1994-07-12 .F MOUND MISSION STATEMENT: The City of Mound, through
~°°Peration, provides at a r. easonable cost, quality services ~at
Iresp°nd t°:t~h-~ ~eeds of all citizens, fostering a safe, attractive and flourishing
AGENDA
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL . REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, jULy 12, 1994, 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 28, 1994,
REGULAR MEETING.
- PG. 2744-2758
PUBLIC HEARINGg TO CONSIDER MODIFICATION OF SECTION
350:760, SUBD. 4 OF THE MOUND ZONING ORDINANCE
WHICH REGULATES TRUCK PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL
AREAS.
PG. 2759-2781
P~UBLIC HEARING1 TO CONSIDER THE MODIFICATION OF SECTION
300:10 OF THE MOUND CITY CODE TO ADD PROVISIONS
REQUIRING THE COMPLETION OF STRUCTURES W/THIN
A ONE YEAR PERIOD OF TIME.
PG. 2782-2788
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ABOUT
ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA.
REAPPOINTMENT OF LEONARD KOPP TO MOUND HRA FOR A
FIVE YEAR TERM BEGINNING 8/29/94 - 8/29/99.
PG. 2789
RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING COMMISSION RE:
VACANCY.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER
TO EXECUTE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT W/TH
HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR 1994 (YEAR XX') URBAN
HENNEPIN COUNTy COMMUNITy DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT PROGRAM (CDBG).
PG. 2790-2794
PG. 2795-2827
2742
10.
11.
12.
13.
PORTABLE SIGN PERMIT: OUR LADY OF THE LAKE
INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL - 6 LOCATIONS FROM
7/13/94 TO 8/1/94.
PG. 2828-2829
TREE REMOVAL LICENSE APPROVAL -
WOODSMAN TREE SERVICE. PG. 2830
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH
SOUTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORCE. PG. 2831-2832
PAYMENT OF BILLS.
PG. 2833-2848
_INFO IRMA TIO N/MIS C ELLANFO US
Monthly Reports for June 1994, as prepared by
Department Heads.
PG. 2849-2878
B. L.M.C.D. mailings. PG. 2879-2907
C. Letter from the City Attorney concerning opinion
of the Court of Appeals in a City of Orono
case concerning zoning, variances and
boat dockage.
PG. 2904-2907
D. Planning Commission Minutes of June 27, 1994. PG. 2908-2912
E. Letter written to Secretary of State Joan
Growe regarding Election Judge Training
Video.
PG. 2913
2743
Mound City Council Minutes
June 28, 1994
M/NUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 28, 1994
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday,
June 28, 1994, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Skip Johnson, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Liz Jensen, and
Phyllis Jessen. Councilmember Ken Smith was absent and excused. Also present were: City
Manager Edward $. Shulde, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Curt Pearson, City
Planner Bruce Chamberlain, Building Official Jori Sutherland, City Engineer John Cameron and
the following interested citizens: Mary Ament4ohnson, Michael Henry, Ann Eberhart, Tracy
& Mark Walstrom, Dustin Frantsen, Holly Wolverton, Bill Knosalla, Louis Zsabo, Sharron
Zsabo, Tim Zsabo, Carol Johnson, Thomas & Debbie Hall, Diane Akey, John Costello, Marge
& Curt Olson, Paul Erickson, John Blumentritt.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to approve the Minutes of the June
14, 1994, Regular Meeting, and the June 21, 1994, Committee of the Whole
Meeting, as submitted. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.1
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA KN WN AS PELICAN POINT - BOYER
DEVE PMENT ORPORATION.
The City Planner presented the resolution that has now been prepared for Pelican Point. The
recommendations discussed at the last Council Meeting have been included in this resolution.
Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//94-78
The vote was unanimously in favor.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF MOUND GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT
APPROVAL AND APPROVAL OF A PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT AREA (PDA) WITH VARIANCES
AS NOTED FOR PELICAN POINT MULTI-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
Motion carried.
June 28, 1994
Mound City Council Minutes
1.2 ~ppRQVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) FOR
PELICAN POINT.
The City Planner explained the EAW for Pelican Point is completed. This EAW addresses all
aspects of the project so reviewers can evaluate the full realm of project impacts. He further
explained that the City Council is acting as the "Responsible Governmental Unit' (RGU) in
regard to the EAW and is responsible for its approval, distribution and evaluation.
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to approve the Pelican Point
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) and authorizes its distribution to the
appropriate agencies. The vote was unanimously in favor· Motion carried.
RESOL TION OF DENIAL ROD LARSON ~A NOYD, 2976 HIGHLAND_
1.3 #23-117-2441 01 VARIAN EF R ARA EADDITIO ·
_B_BLVD., PID
The Building Official stated that at the last meeting the Council directed staff to prepare a
resolution of denial. The proposed resolution was presented.
Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//93-79 RESOLUTION DENYING THE REQUEST OF ROD
LARSON AND MYRNA NOYD OF 2976 HIGHLAND
BLVD. FOR A VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A
GARAGE ADDITION ON PID//23-117-24 41 0016
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded.
· A- ~,TROM 4°72 L~LIE ROAD. ~
A E 4- 0, MARK W _ 2~NCE FOR FENCE.
1.4 .~_~3 _ . //24-117-24 41 00
BIX) K 21 WYCHWOOD PID
The Building Official explained that the applicant is seeking a 2 foot fence height variance for
a portion of the yard fronting on Monmouth Road. The staff and the Planning Commission have
recommended denial of the request because it is inconsistent with the zoning ordinance
provisions regarding fences and other alternatives are available, such as planting foliage. The
applicant stated that their property line is 1 foot from the wood retaining wall and plantings
would damage the wall.
The Council discussed the request.
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Jensen to deny the request for a fence height
variance to allow a 6 foot fence and asked staff to work with the applicant on a 4
foot high conforming fence. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Mound City Council Minutes
June 28, 1994
1.5
~LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 5, SHADYWOOD POINT PID #13-117-24 11 0030j
VARIANCE FOR PORCH. '
The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval.
Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//94-80
The vote was unanimously in favor.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO
RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING
SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A
CONFORMING PORCH AT 1773 SHOREWOOD
LANE, LOTS 13 & 14, BLOCK 5, SHADYWOOD
POINT, PID//13-117-24 11 0030, P & Z CASE ~94-31
Motion carried.
1.6 A E 4- 2' A PETER N 2561WEXF RD LANE LOT 4-13 BLOCK
7 SETON PlD//24-117-24 14 0001 VARIANCE FOR DECK.
The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval,
including required compliance to the conditions listed within Resolution//93-128.
Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//94-81
The vote was unanimously in favor.
1.7
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR A
NONCONFORMING DECK AT 2561 WEXFORD
LANE, LOTS 4-13, BLOCK 7, SETON, PID//24-117-24
14 0001, P & Z CASE g94-32
Motion carried.
The Building Official explained that the applicant is seeking variance to reconstruct an existing
nonconforming deck. The deck is nonconforming to the 50 foot lakeshore setback by
approximately 10 feet and also to the rear yard setback by approximately 9 feet. The existing
dwelling is nonconforming to the 20 foot front yard setback by 19.85 feet. The site grossly
exceeds the maximum hardcover due to the minimal lot size of 4,300 square feet +/-. The
additional green space on the right-of-way, the commons, and the right-of-way access to the east
lessens the impact of this excessive hardcover. The Planning Commission recommended
approval, (3 to 3 vote), as recommended by staff, with the exception that a 12 foot deck be
June 28, 1994
Mound City Council Minutes
allowed to be constructed as long as the deck does not encroach over the property line.
The Council discussed the minimum variance which would allow a 10 foot deck and would
lessen the nonconformance. The Building Official explained that the applicant could do repairs
to the present deck and keep the 12 foot deck, but would like to replace it. The Council also
discussed the need to be consistent in their decisions on such matters.
Ahrens moved the following resolution:
RESOLUTION/194-82 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO
ALLOW RECONSTRUCTION OF A
NONCONFORMING DECK AT 4801 ISLAND VIEW
DRIVE, LOT I & E 3' OF 2, BLOCK 13, DEVON,
PID # 25-117-24 11 0122, P & Z CASE//94-33
The motion died for lack of a second.
The Council discussed allowing only a 10' deck, if it were replaced and decided that was the
minimum variance. The Council asked that all references to the 12' deck in the resolution after
Also that #2.b. be changed to
RF~OLUTION//94-82 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO
ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 10 FOOT DECK AT
4801 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 1 & E 3' OF 2,
BLOCK 13, DEVON, PID # 25-117-24 11 0122, P & Z
CASE//94-33
Councilmember Ahrens stated she is in favor of allowing a 12' deck because it already
there and that a 10' deck is not functional.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded.
A E 4- 4' DU TIN FRANTSEN 29 1 M~_ADOW LANE, LOTS 1 &
B K TA BAPTI T R AS EMBLY, PID #23-117-24 42
1.8
~0104, VARIANCE FOR GARAGE_.
The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval.
The original request was for a street vacation of a portion of unimproved Glenwood Road. The
City Engineer's report was not favorable for a vacation because there are utilities in this street
and several lots on the unimproved section that could someday be developed. The City
Engineer's recommendation was to allow this private driveway in City right-of-way to allow
the Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, be changed to a 10' deck.
read as follows: WA 10' deck may be constmcted.~
lensen moved and lessen seconded the following resolution:
I
Mound City Council Minutes
June 28, 1994
access to the proposed garage. Then, if and when an additional building site is created on the
north side that the street be improved to City standards and cost assessed to abutting, benefited
properties, which would include the parcel now owned by the applicant for this variance.
The City Attorney stated that the applicant needs to understand that whatever improvements are
put in the unimproved right-of-way may be disturbed if City utilities need to be dug up and it
would be the applicant's responsibility to put their improvements back, not the City's. The City
is only allowing the applicant to use the unimproved right-of-way for access to their property.
The Building Official stated he would like to add one condition that was not in the proposed
resolution: 'The applicant will remove the existing rock driveway on Lot I.~
Ahrens moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//94-83
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO
ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING
DETACHED GARAGE AT 2901 MEADOW LANE,
LOT 1 & 9, BLOCK 5, MINNESOTA BAPTIST
SUMMER ASSEMBLY, PID//23-117-24 42 0104, P &
Z CASE//93-34
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
The Building Official asked if a Construction on Public Lands Permit was needed to construct
their driveway on a public right-of-way? The City Attorney stated the whole purpose of having
an easement for street purposes is so that people can use it to get to and from something.
Therefore a Construction on Public Lands Permit is not necessary.
1.9
VARIAN E F R ADDITION.
The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval.
The Council commended the applicant for the revisions to the application that were made to
allow the minimum variance.
