All performance appraisals shall be in writing and
shall be reviewed with employees and made part of their
permanent personnel record.
4. Employees dismissed shall have the benefit of:
a. Appropriate and progressive disciplinary measures
as outlined in the Personnel Policies.
b. An opportunity to have his/her dismissal reviewed
by the City Manager to determine if discriminatory
Fe
Ge
He
practices were factor~ in his/her dismissal and to
recommend a remedy if so justified.
Compensation
1. All compensation schedules for City employees shall ad-
here to State and Federal laws and shall not dis-
criminate upon the basis of race, sex, color, religion,
national origin, handicap, disability' age, marital
status, veteran status, political affiliation or status
with regard to public assistance.
2. Ail fringe benefit schedules shall be equal for members
of both sexes and shall not discriminate against any
employed member of a protected class.
Termination - Disciplinary Proqedures
1. All disciplinary procedures within the City organiza-
tion shall be applied equally and shall not dis-
criminate against any employee on the 'basis of race,
sex, color, creed, religion, national origin, age,
marital status, public assistance status, handicap or
disability.
Equivalent internal grievance procedures shall exist
for all employees either through personnel policies or
union contracts.
Training
1. All 'training programs shall be extended to all
employees, if the program is job related and would
result in better work performance. No employee shall
be restricted from attending such' programs or courses
because of race, color, sex, creed, marital status,
religion, national origin, union affiliation, or status
with regard to public assistance. Special 'efforts
'shall be made to include' and encourage employees in
protected classes to attend such programs and courses.
2. Training programs shall be made available to facilitate
upward mobility for all City employees. Attention
shall be given to the preparation of employees for
mobility across occupational fields~
-27-
3. 'Ail employees, particularly protected class members,
zhall be informed of the opportunity and encouraged to
take career related courses and/or formal training.
Information on the City's policy regarding tuition
reimbursement shall be widely disseminated.
4. Training for supervisory staff shall acquaint them with
the provisions, goals, and intent of the City's Affir-
mation Action Program. This training shall include an
explanation of:
a. All provisions of the City's Affirmative Action
Policy and Program.
b. The legal basis for an Affirmative Action Program.
c.' Supervisory responsibilities related to affirm-
ative action.
d. The legal options available to a person making a
complaint or alleged 'discrimination and the legal
responsibilities of the supervisor.
5. Ail City departments shall consider the implementation
of apprenticeship training for protected class members,
and employ those who successfully complete an appren-
ticeship training program whenever possible.
Career Advancement (Transfer & Promotion)
1. Ail qualified City Employees. shall be encouraged to
consider career advancement through promotions and/or
transfers.
2. Ail job openings shall be posted on all designated
"Departmental Boards". No present employee shall be
discouraged or prevented from applying for any vacancy
· for which she/he is qualified.
A combination of education, past work experience and
experience gained in the City's employ shall be con-
sidered in assessing the qualifications of an ap-
plicant. Unnecessarily' narrow job requirements which
might reduce competition for promotion across depart-
ment or division lines or Within the department or
division shall be eliminated.
4. 'Protected"class members employed by the City who have
increased their skills for job potential shall be en-
couraged to apply and compete for promotion.
Documentation of "Good Faith" Efforts to Reach Affirmative
Action Goals
1. The record keeping materials required to monitor the
City Affirmative Action Program shall be readily acces-
sible to the City Manager and Department Heads.
2. The City Manager shall keep a written record of the ef-
forts undertaken to meet City goals for employment of
protective class employees.
3. Department Heads and the City Manager shall review and
comment on unsuccessful City efforts to employ
protected class members in accordance with the City Af-
firmative Action goals and timetables.
Complaint Procedure
1. City Responsibility
The City has the responsibility to receive, investigate
and attempt to resolve internal and external charges of
alleged violations of its obligation under government
regulations. Appropriate action is taken to assure
that the right of individuals to file complaints or
participate in investigation~, hearings or any other
proCedure for resolving such complaints will be
respected.and.not interfered with in any manner.
Should the ~inal decision be adverse to the com-
plainants they are advised that they may file charges
with a government agency and are directed to posters
identifying such agencies and filing locations.
Complaints and all actions taken to resolve them
through the City must be maintained in strictest con-
fidence. No individual should be intimidated,
threatened, coerced or discriminated against by the
City for filing a complaint, furnishing information, or
participating in any manner in investigations, com-
pliance reviews, hearings, or any other activities re-
lated to the administratio~ of Federal, State and Local
regulatiohs.
Applicant'~ Right to File eomDlaints of Allegea Dis-
crimination
Applicants who believe the City has violated its
obligations under government regulations may file com-
plaints either with the City, the Minnesota Department
of Human Rights or the Department of Labor.
To file with the City, any applicant should contact the
City Manager who will pursue the matter.
A written complaint must be filed with the Department
of Labor. Information on filing complaints with the
government can be obtained by contacting the City
Manager.
Employees' Right to File Complaints of Alleged Dis-
crimination
Employees who believe the City has violated its obliga-
tions under government regulations may file complaints
either with the City, the Minnesota Department of Human
Rights or the Department of Labor.
Employees may bring their.concerns to the attention of
their immediate supervisor or they may also wish to
address the matter to another individual in their
department and/or directly contact the City Manager.
Employees may file written complaints with the Depart-
ment of Labor, Information on filing complaints with
the government is posted in the office of the City
Manager. Complaints alleging a violation of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 are referred back to the
'City. Employers are allowed 60 days to attempt to
resolve such complaints ~hrough their internal com-
plaint review procedure.
X.. AUDITING AND ~ONITORIN~
In order to successfully evaluate the implementation of the
City's Affirmative Action Program the following data shall be
maintained by the City Manager.
A. Recruitment Sources
Data shall be maintained regarding all recruitment and media
sources notified of City job vacancies.
B. Applicant Flow Data
Data shall be maintained that indicates, by job class-
ification, EEO job category, the total number of applicants
interviewed, those offered positions, and those hired, in
order t° determine the effectiyeness of the City's recruit-
ment process and to assess the City's progress toward equal
.. opportunity employment.
C. Applicant Referrals
A file of all interested applicants shall be maintained in
order to notify such applicants when vacancies occur for
which they would be qualified.
D. Training
Data shall be maintained indicating, by job classification
and EEO job category the number of City employees par-
ticipating in all City training programs and activities and
tuition reimbursement programs.
E. Promotions
Data shall be maintained regarding promotions and indicating
by job classification and EEO job category, those employees
who are promoted.
F. Terminations
'Data shall be maintained on all terminations by job class-
ification and EEO job category 'including the reasons for
terminations. This data will.be used to determine if a dis-
proportionate number of employees belonging to protected
classes are terminated.
G. Demotions and Disciplinary Actions
Documented data shall be maintained on all demotions and
disciplinary actions including reasons for such actions.
Documentation ~f Good Faith Efforts to Meet Goal
1. There shall be regular documenting of City efforts t0
meet city goals for employment of protected class
employees.
2. Semiannual reports will Re forwarded as requested to
the Minnesota State Department of Human Rights.
XI...VENDOR - CONTRACTOR RELATIONS
It is the policy of the City of Mound not to use public funds to
further any violations of State or Federal equal employment laws..
The City's firm commitment to this policy .shall be demonstrated
through its affirmative action requirements for contractors, sub-
contractors and vendors with who the City does business.
A. Ail bid specifications, proposals and contracts shall
require all contractors, sub-contractors and vendors to sub-
mit the following:
1. A signed statement signifying that the contractor, sub-
contractor or vendor fully intends to comply with the
standards of equal employment and anti-discrimination
as cited in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended in
.. 1972 by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, and Min-
nesota Statute 181.59 as amended.
2.A reply to the letter in 'Appendix 3.
B. The City's practice of awarding contracts to the lowest bid-
ders shall be followed provided the bidder meets the City's
affirmative action requirements. If a contractor, sub-
contractor or vendor does not comply with the intent of the
City's affirmative action requirements, as listed above, the
contract may be awarded to the next lowest bidder with the
same procedure applying.
c. If it is reported that a contractor is in violation of State
or Federal equal employment opportunity laws or has no af-
firmative action'program or has not 'shown good faith in
taking corrective steps 'or is not willing to comply and
carry out the City's affirmative action requirements, the
City Manager may immediately request that the City Attorney
issue a "letter to show cause" 'requesting the contractor,
sub'contractor or vendor to .provide the City Manager with
information showing why the City should not terminate the
contract.
D. The City' of Mound will assist contractors and/or vendors in
complying with the City's affirmative action program.
-33-
The context o~'Minnesota Statute 181.59 (as amended) is in-
corporated by reference hereto, and made a part hereof, this
Affirmative Action policy.
M.S. 181.59 EMPLOYMENT: WAGES, CONDITIONS, HOURS RESTRICTION
181.59 DISCRIMINATION ON ACCOUNT OF RACE, CREED OR COLOR
PROHIBITED IN CONTRACT. Every contract for or on behalf of the
State of Minnesota, or any county city, town, township, school,
school district, or any other district in the state, for
materials, supplies, or construction shall contain provisions by
which the contractor agrees:
1. That, in the hiring of common or skilled labor for the
performance of any work under any contract, or,ny sub-
-. contract hereunder, no contractor, material supplier,
or vendor, shall, by reason of race, creed, or color,
discriminate 'against the person or persons who are.
citizens of the United States who are qualified and
available to perform the work to which such employment
relates;
2. That no contractor, material supplier, or vendor,
shall, in any manner, discriminate against, or in-
timidate, or prevent the employment of any such person
or persons, or on being hired, prevent, or conspire to
prevent, any such person or persons from the perfor-
mance of work' under any contract on account of race,
creed or color;
3'. Any violation of this section shall be a misdemeanor;
and
,4. That this contract may be cancelled or terminated by
the state, county, city, ~own, school board, or any
other person authorized to grant contracts for such
employment, and all money due, or to become due
hereunder, may be forfeited for a second or any sub-
sequent violation of the 'terms or conditions of this
contract.
XII.. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN FOR DISABLED INDIVIDUALS
ae
Be
Disabled Individuals Affirmative Action Clause
The City of Mound shall not discriminate against any
employee or applicant for employment because of physical or
mental disability in regard to any position for which the
employee or applicant for employment is qualified. The City
of Mound agrees to take affirmative action to employ, ad-
vance in employment, and otherwise treat qualified disabled
individuals without discrimination based upon their physical
or mental disability in all employment practices such as the
following: employment, promotion, demotion or transfer,
recruitment, advertising, layqff or termination, rates of
pay or other forms of compensation, and training.
Th~ City of Mound agrees to comply with the rules and
relevant orders of the MinneSota Department 'of Human Rights
issued pursuant to the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
The City of Mound agrees to post in conspicuous places,
available to employees and applicants for employment,
notices 'in a form to .be prescribed by the commissioner of
the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. Such notices
shall state the City of Mound's obligation under the law to
take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment
qualified 'disabled employees and applicants for employment,
and the rights.of applicants and employees.
The City of Mound.shall notify each labor union or repre-
sentative of workers with which it has a collective bargain-
ing agreement or other contract understanding, that the con-
tractor is bound by the terms of Minnesota Statutes, Section
363.073 of the Minnesota Human Rights Act and is committed
to take affirmative action to employ and advance in employ-
ment physically and mentally disabled individuals.
Schedule for Review
The minimum physical and mental job qualifications of each
position, shall be reviewed ann6ally by the City Manager to
ensure that, to the extent qualification requirements tend
to screen out qualified disabled individuals, they are job
-35-
Co
De
Ee
Fe
related and'are consistent with business necessity and the
safe performance of the job.
Pre-Employment Medical Exams
The City of Mound may require a ¢omprehenzive medical exam
prior to employment. The results of such an examination
will not be used to screen out qualified disabled in-
dividuals. Information obtained in response to such in-
quiries or examination shall be kept confidential except
that (a) supervisors and managers may be informed regarding
restrictions on the work or duties of disabled individuals
and regarding accommodations, (b) first aid and safety per-
sonnel may be informed, where and to the extent appropriate,
if the condition might require,emergency treatment, and (c)
officials, employees, representatives, or agents of Human
Rights or local human rights agencies investigating com-
pliance with the act or local human rights ordinance shall
be informed if they request such information.
Accommodations to Physical and Mental Limitations of
Employees
The City of Mound shall make a reasonable accommodation to
the physical and mental limitations of an employee or ap-
plicant unless such an accommodation would impose an undue
hardship on the conduct of the City.
Compensation
In offering employment or promotions to disabled in-
dividuals, the City of Mound shall not reduce the amount of
compensation offered because of any disability income, pen-
sion, or other benefit the applicant or employee receives
from'another source.
Outreach, Positive Recruitment, and External Dissemination
of Policy
The City of Mound shall review employment practices to
determine whether the personnel programs provide the
required affirmative action' for employment and advancement
of qualified disabled individuals. Based upon the findings
of such reviews, the City of Mound shall undertake ap-
propriate outreach and positive recruitment activities, such
-36-
as those listed'below.
1. Develop internal communication of obligation to engage
in affirmative action efforts to employ qualified dis-
abled individuals in such a manner as to foster under~
standing, acceptance, and support among executive,
management, supervisory, and all other employees and to
encourage such persons to take the necessary action to
aid the City of Mound in meeting this obligation.
2. Develop reasonable internal procedures to ensure that
the obligation to engage in affirmative action to
employ and promote qualified disabled individuals is
being fully implemented.
The City shall make readily available to disabled in-
dividuals the current listing of job opportunities in
the City offices. The City will advertise available
positions in a manner determined by the City to be most
appropriate to reach local disabled individuals.
3. Periodically inform all employees 'and prospective
employees of the commitment to engage in affirmative
action to increase employment opportunities for
qualified disabled individuals.
Enlist the assistance and support of recruiting sources
(including state employment Security agencies, state
vocational rehabilitation agencies or facilities, shel-
tered workshops, college placement officers, state
education agencies, labor organizations and organiza-
tions of or for disabled individuals) of the City of
Mound's commitment to' provide meaningful employment op-
portunities to qualified disabled individuals.
Establish meaningful contacts with appropriate social
service agencies, organizations of and for disabled in-
dividuals, vocational rehabilitation agencies or
facilities, for such purposes as advice, technical as-
sistance, and referral to potential employees.
Review employment records ko determine the availability
of promotable and transferable qualified known disabled
individuals presently employed, and t° determine
,5.
'whether' ~heir present and potential skills are being
fully utilized or developea.
7. Take positive steps to attract qualified disabled per-
sons not currently in the workforce who have requisite
skills and can be recruited through affirmative action
measures.