Jessen moved and .lensen seconded
RESOLUTION//94-84
the following resolution.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO
RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING
SETBACKS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A
CONFORMING ADDITION AT 5135 DRUMMOND
ROAD, LOTS 9 & 10, BLOCK 14, WHIPPLE, PID
//25-117-24 12 0114, P & Z CASE//94-35
Mound City Council Minutes
The vote was unanimously in favor.
1.10
June 28, 1994
Motion carded.
The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval.
Ahrens moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//94--85 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO 4994
BARTLETT BLVD., LOT 4, BLOCK 3, JOHN S.
CARLSON ADDITION, PID//13o117-24 43 0040, P &
Z CASE//94-38
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded.
1.11
ADDITION.
The Building Official explained the request. The planning Commission recommended approval.
Ahrens moved and ]ensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION g94-86
A VARIANCE TO
NONCONFORMING
TO ALLOW A
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE
RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING
FRONT YARD SETBACK
CONFORMING GARAGE ADDITION AT 1721 GULL
LANE, LOTS 5, 6, 7, BLOCK 14, DREAMWOOD,
PID//13-117-24 13 0014, P & Z CASE g94-38
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded.
1.12
AR_aga_c .
The Building Official explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval.
Jensen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//94-87 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO
RECOGNIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING
I ,Il
Mound City Council Minutes
The vote was unanimously in favor.
1.13
June 28, 1994
SITUATIONS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A
NONCONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 1920
SHOREWOOD LANE, LOT 6, BLOCK 2,
SHADYWOOD POINT, PID #18-117-23 23 0008, P &
Z CASE g94-40
Motion carried.
The Building Official explained that the request is to remove an existing deck and replace it with
a three season porch. The Council discussed the fact that there is property adjacent to this that
is city property that is being used for drainage & utility purposes. The City Attorney stated that
the property could be sold retaining the drainage and utility easements, which would not allow
anyone to build over it, but it would make the applicants property more conforming. The Staff
will check into the sale of the adjoining property. The Planning Commission recommended
approval.
Jensen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//94-88
The vote was unanimously in favor.
1.14
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN IMPERVIOUS
SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCE TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A PORCH AT 1564 CANARY
LANE, LOTS 7 & 8, BLOCK 4, WOODLAND POINT,
PID #12-117-24 43 0013, P & Z CASE #94-42
Motion carried.
CASE//94-4 · WILLIAM & DEDRA KNOSALLA 1705 EAGLE LANE LOT 1
The Building Official explained the request. He reported that the neighbor to the west has
concerns about increased drainage. The applicant has developed a plan to deal with increased
drainage which was given to the Council tonight. The City Attorney suggested the following
change in the proposed resolution to read as follows: "l.b. The City Council notes and
recognizes the applicant's letter of June 26, 1994, relating to drainage and directs staff to work
with the applicant to resolve and/or improve the drainage problem." The Council agreed.
Jensen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #94-89
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD
Mound C~ty Council M~nutes
June 28, 1994
SETBACK VARIANCE AND IMPERVIOUS
COVERAGE VARIANCE TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING GARAGE
ADDITION AT 1705 EAGLE LANE, LOTS 1 & 2,
BLOCK 12, DREAMWOOD, PID//13-117-24 12 0064,
p & Z CASE g94-43
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
MME A TI N FR M ITIZEN PR ENT.
There were none.
1.15 ~LIC LANDS PERMITS: DOCK SITES - 12550 &
The Building Official explained that Dock Site//22360 should be deleted from this action and
resolution because Mr. Botko has removed the electrical outlet from the Commons. He further
explained that Dock Site #12550 had an old concrete block stairway that was in very poor
condition. Staff recommended removal and the applicant was unable to do this by herself. A
volunteer will be removing it for her. The dock site has not been used for many years.
Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//94-90 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE REMOVAL OF
PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LANDS FOR
DOCK SITE #12550
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.16 ~OR pUBLIC LANL)~S PERMITS' D KITES - 02665 13 10
AND 51030.
The Building Official explained that the Park & Open Space Commission has recommended
approval of the three stairways. The Building Official explained that the Park & Open Space
Commission at its April 14th meeting, recommended removal of the light, and tabling the
portion of the request relating to the outlet and the pump in order to determine the respective
benefits. At the June 9th POSC Meeting, they recommended the outlet, light and pump be
permitted according to//15 of the flow chart, "Grant permit up to 3 years and renewable.~
The Council discussed Dock Site #13810 which has an electric outlet, pump (for an underground
watering system), and electric light. The Council suggested that the light should conform to the
Lighting Guidelines, with regard to shielding the light from shining on the lake and only lighting
the dock area. The Council questioned whether the pump needs to be on the dock or could it
I ,Il,
Mound City Council Minutes
June 28, 1994
be on the owner's property. The applicant was present and explained that the gray box on the
shoreline is just a cover box to cover the pipes that go to the underground sprinkling system.
The pump itself is on the dock and plugs into the electrical outlet that is on the post. The
Council discussed the fact that there is nothing on the Commons visible to suggest that this is
a private area. Councilmember Ahrens stated that allowing Mr. Riebe to water his lawn and the
Commons with lake water keeps him from having to use fertilizers.
The Council asked that a statement be added to the proposed resolution regarding Dock Site
//13810 which reads: "Light to conform to the Lighting Guidelines and as approved by the Park
Director.' The applicant agreed.
Jessen moved and Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//94-91
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LAND
FOR DOCK SITES 51030, 31360, 31390, 02665 AND
13810
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.17
HENRY 47 7 I LAND VIEW DRIVE FORMERLY DEAN HA S
The Building Official explained that the City and the previous owner were involved in litigation
and the City obtained an order from removal of a boathouse on the Commons. The restoration
of the Commons is still incomplete and the new owner Michael Henry has revised the plans for
the abutting Commons and seeks permits to lower the height of the existing retaining walls,
modify the slope to a more natural grade, and fill in the old boathouse. The plan utilizes
existing materials on site. The proposal is a combination of the applicant's initial request and
staff's recommendations. The Park Commission recommended approval with conditions.
The applicant was present. The Council discussed how this ties into the property next door.
The Building Official explained that is one of the reasons this recommendation is being made.
He further stated that the retaining walls on the property were constructed by the former owner
without a permit from the City.
Michael Henry stated that the retaining walls on the Commons are very good construction. He
stated that the only reason he agreed to do this is because Mound has his $3,000 in escrow. He
stated that he has had 5 different contractors come out and look at the retaining walls and they
think it is crazy to take them down. He stated he was under duress, 3 days before closing on
his house, and that is why he agreed with the staff recommendation.
June 2g, 1994
Mound City Council Minutes
The City Manager commented that Mr. & Mrs. Henry came in an visited with staff about a
month before they purchased the property wanting to know what the City expected of them
should they purchase the property. At that time things were outlined for them and they were
told that it was not the City's responsibility to put together a plan for them and get the work
done so that they could purchase the property from Mr. Hanus. The City Manager stated that
he feels the Henrys were hoping that the City would put something together for them that would
series of meetings with the Henrys and if anyone was under
tess, ~i was probably the C~ty because o, m~ v-', ..... Mr. '
lye their problems. There_w. ere a ,, .~- .... ~qnre Hanus was puttang on the Henrys
a~d in mm the Henrys put on the City. The City already negotiated this with the Henrys.
The City Attorney pointed out that the City had a Lis Pendens filed against this property and the
court had ordered Mr. Hanus to remove his encroachments on the Commons and restore the
Commons. The court gave Mr. Hanus a year to do so. Thus, the City was not in a position
to move forward on this because he had a year to complete the action. The City took the
position that if Mr. Hanus did not restore the property within the year that the City would have
gone to the court and asked permission to restore the Commons and charge it against the Hanus
property. Mr. Hanus voluntarily, once the court made the order, took down part of the
boathouse (left the foundation). The City Attorney pointed out that Mr. Henry knew there was
a Lis Pendens and there was an obligation of Mr. Hanus. Then Mr. Henry stepped into Mr.
Hanus' shoes, thus assuming his responsibility. Mr. Henry stated that he understood that.
Mr. Henry then complained that the property next door does not have Escrow money with the
City. The City Attorney stated that the Commons problem on the Munson property had different
circumstances and was resolved without a trial. The two issues were not the same.
The Munson issue was with existing structures. The Hanus issue was about structures that were
built without permits or approval of the City.
The City Manager stated that Mr. Henry has signed an Agreement to restore the commons
shoreline to a more natural state and restore the boathouse area to the flood plain level.
The Council discussed item g. in the resolution. The City Attorney suggested the following
wording be revised to read as follows: 'The document (a copy of this resolution) shall not be
filed if the property owner completes the work on or before January 15, 1995. If the work is
not done by such date, a copy of this resolution granting a special permit shall be filed as a
memorial in the office of the registrar of ritles of Hennepin County or in the office of the County
Recorder if the property is abstracted property. The legal description of this property affected
by this permit is: Lot 7, Block 7, Devon. The applicant shall file and pay the costs of filing
a Certified copy of this resolution. A copy of the recorded document with all recording data
shown by proper County officials shall be submitted to the City Clerk."
Jensen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
Mound City Council Minutes
RESOLUTION//94-92
June 28, 1994
RESOL~ION TO APPROVE A SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR PRIVATE STRUCTURES ON PUBLIC LAND
INCLUDING A RETAINING WALL, STAIRWAY,
AND LAND ALTERNATIONS ON DEVON COMMON
AB~G 4737 ISLAND VH~W DRIVE, LOT 7,
BLOCK 7, DEVON, DOCK SITE #42351
The Council discussed expenses that may be charged against the Escrow of $3,000. The
Building Official stated that they expect the costs to be minor.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.18
MARKETIN IN 1 H RELINE DRIVE BALB A BLD .
The Building Official stated that at the last meeting the Council directed staff to prepare a
resolution of approval. The proposed resolution was presented.
Jensen moved Ahrens seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//94-93
The vote was unanimously in favor.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN OPERATIONS
PERMIT FOR INFINITI MARKETING, INC., 5318
SHORELINE DRIVE (BALBOA BUILDING)
Motion carried.
1.19 ~RESOLUTION DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS A NATURE CONSERVATION
AREA A' IN THE ITY FMO .
The City Manager stated that at the COW Meeting last week the recommendations from the
POSC for Nature Conservation Areas were reviewed. Based upon those recommendations, the
City Council chose 3 properties to be considered Nature Conservation Areas. He presented the
proposed resolution. The three parcels are' PID #23-117-24 31 0077, #23-117-24 22 0003, and
#14-1117-24 31 0013 & 0014.
The Council discussed storm water management. The City Attorney suggested that the Council
could add to the third Whereas, the following: "It should be understood that this resolution does
not preclude future action by the City Council to use this property as a part of the City's water
management program; and". Also the Now, Therefore Be It Resolved should read as follows:
" ..... that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby designates the following
as Nature Conservation Areas under the definition and the conditions set forth bore: ..... the
The Council agreed to add the language suggested by the City Attorney. a "
Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
Mound City Council Minutes
RESOLUTION t194-94
June 28, 1994
RESOLU~ON DESIGNATING CERTAIN AREAS AS
NATURE CONSERVATION AREAS IN THE CITY OF
MOUND
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.20 PPR E PLAN AND PE IFI ATI N AND ET BID DATE RE; JOINT~
P LI W RK ST RAGE ITE ITY F ~TRISTA AND
_ADVERTISING FOR BIDS ON THE PROJECT~.
The City Engineer presented the plans for the storage site. He reported that the plan is generally
the same as the preliminary plan, with more detail. The schedule is that the City of Mound
needs to submit and application to the City of Minnetrista for a Land Use Permit (Grading
Permit) which will go to their Planning Commission the last Monday of July. The following
Monday to the Minnetrista City Council. He asked the Council to set the bid opening for July
29, 1994, which will be between those two meetings. He will be submitting an application to
the Watershed District this week. Their meeting is the 21st of July. If all this falls into place
the contractor who gets the bid should be ready to start the project by the middle of August.
He estimated that completion date should be about October 1.
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Ahrens to approve the plans and
specifications and set the bid opening for the Site Grading and Access Road
Reconstruction Mound/Minnetrista Public Works Material Storage Site for July 29,
1994, at 11:00 A.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.21 _AAPPOINTMENTS T~-~BAN ALLIANCE BOARD_.
The City Manager reported that there are two positions open on the Suburban Alliance Board
of Directors for the City of Mound. He stated he contacted Kiki Sonnen of WECAN and
obtained two names of people who might be interested in serving. They are Charles Pugh and
Roberta Cook. The City Manager reported that Charles Pugh has stated he is interested and we
are waiting for Roberta Cook's acceptance. The Council discussed funding for Suburban
Alliance. The Council also asked that the people appointed be requested to submit regular
reports to the Council on what is happening.
Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION g94-95 RESOLUTION APPOINTING CHARLES PUGH AND
ROBERTA COOK TO THE SUBURBAN ALLIANCE
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Mound City Council Minutes
1.22 . June 28, 1994
1.23
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jensen to authorize issuance of the
following licenses to Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church for the Incredible
Festival to be held July 30 and 31, 1994:
Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor Permit
Set-Up Permit - Fee Waived
Public Dance Permit - Fee Waived
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
APPROVE PAYMENT REOUEST #1 WATER METER READ Y TEM
HL BERGER INDUSTRIES _ 25 433.40.
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Johnson to approve Payment Request #1
from Schlumberger Industries for the water meter reading system in the amount of
$25,433.40, when funds are available. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
1.24 PAYMENT OF BILL,~
Councilmember Ahrens stated that she did not think the $475.00 for concrete for the fishing pier
at Centerview Beach should be charged to the Dock Fund. The City Manager agreed and stated
that is in error and will be taken from Parks.
Councilmember Ahrens asked that the following bills be voted on separately:
Concept Landscaping/nc, $660.00 - wall installation (Munson property)
charged to 81-4350-5300; and
McCombs Frank Roos, $108.00 - mitigation plan (Munson property)
charged to 81-4350-5300.
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Jessen to authorize the payment of bills in
the amount of $140,506.02, when funds are available. A roll call vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION made by Johnson seconded by Jensen to pay the following:
Concept Landscaping Inc, $660.00 - wall installation (Munson property)
charged to 81-4350-5300; and
McCombs Frank Roos, $108.00 - mltigatlon plan (Munson property)
charged to 81-4350-5300. A roll call vote was 3 in favor with Ahrens voting nay.
Motion carried.
Mound City Council Minutes
1.25
Juno 28, 1994
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Ahrens to set July 26, 1994, 7:30 P.M. for
a public hearing to consider an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit approve by
Resolution #85-37 for a Planned Industrial Area at 5300-5400 Shoreline Drive
(Balboa Building), Balboa Addition, PID #13-117-24 34 0096. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
II~RMATIQN/MI$(~ELLANEOUS
A.
Financial Report for May 1994, as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director.
Be
C.
D.
E.
H=
L.M.C.D. mailings.
Park & Open Space Commission Minutes of June 9, 1994.
Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 1994.
Preliminary population and household estimate (April 1, 1993) for the City of Mound,
as prepared by the Metropolitan Council.
Letter of Application for the planning Commission vacancy. Interviews will be
conducted by the planning Commission at their meeting June 27, 1994, beginning at 7:30
P.M. You are invited to attend.
Proposed amendments to Hennepin County's Recycling Ordinance. Proposed
amendments require commercial waste generators to separate high grade office paper,
corrugated cardboard, aluminum cans, glass bottles and jars, and wood pallets from their
normal trash for recycling. The public Service Committee will be meeting on June 30,
1994, to discuss.
Also, on June 30th, the Public Service Committee will be considering a revised
Recycling Funding Policy for 1995-1999. The revised Recycling Funding Policy
proposes that recycling grants from Hennepin County to cities be limited to a distribution
of and annual SCORE revenues which Hennepin County receives from the State. The
policy also allows cities which do not contract for curbside recycling service to retain up
to 10% of the grant funds for administration and promotional expenses.
Mound City Council Minutes
June 28, 1994
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen to adjourn at 10:15 P.M. The vote
was unanhnously in favor. Motion carried.
Attest: City Clerk
Edward $. Shuk/e, Jr., City Manager
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE MODIFICATION
OF SECTION 350:?60, SUBDIVISION 4 OF THE MOUND ZONING ORDINANCE
WHICH REGULATES TRUCK PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet
in the C°uncil Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 12, 1994 to
consider the modification of Section 350:760 of the Mound Zoning Ordinance which regulates truck
parking in residential areas· The current ordinance states:
k Parkin in Res~den ~al Ar__e~ ' IIv licensed tratler shall be
No motor vehicle over one (1) ton
Subd, 4, bearing a commerc~a, ,'~ ommercla _ wl~en loading,
capacity'
parked or stored in a platted residential district or a public street except
unloading, or rendering a service, Recreation vehicles and pickups are not restricted
by the terms of this provision,
The proposed Zoning Ordinance modification would remove the above language and insert
the following:
· Off-street parking facilities accessory
to a residential use shall be utilized solely for
passenger automobiles, pickup trucks, and recreational vehicles. Additionally, no more
than one (1) commercial truck, bus, or trailer, not to exceed the manufacturer's gross
vehicle weight of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds nor a height of nine (9) feet nor
a length of twenty-six (26) feet shall be allowed.
All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the
opportunity to be heard at this meeting
Francene C. C
{To be published in 'The Laker' June 27, 1994)
July, 1994
City of Mo nd
HOLIDAY
OFFICES
CLOSED
**CITY
COUNCIL
MEETS
7:30 PM
COMMITTEE
OF THE
IdHOLE
MEETS
7:30 PM
#CITY
COUNCIL
MEETS
7:30 PM
*PLRNNING
COMMISSION
MEE TS
7:30 PM
PLflNNING
COMMISSION
MEETS
7:30 PM
MONTHLY
REPORTS
RRE DUE
PflRK RNO
OPEN
SPflCE
COMMISSION
MEETS
7 PM
ECONOMIC
DEVELOP.
COMMISSION
MEETS
FULL MOON
PUBLIC HEARINGS IN JUL Y:
~ 7-11-94 - PLANNING CO~ffM/$SION: Conditional Use Permit amendment for Toro to install canopies.
· · 7-12-94- CITY COUNCIL: Truck ParMng in Residential Areas
- Comp/et/on of structures w/thin one year of building permit issued.
11 7-26-94 - CITY COUNCIL: Conditional Use Permit amendment for Toro to instal/canopies.
Il ,I Il I Il, ,it I II,
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 9, 1994
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT DISCUSSION: SECTION 350:760. SUBD. 4. TRUCK
PARKING IN RE~;IDENTIAL AREAS. PUBLIC HEARING,
City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the history of the proposed ordinance change. The
current ordinance states:
Subd. 4. Tru(;k p0rkina in Residential Areas. No motor vehicle over one (1)
ton capacity bearing a commercial license and no commercially licensed trailer
shall be parked or stored in a platted residential district or a public street except
when loading, unloading, or rendering a service. Recreation vehicles and
pickups are not restricted by the terms of this provision.
The proposed Zoning Ordinance modification would remove the above language and insert the
following:
Subd. 4. Truck P~rking in Residential Areas. Off-street parking facilities
accessory to a residential use shall be utilized solely for the parking of licensed
and operable passenger automobiles, pickup trucks, and recreational vehicles.
Additionally, no more than one (1) commercial truck, bus, or trailer, not to
exceed the manufacturer's gross vehicle weight of twelve thousand (12,000)
pounds nor a height of nine (9) feet nor a length of twenty-six (26) feet shall be
allowed to be parked outside.
The City Planner further suggested that the proposed language be amended to delete the last
four words, "to be parked outside". His feeling is this will clarify that only one commercial
vehicle may be parked or stored on each residential property.
The Commission confirmed that this modification will make the ordinance less restrictive.
Chair Michael opened the public hearing.
Gerold Esselman, 5870 Lynwood Blvd., spoke in opposition of the ordinance amendment. He
believes the existing ordinance is adequate, and he is not in favor of having large, unappealing
commercial vehicles parked adjacent to his property. He is not in favor of having diesel fueled
commercial vehicles allowed to be parked in a residential area because they are noisy and
require to be warmed up before they can be driven. He is also concerned about the safety of
children when commercial vehicles are driven in residential zones.
There being no further citizens wishing to speak on the issue, Chair Michael closed the public
hearing.
Hanus commented that he would like to consider the possibility of using the Conditional Use
Permit process to regulate commercial vehicles in a residential zone.
Mueller commented that residents should be allowed to have one vehicle stored outside, and
they should be allowed to store more vehicles inside a garage if they are able.
MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend approval of
the proposed ordinance amendment to City Code Section 350:760, with the
deletion of 'to be parked outside'. Motion carried 5 to 3. Those in favor were:
Voss, Clapseddie, Bird, and Jensen. Those opposed were: Weiland, Mueller,
and Hanus.
Weiland commented that he is in favor of keeping the ordinance the way it was.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE MODIFICATION
OF SECTION 350:760, SUBDIVISION 4 OF THE MOUND ZONING CODE
WHICH REGULATES TRUCK PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on
Monday, May 9, 1994 to consider the modification of Section 350:760 of the Mound
Zoning Code which regulates truck parking in residential areas. The current ordinance
states:
Subd. 4. Truck Parkin.q in Residential Areas, No motor vehicle over one (1)
ton capacity bearing a commercial license and no commercially licensed trailer
shall be parked or stored in a platted residential district or a public street except
when loading, unloading, or rendering a service. Recreation vehicles and pickups
are not restricted by the terms of this provision.