Internal Dissemination of Policy
Realizing that an outreach program is ineffective without
adequate internal support from department heads and super-
visory personnel and other employees, who may have had
limited con~act with disabled persons in the past, and in
order to assure greater employee cooperation and participa-
tion the City of Mound shall disseminate this policy inter-
nally as follows:
Include it in its personnel policies.
Department Heads shall schedule meetings with all
employees to discuss policy and explain individual
employee responsibilities.
3. Meet with union officials to inform them of the City of
Mound's policy, and request their cooperation.
4. Include nondiscrimination clauses in all union agree-
ments, and review all contractual provisions to ensure
they are nondisciminatory.
5. Include articles on accomplishments of disabled workers
in City publications.
6. Post the policy on company bulletin boards, including a
statement that employees and applicant's are protected
for coercion, intimidation, interference, or dis-
'crimination for filing a complaint or assistance in an
, investigation under the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
Responsibility for Implementation
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager has been designated
director of Mound's affirmative action activities.
His identity shall appear on all internal and external com-
munications regarding the City of Mound's affirmative action
programs. Edward J. Shukle, Jr. has been given necessary
support to manage the implementation of this program includ-
., lo
-38-
ing the following activities:
1. Develop policy statements, affirmative action programs,
and internal and external communication techniques to
be certain the City of Mound's policies are being fol-
lowed. In addition, superVisors shall be advised that:
a. their work performance is being evaluated on the
basis of their affirmative action efforts and
results, as well as other criteria; and
b. the City of Mound is obligated to prevent harass-
ment of employees placed through affirmative ac-
tion efforts.
2. Identify problem areas in conjunction with Department
Heads and known disabled 9mployees, in the implementa-
tion of the affirmative action plan, and develop solu-
tions.
3. Design and implement an 'audit and reporting system that
will:
a. measure effectiveness of the City.of Mound's plan;
b. indicate need for remedial action;
c. determine the degree %o which objectives have been
attained;
d. ensure that each department is in compliance with
the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
4. Serve as liaison between the City of Mound and the Min-
nesota Department of Human Rights.
5. Serve as liaison between the City of Mound and or-
ganizations Of and for disabled persons, and arrange
for the active involvement of City representatives in
the community service programs of local organizations
of and for the disabled.
Keep.Department Heads informed of the latest develop-
ments in the entire affirmative action area.
Development and Execution of Affirmative Action Programs
The Affirmative Action Plan for the City of Mound shall be
developed and executed as follows:
1. Job qualifications requirements reviewed shall be made
available to all employees involved in the.recruitment,
-39-
screening, selection, and promotion process.
The City of Mound shall evaluate the total selection
process including training, and promotion to ensure
freedom from stereotyping disabled persons in a manner
which limits their access to alI jobs for which they
are qualified.
All personnel involved in the recruitment, screening,
selection, promotion, disciplinary, and related
processes shall be carefully selected and trained to
ensure that the commitments in its affirmative action
program are implemented.
Disabled employees shall be made available for par-
ticipation in career day~, and related activities in
the community.
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Date
'screenlng;.selection, and promotion process·
The City of Mound shall evaluate the total selection
process including training and promotion to ensure
freedom from stereotyping disabled persons in a manner
which limits their access to all jobs for which they
are qualified.
Ail personnel involved in the recruitment, screening,
selection, promotion, disciplinary, and related
processes shall be carefully selected and trained to
ensure that the commitments in its affirmative action
program are implemented.
Disabled employees shall be made available for par-
tiCipation in career days, and related activities in
the community.
Edward J. shukle, Jr., City Manager
Date
-40-
" XIII. ~PPENDICEB
Appendix No. 1
Appendix No. 2
Appendix No. 3
Appendix No. 4
Appendix No. 5
Recruitment Resources
Media Sources
Sample Letter to Suppliers,
Vendors, and Contractors
Indicating the'City of Mound's
Affirmative Action Policy
Sexual Harassment Statement
of Policy
Equal Opportunity is the Law
Poster
APPENDIX NO. I
RECRUITHENT RESOURCES
Grace Jaggers
Occupational Skills Training Center
1006 West Lake Street
Minneapolis, MN. 55408 (348-4037)
Labor Education Advancement Program
Minneapolis Urban League (South Office)
4098 East 38th Street
Minneapolis, MN. 55409 (827-5673)
John Brunier
Labor Education Advancement Program
Minneapolis Urban League (North Office)
1210 Glenwood Avenue North '
Minneapolis, MN. 55404 (347-2530)
Upper Midwest American Indian Center
1113 West Broadway
Minneapolis, MN. 55411 (522-4436)
Job Bank
5th.Floor
390 North Robert Street
St'Paul, MN. 55101 (296-8400)
APPENDI~ NO. 2
~EDIA SOURCES
Laker Newspapers
2310 Commerce Blvd.
Mound, MN. 55364
Minneapolis Star Tribune
425 Portland Ave.
Minneapolis, MN. 55415
St. Paul Recorder
393 Endicott Bldg.
St. Paul, MN. 55101
St. Paul Pioneer Press & Dispatch
55 E. 4th Street
St. Paul, MN. 55101
Minneapolis Spokesman
3744 - 4th Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN. 55401
APPENDIX NO. 3
SAMPLE LETTER TO SUPPLIERS, VENDORS AND CONTRACTORS
INDICATIN~ THE CITY OF MOUND'S AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICY
The City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby notifies all sub-grantees,
contractors, and vendors with which it does business that it has
adopted a policy that will not discriminate in employment prac-
tices on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, national
origin, sex, age, marital status, public assistance status,
veteran status, handicap or disability; that it has agreed to
take affirmative action to recruit minorities, women and hand-
icapped persons into its employment; and that it will transact
business only with firms who have adopted similar non-
discriminatory and affirmative action policies.
Please
inform us of the following information by (date): The number of employees in your firm.
Has your firm filed the Equal Employment Opportunity
Information report EEO-l?
Has your firm adopted the written Affirmative Action
Program?
If your firm has adopted an Affirmative Action Program,
has your program been subject to Federal equal oppor-
tunity review?
S~ncerely,
City Manager
"An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer"
APPENDIX NO. 4
SEXUAL HARASSMENT STATEMENT OF POLICY
POLICY AND PROCEDURES REGARDIN~ SEXUAL HARASSMENT
It is the policy of the City of Mound to maintain a work environ-
ment that is free from sexual harassment.
Sexual harassment shall consist of unwelcome sexual advances,
requests for sexual favors, and other inappropriate verbal or
physical contact of a sexual nature when made by any member of
the City staff:
.. (a)
When submission to such conduct is made, either ex-
plicitly or implicitly, a term or condition of an
individual's employment,
(b)
When submission to or rejection of such conduct by an
individual is used as the basis for employment deci-
sions affecting that individual, or
(c) When such conduct has the purpose or effect of substan-
tially interfering with an individual's professional
performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive empl'oyment environment.
In carrying oUt this policy, the City recognizes that sexual
harassment is a form of sexual discrimination and as such is sub-
ject to applicable state and federal laws.
OCZDU S
The City of Mound will maintain a work place free of sexual
harassment and .intimidation. Employees are urged to report any
flagrant actions or unwanted advances of fellow employees. If
complaints are made, the City will independently investigate the
allegations; and i~:the facts appear to support such a complaint,
immediate action .will be taken including, but not limited..to,
discipline, warning, suspension, or termination of the offending
personnel, pursuant to statutory prerequisites. The City Manager
shall be responsible for investigating all'complaints. If a com-
plaint is filed against the City Manager, the City Council shall
appoint an independent investigator to review the complaint and
to report directly to the City Council.
Employees who experience sexual harassment in the course of their
employment should make it clear to the offending party that such
behavior is offensive to them and bring it directly to the atten-
tion of the appropriate supervisor...
Any.person who alleges sexual harassment in the City must report
it directly to his/her department head. The City's employee
grievance procedure may be used in addressing such problems. The.'
.filing of a grievance or other report of sexual, harassment will
not'affect the individual's employment status, nor will it affect
their future employment or work assignments.
INFORMATION
Sexual harassment may include,
following:
but it not limited to, the
Verbal harassment or abuse of a sexual nature;
Pressure for sexual activity;
Repeated remarks with sexual or demeaning implications;
Unwelcome touching; or
Suggestions or demands for' sexual involvement accom-
panied by implied or explicit threats concerning one's
job..
Protection from harassment in the course of employment is
provided in the following categories:
Harassment by supervisors or persons with management
authority;
Harassment from peers or co-workers; and
Harassment by way of a sexually degrading work environ-
ment.
APPENDIX NO. 5
Equal Employment Opportunity is...
.%
P:ivwte i~mployment,
State anal
CrOv~:T~m :nt, Zduca~io~
I~titutio~
Don't.
mploym.ent
.OppOrtumty
· ~s the Law!
BILLS ...... NOVEMBER 29, 1988
Batch 8111
Batch 8112
59,764.16
57,979.19
SuperAmerica
Oct gasoline 708.21
TOTAL BILLS 118,451.56
A?-C02-01
VE?. ~DOF~ INVOICE DUE HOLD
:j .r. L" "x ~.; A L
F?:E-F'A ] D
B05~9 PRE-PAID
BD.I.BOY Cu~rOF:A~ *0,~ VERDOR TOTAL
B0..¢:0 FRE-PAID
11/15/88 11/!5/D8
BiLL CLARK OIL COMPANY VD~R TOTAL
~.l/~.~ LID
2,174.62 uXHL'CD
2174.62
I~429.49 GASOLINE
1,42%49 JR~-CD
1429.49
toro
0!- I
I010
t429.49
CC~959 PRE-PAID 100.00 CERTIF!~TES-87 DANCE 0!-2300-0220
11/15/88 11/15/88 100.00 ~NL-CD 1010
100.00
C~,,,,AE~D~~l,~,~r, ~EAllER ~ENDOR TOTAL
C0888 PRE-PAID
11/15/88 11/15/G~
~ITY COUNTY CR~IT ~ION VD(DOR TOTAL
100.00
2~705,00
2,70~,00
2705,00
UNION lb/2? PR
JRNL-CD
01-2040-00~X)
1010
2705.00
C0920
PRE-PAID 18.43
10.00
11115/88 11/15/88 28.43
REPLEN P/C-LIQ
PJEPLEN P/C-LID-LAWN ~W
~-CD
71-7100-Z!00
71-7100-4210
1010
~.43
CITY OF M~ND
VEN[~R TOTAL 28.43
C0960
COAST TO
CIO01
PRE-PAID
11/!5/88 11/15/88
VD~DOR TOTAL
PRE-PAID
11115/88 1!/!5/88
PRE-PAID
~/!5./85 '' ~'~
1~11.:,/,:,o
18.14
39192
4.63
5.99
16.50
40.98
24.~
12.13
104.18
124.~
106.88
1(~.88
106,88
12.60
435.00
~7.36
39.49'
7.51
13.00
435.00
1,882.28
1882.28
'~ '4c ~A
2,145.08
8!,89
5?49.49
6,031.38
PLYWOOD - PAINT
DCT SUF'PL!ES
OCT SUPPJES
DCT SUPPLIES
OCT SUPPLIES
PHDNE
~ONE
OCT SUPPLIES
~T SUPPLIES
OCT SUPPLIES
OCT SLePt. lES
OCT SUPPLIES
OCT SUPPLIES
OCT SUPPLIES
WATER SOFIB4ER
CBD:WIRE-CORD-LIGHT$
PAINT-O~'~R~'TEMIX
OCT SUPPLIES
OCT S~PPLIES
~TER SOFT.ER
JRNL-¢D
SIT 10/29 PR
JRNL-CD
OCT SALES TAX
~T SALES TAX ''
JRNL-CD
01-4140-2200
01-4290-~50
01-4290-2300
01-4340-~00
01-4340-2300
01-4340-3~Q
01-4060-~O0
01-4280-2~00
01-4320-2200
73-7300-2200
78-7800-~00
01-4280-220(1
01-4270-22-00
73-7300-~O0
78-7800-5000
40-6000-2200
2.2-4170-~O0
78-7800-2300
01-4270-?700
73-7300-5OO0
1010
01-2040-0000
1010
7~ .,5, ~ 0 ....
7!-35~-0000
!010
18..~.28
2145.08
cO.,1 ..:,o
;,t:S:_ 2
A='-£02-01 '
......... ' ..... DUE
NO. tNVOtCr NME~ [~,-_ DATE S:ATU~
J 3 U,:::1 ~L
COMMIS$!O~ER GF REVENUE VD(DOR TOTAL
DI152 PRE-PAID
ll/!woc ......
DAIN B~S~ORTH, iNC VENDOR TOTAL
D1219 PRE-PAID
11/15/88 1i/!5/88
DB. BERT RUDOLPH V"¢DOR TOTAL
D!259 PRE-PAiD
11/15/88 11/15/~
SEPT OF NATURAL RESOURCES VB'E~OR TOTAL
E1429 PRE-PAiD
11/15/88 1!/15/S~
PRE-PAiD
lt/15/88 11/kAo
ED PHILLIPS & SONS VDE~R TOTAL
61955 ~E-PAID
11/15/88 11/15/E~
GREAT ~ST LIFE ASSL~ANCE ~NDOR TOTAL
61971 PRE-PAID
11/15/~ 11/15/88
GROUP HEALTH PLAN VDDDR TOTAL
61972 PRE-PAID
11/15/88 ~ '
11/1./o8
PRE-PAID
11ti5/88 !l/!5/~g
PRE-PAID
TOTAL
3,700.00 R~UND ~:R PYHT-INV 663
~., w'..(.~ no JF',NL-CD
..,TuO,OO
!00,63 11.5 rna
~,~I~AC!
8,36 MILEAGE
i0S.99 JRNL-CD
108.~
50.00 [~GE PERMIT DNR
50,00 ¢~L-CD
50.00
i,$93.47 LIQ
64.55 WINE
30,31- DISC
1,5!7,71 JR.,~/u-CD
701.~ LID
7.01- DISC
693.~ JRNL-CD
2211.70
t,023.00
1,0~.00
15.35
15.35
15.35
1,~9,41
39.99-
11.70
1,971.12
7.03-
4.~5
349.55
910.42
18.21-
5,06
897.27
DEF COMP 10/29
JNI.-CD
HOSP [ED 10/~ PR
JRNi.-CD
LIQ
DISC
F~T
~NL-CD
WINE
DISC
FRT
DISC
FRT
u~NL-CD
84-3810-0000
1010
3700. O0
!0!0
101% ?~ ·
10!0
50.00
71-7!00-9510
71-71~-9520
71-7100-9560
1010
71-7100-9510
71-7100-95~
1010
1517.71
693.~
01-2040-0000
1010
10~.00
01-2040-0000
1010
15.35
71-7100-~i0
71-7100-9560
71-7100-9600
1010
1971.12
71-7100-9520
71-7100-9560
71-7!00-9600
1010
7!-7100-9510
71-7!00-9560
71-7100-9600
1010 E~7.27
INVOICE' DUE HOLD
"~ ""' '"' DATE
~'~c,. ~i'.:,C.',~: ~w~c,,.,,.,, n~T=..,,,_ STATUS'
F-'L:P C H A S E
t,~ I ~ ; wL'NL
H~'~N CO~urrur,, & COLLEC% Vr.~D~n TOTAL
H~ .... PRE-PAID
12~01
11/15/88 11/15/8~
VE~OR TOTAL
PRE'PAID
11/15/88 11/15/88
I~A RE-rlR~ CORP YDID~ TOTAL
¢2~1 PRE-PAID
11/15/88 11/15/E8
JOHN TAFFE VEND~ TOTAL
d2~9 F~E-PAID
11/15/88 II/15/E8
PRE-PAID
11/15/88 11/15/E8
JOHN~N BROS WHOLESALE LI~ VD~DOR TOTAL
I_2.'~!7 PRE-PAID
11/15/88 11/15/88
~ &~FORCEM, B~TLABOR SE'R* VENI}~ TOTAL
L28~ PRE-PAID
II/15/~9 11/15/~
LEAGGE O= MN C!TI~S ' VDE~OR TOTAL
PRE-PAID
11/t5/88 II/15/88
M~ CEN,'F.B HEALIIH PLAN VENDOR TOTAL
M3170 ~RE-PAID
11/15/88 11/!5/88
240.00 L~BOn-COMruST SITE
~83.50 CEM£~RY MA!NT
32.70 CITY HALL MAINT
~6.20 JRNL-CD
5=6 ~0
~o.0~ DEF COM2 10/29 PR
538.06 dRNL-CD
1.'7..,0 17 COI~i'F~qCT HRS
60.00 8 COKI'RALT ~S
187.50 OR~8_-CD
187.50
1,917.16 LtQ
743.66 WI~E
45.8% DISC
32.50 FRT
2,647.43 ~%NL-CD
1,189,17 LiQ
698.~ WINE
30.7% OI~
30.50 ~T
1,887,~ JR.-CD
39.00
39.00
39.00
50.00
50.00
50 ;00
70...c,
70.08
70.08
7~q' ~fl
a,7~,~0
LtNION DED 10/29 PR
JOE-CD
POLICY MTG
JRNL-CD
HOSP DED 10/29 PR
~NL-CD
OCT SAC
JRNL-CD ..
0!-2040-000:}
01-4~,0-1~..
80-8000-1300
Ol-~ofl.~5,nO
01-20~3-0000
1010
01-;060-3100
01-4340-31~:
1010
71-7100-9510
71-7100-9520
71-71~-9560
71-7100-9600
10!0 '
71-7100-9510
71-7100-9520
71-7100-9560
71-7100-96CX}
1010
01-2040-0000
1010
01-4040-4120
1010
01-2040-0000
1010
78-2304-00~
1010
~8.06
187.50
2~7.43
1887.~
0--"9.00
50.00
M3401 PRE-PAID 299.00
1 I/15/88 1 i / 15/88 288.00
MN RET!R=:~T SYSTEM VE~DOR TOTAL 288.00
M3455 P~-PA!D 54~.65
1,/..,!oo 11/15/88 ~" '~
~ r.: .... VENDOR TOTAL ~ ...~.
P3950 PRE-PAID 5,716.45
11/;¢/,¢.~ 11/15/88 5,716.45
P E R A ~ND~ TOTAL ~16.45
P4030 PRE-PAiD 365.64
11/!5/88 11/15/88 365.~
PHYSICIANS OF ~ W~OR ~OTAL ~55.64
P4102 PRE-PAID ~.~
11/!5/88 11/15/~ ~0.00
P~D PAVING I~ ~R TOTAL ' 500.00
P4115 PRE-PAID 88.5~
11/15/89 11/15/~ 88,~3
PRUD~IA& INS~2NCE COMPA VBESR TOTAL 88.33
Q4~71 PRE-PAID 2,080,08
240.00
43.99-
2,276.09
DESSR:PTiON
DEF COMP !0/27 PR
dR~&-CD
b~lON DED 10/27 PR
JRNL-CD
P~ 10/29 PR
,~NL-CD
~3SP DED 10/29 PR
JRNL-CD
REPAIR 4994 MANCHESTER
JR~-CD
LIFE INS DED 10/~ PR
dR~_-CD
LIQ
WINE
DISC
u~NL-CD
11/15/88 11/15/88
PRE-PAID 1~674.~ LIQ
139.45 WINE
3~.87- DiSC
11/15/8.8 11/15/88 1,7-/9.40 ,~:,%-CD
QUALITY WINE & SPIRITS VB~DOR TOTAL ;055.49
R4257 PRE-PAID 148.00 16 CO:~ffRACT HRS
11/15/88 11/15/88 148.00 JB~L-CD
RO~E,RT E dOHNSCN VENDOR TOTAL 148.00
R4300 F~E-PAID 60.00 GO~ TOURN REIMB
103.50 ROTARY [q]ES !0-I1-12
11/!5/88 11/1,,/.>: 1~.'..,:0 ~,NL-Cu
Ru.,.RY.._~.,r' ,~'~ OF,,uU,'~D _ . .. TOTAL lb~....u
S4370 F'%-F'AID 68.85 !2-!-2 HOSP-STUTSMAN
OI-20zO-O000
10!0 :2.00
01-2040-0000
1010 54¢.65
01-2040-0000
1010 5716.45
01-20~-00~
1010 ~.5.64
01-2300-00(~
1010 500.00
O1-2(~O-O0(xl
I010 ~9.~
71-7100-~10
71-71(Q-952Q
71-7100-~560
1010
71-7100-9510
71-7!00-75~
71-7100-~60
1010
~76.09
1779.40
01-4060-I3(~J
I010
01-1190-0000
01-4()40-41C~
1010
1~.50
%-4190-1510
INVOICE ~UE HD_D
l~O, I~,~VO~TCE NMBR £~TE DATE STATUS
!1/15/88 1!/15/$8
VENDOR TOTAL
S4500 PRE-PAID
11/15/88 11/15/88
STATE DANK OF MOUND VENDOR TOTAL
S45!1 PRE-PAID
11/15/88 11/15/88
STATE CAPITOL CREDIT UNION gE~qOR TOTAL
T4780 PRE-PAiD
11/15/88 11/15/~.
THRIFTY SNY[ER DRUG NO4 VENDOR TOTAL
~560' PRE-PAID
11/15/88. !1/!5/$~
WESTDNKA F~DS VENDOR TOTAL
Z6138 ~PRE-PAID
11/15/~ 11/15/88
ROGER BDNNICKSEN W_I'E~OR TOTAL
TOTAL ALL V"EN[8R$
P~'F;CUASE
CITY OF
137.70
137.70
9,784.76
?,784.76
~784.76
418.60
418.60
7.07
7.07
7.08
7.08
7,94.
36.24
68.38
~,31
118.69
118.69
1,700.00
1,700.00
1700.00
DESCRIPTION
12-1-2 HOSP-KOPP
JR!,~-CD
FIT I0/~ PR
~),L-CD
CR UNION 10/29 PR
JRNL-CD
SUPPLIES-BULLETIN BOARD
SUPPLiES-BL)LLETIN BDARD
SUPPLIES-BULLETIN BOAP3
SUPPLIES-BULLETIN BOARD
FILM
CDUNCIL I'Ft'G SUPPL
SUPPL
JRNL-CD
RELEASE ESCRDW-BONNICKS~
JRNL-CD
59,764.16
01-404K)-15!0
1010
01-20~0-0000
1010
01-2040-0000
1010
73-7300-~00
78-7800-2200
01-4280-~00
01-4290-22fX1
01-4140-2200
1010.-
01-402~-~)
22-4170-~00
1010
01-2300-07&9
1010
1:]:7.70
9784,76
418.60
~.24
1!8.69
1700.00
A~O-MN
11/18/8,.°. 11/18/E8
VB;E)0R TOTAL
,:,~,i., TRAYS
28.¢7 OFFICE SUPPLIES
94,47 O~FICE SUPPLIES
19,08 OFFICE SUPPLIES
16,50 OFFICE ~PPLIES
52.50 GFFiCE SUPPLIES
8.25 OFFICE SUPPLIES
40,42 OFFICE SUPF%!ES
40.42 OFFICE SUPPLIES
44,25 OFFICE SUP~iES
7,74 OFFICE SUPPLIES
12.48 OFFICE SUPPLIES
21.45 OFFICE SUPPLIES
475.6~ J~NL-CD
4~. 69
0!-4040-2100
0!-4070-2100
0!'4!40-2!00
01-Z190'2!00
7~-7!00-2100
73-7300-21~
.78-7800-2100
o!-47o-22r×~
o!-4o6o-21oo
ol-432o-21oo
lOlO
AOIIO
11/18/88 11/!8/88
69.07 FUE~LATDR
69.0~? dR.-CD
78-7800-2300
1010
AIR HYDRA)IIC SYSTEM VE)~LIOR FOT~
69.09
A0240
11/18/88 11/18/88
o
~,00 PPD DUES-AM~ ~R WOO(
58.00 dF~L-CD
7o-l~,.J-O000
I010
A~-RICA~ WATER, WORKS A~N V~T~]R TOTAL
58,00
A0331
lt/18/8~ 11/18/88
53.02 E-MPL &~ICATI~S
53.02 dRNL-CD
73-7300-2!20
1010
AMST~DAM PRINTING
VENDOR TOTAL
53,02
B0702
11/18/88 11/18/~
BRIN N~)RTHWESTERN GLA~ CO VENDOR TOTAL
92.07 MIRROR
92.07 ,~NL-CD
92.07
10!0
CO~O
11/18/88 11/18/88
CARGILL SALT DIVISION V1S'4DOR TOTAL
C0858
11/18/88 11/18/88
2,190.98 87.78 T DEICING SALT
2,190.~ JRNL-CD
2190.98
185,99 CARBURETOR-UNIT 13
185.99 ~',q.-CD
01-4280-~40
1010
78-7800-3810
1010
AUTO STORES, VB4~OR TOTAL
185,99
CO'iPUT~:V!CE..,,,,;~'~
iI IO/O8
. / '-v'-' 11/18/88
~w,, TOTAL
907.00 LEASE
~o.vv~')~ ^^ HOWE MAINT
1,4!2.00 '~'"' ~
1412,00
0!-4075-50~)
1010
1 ....." /lOfC'o
1/!;,/c.., 11_.,.,. .....
48.00 ,REPAIR PHOfE-MGR
48,00 RF. PAIR ~ONE-F!N'
96.00 JRhL-CD
A F'- C 0".'2 - ') I
V=~.un I~'~OiCE DUE HOLD
nw. tN¥O!CE D~;~.-,R DATE DA"~ S A,UD
F'U2CHASE
CITY
AY. OUNT [,..,.ZI. TI~
JOURNAL
'l
C~,~ :Nm~TAu TEL?HONE :-~D., ';-,max. TOTAL
C1077
11/18/88 11/18/~
CG~,~IN~TAL llELEF~ONE VENDOR TOTAL
Dl1~0
11/18/88 11/18/88
DAVIES WATER EQUIPMENT VENDOR TOTAL
Fl710
FRANCENE CLARK
G1790
GARY LOTTON
JA~T B~TRAND
J2ill
11/18/88 11/18/88
VB/DDR TOTAL
11/18/88 11/18/88
VENDOR TOTAL
11/18/88 11/18/88
VENDOR TOTAL
11/1,./~ 11/18/88
JAUNICH ENTERPRISES
JOHN BREITNER
JCHN HENRY FOSTER,
VENDOR TOTAL
11/18/88 11/18/88
VENDOR TOTAL
11/18/88 11/18/88
VENDOR TOTAL
96.00
I~.43 NOV TELE
99.97 OCT TELE CALLS
3.09 OCT TELE CALLS
1.18 OCT TEUE CALLS
~.~I NOV TELE
49.13 NOV TELE COMF~TER
!!2.!6 NOV TELE
110.34 NOV TELE
180.24 INSTALL TELE-IP & MO CHG
68.25 INSTALL TELE-IP
807.30 dRNL-CD
807,30
638.46 12 METERS
~8.46 JRNL-CD
638.46'
19.00 ELECTION-LUNCH
3.50 CHA~ER MTG-11/3
7.50 CHAMB~ MTG-11/17
5.00 FILE FOR NOTARY~
35.00 JRNL-CD
35,00
35,00 GLASSES REIMB PER CONTRACT
35.00 J~NL-CD
35.00
12.98 LMC MTG
12.98 JRNL-CD
12.~8
110.00 TRAILERS
1!0.00 JRNL-CD
I10.00
521.10 FtMB INSPECTIONS
521.10 JRNL-CD
521.10
73.21 BAL OF FILTERS
73,21 o~N~-CD
73.21
207,39
NLFFS-BOLTS
01-4320-3220
0!-4075-3120
01-4!90-32Z)
01-4340-2220
~-4170-32~)
'~-4170-~220
71-7100-32Z)
01-4140-3~0
01-4340-3~20
A ~
01-40~0-~%~
1010
73-7300-2300
I010
01-4060-4120
01-40~-4!~
01-4040-4120
01-4040-4100
1010
01-4140-3140
1010
01-4190-412~
1010
Ol-~JO0-O~l
1010
01-4!90-3i~
1010
78-7800-2300
1010
PA~E 3
AP-CO2-Ot
FUR'CHASE dOUR!~AL
CiTY OF ~::l'.~,.~,
INVOICE DUE~,°~'='
INVOICE NNBR DATE UATE STAT~
A,'iSUT,]T DESCF, IPTION
II/!S/88 1!/!8/88
207.39 J,q.~L-CD
1010
KAR .......
TOTAL £07.3?