The proposed Zoning Code modification would remove the above language and insert
the following:
Subd. 4.
Truck Parking in Residential Areas. Off-street parking facilities
accessory to a residential use shall be utilized solely for the parking
of licensed and operable passenger automobiles, pickup trucks, and
recreational vehicles. Additionally, no more than one (1)
commercial truck, bus, or trailer, not to exceed the manufacturer's
gross vehicle weight of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds nor a
height of nine (9) feet nor a length of twenty-six (26) feet shall be
allowed to be parked outside.
All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be
given the opportunity to be heard at this meeting.
F~ancene C. Clark, City Clerk
(published in "The Laker" 4-25-94)
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 12, 1994
_..,.,,.,.,...~-nu~n~ FROM I, LA~C~ Co~Oss~o~
1.7 ~: SEC .... -' '7
The City planner stated that this item as well az the next two items ar~ not formal
recommendations from the Planning Commission, but does represent their direction. This is an
update because all three of these items will need a p~hlic hearing before adoption.
The City Planner reported that the Planning Commission discussed the issue of truck parking
in residential areas at their March 14th meeting. The Commission expressed consensus that ollly
one commercial vehicle should be allowed per lot, commercial vehicles housed in garages am
acceptable (up to a certain size - ie. semi tractors), and that consideration should be given to
regulating trucks by height and length.
The proposed ordinance amendment as prepared by the City planner was as follows:
Section 350:760, Sub& 4. T~_g_P_.aL~g in Resi~Jj. aJ_b._r, eas. Off-street parking
facilities accessory to a residential use shall be utilized solely for the parking of licensed
and operable passenger automobiles, pickup trucks, and recreational vehicles.
Additionally, no more than one (1) truck and/or trailer not to exceed the manufacturer's
gross vehicle weight of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds nor a height of nine (9) feet nor
length of twenty-six (26) feet shall be allowed, provided they are stored at all times
within an enclosed garage.
The following draft of a new ordinance provision is the Planning Commission's recommendation
which seeks to accomplish the primary objectives:
Section 350:760, Sub& 4. Truck Parking in Residential Areas. Off-sta'eet parking
facilities accessory to a residential use shall be utilized solely for the parking of licensed
and operable passenger automobiles, pickup Ixucks, and recreational vehicles.
Additionally, no more than one (1) mmr,9._~d.C~ trock~)3~ a,'~,~or trailer not to exceed
the manufacturer's gross vehicle weight of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds nor a height
of nine (9) feet nor length of twenty-six (26) fee~ shall be allowed tf/Jt~[~t~L~t
The Planning Commission did discuss a whole variety of parameters on sizes of vehicles, types
of vehicles, etc. There was discussion at one time of allowing some of these types of vehicles
to be housed within garages or buildings, but that was not part of the recommendation at this
time. The Planning Commission is a~king if the Council has specific comments on this as
direction to them.
The Council reviewed the examples of acceptable trucks and examples of those that would be
excluded from residential areas that were in the packet.
The Council asked why the Planning Commission deleted the enclosed in a garage verbiage.
Mark lianus, Planning Commissioner, stated, that the Planning Commission was split on that
decision. The concern on the garage issue was that the City would see a lot of v~riance cases
on oversize garages to store larger vehicles. He stated there was really no consensus of the
Planning Commission on whether "stored in garages" should be left in the proposed amendment.
Mr. Hanus reminded the Council of one provision in the zoning ordinance which does not allow
a garage to be taller than the principal structure.
Mayor Johnson commemted that if we allow cerlain vehicles to be stored outside, that he hope~
additional consideration is given to allowing garaging of vehicles that exce~l some of the
standards, Jx~cause a 40 foot motor home is allowed and some of those are not as nice looking
as some of tl~ trucks he has seen. He further stated that some people make their living driving
trucks and do not have access to a commercial area to park these vehicles.
The Planner stated that motor homes are more accessory to a residential use than a commercial
vehicle. The City Attorney stated that another thing to keep in mind is that if we allow storage
in a garage in a residential area, you are kind of allowing warehousing or commercial activities
in a residen6al area.
Councilmember Smith stated a lot of people would not like to have commercial vehicles parked
in their neighborhoods and most cities in the metro m would nm allow this.
The Planner stated that this could be before the Planning Commission for a public hearing on
May 9th. 7J-
~ooo ~
' I
55Z.4 5P,~oc~ Rb.
12..oo0~
~ooo~
Iz.ooo~
-1
15 oo0-;1~
I~ooo~
r
5084
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 28, 1994
PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: SECTION 350:760, SUBD. 4, TRUCK
PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL AREA$~
City Planner, Mark Koegler, explained that the City Council has determined there is a
need to look at the current Code regarding truck parking in residential areas, and has
referred this issue to the Planning Commission for further input and recommendation.
Mound's current provision states, "No motor vehicle over one (1) ton capacity bearing
a commercial license and commercially licensed trailer shall be parked or stored in a
platted residential district or a public street except when loading, unloading, or
rendering a service. Recreational vehicles and pickups are not restricted by the terms
of this provision."
Samples of other cities ordinance were reviewed. The common trend seen in the
various communities used for sampling, is that certain types of commercial vehicles
are prohibited from parking in residential areas. Some communities permit such
parking, provided that it is contained within a garage. Only six of these communities
(including Mound) mention recreational vehicles and allow them to be exempt from
this provision. Weight restrictions and the terminology used to describe weight limits
Planning Commission Minutes TRUCK PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL February 28, 1954
varies from community to community.
Weight terms were reviewed. Mound, Prior Lake, St. Louis Park and Bloomington use
the term "capacity" to regulate truck weight. However, this is only the load capacity,
not the entire gross weight of the vehicle and its load. Thus, it is impossible to
compare Mound's current weight limit with the other communities that use the same
weight term as Mound.
The basic definition of Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) remains as the total weight of the
vehicle and the load. Terms such as capacity, gross capacity and rated capacity are
not used to determine truck weight at the state level. When the term GVW is used,
the specifications (either manufacturers, registered, or actual) must be used to clarify
whose rating system the GVW has been determined.
.The City Planner concluded, that Mound's current provisions restrict commercial
vehicles from parking in residential areas at any time. The City Council would like to
consider whether it is appropriate to allow some commercial licensed vehicles and
some vehicles used for business purposes to be parked or stored in residential areas.
Other communities have allowed certain commercial vehicles in residential areas if
they are parked in garages. The inconsistent weight limit definitions do not allow
accurate comparisons of Mound's weight restrictions to all of the communities used
as examples within the City Planner's report. One approach to consider would be to
standardize Mound's weight limit to that of the States standard (GVW) and specify
which standards would be used (state registration, manufacturers, or actual). This
may help clarify and allow for better enforcement of weight restrictions in the future.
However, standardizing the weight definition would mean modifying the current
weight restrictions. These new weight restrictions could be defined by determining
which commercial vehicles and vehicles used for business would not cause safety,
value and appearance problems if stored and parked in residential areas.
Weiland stated that he is not in favor of requiring the vehicles be covered as this
would create the construction of extra large garages which can be just as unsightly.
Mueller's written comments were recognized by the Commission.
Voss does not want to impact the private business person and is not in favor making
the ordinance more stringent, however, he does not want to see large trucks such as
semi trailers allowed that would be obtrusive in a neighborhood. He questioned how
large trucks compare to the storage of campers or boats. Koegler stated, that
generally, recreational vehicles are accessory to the residential use, and people who
live in homes have boats and campers, but most people who live in homes don't have
dump trucks.
Johnson questioned what types of vehicles have been tagged. The Building Official
commented that tool trucks and other service type vehicles have been tagged.
a n n I ~n, ,it I I,
Planning Commission Minutes TRUCK PARKING IN RESIDENTIAL
February 28, 1994
Hanus questioned if the City would conside~ allowing the storage of larger vehicles
through a Conditional Use Permit process?
Koegler suggested that the ordinance needs to further clarify what types of vehicles
should be allowed to be stored in the residential district.
It was suggested that the ordinance limit the storage of one vehicle per property.
Koegler clarified for the Commission that a I ton vehicle, depending on the
manufacturer or brand, could equal 12,000 to 15,000 pounds. He clarified, that if the
manufacturers weight is used as the determining factor, it does not matter how much
weight you are hauling. Koegler noted that Jim Larson, who is with the City
Attorney's office, stated it would be preferrable to use the manufacture's GVW as
posted on the vehicle.
Resident, Bob Smith, informed the Commission that he has a truck that looks like a
bread truck, it is 22 feet long, and the truck is used for his private business. His truck
is his store, he sells tools. He has a 10 foot high garage door, the garage is 32' x 32',
and he still had to partially disassemble his truck to get it to fit inside. He believes the
truck weighs about 15,000 pounds.
Weiland stressed that the issue is not how much the vehicle weighs, but how big it
is and how obtrusive it is to the neighborhood. It was also suggested that the type
of vehicle and what it is used for be taken into consideration.
Michael suggested the Commissioners think about what they would like to allow, then
bring back the ideas back to the next meeting for further discussion.
It was suggested that staff take a poll of the types of vehicles currently being parked
within the City.
There was discussion about publicizing the issue to get public input.
This issue will be brought back to the Planning Commission at the March 14, 1944
meeting for discussion. The Commissioners should bring their ideas to the meeting.
-%
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Planning Commission
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: February 4, 1994
SUBJECT: Truck Parking in Residential Areas
During a December City Council meeting, staff was asked to look at Section 350:760, Subd.
4 of the City Code which regulates truck parking in residential areas. The intent in requesting
the review was to compare Mound's standards to those commonly used in other municipalities
and to determine if Mound is too strict or too lenient under the current provisions. After staff
review and further discussion of this issue at the January 11, 1994 City Council meeting,
Council determined that modifications to the existing Code should be further investigated and
the issue should be referred to the Planning Commission for input and recommendation.
Mound's current provision states "No motor vehicle over one (1) ton capacity bearing a
commercial license and commercially licensed trailer shall be parked or stored in a platted
residential district or a public street except when loading, unloading, or rendering a service.
Recreation vehicles and pickups are not restricted by the terms of this~provision." This
provision prohibits any commercially licensed vehicle from parking in any of Mound's
residential areas.