K2706
il/18/88 11/18/88
200.00 CO 15 L!GHTS-SXITC~ES
200.00 ~!L-CD
66-6000-3100
I010
KiLLMER ELEC~IC CO, INC ~DOR TOTAL 200.00
L2770
1!/18/88 II/18/88
7,75.00 PPD-LMCD DOCK RB;EWAL
7,245,00 JRRL-CD
81-1285-0000
!010
LAKE MTKA CONSERVATION DI~ VEt~OR TOTAL 7245.00
I.W21
11/18/88, 11/I8/E8
120,00 OCT INSPECTIONS
120.00 ~BNL-CD
0!-4I?0-3100
10t0
L~EN KOH~ VENDOR TOTAL
120.00
M3040
11/18/88 11/18/~.
1~5.00 DEC SUPPORT
135.00 JR)L-CD'
01-4075-3800
1010
MASYS CORF~RATION
~080
VENDOR TOTAL
11/18/88 11/18/88
135.00
966.00 OCT EN~
28.00 OCT ENGR-80 S~JEE-T8
~2.00 OCT ENGR-~ DREDGE-PF'D
,96.00 OCT ENGR-COBBLESTD~ E~ROW
28,00 OCT ENGR-MOR~ ES~OW
140.00 OCT EJtGR-CDDDDN ESC~W
112.00 OCT ENGR-CO 15 & LICdT$
1,814.00 OCT ENGR-PW BLDG
428.00 OCT ~GR-DRUMMOND
112.00 OCT ~qOR-MSA RE~RTS
C80,00 OCT ENGR-SANDQUIST S~ER
4,346.00 ~NL-CD
01-4190-31~
26-~00-3100
8!-1285-0000
01-C~00-0962
01-~0-0~65
01-2300-0~66
66-6000-3100
~-6000-3100
26-5700-3100
26-~00-3100
01-2300-0000
1010
MCCOMB8 F~)E RO~ ASSOCI, ~h~OR TOTAL
M.3200
11/18/88 IlI18/E8
4~6. O0
165,00 FLASH TUBES
46.50 YELLOW TAPE
.vO JF(NL-CD
211 =
01-4280-2310
01-4zoO-~uO
1010
M ID-..rT_~TRAL INC
VEX"D(]R TOTAL
211.50
M3,.,O
MDJ)JEGASCO
11/18/88
~_~¥~r, TOTAL
83.79 OCT GAS
98,58 OCT GAS
64.08 OCT GAS
!84.87 OCT GAS
93.48 OCT GAS
74.71 OCT GAS
270.4? OCT GAS
870.00 JR~-CD
870.00
73-73¢~-$720
78-~o00-..7~0
01-%:.,0-.,7Z~
01-4~0-3720
7I-7!00-3720
~-4170-37~
I010
PAS-' 4
AP-C02-01
IN¥OiC~' [,UE HOLD
NO. I~VOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS
PURCHASE
CiTY gF M~:HD
AMC~NT DESCRIPT!~N
JOUFiNAL
I 1 / 18/.S8 'i i
6.80 WATER, ANALYSIS
6.80 ~NL-CD
73-7300-3100
1010
MN VALLEY TESTING LABORATO VEND~ TOTAL
6.80
H3510
11/18/88 i1/18/~
MOU~E~ MEDICAL CLINIC VENDOR TOTAL
18.50 W/C--NELSON
9.25 W/C--N~uSON
9.25 W/C--N~SON
37.00 dRNL-CD
37.00
11/i8/8"8 11/18/88
HPLS STAR & 'FRIB~
VE]qD~ TOTAL
149.27
c,,r~ AD
149.27 JRNL-CD
149.27
73-7300-3410
1010
N3650
NCE
11/18/88, 11/18/~
VENDOR TOTAL
74.34 PAGER BAKERIES
74.34 JRNL-CD
74.34'
~-4170-~00
1010
N~O0
11/18/88 11/18/~
NORTHERN STATES ~W~ CO VD4DOR TOTAL
360.37 OCT ELEC
360.37 JRNq_ 'CD
360.37
73-7300-3710
1010
N3802
11118/88 11/18/88
NORTHERN STATES POWER VENDOR TOTAL
4,646,34 N~V ELEC
4,646.34 JRNL-CD
4646.34
01-4280-3710
1010
P4031
PHYSICIANS OF ~
11/18/88 11/18/88
~NDOR TOTAL
114.0(}
114.00
~8.00
228.00
12-1-2 HOSP-WERTS
!2-1-2 HOSP-R THARALSON
dRNL-CD
71-7100-1510
01-4140-1510
1010
'!
P4080
11/18/88 11/18/~
25.70
25.70
~%'.T REGISTR VOTER FORMS
JRNL-CD
01-4060-3500
1010
POUCHER PRINTING
VB~DOR TOTAL
25.70
S4430
· 11/18/88 11/18/E8
424.70
89.50
514.20
~TTLE TAGS
FiRE R~ORTS
JR)t-CD
71-7100-2200
~-4170-3500
1010
) S~ PRINTING VD4DOR TOTAL
514.20
T~730
)
36,32
296.24
1'~.27
11.35
· ~. 05
51.08
BUDG~ & NOTICES
CABUE ORaN
B. ECTION NOTICES
LEGAL NOTICES
AD FOR BIDS
ADS FOR BIDS ''
LEGALS-C~UMMOND
01-4020-35!0
01-4030-3510
01-4060-3510
01-4190-35!0
01-4270-3510
· 01-4~80-~10
26-5700-3510
PUF:CHAS.E JOUFiNAL
CITY OF ~O'J4D
,l~v~:~; DUE HOLD ,
NO, INVOICE f.;M~R DATE DATE STATUS A~3jNT DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT N',_'.;'IE~EF; AME:~NT
1i/18/85
VEN~ TOTAL
17,80 EK~L AS
816.93 ~NL-CD
816,93
71-710u-o~u:~
lOiO
T4790
11/!8/88 11/t8/88
89.44
89.44 JRNL-CD
1010
TH.'URK BROS CHEVROL~
~NDOR TOTAL
89.44
T4929
11/18/88
I~,00 II:AK LOCATOR
175,00 dRNL-CD
73-7300-4200
1010
TRIANG~ ENGINEERING, IN(] Ve4.DOR TOTAJ.
V5190
11/18/88 11/18/68
175.00
210.00 ~EPT COMPREH P~N
1,110.00 SEPT CO~ULT
1,~0,00 ~-CD
16-5894-3!00
01-41~0-3100
1010
VANDOR~-HAZARD-STAIIIN~ VEt4D~ TOTAL
Ws3 o
WACONIA R!DG~ID4 HOSPIT~ ~qEND~ TOTAL
1~0.00
940.00
940,00
940.00
CPR-~SPDND~ CDlJRSE
,.IRNL-CD
01-~00-02.~
I010
W5430
11/!8/88 II/18/~8
615,70 PIPES-RDDS-CLAJ'IPS
615,70 dP, NL-CD
1010
WA.17~ PRODUCTS COMPANY VENDOR TOTAl. 615,70
W55~0
11/18/8811/18/88
WESTONKA FIRESTONE VE~OR TOTAL
W~90
11/18/88 11/18/~
WESTDNKJ SL~OL D!ST 27'7 ~NDDR TDT~
297.90
2~7.90
297,90
14,212,00
14,212.00
14212.~
BATTERIES
JRNL-CD
88 SB4i~ CE)fl'ER-CDBG
JRNL -CD
~-4170-~f~
1010
16-5888-41(Q
'1010
W5630
1}/I8/88 11/18/88
2,100,00
293.50
325.00
130.00
2,~8.50
CO 110 BREAK
HAW~DR~E BRF_JqK
5733 SUNS~
GRANDVIEW
JNL-CD
73-73r~-3800
73-7300-3800
78-7500-3500
1010
WIDH~ INC
VENDOR TOTAL 27.58,50
W5700
373,60
I,.,~0,00
140,00
240.00
1,609,00
550,00
10!.00
3 QTR LEGAL-HAZ-OAklAWN-ASSESS
3 QTR LEGAL-HYLAI.~
3 QTR LEGAL-HAZ-FAtRFiELD
3 Q~ LEGAL-HAZ-TONKAWOOD
3 QTR LEGAL-
3 QTR LEOAL-DP~M(]N~
3 QTR LEGAL-78 STRUTS
01- I 190-OOf)O
01-41 I0-3100
01-4110-::100
01-4110-3100
0!-4110-::.:100
26-5700-3100
.)
PAGE 6
VENDOR IN~'OIC~' DUE HOLD
NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS
WU~'~ST-F~ARS~-LARSON
X~50
X~DX ~RPORATION
ZOO01
KAROL CHARON
Z6003
LEE MONI~_ON
Z6004
ANN SCJ~W INOL~
Z6005
BA;~BA~ SIDES
Z6006
8]NNI~ A~ERSGN
Z6007
M~ION DAVI[E~ON
Z6008
BETTY JOHNSON
Z~-~}09
B~NI~ PU~
Z6010
11/18/88 11/18/88
VENDOR TOTAL
11/18/88 11/18/88
VENDC~ TOTAL
11/18/88 11118/88
VENDOR TOTAL
11118188 11118188
~END~ TOTAL
11/18/88 11/18/88
VB~IDOR TOTAL
11/18/88 11/18/88
~DOR TOTAL
11/18/88 11/18/88
VENDOR TOTAL
11/18/88 11/18/88
VENDOR TOTt
11/18/88 11/18/~
VENDOR TOTAL
11/18/88 1!/18/88
VB'~DOR TOTAL
11/18/88 11/18/88
CiTY OF
o
DESSRIPTION
275.00
975,00
~5.00
6,578.60
698.60
614.00
706.31
I ,~0.31
t720.31
44.38 11/8 k'IECTION ~GE
44.38 ~N~_-CD
44.38
58.58 11/8 ELECTION JUDGE
~.58 ~NL-OD
58.58
80.33 11/8 ELECTION dUDGE
80.33 ~NL-CD
80,33
90,33 11/8 ELECTION JUDGE
90,33 ~[~.-CD
60.36 11/8 ELECTION JUDGE
60,36 ,.RNL-CD
60.36
44.~ I1/8 ELECTION
~.38 d~L-CD
44.~
58.58 11/8 ELECTION dLE~]E
58.58 JRNL-CD
58.58 11/8 ELECTION JUDGE
~,~..'8~-CD
58.58
56.80 11/8 B. ECTiON JLE~GE
56.80 ~'.NL-CD
JOURNAL
3 QTR. LEGAL-F'W BLDG
3 QTR LEGAL-WESTEDGE PURCH
3 QTR LEGAL-MORSE ESCRC~
~NL-CD
INK-DBYELDP~ FOR COPIERS
OCT MAI[~-5~JO
~:NL-CD
ACCOUNT NUMSER
28-6000-3100
60-6000-31¢~3
01-~00-0%5
1010
01-4320-2200
.OI-4~O-35CX)
1010
01-4060-1300
1010
01-4060-1300
1010
01-40~0-1300
i010
01-4060-1300
1010
01-4060-1~
1010
oI-4o o-1 oo
1010
01-4060-1300
I010
01-4060-1300
1010
01-4060-13~
1010
PR, E-PAiD
AMOUNT
PUOCHAS.E.. COU:~,'~, N A~.
C:TY OF '~
INVO'i?CE DUE HOLD
NO. INVO!~ N~BR :~ATE DATE STATU~,
.AKG~NT DESCRIPTION
PRE'PA::
FRAN '=' '*'""'""' ....
,.,~'~Mr~mur,~ v =.r~uur', TOTAL
56.80
Z6011
11/18/88
90.33 11/8 ELECTION JUDGE
90.33 ~XNL-CD
01-4060-1300
1010
ROBERT CARLSON
VENDOR TOTAL
90.33
Z6013
llll~/~o 11/18/88
60.36 11/8 ELECTION JUDGE
60,36 JR:~-CD
O1-40d~-l?~)
1010
'.)
,'~HIuN olLB~RT~NN
Z~15
ARD~LE SKOGLUND
'~NDOR TOTAL
11/!8/88 11/18/~8
VENDOR TOTAL
60.36
58.58
58.58
59.58
11/8 ELECTION JUDGE
JRNL-CD
01-4060-1300
1010
Z6017
11/18/~ !!/18/~
56,81 1I/8 ELECTION JUDGE
56.81 JRNL-CD
01-4060-1300
1010
MARSHA SMITH
VENDOR TOTAL
56.81
Z6018
11/18/88 11/18/88
58.58 11/8 ELECTION JUDGE
~8.58 d~NL-CD
01-4060-13~0
1010
VIRGINIA J~DEE
Z601~
DO$~THY O'BRIEN
VENDOR TOTAL
11/18/88 11/18/~
VEN~E)R TOTAL
58.58
58.58
58.58
58.58
11/8 ELECTION JUDGE,
,JR)~-CD
01-4060-13~
1010
.)
Z~020
11/1./o8 11/18/~
55.03 11/8 ELECTION JUDGE
55.03 JRNL-CD
01-~-!300
I010
SHIRLEY PHLEGER
VENDOR TOTAL
55.03
Z602!
11118/~ 11/18/88
58,58 11/8 ELECTION JUDGE
58.58 ,JR)~-CD
01-4060-13~
1010
AL SC. HWI qGL.-_R
ZE422
VF.)E1DR TOTAL
11/18/6:8 11/!8/88
82.83 11/8 FIECTIDN JUDGE
~.83 JRf, L-CD
01-4060-1300
1010
SANDI ~YTCkqE
VENDOR TOTAL
82.83
Z6023
11/18/88 11/i8/88
58.58 1!/8 m-.ECTION JJDo:
.,8.~8 JR'-CD
01-40.~4)- 1 ~:~
1010
ELSIE
VE)QOR TOTAL
Z6024
~,..:~ GILMCRE
!1/1o/o8 1i/18/~
VB'JDOR TOTAL
58.58 11/8 ELECTION
~..¢0 dRNL-CD
.J.:,,
01- 4060- ! 3i~
I0!0
P~5 8
V~DOR INVOICE DUE HOLD
~0. tI'~DICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS
PURCHASE
CITY OF ~i05~D
JOURN.AL
ACC_nU,~E NU~ER
PRE-PAiD
A,~OUNT
Z6025
11/18/88 I1/18/88
55.03 11/8 ELECTION JUDGE
55.03 dRNL-CD
01-40~4-I300
10!0
dEANETTE JOHNSON
~ENDOR TOTAL
55.03
Z6028
EMMA BRANDENBURG
11/18/88 11/18/88
V~8}OR TOTAL
· 58.58 11/8 ELECTION JUDGE
58.58 JRNL-CD
58.58
01-4060-13~
1010
Z6027
HELEN MAXWELL
Z6031
11/18/88 11/18/88
VENDOR TOTAL
11/18/88 11/18/~
60,~ 11/8 ELECTION JU~E
60,36 d~NL-CD
60,36
61.24 11/8 DJECTiON JLrC~GE
61,24 JRNL-CD
01-~60-1300
1010
01-4060-13~
I010
KAII'iY DMAN
Z6032
HOLLY BO~TROM
VENDOR TOTAL
11/18/~ 11/18/~
VE]~E)OR TDTAJ.