Zoning Ordinances contain provisions such as the one stated above as an attempt to segregate
residential, commercial and industrial uses. Allowed uses, provisions, and restrictions
applicable to any of these three general zoning classifications are intended to ensure that they
can contain uses that are not impeded by undue conflicts. In most communities, parking in
residential zoning districts is limited to automobiles, pickup trucks and recreational vehicles;
while most types of trucks which are commonly associated with commercial and industrial
uses are excluded from residential areas.
Mound's provisions may contain this language in order to carry out the general zoning
philosophy as stated above, as well as to protect residential properties from
commercial/industrial trucks that could pose a safety problem, diminish the attractive
appearance and decrease the value of residential neighborhoods. Also, because of Mound's
smaller lots and short front yard setbacks (20' in many areas), any large vehicle such as a
truck parked in a residential area has a high probability of impacting neighboring properties.
Land Use / Environmental · Planning / Design
7300 Metro Boulevard/Suite 525 ' Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 ' Fax: (612) 835-3160
a · ii I I ,it I I,
Truck Parking Memorandum
February 4, 1994
Page 2
To determine if Mound's standards are too strict, a random sampling of other communities
restrictions were studied and are listed below.
Prior Lake: Motor vehicles over one (1) ton capacity bearing a commercial license and
commercially licensed trailers shall not be parked in a residential area except when loading,
unloading or rendering a service. Such vehicles may be stored in residential areas if they are
parked in garages. Recreational vehicles and pickups are not restricted by the terms of this
provision.
Falcon Heights: Off-street parking facilities accessory to residential uses shall be utilized
solely for the parking of passenger automobiles and/or one (1) truck not to exceed 7,000
pounds gross capacity for each dwelling unit. Under no circumstances shall required parking
facilities be used for the storage of commercial vehicles or for the parking of automobiles
belonging to the employees, owners, tenants or customers of nearby business or
manufacturing establishments.
Golden Valley: It is unlawful to park or leave standing a truck having a capacity to haul
more than one (1) ton or a gross vehicle weight of 7,000 pounds (except a recreational
pickup camper or a pickup truck), a bus having a seating capacity of more than fourteen (14)
passengers, commercial equipment (whether mounted, dismounted or towed), truck-tractor,
truck-trailer, or tractor-trailer on any street in a district zoned for residential uses except while
such vehicle is being actively loaded or unloaded to or from the premises immediately
adjacent to the place where it is parked.
Shakopee: Off-street parking facilities accessory to residential uses shall be utilized solely for
the parking of passenger automobiles, except that for each dwelling unit, one truck not in
excess of 9,000 pounds rated capacity may be parked by the occupant within a structure.
Under no circumstances shall parking facilities accessory to residential structures be used for
open storage of commercial vehicles nor open air parking of automobiles belonging to the
employees, owner, tenant or customers of a business or manufacturing establishment.
Bloomington: No commercial motor vehicle rated at more than one-ton capacity; no motor
vehicle designed, used, maintained for the towing of other motor vehicles or equipment; and
no commercial trailer shall be parked or stored in a platted residential district except when
loading or unloading or rendering a service. No more than one commercial vehicle shall be
parked on or adjacent to a platted residential lot at any time except when loading or
unloading or rendering a service. The word "platted" as used in this section shall include
actual plats, registered land surveys, and auditor's subdivisions.
Hopkins: Residential parking facilities may be used for the parking of automobiles and one
truck not to exceed a 9,000 pound rated capacity.
772.
Truck Parking Memorandum
February 4, 1994
Page 3
Wayzata: Trucks of more that 12,000 GVW or greater than thirty (30) feet in length and
contracting or excavating equipment may not be parked, stored, or otherwise continued on any
property within the City for a period greater than twelve (12) hours unless being used in
conjunction with a temporary service benefitting the residential or commercial premises,
except that such trucks and equipment may be parked, stored and otherwise continued on
property zoned C-3 if used regularly by the property owner in his business.
Excelsior:. Permitted Accessory Uses - Within R-1 to R-4 districts, the following uses shall
be permitted accessory uses: Subd. 1. Private garage, parking space, carport for passenger
cars and for trucks, not in excess of 7,000 pound licensed gross weight, utility trailers,
recreational trailers, mobile and motor homes when owned or assigned to the occupant.
St. Louis Park: Required off-street parking facilities in an "R" Use District may be utilized
only for parking passenger automobiles, however one truck not exceeding 1.5-ton capacity
may be parked by the occupant of each dwelling unit inside a building on the resident's
property. No required parking facilities or public rights-of-way in any "R" Use District shall
be used for open-air storage of commercial vehicles, customer's vehicles, or vehicles
belonging to employees, owners, tenants or customers of business or manufacturing
establishments.
Shorewood: Off-street parking facilities incidental to residential use shall be utilized solely
for the parking of currently licensed and operable passenger automobiles; no more than one
truck not to exceed gross capacity of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds; and recreational
vehicles and equipment. Under no cirucumstances shall required parking facilities accessory
to residential structures be used for the storage of commercial vehicles or equipment or for
the parking of automobiles belonging to the employees, owners, tenants, or customers of
business or manufacturing establishments.
Maple Grove: Off-street parking facilities accessory to residential uses shall be utilized solely
for the parking of licensed and operable passenger automobiles; no more than one (1) truck
not to exceed gross capacity of twelve thousand (12,000) pounds; and recreational vehicles
and equipment. Under no circumstances shall required parking facilities accessory to
residential structures be used for the storage of commercial vehicles or equipment or for the
parking of automobiles belonging to the employees, owners, tenants, or customers of business
or manufacturing establishments.
The common trend seen in all of these communities is that certain types of commercial
vehicles are prohibited from parking in residential areas. Some communities permit such
parking, provided that it is contained within a garage. Only six of these communities
(including Mound) mention recreational vehicles and allow them to be exempt from this
provision. Weight restrictions and the terminology used to describe weight limits varies from
community to community.
Truck Parking Memorandum
February 4, 1994
Page 4
Because the weight terms vary, a definition has been provided to determine the extent to
which Mound compares to these other communities. Each of the terms used by the
communities to describe weight restrictions have been given general definitions since the
standards for these regulations are not specified and could have many meanings.
Capacity - The carrying capacity of the vehicle, only the load, not the vehicle weight.
Gross Capacity - The vehicle and load weight.
Rated Capacity - Either registered or manufactured weight of the vehicle and the load weight.
Mound, Prior Lake, St. Louis Park and Bloomington use the term "capacity" to regulate truck
weight. However, according to the definition of capacity above, this is only the load
capacity, not the entire gross weight of the vehicle and its load. Thus, it is impossible to
compare Mound's current weight limit with the other communities that use a total gross
weight. However, comparisons can be made with the three communities that use the same
weight term as Mound ("capacity"). Of these three communities, St. Louis Park allows trucks
not over 1.5 ton capacity; while Prior Lake, Bloomington and Mound allow trucks not over 1-
ton capacity. All three communities, except Mound, allow inside storage of certain trucks in
residential areas.
State classifications for truck weight indicate Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) as the current
terminology used to determine truck weight. This is the maximum amount of weight of a
vehicle including both the truck and its load. Terms such as capacity, gross capacity and
rated capacity are not used to determine truck weight at the state level. When the term
GVW is used, the specifications (either manufacturers, registered, or actual) must be used to
clarify by whose rating system the GVW has been determined. Although these terms need to
be clarified, the basic definition of GVW remains as the total weight of the vehicle and the
load.
GVW - Gross Vehicle Weight - The actual physical weight of the vehicle and load.
GVWR - Gross Vehicle Weight Rating - The manufacturer's rating system which includes the
total weight of the vehicle plus the load.
Registered GVW - Registered Gross Vehicle Weight - The registered GVW of your vehicle
plus the load, which is administered during the licensing of the vehicle. This weight includes
the vehicle plus the load.
Truck Parking Memorandum
February 4, 1994
Page 5
In conclusion, the City Council has determined there is a need to look at the current Code
regarding truck parking in residential areas for several reasons. Mound's provisions currently
restrict commercial vehicles from parking in residential areas at any time. The City Council
would like to consider whether it is appropriate to allow some commercially licensed vehicles
and some vehicles used for business purposes to be parked or stored in residential areas. Can
this be done without having a negative impact on safety, value and appearance within the
residential areas? Other communities have allowed certain commercial vehicles in residential
areas if they are parked in garages. The inconsistent weight limit definitions do not allow
accurate comparisons of Mound's weight restrictions to all of the communities used as
examples in this report. One approach to consider would be to standardize Mound's weight
limit to that of the State's standards (GVW) and specify which standards would be used (state
registration, manufacturers or actual). This may help clarify and allow for better enforcement
of weight restrictions in the future. However, standardizing the weight definition would mean
modifying the current weight restrictions. These new weight restrictions could be defined by
determining which commercial vehicles and vehicles used for business would not cause
safety, value and appearance problems if stored and parked in residential areas.
· · · ·
· · · · · · ·
I I
C
C ~-
· · · · · · ·
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 11, 1994
1.14 DISCUSSION: SECTION 350:760, SUBD. 4 - TRUCK PARKING IN
RESIDENTIAL AREAS
The City Planner reported that this is a discussion item requested by the Council and no action
can be taken this evening. The Council asked Staff to look at Section 350:760, SUBD. 4 of the
City Code and compare Mound's standard to those commonly used in other communities. The
Planner explained that Zoning Ordinances are an attempt to segregate residential, commercial
and industrial uses. Parking in most residential zoning districts is limited to automobiles, pickup
trucks and recreational vehicles. Most types of trucks which are commonly associated with
commercial and industrial uses are excluded from residential areas. Section 350:760, Subd. 4,
reads as follows: "No motor vehicle over one (1) ton capacity bearing a commercial license and
no commercially licensed trailer shall be parked or stored in a platted residential district or a
public street except when loading, unloading, or rendering a service. Recreation vehicles and
pickups are not restricted by the terms of this provision.' The Planner speculated that this was
put in the code because of Mound's smaller lots and short front yard setbacks (20' in many
areas). Allowing commercial vehicles could, in some instances, cause a safety problem; an
appearance issue; and could have a value impact on properties. He gave a random sampling of
restrictions used in the following communities: Prior Lake, Falcon Heights, Shakopee, Hopkins,
Wayzata, and Maple Grove. He stated that some of the restrictions vary, but virtually all of
them prohibit commercially licensed vehicles in residential areas. He stated that the weight of
those vehicles and some of the terms that they use in describing the load of the vehicles does
vary. He stated that weight and loads need to be looked at closely so that you are comparing
apples to apples.
The Council discussed the fact that Mound's weight restriction limitation (1 ton) is on the Iow
end of the communities sampled. They discussed disruption of residential areas with certain
commercial vehicles; cottage industries; parking commercial vehicles in garages; the number of
warning tickets issued for this violation, etc.