61.24
47.50 11/8 ELECTION JUDGE
47.50 JRNL-CD
47.50
01-406,0-1300
1010
Z6150
11/.18/~ 11/18/~
VENDOR TOTAL
63,91 11/8 ELECTION JUEqSE
6.3,91 ~NL-CD
01-4060-1300
1010 ·
· ')
Z61~3
11/18/88 11/18/88
58.58 11/8 ELECTION
58.58 J~-CD
01-40~-13~
1010
.)
PHYLLIS ORN
Z6154
~ZANNE CLARK
VENDOR TOTAL
11/18/88 11/18/88
~OR TOTAL
58.58
44.~
11/8 E].ECTION ~
~-CD
01-4060-1~'~f)0
1010
--)
Z6155
11/18/88 11/18/~
~,03 11/8 E1.ECTION ~
~,03' ~NL-CD
01-4060-1300
1010
JEAN ROBINSON
VElqDOR TOTAL
55,03
Z6156
11/18/88 11/18/~8
65.68 11/8 ELECTION JUDGE
65.~..9 dR.-CD
01-4060-1300
1010
.)
CLIFFORD WILSON
Z61~
BOB BYRh£S
VENDOR TOTAL
11/18/88 11/18/~
~ENDOR TOTAL
~.68
62.13
62.13
62,13
1!/8 ELECTION JUDGE
o~4L-CD
01-4060-1300
1010
'D
-)
NO. INVOI2E N~iF'R DATE [;ATE
dLB!E ME'SICK
Z6157
PHYLLIS RUDSuPH
Z6160
M~CELLA HALL
Z6161
SANl)RA WILSEY
Z6162
PATRICIA MEISEL
Z6!64
DELORES MAAS
Z61&5
JEROME LONGP~'
Z6166
BEi'FY STR~NG
Z6167
ELLEN SCH. OL. Bt
Z6!68
EDY~HE KOENIG
Z6167
MARTIN GILMORE
~6:70
VENDS: TOTAL
11/18/88 11/18/88
VENDDR TGTAL
11/18/88 1!/18/88
VENDOR TOTAL
11/18/88 11/18/88
VENDOR TOTAL
11/18/88 I1/18/~'
V~OR TOTAL
11/18/88 11/18/88
V~'~I)OR TOTAL
11118188 11/18/~
VENDOR TDTAL
11/18/88 11/18/88
VEh~DOR TOTAL
11/18/88 11/18/~
VENDOR TOTAL
11/18/88 11/18/88
VENDOR TOTAL
11/18/88 11/18/88
VENDOR TOTAL
PU~CHAS'E JOURNAL
CITY ~:
..i,uUNT
58 ~'
58.58
58.58
58.58
53.25
60.36
60,36
60,36
84,08
6~,08
84,08
61.24
61,24
61,24
58.58
58.58
58.58
58.58
58.58
58,58
44,38
4.4.38
44,~
56.81
56.8I
56.81
17,05
17.05
17,05
56.81
!i/8 ELECTION JUDCE
~:NL-CD
11/8 ~ECTION u~GE
JRNL-CD
11/8 ELECTION JUDGE
~RNL-CD
~1/8 E_ECTION JUDGE
JRNL-CD
11/8 ELECTION dUDGE
11/8 ~!ECTIDN JUDGE
JRNL-CD
11/8 EI.ECTIDNJUDGE
d~NL-CD
11/8 ELECTION ~qJDGE
dR,-CD
11/8 ELECTION JUDGE
dRNL-CD
11/8 B. ECTION JLE~GE
JRNL-CD
11/8 8_ECTION JUD~
~-CD
11/8 ~ECTION JUDGE
01-4060-1300
1010
01-4060-13(>3
1010
01-4060-1300
1010
01-4060-1300
1010
01-4060-1300
1010
0!-4060-13~
1010
01-4060-1300
1010
01-4060-1300
1010
01-4060-1300
1010
01-4060-I300
I010
01-A060-1300
1010
01-4060-13C~d
PASE
VENDOR
i~O. INVOICE I~BR
~-[TY LANSING
Z6171
ADELMA OSLU)~
PURCHASE dOURNAL
CITY OF ~OUND
INVOICE'' DUE HOLD
DATE DATE STA~JS A,-~OLI~ ~
11/18/88 11/18/88 56.81
V~DOR TOTAL 56.81
62,13
11118/88 11/18/~
VENDO~ TOTAL
TOTAL ALL VD~IORS
DESCRIPTION
dRIP-CD
11/8 ELECTION ~UI}GE
62.13 .~NL-CD
62.13
57,979.19
ACCOUNT NUMJ~ER
1010
01-4060-1300
1010
PRE-PAiD
AMOU~%
.)
)
CITY OF MOIJND
1988 BUDGET REF'ORT
EX F'END I TIJRE:--;
OCTOBER 198:=:
:E:3- 3%
GENERAL FUND
E: o u n c ~. 1
Cable TV
City Managep/C1 er.k
E1 "r~
~ - ~ i OhS
Assessing
Finmnce
Computer
Legml
Pol ice
Civil Defense
P1 ~nning/I nspecti
Recy,: 1 ing
8tr. eets
8hop & Stores
City Property
P~pks
Summer. Re,zpe~t ion
Cont&ngencies
Tr-sr, s~eps
BUriGET
46810
8390
116760
4¢)000
41800
134940
289';'0
97150
6/:,0410
2000
109450
17880
:364270
51860
83830
165430
7660
0
150'.-.-,' 90
OCTOBER YTD PER CENT
EXF'ENSE EXPENSE VARIANCE EXPENDED
2272 35955 10855 76.81%
4 6529 1861 77.82%
11526 110257 6503 94.43%
3198 36319 3681 90.80%
105 44814 -:3014 107.21%
11710 118031 169'09 87.47%
1681 27482 1438 95.03%
4241 66997 '~' =~ '~
._01.,.:, 6,:,.96%
517:]:5 520185 1402.5 78.77%
34 1.44 1E:~:,3 7.20%
9221 104948 4502 95.89%
1530 16248 1~ 2 90.87%
:37151 292695 715-;5 80.35%
7385 45449 /:,~ I 87.64%
26162 96597 -123,:,7 115.23%
17655 140645 247:S5 85.02%
26:39 5021 34.45%
47 3901 -3901
9721 97208 53782 64.38%
GENERAL FUND TOTAL
212:=:5 F;O- -. 1 '-.~ ='='._,.-, 7..~ '=' 176704:':: :2:61507 ::.:3.02%
Area Fire
Service Fur, d
C 0 ITlITI 0 ri -~. ri ,:, ,: k s F u r, ,J
iquor Fund
W~ter. Fur~d
:"]; ii' tiJ i.~ J" F I.J ri d
201430 14:361 155£)11 46419 76.96%
8,99'PC) 1579 68477 1513 '.:)7.84%
147520 126(.)1 1255/_-,7 2195:3 :E:5. 12%
29'.P/:,20 i 6499 24/:,2',EXE: 5:3:332 82. 20%
649640 91101 47498,:3 1746,77 7:_-,'. 11%
GENERAL FUND
I r, te r-,_~ ore r' nme
Business Li cen,-es
Nor,-Business
Licenses -.lnd
Permits
Char- L~es sot
L:;er-vices
E:our t Fines
E:hapges to tither
Departments
Other Revenue
TOTAL REVENUE
LtQUOR FUND
'WATER FUND
SEWER FUND.
BLIDGET
1
OCTOBER
REVENUE
CITY OF MOUND
BLIDGET REVENUE REPORT
OCTOBER !
YTD
REVENUE VARIANCE
10:}300:=-: '4'F* 1124 541884
776'.:.')50 4108'~ 1 36605'.--.¢
8510 46 6525 1985
100400 1144:} 83551 1684~
37200 1135 26311 1088.~
~0000 13457~ 68031 21 ~67~
27280 137'.-.? 117:}4 15546
56'.-750 373 5686 51264
213027¢8 27835 1103L=:53 1026445
83.3%
PER CENT
RECE I VED
47.54%
52.89%
76.67%
8:3.22%
70.7:3%
75.59%
43.01%
'~. '~8%
5 i. 82%
800000 70518 714439 85561 89.30%
315000 35877 :}0165/_-, 13344 95.76%
550000 49547 481486 68514 87.54%
t,£ MO
TO'
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Board of ~.lanagers
i4innehaha Creek Watershed District
Eugene A. Hickok and Associates
November 17, 1988
Lake Level, Flow and Precipitation Summary for October 1988.
Lake levels in Lake Minnetonka have continued to decline through October as
illustrated by the attached graph and lake elevations. There has not been any
discharge fro~ Lake Minnetonka to Minneha~a Creek since November 17, 1986.
Creek flow at the Browndale Ave. dam in Edina during October is shown below.
The 30 year average precipitation for October at tile National Weather Service
station in Maple Plain is 2.06 inches. 'The actual precipitation recorded in
Wayzata for October was 0.88 inches. A summary of precipitation follows.
PRECIPITATION SU~B1ARY
SEPTEMBER 1988
Maple Plain
Minneapolis-St. Paul
Intern'l Airport
W~zata
Actual 30 Year Average
-- 2.06
0.80
0.88
1.85
October 5
October 12
October 19
October 26
MONTHLY FLOW SUt~ARY
Grays Bay
(cfs)
0
0
0
0
Browndale Ave. Dam
(cfs)
2.8
2.8
3.2
7.5
930.00
929.50
929.00
928.50
928.00
927.50
927.00
926..50
926.00
925.50
06--A
LAKE MIhlNETON F,;A
Water Levels 1987--1988.
NOHW(929.¢)
RUNOUT ELEVA'ftON(928.6)
LAKE F'LEVATtC, N
\
~r-87 21 -Jul--87 26-Aug--870g--Nov-8704 -Apr--8803--Jun--88 21 -Jul-B8 06-$ep-D&.30--Nov-88
DATE
~C~D ¥ater Elevations - Lake ~tnnetonka
Date Elevatio~ FID# Date Elevation Floe Date Elevation FIDe Date Elevation Floe Date Elevation FID,
08-Sep-87 g28.~2 0.00
i4-Sep-87 ?28.48 0.00
tD-Sep-87 926.~3 0.00
21-Sep-67 928.47 O.OO
25-SED-87 72e.44
26-$ep-87 928.42 0.00
05-0ct-87 ?28.32
J2-Oct-87 ~26.13 0.00
16-0ct-87 928.l& 0.00
20-0ct-87 926.15
26-Oct-D7 928.i2 0.00
O2-Nov-87 928.06 O~Oe
O?-#ov-67 ~28.04 0.00
ID-Nov-D7 ~28.D4 O,O0
24-#ov-87 726,00 0,00
01-Dec-87 g28.JO '0.00
07-Dec-87 ?~a,08
14-Dec-07 g28.08 0.00
05-Jan-88 ?27.86 0.00
19-Jan-BB 727.8B
O~-Feb-aB 927.96
IT-Feb-S8 927.94 0.00
2~-Feb-88 927.76 0.00
07-flat-88 927.96 0;00
JS-~ar-88 728.00
24-~r-88 929,06 o.oo
30-Ko-D8 ?28.08 0.00
04-A )r-08 928.14 0.00
06-A )r-88 928.16 0.00
II-A )r-B8 928.14
t~-A)r-66 ~28.1& 0.00
iD-Air-D8 ~28.~D
2~-A)r-D8 ~28.06 O.OO
28-A)r-88 ?28.08 0.~0
O~-~a-DS g28.00 0.00
O&-~a-88 g28.00 O.OO
O~-~a -DS ~2844
l~-aa -80 ?28.04 0.00
17-~ay-a8 ?28.O0
24-~ay-88 ~27.~0 OoOO
31-~ay-D8 ~27.84 0.00
03-Jun-88 ~27.B0 O.OO
06-Jun-B8 727.76 0.00
O?-Jun-86 927.66 0.00
t~oJun-88 927.~8 0.00
]&-Jun-B8 ?27.52 0.00
20-Jun-88 ?27.44 0.00
24-Jun-88 ?27.40 0.00
27-Jun-66 ?27.28 0.00
30-Jun-De 927.1B 0.00
O~-Jul-88 ?27.08 0.00
07-Ju1-88 927.06 O.C~
Il-Jul-68 72&.78. O.UO
13-Ju1-88 927.04 0.oo
13-Jul-SD 926.98
iD-Jul-D8 g26.?0 0.00
21-Ju1-86 ?2&.?a 0.00
2~-Jul-86 ~26;B6 0.00
2?-Jul-B8 ~26.D0 0.00
H-aug-DB 926.72 0.00
03-aug-aa 926.76 0.00
04-Aug-a8 926.96 0.00
IflOfE: The ~ero elevation for the ldke gauge oas adjusted do,n 0.22 feet.
Ibis adJustaent .as fffectivl January 1.1~88.
08-au, l-D8
lO-~uq-88 926.88
12-Au,!-D6 ~26.84
i6-Aul '88 ~26.86
lB-Audi'88 ~26.78
22-Au~-88 ~26.&8
24-Au~-86 ~2~.68
2&-Am*S8 92&.62
$0-Rm-88 926.~4
Og-$ep-88 926.46
J2-Sep-68
15-Sep°68
lg-Sep-DO ?26.34
20-Sep-88 92&.42
26-$ep-68 ?26.34
SO-Sap*88
O~-Oct-88 926.26
lO*Oct-88 926.24
17-0ct-88 g2&.J6
20-0ct-88 926.14
~l-Oct-D6. 926.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
0.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.o0
0.00
0.00
O.OO
0.00
O.O0
0.00
0.00
03-Nov-98 926.00 0.00
06-Nov-D6 926.02
15-#ov-88 f26.04 0.00
SIX M,O[4TH PRECIPITATION RECORDED
t,4A'K 88 JUN. 85 JUL. 88 AUG. 88 .SEPT. 88 OCT. 88
MONTH
~'2"-'-~] MAPLE PLAIN A'VE. ~ WAYZATA. ACTUAL
PRECIPITATION SUMMARY
OCT. 87
NOV. 87
DEC. 87
JAN. 88
FEB. 88
MAR. 88
APR. 88
MAY 88
~UN. 88
JUL. 88
AUG. 88
SEPT. 88
OCT. 88
MPLS. AIRF'ORT MF'LS. AIRPORT MAPLE PLAIN WAYZATA
AVERAGE ACTUAL AVERAGE ACTUAL
i. 85 O. 60 2.06 O. 84
1.29 2.07 i. 46 2.57
0.87 i. 25 O. 86 O. 79
0.82 i. 57 0,84 O. 96
O. 85 O. 50 O. 78 O. 19
1.17 1.55 1.52 1.5i
2.05 1.58 2..55 0.95
5.20 i. 70 5.95 1.46
4.07 O. 22 4.85 O. 10
5.5i i. i7 4.65 2.54
.-'%. 64 4.2'~ 4 · 09 .5.75
2.50 2.79 2.85 5.04
1.8 5 ,r~. 80 2.06 0.88
MINUTES OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 14, 1988
Present were: Chairman, Thomas Reese, Commissioners William
Thal, GeoFF Michael, Kenneth Smith, Vern Andersen, Brad Sohns,
William Meyer; Council Representative Elizabeth Jansen; City
Planner Mark Koegler; Building inspector Jan Bertrand; and
Secretary Peggy James. Absent and excused was Commissioner Frank
Weiland.
Also present were the Following interested persons: Frank and
Nancy Buysse. Frank Matachek, Brad Blazevic. Andrea Ahrens, Rick
Barlow, Bill and Dorothy Netka, and Donald Bonnfcksen.
Chair called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
MINUTES
MOTION made bY Andersen, seconded by Thai to accept the
minUtes of October 24, 1988 as sul~nitted. Motion carried
unanimously.
BOARD OF APPEALS
1. Case No. 88-730:
2009 and 2017 Commerce Boulevard, Frank
Buy.se; Mound Shoces, that part of Lots ll3, 114, IlS lyinq
south of north 1,78 Feet thereof, PID #14-]17-24-14-00381
VARIANCE'; PARKING LOT SETBACK.
Applicant, Frank Buysse was present.
Recommendation by City Planner, Mark Koeqler
This case was'tabled at the Planning Commission meeting on Oc-
tOber 10', 1988, until the applicant could submit a scaled drawing
of the area which will show parking lot layouts conforming to
City ordinances with the exception that stall size can be 9' x
18'. Mr. Buysse submitted a plan which shows the existing
striping pattern. The plan. however, does not represent an ac-
ceptable desi'gn under normal site design standards.
planning Commission Meeting
November i4, iD88
Considering the width oF the 0arking lot, 28 Feet, marking must
be installed at a 30 degree angle rather than the 60 degree park-
ing shown on Mr. Buysse's plan. The Planner presented a plan
which meets normal design standards. The three 90 degree spaces
on the north end are conforming to the 9' x ]8' revised space
size and adjacent maneuvering room is shown to allow access to
all three stalls. Along the building, however, 30 degree angle
stalls result in the creation of on]y 2 parking spaces in lieu of
the 7 shown on Mr. Buysse's plan.
Mr. Buysse's plan does not meet normal design criteria For park-
ing ]ct design. IF the City determines that the application of
normal standards should prevail, the existing lot should be
repainted to reflect a total of 5 spaces instead of l0 spaces.
Dfscussion:
Members oF the Commission shared their experiences in attempting
to park in the sta]ls as they exist. It was determined that it
was difficult to maneuver in and out of the spots without driving
on the neighbOrs property.
Mr. Buysse stated to the Commission there have been no complaints
by neighbors or tenants, and there have not been any accidents.
Mr. Buysse wou)d like to keep as many stalls as possible, he is
wil)ing to compromise and change the 'existing 7 stai)s on the
south side to 5 sta)]s, but would not accept the suggested 2
stalls.
Mr. Buysse presented pictures which showed cars parked within the
existi.ng striping. Sohns commented that the pictures did not
show three cars parked next to each other, and he did not think
the car in the middle of the three would be able to back out
without much difficulty.
Chairman Reese suggested the striping be removed From the parking
lot. The City Planner confirmed that striping is not required by
the City. The Commission discussed limiting the number of cars
allowed to park'in the lot, a number could not be agreed upon.
Planning Commission Meeting
November i4, I988
MOTION made by Thai, seconded by Michael to have no strip-
ing, except for the exclusionary striping along the north
side of the parking lot, and approve staff rec~endation as
follows:
The owner shall erect a wooden bun~er height barrier
along the northern eOge of the bituminous paving within
the limits of Mr. Buysse's property. The barrier shall
contain a minimum post dimension of 6" x 6" and plans
for the barrier shall be approved by the Building Offi-
cial prior to installation.
The owner shall place stgnage along or on the north
side of the buildlng indicat!ng that spaces 4 through
!0 as shown on the appiicants s!te plan are restricted
to compact vehicles .only and shal 1 be further
restr t cted to res i dent parktng on 1 y.
If.desired by the adjacent land owner to the north, Hr.
Buysse shall install a row of Pyramidal Arborvitae
(Thuja Occidentsalis "Pyramiclalis") along the bumper
fence on the adjacent land owner's property. If ap-
plicable, a planting plan shall be submitted to the
City Planner for review within 30 days of City Council
approval of the variance and. plan the materials shall
be installed by June l, !989. AI! plant materials
shall carry a one year warranty and shall be replaced
by Mr. Buysse during the warranty period if needed.
Motion carrted ftye in favor (Reese, Thai, Michael, Jensen,
Sohns), three opposed (Smith, Meyer, Andersen).
Case .will appear before 'the City Council on November 29,
1988.
The .three members who were opposed agreed the number of parking
places should be limited.
2. Case No. 8'8-734: 1848 Shorewood Lane, Robert E. Evensen)
Shadywood Point; Lot I6 & ]/2 of Lot 1~.~ .Block 3, PID #18-
117-23-23 0023; VARIANCE: SIDE YARD SETBACK.
The Building OFFicial reported after FUrther investigation it was
determined t~e.Variance was not needed.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 14, 1988
Case No. 88-736: 2539 Emerald Drive, Donald R. Bonnicksen;
Shirley Hills Unit "B"~ Lot 7~ Block 6, PID #24-117-24-12
0041; VARIANCE: FRONT YARD SETBACK.
Owner, Donald Bonnicksen was present.
Recommendation by Building Official, Jan Bertrand:
This case was tabled at the Planning Commission Workshop of Oc-
tober 24th so the Commission would have proper time to review the
case. The applicant is requesting a 8.1' variance from the
unimproved Ruby Lane access to the southwest, and a 5.8' variance
to Emerald Drive· Approval would allow structural repairs to a
nonconforming 600 square foot dwelling on an undersized 6,500
square foot +/- lot, with a nonconforming front yard setback for
the accessory building off of Ruby Lane· The long term plans of
the. applicant are the ~cquisition of lot 6 which would make the
parcel conforming, and to add on a 24' x 38' split level addition
with conforming setbacks to the lot lines.
At th.is time, the applicant is not requesting bringing this
structure to minimum square footage of the zoning code. However,
he has stated that his intent is to make the parcel conforming by
the purchase of lot 6. When granting a variance, the criteria
listed in Section 23.506.1 should be reviewed by the Planning
Commission· If the variance is determined to be the minimum
variance which would alleviate a hardship to the property owner,
the following would be conditions for variance approval:
No building permit,would be issued until the applicant would
submit proof of ownership for lot 7 and lot 6, block 6,
Shirley Hills Uni't "B".
The entire structure would be brought to minimum current
building code standards.
The nonconforming accessory building would be removed or
relocated with conforming setbacks to the property lines.
The applicant may continue to add onto the structure with a
future addition upon the condition that the addition meet
all current zoning ordinance requirements.
Planning Commission Meeting
November ]4, I988
Discussion:
Mr. Bonnicksen informed the Commission there will be no problem
with purchasing lot 6, he is waiting to see the decision of the
City Council. The Building Inspector added that the building
permit will not be issued until he has a signed purchase agree-
ment. Mr. Bonnicksen informed the Commission he has read the
conditions on the Building Inspector's recommendation and has no
problems with them, in fact he is planning on removing the old
garage, but. would like to keep it For storage purposes until the
new garage is built.
Mr. Matachek, an abutting neighbor, was present and wanted to
recommend to Mr. Bonnicksen to face his garage to Emerald Drive.
Mr. Bonnicksen's plans presently have the garage facing Emerald
Drive.
MOTION made by Sohns, seconded by Meyer, to approve the 8.1'
variance from the unimproved Ruby Lane access to the south-
west, and a 5.8' variance to Emerald Drive, with the follow-
lng conditions:
NO building permit would be issued until the applicant would
submit proof of ownership for lot 7 and lot 6, block 6,
Shirley Hills Unit
entire structure would be brought to minimum current
buiidtng code standards.
The nonconEorming, accessory building would be removed or
relocated with conforming setbacks to the property lines.
The applicant may continue to add onto the structure with a
future addition upon the condition that the addition meet
a11' current zoning ordinance requirements.
Motion carried unanimously.
Case will appear before the City Council on November 29,
I988.
Case No. 88-737: 1871 Shorewood Lane~.Bradl~e~ T. Blazev~L
Shadywood Point; Lot 2, Block 12~_.?ID___~18-117-23-23 006~
VARIANCE:,SIDE YARD SETBACK.
Owner, Bradley Blazevic was present.
5
Planning Commission Meeting
November 14, 1988
Recommendation by the Buildino Official, Jan Bertrand:
The applicant is proposing to construct a 26' x 30' aOdition to
the southeast portion of his existing dwelling. The addition
would be approximately t4' to the southeast property line.
The staff recommends approval of the variance to recognize an ex-
isting 3.3' side yard setback and the nonconforming 6' +/- set-
back of the existing accessory building conditioned upon the ad-
dition construction being at or above minimum flood plain eleva-
tion with conforming side yard setbacks of tO' or more, and a
conforming lakeshore setback From the ordinary high water eleva-
tion of 50' or greater. The proximity of the 3.3' existing set-
back shall not create any drainage problems From his property
onto any adjoining property.
The applicant shall submit a current survey to the inspection
department at time of building permit issuance.
Discussion: The house as it sits is 6/tO of t' from the flood
plain'elevation.
The applicant, Mr. Blazevic was present and stated he had no
problems with the staff recommendation.
MOTION made by Smith, Seconded bY Andersen, to approve the
variance'ko recognize an existing 3.3' side yard setback and
the nonconforming 6' +/- setback of the existing accessory
building with the following conditions:
The addition construction be at or above minimum Flood
plain elevation.
Conforming side yard setbacks of I0' or more, and a
conforming lakeshore setback from the ordinary high
water elevation of 50' or greater.
The proximity of the 3~3' existing setback shall not
create any drainage problems From his property onto any
adjoining property.
The' applicant shall submit a current survey to the in-
spection department at time of building permit is-
suance.
Motion carried unanimously. Case will be heard before the
City Council on November 29, 1988.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 14, 1988
DISCUSSION/INFORMATIONAL:
1. ~.appointments to the Planning Commission:
Terms For Chairman, Thomas Reese and Vice Chairman, Wil]iam Thal
will expire at the end of ]989 and were asked to report to the
City Manager if they wish to be reappointed. Both Mr. Reese and
Mr. Thal reported they would like to be reappointed.
Comments reqarding application From DNR dredge of Lost Lake
Channel:
The Building Inspector informed the Commission that due to the
problems with the DNR and the Niccum Case, any dredging applica-
tions that are applied for within the City of Mound will be
presented to the Park Commission, the Planning Commission and the
City Council For approval.
The subject dredge was discussed and analyzed For any potential
problems to City land. The possibility of riprap Falling into
the channel was discussed.
Bill Netka, who lives on Lost Lake channel was present, and in-
.Formed the Commission he is in Favor of the dredge·
MOTION made by Meyer, seconded by Smith the Planning Commis-
sion has no planning problem with the DNR application For
dredging in the Lost Lake channel. Motion carried. Jensen
abstained.
Appl tcation wi I i be presented to the City Counci ! on Novem-
ber 29, 19E~B.
Tha 1 expressed what a good job the Uni vets ity students did on the
Lost Lake park plans, and urged everyone to attend the City Coun-
ci 1 meeting on November 29th to see the designs.
3. Reservations For RecoGnition Dinner:
Everyone has replied.
4. Results of action on Planninq Commission items From City
Council meeting on October 25, 1988:
Particular cases reviewed were the Joel Dokken subdivision and
the conditional use permit For ARCO/Century which were both
tabled until November 29, ]988.
Planning Commission Meeting
November 14, 1988
5. Lots of Record:
The Building Inspector would like the Commission to consider
revising the ordinance For "Lots oF Record" Section 23.403 on
page 13 oF the Zoning Code, which reads as follows:
Existin_g. Lots o~ Record
A lot oF record in a residential district may be used
~or single-=family detached dwelling purposes provided
the area thereof meets ali setback and minimum lot area
requirements oF this Ordinance, provided:
(1) it has Frontage on an improved public right-oF-way.
(2) It was under separate ownership From abutttng lands
upon or prior to the effective date o~ this Or-
dinance.
The Inspector has received a request For a subdivision For two
lots oF record 50.9' x 300' each, one tax parcel. The City
Attorney's advice was to discuss this issue with the Planning
Commission to get some Feedback. As the ordinance stands,
someone applies to separate their tax parcels, the County cannot
split lots without having the staFF sign For them. This par-
ticular subdivision request does not meet the lot width of
wide, however the lot size is conforming. There is nothing in
the current ordinance that limits how wide a lot must be.
The City Planner will be preparing something For the Pianntng
Commission after the First oF the year regarding this issue.
MOTION moved by Andersen, seconded by Sohns to adjourn the
meeting at 8:59 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
Chairman, Thomas Reese
Attest:
8
MINUTES OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PARK COMMISSION MEETING
November 10, 198.8
Present were: Chair Nancy Clough; Commissioners linda Panetta,
Shirley Andersen and Marilyn Byrnes; Council Representative Phyl-
lis Jessen; City Manager Ed Shukle; Park Director Jim Fackler;
Dock Inspector Dell Rudolph; and Secretary Peggy James. Commis-
sioners Steve Burke and Cathy Baily were absent and excused.
Also present were the Following interested persons: Mr. & Mrs.
James Miller Jr., Michael Blunt, Howard Hagedorn, and Louise
HageQorn.
Chair called the meeting to order at 7:36 p.m.
1. MINUTES
The minutes OF the Park Commission meeting oF October 13, 1988
were presented For changes or additions.
Two changes were presented by the Dock Inspector, Dell Rudolph on
page three: the proposed Fee For L or T Docks should read $165;
and "Senior share rate" should read "Share Fee."