The Council asked that this (Section 350:760, Subd. 4) be referred to the Planning Commission
for them to look at it as it is and asking for their input on ways to allow certain people who use
such vehicles to park or store them, with clarification on those terms, in residential areas. Also
the Council would like to have input from neighbors who would be affected by the change in
the ordinance.
The Mayor commented that one sentence in the report states, "The weight of allowed vehicles
varies from one ton to 12,000 pounds." He stated that really isn't true, because the weight of
a one ton pickup truck certainly exceeds 2,000 pounds, but it has to do with load capacity. Ali
the sample ordinances use different terminologies ie. rated capacity, gross vehicle weight, etc.
This needs to be clarified and understood. All the comparisons with other city's ordinances need
to be apples to apples.
The Council also suggested that the Planning Commission keep in mind how large motor homes
have gotten.
The Mayor pointed out that some of the commercial vehicles look better than some motor homes
that are parked next to homes.
The Council is looking for a way to allow some commercially licensed vehicles and some
vehicles used for business purposes to be parked or stored in residential areas, which is currently
prohibited by our ordinance. Is there a way to do this without having a negative impact on
safety, value and appearances within residential areas?
The City Manager stated that apparently the people who did get warnings have moved their
vehicles elsewhere.
The Planner stated this item could be on a Planning Commission Agenda within the next 30
days. The Council asked that this item be back to the Council by the second meeting in April.
Tim Miller, 3149 Inverness Road stated he would be willing to contact some other owners of
commercial vehicles and give input to the Planning Commission. The Council thought this was
a good idea.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE MODIFICATION
OF SECTION 300:10 OF THE MOUND CITY CODE TO ADD
PROVISIONS REQUIRING THE COMPLETION OF STRUCTURES
WITHIN A ONE YEAR PERIOD OF TIME
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet
in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, July 12, 1994 to
consider the modification of Section 300:10 of the Mound City Code to add provisions requiring
the completion of structures within a specified period of time. The following section is proposed
3 be added to the Code:
Subd. 5. Time Limits on Building Completion. All work to be performed pursuant
to a building permit obtained for new construction, repairs, remodeling, and alterations
to the exteriors of any building or structure in any zoning district shall be completed
within one (1) year from the date of permit issuance. The person obtaining the permit
and the owner of the property shall be responsible for completion. A violation of this
subdivision is a misdemeanor offense.
The City Council may extend the time for completion upon written request of the
permittee, establishing to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Council that
circumstances beyond the control of the permittee prevented completion of the work
for which the permit was granted. The extension shall be requested not less than
thirty (30) business days prior to the end of the one-year period.
All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the
opportunity to be heard at this meeting.
Francene C. Clark, City Clerk
(To be published in 'The Laker' June 27, 1994)
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 9, 1994
3. pROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT: TIME LIMITS ON BUILDING COMPLETIONS.
~I)BLIC HEARING.
The City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed the proposed modification to Section 300:10 of the
Mound City Code to add provisions requiring the completion of structures within a specified
period of time, as follows:
Subd. 5. ~'ime Limits on Buildin¢~ Comoletior~. All work to be performed
pursuant to a building permit obtained for new construction, repairs,
remodeling, and alterations to the exteriors of any building or structure in any
zoning district shall be completed within one (1) year from the date of permit
issuance. The person obtaining the permit and the owner of the property shall
be responsible for completion. A violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor
offense.
The City Council may extend the time for completion upon written request of
the permittee, establishing to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Council
that circumstances beyond the control of the permittee prevented completion
of the work for which the permit was granted. The extension shall be
requested not less than thirty (30) business days prior to the end of the one-
year period.
Chair Michael opened the public hearing. There being no comments from citizens present,
Chair Michael closed the public hearing.
MOTION made by Weiland, seconded by Mueller, to recommend approval of the
Zoning Ordinance Amendment to add provisions requiring the completion of
structures within a one year pedod of time. Motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND MINNESOTA
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC.HEARING TO CONSIDER THE MODIFICATION
OF SECTION 300.10 OF THE MOUND CITY CODE TO ADD
PROVISIONS REQUIRING THE COMPLETION OF STRUCTURES
WITHIN A ONE YEAR PERIOD OF TIME
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the Planning Commission of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341 Maywood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on
Monday, May 9, 1994 to consider the modification of Section 300:10 of the Mound City
Code add provisions requiring the completion of structures within a specified period of
time. The following section is proposed to be added to the Code:
Subd. 5 Time.Limits..on B. uildin~l Completio.n. All work to be performed pursuant
to a building permit obtained for new construction, repairs, remodeling, and
alterations to the exteriors of any building or structure in any zoning district shall
be completed within one (1) year from the date of permit issuance. The person
obtaining the permit and the owner of the property shall be responsible for
completion. A violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor offense.
The City Council may extend the time for completion upon written request of the
permittee, establishing to the reasonable satisfaction of the City Council that
circumstances beyond the control of the permittee prevented completion of the
work for which the permit was granted. The extension shall be requested not less
than thirty (30) business days prior to the end of the one-year period.
Ail persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be given the
opportunity to be heard at this meeting.
Francene C. Clark, City Clerk
(published in "The Laker" 4-25-94)
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - APRIL 12, 1994
GOMPLETIONS
The Planner stated that the Planning Commission is proposing the following for the proposed
ordinance amendment for time limitz on building completions:
'All ~xterior work required to be performed pursuant to a building permit obtained for
new construction, repairs, remodeling, and alterations to-the-erde~lo~ of any building or
structure in any district shall be completed within one (1) year from the date of permit
issuance. The person obtaining the permit and the owner of the property shall be
responsible for this completion. A violation of this subdivision is a misdemeanor
offense.'
The Council agreed that this would cover what was asked. It was agreed that this amendment
is to deal with beginning exterior work and not completing it within one year causing neighbors
to have to look at unsightly buildings longer than one year. The Planning Commission will hold
a public hearing on this May 9, 1994.
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Planning Commission
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: February 4, 1994
SUBJECT: Time Limits on Building Completions
The City Council recently directed staff to investigate the feasibility of restricting the amount
of time allowed for building completion. This issue was raised because there have been a
number of instances where building construction has been started but takes a number of years
to complete. This can have negative impacts on the aesthetics of neighborhood properties
and neighboring areas. Other communities facing this issue have enacted ordinance
provisions placing limits on the time allowed for building construction. Similar provisions
may be applicable to Mound since the City Council feels this issue needs to be examined
further and has asked for the Planning Commission's input and recommendation.
In order to determine if Mound's provision regulating building completion is consistent with
other communities, a survey (conducted by White Bear Lake) on this issue was analyzed.
This survey looked at several communities ordinance provisions regarding time limits on
building completion. The survey indicated that communities generally approach this issue in
one of three ways: 1) Ordinance provisions are enacted controlling the time allowed for
completion of the exterior of a building 2) Ordinance provisions require total building
completion within specified time limits, or 3) Communities employ the UBC provisions which
allow construction to continue indefinitely provided that the work is not abandoned for a
continuous period exceeding 180 days.
The following is the summary of all the communities surveyed and how they compare to one
another.
Cottage Grove, Edina, Maplewood, Minneapolis, and St. Louis Park: Require the exterior
finish of one and two family dwellings and their accessory buildings to be completed within a
specified amount of time. These periods of time ranged from 160 days to one year after
permit issuance. Cottage Grove also applies the requirement to non-residential buildings.
Oakdale: Requires one and two family dwellings to be totally complete (interior and exterior)
within one year and their accessory buildings within six months.
7300 Metro Boulevard / Suite 525
Land Use/Environmental · Planning/Design
· Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 · (612) 835-9960 · Fax:(612)835-3160
Building Completion Memorandum
February 7, 1994
Page 2
Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Richfield, Shoreview, West St. Paul, and White Bear Lake:
Enforce the Uniform Building Code provisions which allow construction to continue
indefinitely provided the work is not abandoned for a continuous period exceeding 180 days.
Mound currently handles building completion by employing the UBC provisions which allow
construction to continue indefinitely provided the work is not abandoned for a continuous
period exceeding 180 days. However, this provision is difficult to enforce because the
exterior of the building would have to be in very bad shape before concern would be raised,
and then the hazardous building ordinance would be enforced.
The City Council has requested that the Planning Commission draft provisions regulating the
completion of buildings. Issues that need to be considered include: 1) Should such an
ordinance apply only to the exterior finish of a building or should it regulate total
completion? 2) Should such provisions apply to all types of structures including residential,
commercial and industrial buildings as well as accessory structures? 3) How much time
should be allowed for building completion? Based on comments offered during the City
Council discussion, the Council is generally leaning toward regulating exterior completions
only, applying such provisions to residential structures only, and allowing a one year
completion time. Does the Planning Commission concur with this direction?
I I L,
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JANUARY 11~ 1994
1.15 I I N' ~TIME LIMI N B DIN MPLETI N
The Planner stated this item also can be discussed and should be referred back to the Planning
Commission for their review. He explained that there are a variety of ways to approach this:
1. Ordinance provisions enacted controlling the time allowed for completion of the
exterior of a building;
2. Ordinance provisions requiting total building completion within specified time
limits; and
3. UBC provisions which allow construction to continue indefinitely provided that
the work is not abandoned for a continuous period exceeding 180 days.
presently Mound uses the UBC provisions. He suggested that the following be
the Planning Commission:
He stated that
considered by
1. Should such an ordinance apply only to the exterior finish of a building or should
it regulate total completion?
2. Should such provisions apply to all types of structures including residential,
commercial and industrial buildings as well as accessory structures?
3. How much time should be allows for building completion?
The Building Official stated that his experience with problems in other communities has been
with residential only, and he feels that 1 year is enough time to get an exterior completed. He
stated that Oakdale has a provision allowing the person to appeal to the City Council if they
disagree with the Building Official.
The Building Official explained that presently using the UBC provisions of 180 days, it is very
difficult to enforce because the exterior of the building would have to be in very bad shape and
then the hazardous building ordinance would come into play. He stated that the exterior is the
thing he is most concerned about because it affects the neighbors. The Council agreed that the
exterior of residential is the most important.
This item was referred to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendations.
July 12, 1994
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING LEONARD KOPP TO
THE MOUND HRA - TERM TO EXPIRE 8-29-99
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota,
does hereby reappoint Leonard Kopp to the Mound Housing & Redevelopment Authority for a
five year term to expire August 29, 1999.
i I,
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 27, 1994
INTERVIEWS FOR NEW COMMISSIONER;
A. EDWARD SURKO. 2314 CHATEAU LANF
Mueller confirmed that 'Ed' is preferred, and questioned if Mr. Surko would not be more suited for
the Economic Development Commission, considering his experience. Ed explained that he has had
more experience in that area, and has had little 'planning' experience, however, he is interested in
learning more about planning, and would like to help in some way. He has the time to devote to the
Commission. He has worked in construction on oil rigs.
When asked where he sees the City in twenty years, he stated that he has only lived in Mound since
April 15, 1994, however he sees potential for redevelopment in Mound to attract possibly some
tourism. Based on his experience, he has seen City's deteriorate, and has seen what he does not
want to happen to Mound.
He has not been involved in any other volunteer organizations, political or otherwise. He has coached
children's basketball and baseball. He has no future plans for elective office.
What does he see as problems in Mound? He sees Mound as a mixed community, in terms of
economics. He sees problems with businesses, but he also sees a lot of potential for Mound. Mound
needs to attract businesses into the City, then the rest will follow.
He sees future development for the lost lake area to include a boardwalk type atmosphere for
merchants and tourist to merge with the community with dockage and store fronts.
He has no conflict with meeting times.
B. CKLAIR HASSE. 6627 BARTLETT BLVD.
Mr. Hasse was a City Council member for one year in 1974, and also served on the Park
Commission and Planning Commission for an undetermined number of years until his job interfered
with his schedule to attend the night meetings.
In the last twenty years, he feels the lost lake area should have been completed since a lot of money
has been spent on plans. He has resided in Mound since 1949, and he has stayed here because he
likes the lake and the people. He is a charter member of the Jr. Chamber.
He would like to see the lost lake area remain in a natural state, not developed into a park or
anything, just remain natural.
He is in favor of housing maintenance, however, he feels the rental ordinance should be split between
multiple dwellings and single family rental dwellings. He has a rental dwelling and does not feel he
should be responsible to keep the sidewalks shoveled free of snow and ice.
He has no conflict with meeting times.
DISCUSSION BY THE COMMISSION ON INTERVlEW~;
Chair Weiland noted that the secretary has received a ballot from Geoff Michael who was unable to
be present this evening. The Commission determined the ballot should not be entered into the vote.
The difference between the two applicants was noted to be great. There was considerable discussion
about the good qualifications of both applicants.
The ballots were submitted to the secretary to be tallied. The applicant with the least amount of
points wins the vote.
Ed Surko 1,1,2,1,2,1 = 8
Cklair Hasse 2,2,1,2,1,2 = 10
MOTI~)N made by Voss seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend Edward Surko be
appointed to the Planning Commission to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of
Brian Johnson, with the term expiring December 31, 1994. Motion carried 5 to 1.
Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Mueller, ross, Jansen, and Hanus. Weiland was
opposed.
The City Council will review this recommendation on July 12, 1994.
Edward Shukle, Jr.
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
RECEIVED JUN ?.
Edward W. Surko
2314 Chateau Lane
Mound, MN 55364
Tel.: 472-7045
June 1,1994
Dear Edward:
I was very pleased to see the article concerning a planning commission vacancy in the May 30th
Laker. I would like to apply for that position having recently moved into Mound and being ve,~'
interested in involving myself in the community. This particular position is one in which I have
experience. Although it was a few years ago, I served with the New York City Planning
Commission while in college. I worked with them in re-developing the Manhattan theater district
and attempting to attract more tourist traffic. I also assisted in work having to do with waterfront
property development on the North Shore of Long Island. I am particularly interested in helping to
economically and aesthetically develop Mound. I have read some of your plans and they are very
exciting.
I believe that my background can provide real value to you. I am a Political Science graduate with
an MBA in finance. As I mentioned above, I have worked with the NYC Planning Commission, the
New York City Metropolitan Museum of Art and for the past 14 years in the banking industry. My
assignments in banking include both domestic and overseas assignments and I am currently
employed with First Bank.
I have lived in Minnesota for over three years and am a father of two. Although I have traveled
much in the past, I have settled and wish to call Mound my home. I very much would like to
contribute to its growth and continued vitality.
I have included my resume for your review and look forward to meeting with you shortly.
Edward W. Surko
EXPERIENCE
1991-Present FIRST BANK SYSTEM, Minneapolis, MN
Vice Presldent, Retail Product Group 1993-Present
Responsibilities include creating the organizational design and system support
structure for all retail and commercial revolving and non-revolving credit
products.
· Defined organizational processes and system requirements necessary to
support all revolving and non-revolving credit products in order to reduce
product development time, improve speed of response to customers, and
reduce operations and system support costs.
· Identified software solution necessary to satisfy those requirements.
Vice President & Business Manager, Agent Services 1991-1992
Responsibilities included total accountability for the Agent Services Business
which provides retail payment product services to financial institutions and has
over $110 million in assets under management.
· Consolidated First Bank System Agent Services business into Rocky
Mountain Bank Card Inc., which will yield a $2.3 million cost savings during
1993.
Reduced attrition rates by over 20% through focusing on retention programs
and converting accounts to variable rate pricing.
Grew Agent Services distribution units over 100% via acquisitions and new
sales initiatives.
Preserved asset levels and sales volumes of portfolios during a period of
significant economic decline.
1990-1991
CORESTATES BANK OF DELAWARE, Wilmington, DE
Vice President and Manager,
Corporate/Business/Procurement Card Products
Responsible for the development of Sn'ategic Plan for CoreStates' new credit card
products. Implemented Phase I of Strategic Plan.
Edward W. Surko Page 2
CORESTATES BANK OF DELAWARE (cont.)
· Developed product and system specifications to support commercial and agent
bank credit card businesses.
· Identified internal and external distribution channels and created and
implemented cross selling strategies for credit card products.
1987-1990
CHEMICAL BANK, New York, NY
Manager, Business Card Products
· Developed and implemented the strategic plan for commercial revolving and
non-revolving credit products.
· Identified appropriate systems support solutions for credit card products.
· Selected third party processor for retail and commercial credit card products.
· Member of MasterCard's BusinessCard Advisory Committee which
determined product development and marketing initiatives for the association
members.
1980-1987
CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, New York, NY
Financial Controller
Managed the financial reporting and evaluation of various business segments,
including retail, commercial, corporate, and mast services.
· Integrated accounting system of newly acquired banks located in Spain and
the Netherlands into the Chase Manhattan Corporation.
· Developed and managed new accounts payable system which processed
approximately $10 million in annual payments and resulted in increased
control and operating efficiencies and reduced operating expenses.
· Managed divestiture of Merchant Services business to achieve significant cost
savings.
1978-1980
METROPOLITAN MUSEUM OF ART, New York, NY
Securities Lending Manager
Managed the museum's securities' lending operation as well as all National
Endowment for the Arts (NEA) grants used for financing special exhibitions for
the public.
EDUCATION
M.B.A., Long Island University, New York
B.A., Political Science, St. John's University, New York
JUN 2 0 199
June 17, 1994
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Sirs:
I would like to apply for the opening on the planning commission. I
have resided in the Mound area for 47 years.
I was on the planning & park commission for ten years and on the
Mound council one year. A member of the Mohawk Jaycees for 12 years.
I was in the construction business for 45 years and have now retired.
I feel with my previous experience on the planning & park commission
and my knowledge of the construction business I am qualified for this
position.
Sincerely,
Cklair Hasse
6627 Bartlett Blvd
Mound, MN 55364
Phone 472-1938
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER
TO EXECUTE SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT WITH
HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR 1994 (YEAR XX) URBAN
HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of MOUND has executed a Joint
Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County for the purpose of participating in the
1994 (Year XX) Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant
Program; and
WHEREAS, Hennepin County is the recipient of an annual grant from the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development for purposes of the program, and the
City is a subrecipient under the program and receives a share of the grant; and
WHEREAS, program regulations require that the City and County execute a
Subrecipient Agreement which sets forth the specific implementation processes for
activities to be undertaken with program funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the MOUND City
Council hereby authorizes and directs the Mayor and the City Council to execute the
Subrecipient Agreement on behalf of the City.
July 12, 1994 Mayor
Date
ATTEST:
City Clerk
RecTcled Paper
DATE: June 30, 1994
TO:
FROM:
Urban Hennepin County Participating Communities
Barbara Hayden, Planning Supervisor, Hennepin County Office of Planning
and Development
SUBJECT: 1994 (Yr. XX) CDBG Subrecipient and Third Party Agreements
Accompanying is the 1994 CDBG Subrecipient Agreement. A Third Party Agreement(s) is
also enclosed for communities with project(s) that will be implemented by an entity other
than the city.
To reduce paper and streamline the process, master agreements for the Subrecipient
Agreement and Third Party Agreement are being utilized this year. This is intended to
eliminate the cumbersome process of executing and returning multiple copies of each
Agreement.
The Agreements are essentially the same as the 1993 Agreements. To create the master
Agreement, only minor changes to the first two pages and the signature page were
required. There are now separate signature pages for the city and the County. Similar
changes were made to the Third Party Agreement. Please follow the steps identified below
to execute these Agreements. Executed signature Daqes should be returned by Auqus;
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT
1) Council resolution (enclosed) authorizing execution of Agreements
2) Execute page 12, Subrecipient Execution Indicate city organization
City Clerk attests to signatures
Stamp with city seal.
3) Keep a copy of the executed Subrecipient Execution page
4) Return signed Subrecipient Execution page by August 15.
Do not return the Subrecipient ,4Ereement.
5) County will execute master Agreement with signature page from each
community attached.
6 City will receive copy of executed County (Recipient Execute page.
This should be attached to the city copy of the Agreement.
THIRD PARTY AGREEMENT
Agreement will be executed by the city first.
1) Execute page 9 - City Execution
Keep original of the executed page
2) Return copy of the City Execution page by August 15.
Note: If the agreement is with another public agency (HRA or EDA)
the Agreement must also be executed by the agency. Return an
executed copy of each signature page.
3) County will submit Agreement with signed City Execution page/s to the
Third Party for execution.
4) City will receive a copy of the signed Provider Execution page. This should
be attached to city copy of the Third Party Agreement.
If you have questions about the Agreements or execution process please call Mark
Hendrickson at 541-7084.
Enclosures:
Subrecipient Agreement
Third Party Agreement
Sample Resolution
SUBRECIPIENT EXECUTION
Subrecipient, having signed this Agreement, and the Subrecipient's governing body
having duly approved this Agreement on Ju[y 12 , 1994, and pursuant to such
approval and the proper city official having signed this Agreement, Subrecipient agrees to be
bound by the provisions of this Agreement.
CITY OF
By:
MOUND
ItsMayor
And:
Its Acting City Manager
Date: July 12, 1994
CITY MUST CHECK ONE:
The City is organized pursuant to:
_ Plan A X Plan B ... Charter
12
CITY EXECUTION
The City of MOUND having duly approved this Agreement on .J~, 1994,
and pursuant to such approval and the proper city officials having signed this Agreement, the
city agrees to be bound by the provisions herein set forth.