MOTION made by Byrnes, seconded by Panetta to approve the
minutes as amended. The vote was unanimously in Favor.
Michael Blunts'477'! Island View Drive: existing platform on
Devon Co~ons
Park Df.recto~, Jim Fackler informed the Commission that Dell
Rudolph discovered the platform during his ~all dock inspections.
Mr. Blun~ did acquire a maintenance permit to construct the ex-
isting retaining wall and riprapping, however the platform was
not 'included on the application. The 22' x 6' platform does not
comply with City ordinances, it is too wide. The Dock Inspector
stated a..4' wide walkway could be acceptable.
It was determined the deck is not needed, however the stairs are
needed due to the riprapping. The Commission agreed since
Devon Commons is Traversible Type B, it should be kept open. The
deck structure makes the area inaccessible and gives the ap-
pearance oF p¢ivate property which would discourage people to
walk across the deck.
Park Commission Meeting
November ]0, ]988
Mr. Michael Blunt spoke on his behalf and stated he has spent
$1,500 on riprap alone, and he cleaned out poi'son ivy, poison
oak, and brush, and built the deck which made the area usable.
Mr. Blunt believes he saved the City money for work they would
have done in the near future anyway. Mr. Blunt feels the deck
makes it easier for people to walk from one end of the commons to
the other. Hr. Blunt also stated there was a rotten deck there
before which he only replaced.
HOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Clough that the deck
structUre that encroaches on the public lands be removed.
Motion carried four in favor' (Panetta, Anderson, Jessen,
Clough), one opposed (Byrnes).
Case will appear before the City Council on November
Mr. Blunt questioned if he could be reimbursed for the improve-
ments he has done to the commons abutting his property. The Park
Director informed Mr. Blunt the City does not reimburse property
owners'for maintenance or improvements (such as riprap) done on
commons.
James Mtller~ 478! Island View Drive: existin9 platform on
Devon Commons
The Park Director reported that the City plans on repairing the
subject area with fill and recommends not to remove the platform
until next June when the repairs are completed.
Mr. Mi'ller showed the. Commission a letter he received From the
previous City Manager, John Elam which acknowledged a deck was
constrUcted on City property without a building or maintenance
permit, and asked that he submit a maintenance permit application
for the deck. The letter also informed Mr. Miller that even if
the deck is approved, that anyone that wishes can use it'since it
is located on public property.
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Clough that the platform
which encroaches on public 1ands be removed by the time City
does maintenance work on that property in June 1989. Motion
carried unanimously.
Case will appear before the City Council on November zg,
1988.
Park Commission Meeting
November ]0, ]988
Howard Hagedorn~ ]748 Avocet: follow-up on tree trimminq,
question extent of work performed under maintenance permit
granted in Wiota Commons
The Park Director, Jim Fackler, was instructed by the motion made
at the Park Commission meeting on September 8, )bBB "MOTION moved
by Jessen, seconded by Bally to accept the request to trim the
sumach to 3-i/2' unOer the Park Directors supervision, hard wood
trees are not to be cut. Motion passed four in Favor, one op-
posed (Burke opposed)." Jim reported he met with the contracted
tree trimmer and Mr. Hagedorn at the site and they discussed what
the City diO, and did not want trimmed. Jim approved cutting of
one. basswood tree. Jim went back:to the property, the next day to
inspect the work and confirmed it was okay. At the end of Oc-
tober Jim received a call From Mr. Hagedorn who was requesting to
trim more trees. Jim v~sited the site and discovered someone had
done some additional trimming o~ some trees. Both Mr. Hagedorn
and the tree'trimmer deny trimming any trees. The Park Director
recommends to discontinue all trimming on Wiota Commons, so the
Park Commission can anal~ze this commons area using the ~low
chart.
'Mr. Hagedorn was present and spoke on his behalf. Mr. Hagedorn
stated he ~eels harassed and prejudged by the Park Director, com-
plained he had to take time o~ work in order to meet with the
Park Director, and claims Jim supervised the trimming for only l§
minutes, then le~t the site before the trimmer was ~inished. Mr.
Hagedorn stated he did not know who did the additional cutting,
however the branches that were cut were in,ringing on the walkway
o~ the commons. His theory is someone that uses this area took
it upon.~hemselves to do this trimming.
The ParK. Director presented pictures of the subject area which
shows the trees were cut on top of the hi 11 in front of Mr.
Hagedorn's, and in the middle of the hill as well as at the bot-
tom along the walkway.
The description of Wiota Commons was discussed: "Located on the
north side of Harrisons Bay adjacent to Avocet, Bluebird, Canary,
Dove, Eagle, Finch and Gull Lanes. Total area is 1.5 acres with
approximately 1,400 Feet of lake Front. It is a high narrow
strip mostly cleared and has good solid sand bottom overlaid with
a shallow silt'layer. It is used For residents docking and fish-
ing. its proposed usage is 8 resident permit docking area and
Fishing area and because of the contour of the land will adapt
itself well as a nature area." The Commission would like to en-
sure this nature area is maintained.
Park Commission Meeting
November 10, 1988
The Park Director explained that two years ago 30 healthy trees
were removed from this area without a maintenance permit. This
cutting created brush growth from the healthy roots that
remained, if these trees had been allowed to grow and then Peen
properly trimmed, a view through them would have been available.
MOTION made by Clough, seconded by dessen to discontinue all
trimming along the 1,400 feet of shoreline in the Wiota Com-
mons in order to preserve as a nature area.
Mr. Hagedorn commented he is concerned with the value of his
property, he pays to )ive on the lake and has no view.
Motion carried unanimously.
Wi11 appear before the City Council on Nove~er 29, 1988.
5. Adoption of the 1989 Dock Location Map
The. Dock Inspector, Dell Rudolph commented there were no changes
or revisions from the 1988 Dock Location Map. Dell referred to
the DoCk Inspectors Report dated November 10, 1988 which shows
the status of dock usage expected For I989 due to the dry year.
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Panetta to accept the
1989 Dock Location Map. Motion carried unanimously.
Definition of "resident" for cemetery fee schedule
Recommended definition, "individual is resident of Mound at time
of purchasing the cemetery lot(s)."
MOTION made by Clough, seconded by Andersen to accept the
definition of "resident" for the cemetery fee schedule,
"Individual is a current resident of Mound at time of pur-
chasing the cemetery 1otis)." Motion carried unanimously.
Case will appear before the City Council on Nove~er 29,
1988. .
8. Discussion for location of new park equipment
The Park Director handed out 1989 sale. catalogs from GameTime to
chose new equipment From. Some possible parks for the new equip-
ment are Langdon, Tyrone, Avon, Ava]on, Ooone, or Bluffs. There
is $23,000 allowed in the budget to purchase'new equipment.
Park Commission Meeting
Park Commission Meeting
November ]0, ]988
In order to help determine which park would have the most use for
new equipment, it was suggested the Park Director contact the
school district to see if they have surveys of population of
children by area.
The Park Director commented he would prefer not to purchase the
wood equipment because it gets abused by children and weather.
9. Flow Chart for Commons Maintenance Permits: Work session on
applying flow chart to previously submitted permits
An application from Ned Dow was used for the exercise which was a
maintenance permit requesting a concrete pad be placed on the
commons with an outlet, sprinkler system and fresh water supply
line. Mr. Ned Dow will be informed that his Maintenance Permit
will be heard by the Park Commission on December B, ]988.
The. Commission suggested question (5) "Will it enhance and en-
courage the use as defined by the Plan, by the General public?"
be revised or expanded, it was suggested that question (4) be
changed to read "steps or retaining wall." It was decided this
part of the flow chart needed to be updated in order to allow
Steps or structures if a hardship exists in obtaining access to
the shoreline.
The subcommittee will work on revising the flow chart.
10.
Lost Lake dredge application~ applied for by Lost Lake As-
sociation
The application was rev,,iewed and discussed.
MOT.ION made by Clough, seconded by Anderson that the ap-
plicants'.move forward with their request for dredging to .the
DNR~ and the Park Commission supports their efforts in doing
so. Motion carried unanimously.
I I. Reports:
a. Council Representative: Phyllis Jessen reported that
she has been re-elected to the council for a four year term and
is looking forward to it.
b. City Manager: Ed Shukle reviewed the Lost Lake project
and reminded the Commission the students will be presenting their
individual plans at the City Council Meeting on November 29th.
Also, the new Public Works building is complete, and they will be
having an open house for the public around the 1st of the year.
Park Commission Meeting
November I0, 1988
c. Park Director: Jim Fackler reviewed.' the areas that
will have riprapping and dredging completed in 1989. The Park
Department is notifying dock site holders to remove docks before
the lake Freezes.
d. Dock Inspector: Dell Rudolph reviewed the Dock
Inspector's Report which Found; if we get a "normal" amount of
snow and spring rain, would predict usage as follows on the 437
possible dock sites:
okay "as is" 59
okay for small boats only 41
okay with extensions to docks 258
okay with very long extensions 28
not usable (dried up) 51
6. Expired Terms
Cathy Baily was not present, the City Manager will contact her to
see if.she would like to be re-appointed.
Linda Panetta is sorry to report she has decided not the renew
her term due to other time commitments, but has thoroughly en-
joyed her time with the Park Commission.
Clough made a'Comment that there is a conflict with the November
29th Council Meeting and the Light Rail Presentation at the VFW
by the Hennepin County Board. The area citizens are going to be
asked to form a citizens committee, and Clough Feels it is impor-
tant that either the.City shows their support or doesn't show
their support.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Byrnes moved and,. Panetta
seconded a motion to adjourn the meet. lng at lO:lO p.m. All were
in favor'~
P.O. Box 38?, Wayzata, Minnesota 555g!
80ARO OF MAHAGER$: Camille D. Andre, F~e$. · All)ed L. Lehman · John E. Thomas
James R. Spensley · Richard R. Miller · Rol)e~t D. Edck$on · C. Woodrow Love
?
LAKE MINNETONKI~
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
All Municipalities Within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Board of Managers
Request for Renewal of Existing Management Policy and Operating
Procedures for Gray's Bay Headwaters Control Structure
November 17, i988
Under Section IV.2 of the "Headwaters Control Structure Management Policy and
Operating Procedures" for the period March 1, 1986 to March 1, 1989, the Board
of Managers is hereby notifying each municipality within the watershed that the
Board intends to request the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to renew
the existing management policy for the Gray's Bay Headwaters Control Structure
without modification for the three-year period commencing March 1, 1989.
The Board desires to receive comments from any municipality which wishes to
comment or suggest modifications in the present management policy. Comments
should be received prior to December 23, 1988. The request to the Department of
Natural Resources for renewal will be made on December 30, 1988.
If you wi§h further information, please contact the District engineer,
E. A. Hickok and Associates, 545 Indian Mound, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 -
Telephone 473-4224, or the District's attorney, Popham, Haik, Schnobrich &
Kaufman, Ltd., 3300 Piper Jaffray Tower, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 -
Telephone 333-4800.
A copy of the present management policy is attached to this memorandum.
P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
BOARD OF MANAGERS: David H. Cochran. Pres · AlDer! L. Lehman · John E. Thomas
M~chael R. Carroll · Camille O. Andre · James 9 McWethy · James R. Spensley .'~
HEADWATERS CONTROL STRUCTURE
MANAGEMENT POLICY AND OPERATING PROCEDURES
MARCH 1~ 1986 ' MARCH 1~ !989
INTRODUCTION
The Headwaters Control Structure at GFay's Bay is the outlet of Lake
Minnetonka to Minnehaha Creek. It is an adjustable structure that controls
Lake Minnetonka levels and discharge to Minnehaha Creek. The structure was
constructed by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District in 1979.
Lake levels and discharge have been controlled at this location since
1897 when a fixed crest structure was constructed to maintain as nearly as '
practicable the lake level at a height of 928.635 NGVD, 1929 datum. This
structure was a wooden weir which was subsequently repaired in 1932 and again
in 1944..
Survey data of record in the 1960's and 1970's show the actual crest
elevation of the repaired weir varied in height along its length. This uneven
crest elevation was apparently due to ice pressures and/or frost heaving. The
survey data also show the lowest point on the weir crest was at an approximate
elevation of 928.6 NGVD, 1929 datum.
In 1979, when the Headwaters Control Structure became operational, the
fixed wooden weir was also reconstructed. The new weir is constructed of
galvanized steel sheet piling material, at the same location, with an even
crest at'elevation 930.0 NGVD, 1929 datum.
As a result of a 1975 joint petition from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) conducted an Ordinary High Water
investigation of Lake Minnetonka. After conducting necessary field work and
analyzing physical and historical data and records, the DNR issued its report
in January, 1976. After holding public meetings the Commissioner of Natural
Resources concluded the Ordinary High Water level on Lake Minnetonka is at
elevation 929.4 NGVD, 1929 datum.
1 ofll
SECTION !. MANAGEMENT POLICY
It is the policy of the District to operate the Headwater Control
Structure to reduce flooding both on Minnehaha Creek and Lake Minnetonka.
This is accomplished by controlling the discharge from Lake Minnetonka to
Minnehaha Creek after ice-out (approximately April 15) until approximately
mid-June. As a result, water is temporarily stored on the lake. After
approximately mid-June water stored on Lake Minnetonka is released, to the
greatest extent possible, at a controlled uniform rate during the sum~er and
fall. Such controlled discharges continue until adequate storage capacity is
provided on the lake for a normal spring snowmelt. After the open water
season discharges to the creek are prevented, whenever possible, to reduce ice
constrictions in the creek channel.
SECTION II. MANAGEMENT GOALS
Numerous considerations must be taken into account when discharging water
through the Headwaters Control Structure. 'll~e Board of Managers realize that
sound judgement based upon operational experience is an essential part of the
operating plan to insure intelligent use of the water available to Lake
Minnetonka and Minnehaha Creek. It is therefore the intent, of the Board of
Managers to use discretion when operating the structure.
'The Management Goals are:
To reduce downstream flooding by controlling the discharge to
Minnehaha Creek to a rate not exceeding the maximum carrying capacity of
the creek whenever the Lake Minnetonka water level is within the physical
limits of control.
To reduce flooding on the lake by stabilizing lake levels between
the elevation of the low point on the previous fixed weir and the
Ordinary High Water level (OHW).
To reduce flooding, on the lake and downstream, by temporarily
increasing discharge rates to accommodate predictable and large volumes
of runoff into Lake Minnetonka prior to the time such runoff occurs.
To provide discharges, during and/or following dry periods,
comparable to discharges that occurred historically under similar lake
level conditions such that the detrimental effects of creek ~ow
stagnation are not aggravated as a result of operating procedures.
To enhance recreation, wildlife and aquatic life survival, and
aesthetics, when feasible and consistent with the Management Policy, by
augmentation of creek ~ow beyond the time discharges from Lake
Minnetonka have historically ceased.
2 of 11
To improve'or maintain conditions on the lake and the creek, over
those which existed prior to construction of the Headwaters Control
Structure.
SECTION !II. OPERATING PROCEDURES
The Headwaters Control Structure is operated in accordance with this
section to accomplish the Management Goals in SECTION II.
The operating procedure requires discharges to occur within the
limitations of established discharge zones described as a function of the Lake
Minnetonka level. The ranges of discharge defined by these zones are
necessary realizing the numerous considerations which must be taken into
account during operation of the structure. The discharge zones are based upon
sound hydrologic principles and are designed to achieve, to the greatest
extent possible, the Management Goals identified in SECTION II.
The attached exhibit shows the discharge zones and their corresponding
allowable discharge rates. The lowest heavy line across the base of the graph
at e~evation 928.6 represents the minimum lake level elevation at which
discharge can occur. This is similar to the effect of the previous fixed weir
which had an approximate low point elevation of 928.6. When the lake level
is above this elevation, a discharge will occur subject to the conditions
outlined in this section. The discharge zones are defined, by minimum required
and/or maximum allowable discharge rates over a specific time period and lake
level range. These zones are described in SECTION III.A below.
Between lake level elevations 928.6 and 930.0 discharge to Minnehaha
Creek will vary. In general, discharge rates will increase as the lake level
increases. However, this is not a direct or linear relationship. The
discharge is dependent not only upon lake level elevation, but the time of
year, climatic conditions, the variable carrying capacity of the creek and
other considerations.
The heavy horizontal line at elevation 930.0 represents a lake level
above which high water will be reduced to the maximum practicable extent.
Lake levels and discharge cannot be controlled by the structure at lake level
elevations above 930.0. Under these circumstances, resulting discharge to
Minnehaha Creek is comparable to that which occurred under similar conditions
with the previous fixes weir.
During the winter months, which are not shown on the attached ex.hibit, no
discharge is allowed to the extent feasible and consistant with the MANAGEMENT
POLICY. Stop logs are installed during the late fall, prior to ice-in when
the lake level elevation is near 928.6. The discharge control gates are then
lifted out of the water to prevent ice damage. If the lake level rises after
that time, additional stop logs are installed as necessary to prevent overflow
discharges. The stop logs are removed in the spring as soon as ice conditions
allow and the discharge control gates are again'made operational.
3 of 11
A. Discharee Settines and Adjustments
The discharge settings and adjustments between lake level elevations
928.6 and 930.0 are described as zones of control in the following paragraphs.
Zone 1 - Maximum Creek Carrying Capacity
To effectively respond to high lake levels, rapidly increasing lake
levels and/or changing creek conditions the maximum allowable discharge
rate is required whenever the lake level is within the elevation range of
929.6 to 930.0.
The maximum allowable discharge rate will vary. It is defined to be
that rate of discharge when combined with direct runoff and other inflows
to the creek downstream, that will achieve but not exceed the carrying
capacity of the creek. The carryin9 capacity of the creek is considered
to be the maximum flow that can occur'without substantial overbank flow.
The maximum allowable discharge rate will be maintained as necessary
'until the lake level has receded below elevation 929.6..
Zone 2 - No Discharge to Maximum Creek Carrying Capacity
Discharges ranging from zero to the maximum allowable discharge rate
are required in this zone. When the lake level is below 929.1, the
maximum discharge shall be no higher than 30 cubic feet per second. As
the lake level approaches elevation 929.6, up to the maximum allowable
discharge can occur.
In an extreme case, when high lake levels and subsequent
unrestricted discharge and flooding are predictable due to spring
snowmelt, the maximum allowable discharge rate will occur at lake levels
below elevation 929.1 to reduce imminent high water conditions. This
discharge will occur only when it can be documented with reasonable
accuracy that the water content of the snow pack in the upper watershed
could exceed available storage capacity on the lake. Maximum allowable
discharge rates other than those specified herein may occur only after
Minnesota DNR has authorized such action.
Zone 3.- 150 CFS to Maximum Creek Carrying Capacity
In the late sumner and fall, 150 cfs up to the maximum allowable
discharge .rate is required when the lake level is in Zone 3. This will
increase the capacity to reduce an excessively high fall lake level and
provide adequate storage capacity for spring snowmelt.
4 ofll
Zone 4 - !50 CFS Maximum
A discharge rate ranging from approximately 20 cfs up to a maximum
of 150 cfs is required provided the carrying capacity of Minnehaha Creek
is not exceeded whenever the lake level is in this zone.
From May t5 through July 15, discharge will vary from a minimum of
approximaely 20 cfs to a maximum of 100 cfs if the lake level is at or
below the OHW (929.4) and will range up to a maximum of 150 cfs if the
lake level is above the OHW.
From July !5 through November 30, a hydrologic computation will
periodically be performed to determine what uniform rate of discharge
will be necessary to accommodate the desired fall lake level of 928.6
based upon normal weather conditions. Discharge will be periodically
adjusted to accommodate actual weather conditiQns encountered.
Therefore, discharge during this perio~ will, to the greatest extent
weather conditions allow, occur at uniform rates between approximately 20
cfs and 150 cfs.
This zone is considered to be desirable for operation of the
structure. When operation is governed by this zone, optimum conditions
exist for achieving the Manaement Goals identified in SECTION II.
Zone. 5 - Base Flow Discharge
Base flow discharge is required whenever the lake level elevation is
within this zone. The purpose of base flow discharge is to reduce the
detrimental effects of creek flow stagnation during dry periods. The
base flow discharge zone is designed to assure that a volume of water
will be discharged that is approximately equal to the volume discharged
by the previous fixed weir considering similar low lake levels.
The previous fixed crest weir discharged water at a rate of 12 cfs
when the lake level elevation was at approximately 929.06. Therefore,
when lake levels are within this zone, base fl ow discharges will occur
subject to the condition below:
To the extent that discharge measurement accuracy
allows, base fl ow discharges will occur at a rate
of approximately 12 cfs.
It is expected that during most open'water seasons the lake level
will exceed the.limits of this zone. 'Under these conditions, discharges
will equal or exceed the specified base fl ow discharge rate.
5 ofll
Zone 6 - No Discharee
Whenever the lake level elevation is below 928.6, which was the
lowest elevation on the previous fixed weir crest, no discharge is
allowed during the open water season.
Zone 7 - Unrestricted Discharge
Whenever the lake level exceeds elevation 930.0, which is the crest
elevation of the reconstructed fixed weir, unrestricted discharge will
occur. Resulting discharge will be comparable to that which would have
occurred over the previous fixed weir.
When the lake level recedes to elevation 930.0 or below, discharge
will again be limited to the carrying capacity of the creek.
B. Data Collection and Discharge Adjustment Procedures
Field data shall be collected and discharge adjustments at the Headwaters
Control Structure shall be performed in accordance with this section to
implement the policy identified in SECTION I. MANAGEMENT POLICY.
.B.1 Need for Voluntary'Creek Water Level Data From
Downstream Municipalities
The Managers believe that for the first years of operation, frequent
reports of actual creek water elevations in each of the municipalities
should be forwarded to the Managers. This creek water elevation data
will allow the Managers to properly adjust the control structure to
achieve the MANAGEMENT GOALS. Because conditions can vary between
reaches of the creek, the Managers request each of the five creekside
municipalities to regularly record creek water elevations on a weekly
schedule, at the following critical reaches, and report the readings to
the District Engineer.
City
Mi nnetonka
H6pkins
st. Louis Park
Location
1-494 culverts
C.S.A.H. No. 5
C.S.A.H. No. 73
(upstream and down-
stream sides)
W. 37th Street
Excelsior Boulevard
Edina
Millpond at Browndale
W. 56th Street
6 of 11
City
Location
Minneapolis Park Board
Upton Avenue
Logan Avenue
(upstream side)
Chicago Avenue
Cedar Avenue
Longfellow Pond
FreQuency
Friday, Monday and Wednesday
Wednesday
April I - June 1
June I to end of flow
.Reportin~
Each city is requested to rejoort weekly the elevations recorded
during the preceding reporting week (Friday, Monday and Wednesday)
by telephone on each Wednesday by 2:00 PM to the District Engineer,
E.A. Hickok and Associates, 473-4224. Each city is requested to
promptly confirm elevations recorded in writing on forms supplied by
the District Engineer.
B.2 Lake and Creek Data Collected b~ the District Enqi~eer
The District Engineer shall colleCt the following data:
Data Frequency
Flows into Lake Minnetonka
from Painter, Six Mile, Gleason
and Long Lake Creeks
Monthly (minimum)
during open water
season.
Lake Minnetonka Level
Weekly (minimum)
during open water
season.
Minnehaha Creek ~ows at all
critical reaches identified
in SECTION II.B. I (based on
rating curves).
As specified in
SECTION II.B.1
In addition, the District
Engineer shall develop rating
curves at three (3) locatiohs
along Minnehaha Creek, one (1)
of which shall be for the
Brdwndale Avenue Dam.
(Other data is collected as part of the District's long
term hydrologic data program.)
7 ofll
B.7 High Water Conditions on Minnehaha Creek
When high water conditions are reported or predicted on Minnehaha
Creek, the Engineer for the District shall promptly investigate the
reported or predicted high water condition and determine whether
adjustment can be made in the discharge through the control structu.re
that would reduce the high water condition. If adjustments can be made
that are consistent with the MANAGEMENT POLICY, the Engineer shall
promptly make such adjustments aa are appropriate to reduce downstream
high water conditions as soon as possible. (Paragraph B.7 adopted
September, 1980.)
B.8 .Operational Responsibility
The District may enter into a contract with another governmental
agency to provide operating personnel. Employees of the contracting
agency will handle minor maintenance and repairs when required and will
make regular trips to the site as directed by the District's Engineer.
The control structure shall be operated by the District in
accordance with the limitations set .forth in the Headwaters Control
Structure Management Policy and Operating Procedures, and Minnesota DNR
Permit No. 76-6240.
B.9 Monthly Summary of Data
During.the open water season the District's Engineer shall prepare a
monthly sumnary of all data received and analyzed by his office,
including adjustments made in the discharge rate during the prior month.
This sunmary shall be distributed to the Managers, the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, the creekside and lakeside
municipalities, the Board of County Con~nissioners of Hennepin and Carver
Counties and shall be available to interested persons.
SECTION IV. TERMS OF AND AMENDMENTS TO THE MANAGEMENT POLICY AND OPERATING
PROCEDURES
1. Term
This document defines the Ma'nagement Policy and OPerating Procedures
for the Headwaters Control Structure at Gray's Bay for the period March
1, 1986 and thereafter. Any amendments to this document shall be made
pursuant to SECTION IV.2 below.
Review. of Management Policy and Operating Procedures
On or before January 1, 1989, the District shall submit to the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources any amendments to the existing
Management Policy and Operating Procedures deemed necessary by the
District for the three (3) year period commencing March 1, 1989. Thirty
9 of 11
(30) days prior to any submittal to the Department, the District shall
provide the municipalities within the watershed, a copy of the proposed
amendments such that sufficient opportunity to submit comments to the
Department is allowed. Within sixty (60) days, the Department shall
advise the District in writing of the acceptance, rejection, modification
or additions to the proposal.
Any public hearing that may be held on proposed amendments to the
Management Policy and Operating Procedures shall be governed by Minnesota
Statutes 105.44. If a hearing is held, the existing operational
procedures shall remain in full force and effect until a final
administrative decision is reached. Following the final administrative
hearing decision, or if no hearing is held, the amendments, if any, shall
be incorporated into the foregoing Management Policy and Operating
Procedures for the following three (3) year term commencing March 1, 1986
and be distributed to affected municipalities and agencies.
This review procedure shall be re~eated every three (3) years.
10 of 11
HEADWATERS CONTROL STRUCTURE
DISCHARGE ZONES AND ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE RATES
MARCH 1, 1986 I MARCH !, 1989
931.5
931.(
m 930.5
,,, 930.0
W
z 929.5
~ · ZONg-?
UNt:: ESTRiCTE D DtSC:I-~
ZO~ 5_ I
~ MAX[MUM CRE:'K CAPA( ITY
~ 20 CF S MIN. ~ 150 C~S MIN.
O_
LU !
U.J ZONE-5
N r,-
I O BA:3E FLOW APPROX. Ii CF$
929.0
9285
MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT OCT NOV
(~ LOWEST ELEVATION ON OLD GRAY'S BAY DAM-928.6
(~ ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL (OH.W,)-929.4
(~) TOP OF SF~LLWAY--930.0
(~) RECORD HIGH WATER - 930.5
(~ PROJECTED REGIONAL FLOOD-931;5
NOTE: APPROX. ICE-OUT DATE--APRIL 15
U S WEST Communications
2% S:~..'- 5~~
L'-'~eas3 s r.'-.~esc~ 55422
Eric B. Selberg
?:~' :-,e:~;':.,e Othcer M:r.~esc*,a
L
COMMUNICATIONS
November 21, 1988
Mr. Edward Shukle
City of Mound
5341 May-wood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Mr. Shukle:
During the past year a group of people has been working to find a way to form
a cooperative effort for economic development in Hennepin County. The group's
inient is to build a program that will provide shared resources and programs
which will enable each city and chamber of commerce in the county to do a
better job of local economic development.
'You are invited to attend a briefing on the effort and to consider membership.
All mayors, city managers/administrators, and Chamber executives are being
asked to'attend a breakfast meeting at:
The Oslo Room
Scanticon Minneapolis
Northwest Business Campus
3131 Campus Drive
Plymouth
Breakfast will be served at 7:30 a.m., and we will start the meeting at
8:00 a.m. sharp. We will adjourn at no later than 9:15 a.m.
Funding and initial plans are in place. I hope you will be willing to help us
guide the organization in a way that will make it valuable for the development
of our area..
Please RSVP to Christine Peters at 370-9162 by Thursday, December 8..Thank
you, and I hope to see you there.
Sincerely,
Interstate Highway 494
Campus Drive
Sc
(Scen~' ~co,ns
MINNEAPOL
Executive Conference Center and Hotel
Northwest Bu~ne~ Campu~
3131 Campu~ Drfv~ Ptymouth, Minnesota 55441
(612l ~ Telex/EasyLink: 9102404356 IScanticon Minn!