Upon proper execution, this Agreement will be legally valid and binding.
Dated: July 12,_, 1994 CITY OF MOUND
STATE OF MINNESOTA
By
Its Mayor
And
Its Acting City Manager
9
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN,
STATE OF MINNESOTA, hereinafter referred to as "RECIPIENT," A-2400 Government Center,
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487, and the cities executing this Master Agreement, each
hereinafter respectively referred to as "SUBRECIPIENT," said parties to this Agreement each
being governmental units of the State of Minnesota, and is made pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 471.59:
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, Recipient has received a $3,688,000 Federal Fiscal Year 1994 Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement allocation under Title I of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, to carry out various community develop-
ment activities in cooperation with Subrecipient, according to the implementing regulations
at 24 CFR Part 570; and
WHEREAS, Federal Fiscal Year 1994 CDBG funds and any resulting program income
have been approved by Recipient for use by Subrecipient for the implementation of eligible and
fundable community development activity/les as included in and a part of the 1994 Statement
of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds, Urban Hennepin County Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) Program and as set forth in Exhibit 1 to this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Subrecipient agrees to assume certain responsibilities for the
implementation of the approved activities described in Exhibit 1, said responsibilities being
specified in part in the Joint Cooperation Agreement effective October 1, 1993, executed
between Recipient and Subrecipient on June 20, 1993 and in the 1994 Statement of
Objectives and Projected Use of Funds, Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program and the
Certifications contained therein.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereunto do hereby agree as follows:
1. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Subrecipient shall expend all or any part of its CDBG allocation only on those
activities identified in Exhibit 1, subject to the requirements of this Agreement and
the stipulations and requirements set forth in Exhibit 1 to this Agreement.
The Subrecipient shall take all necessary actions, not only to comply with the
stipulations as set out in Exhibit 1, but to comply with any requests by the
Recipient in that connection; it being understood that the Recipient is responsible
to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for ensuring
compliance with such requirements. The Subrecipient also will promptly notify
the Recipient of any changes in the scope or character of the activity/les which
it is implementing.
2. TERM OF AGREEMENT
The effective date of this Agreement is July 1, 1994. The termination date of this
Agreement is December 31, 1995, or at such time as the activity/les constituting part
of this Agreement are satisfactorily completed prior thereto. Upon expiration, the
Subrecipient shall relinquish to the Recipient all program funds unexpended or
uncommitted and all accounts receivable attributable to the use of CDBG funds for the
activities described in Exhibit 1, as may be amended.
THIRD PARTY AGREEMENTS,
The Subrecipient may subcontract this Agreement and/or the services to be performed
hereunder, whether in whole or in part, only with the prior consent of the Recipient and
only through a written Third Party Agreement acceptable to the Recipient. The
Subrecipient shall not otherwise assign, transfer, or pledge this Agreement and/or the
services to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, without the prior
consent of the Recipient.
AMENDMENTS TO AGREEMENT
Any material alterations, variations, modifications or waivers of provisions of this
Agreement shall only be valid when reduced to writing as an Amendment to this
Agreement signed, approved and properly executed by the authorized representatives
of the parties. An exception to this process will be in amending Exhibit 1 to this
Agreement.
Exhibit 1, shall be deemed amended to conform to any amendments to the Final
Statement of Community Development Objectives and Projected Use of Funds, as such
amendments occur.
Any amendments to the Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds, which
constitute substantial changes, must be accompanied by documentation that a local
public hearing was conducted and by an authorizing resolution. Amendments which do
not constitute substantial changes may be handled administratively. Hennepin County
Office of Planning and Development staff may approve administrative amendments
provided they are eligible, fundable and satisfy the Urban Hennepin County Statement
of Objectives.
Substantial change is defined as a change in (1) beneficiary; (2) project location; (3)
purpose; or (4) scope,' (more than a 50% increase or decrease in the original budget or
$10,000, whichever is greater), in any authorized activity. The total budget of multi-
community activities will be used in determining substantial change.
2
o
pAYMENT OF CDBG FUNDS
The Recipient agrees to provide the Subrecipient with CDBG funds not to exceed the
Hennepin County authorized budget to enable the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG-
eligible activity/les as described in Exhibit 1. It is understood that the Recipient shall be
held accountable to HUD for the lawful expenditure of CDBG funds under this
Agreement. The Recipient shall therefore make no payment of CDBG funds to the
Subrecipient and draw no funds from HUD/U.S. Treasury on behalf of a Subrecipient
activity/ies, prior to having received a proper Hennepin County Warrant Request form
from the Subrecipient for the expenses incurred, as well as copies of all documents and
records needed to ensure that the Subrecipient has complied with the appropriate
regulations and requirements.
INDEMNITY AND INSURANCF
The Subrecipient does hereby agree Jo release, indemnify, and hold harmless the
Recipient from and against all costs, expenses, claims, suits or judgments arising
from or growing out of any injuries, loss or damage sustained by any person or
corporation, including employees of Subrecipient and property of Subrecipient,
which are caused by or sustained in connection with the tasks carried out by the
Subrecipient under this Agreement.
Bo
The Subrecipient does further agree that in order to protect itself as well as the
Recipient under the indemnity agreement provisions hereinabove set forth it will
at all times during the term of this Agreement and any renewal thereof, have and
keep in force: a single limit or combined limit or excess umbrella commercial and
general liability insurance policy of an amount of not less than $1 million for
property damage arising from one occurrence, $1 million for damages arising from
death and/or total bodily injuries arising from one occurrence, and $1 million for
total personal injuries arising from one occurrence. Such policy shall also include
contractual liability coverage protecting the Recipient, its officers, agents and
employees by a certificate acknowledging this Agreement between the
Subrecipient and the Recipient.
The Subrecipient's liability, however, shall be governed by the provisions of
Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466.
.CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Ao
In the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction, and services by the
Subrecipient, the conflict of interest provisions in 24 CFR 85.36 and OMB Circular
A-110 shall apply.
B. In all other cases, the provisions of 24 CFR 570.611 shall apply.
3
e
10.
DATA PRIVACY_
The Subrecipient agrees to abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data
Practices Act and all other applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations
relating to data privacy or confidentiality, and as any of the same may be amended.
The Subrecipient agrees to defend and hold the Recipient, its officers, agents, and
employees harmless from any claims resulting from the Subrecipient's unlawful
disclosure and/or use of such protected data.
SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION.
A. If the Subrecipient materially fails to comply with any term of this Agreement or
so fails to administer the work as to endanger the performance of this Agreement,
this shall constitute noncompliance and a default. Unless the Subrecipient's
default is excused by the Recipient, the Recipient may take one or more of the
actions prescribed in 24 CFR 85.43, including the option of immediately cancelling
this Agreement in its entirety.
B. The Recipient's failure to insist upon strict performance of any provision or to
exercise any right under this Agreement shall not be deemed a relinquishment or
waiver of the same. Such consent shall not constitute a general waiver or
relinquishment throughout the entire term of the Agreement.
C. This Agreement may be cancelled with or without cause by either party upon
thirty (30) days' written notice according to the provisions in 24 CFR 85.44.
D. CDBG funds allocated to the Subrecipient under this Agreement may not be
obligated or expended by the Subrecipient following such date of termination.
Any funds allocated to the Subrecipient under this Agreement which remain
unobligated or unspent following such date of termination shall automatically
revert to the Recipient.
REVERSION OF ASSETS
Upon expiration or termination of this Agreement, the Subrecipient shall transfer to the
Recipient any CDBG funds on hand or in the accounts receivable attributable to the use
of CDBG funds, including CDBG funds provided to the Subrecipient in the form of a
loan. Any real property under the control of the Subrecipient that was acquired or
improved, in whole or in part, using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000 shall either be:
A. Used to meet one of the national objectives in 24 CFR 570.208 and not used for
the general conduct of government until:
(1)
(2)
Or,
For units of general local government, five years from the date that the unit
of general local government is no longer considered by HUD to be a part of
Urban Hennepin County; or
For any other Subrecipient, five years after expiration of this Agreement.
4
Not used in accordance with A. above, in which event the Subrecipient shall pay
to the Recipient an amount equal to the current market value of the property less
any portion of the value attributable to expenditures of non-CDBG funds for
acquisition of, or improvement to, the property. The payment is program income
to the Recipient. No payment is required after the period of time specified in A.
above.
11. PROCUREMENT
The Subrecipient shall be responsible for procurement of all supplies, equipment,
services, and construction necessary for implementation of its activity/ies. Procurement
shall be carried out in accordance with the "Common Rule" Administrative Requirements
in 24 CFR 85 and all provisions of the CDBG Regulations in 24 CFR 570 (the most
restrictive of which will take precedence). The Subrecipient shall prepare, or cause to
be prepared, all advertisements, negotiations, notices, and documents; enter into all
contracts; and conduct all meetings, conferences, and interviews as necessary to ensure
compliance with the above described procurement requirements. The Recipient shall
provide advice and staff assistance to the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG-funded
activity/ies.
12. ACQUISITION, RELOCATION, AND DISPLACEMENT
Bo
The Subrecipient shall be responsible for carrying out all acquisitions of real
property necessary for implementation of the activity/les. The Subrecipient shall
conduct all such acquisitions in its name, or in the name of any of its public,
governmental, nonprofit agencies as authorized by its governing body, which shall
hold title to all real property purchased. The Subrecipient shall be responsible for
preparation of all notices, appraisals, and documentation required in conducting
acquisition under the latest applicable regulations of the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970 and of the CDBG Program.
The Subrecipient shall also be responsible for providing all relocation notices,
counseling, and services required by said regulations. The Recipient shall provide
advice and staff assistance to the Subrecipient to carry out its CDBG-funded
activity/les.
The Subrecipient shall comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of
the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of
1970 as required under 24 CFR 570.606(a) and HUD implementing regulations at
24 CFR 42; the requirements in 24 CFR 570.606(b) governing the residential
antidisplacement and relocation assistance plan under section 104(d) of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (the Act); the relocation
requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(c) governing displacement subject to section
104(k) of the Act; and the requirements of 24 CFR 570.606(d) governing optional
relocation assistance under section 105(a)(11) of the Act.
5
13.
14.
15.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW_
The Recipient shall determine the level of environmental review required under 24 CFR
Part 58 and maintain the environmental review record on all activities. The Subrecipient
shall be responsible for providing necessary information, relevant documents, and public
notices to the Recipient to accomplish this task.
LABOR STANOARDS, EMPLOYMENT, AND CONTRACTING.
The Recipient shall be responsible for the preparation of all requests for HUD for wage
rate determinations on-CDBG activities undertaken by the Subrecipient. The
Subrecipient shall notify the Recipient prior to initiating any activity, including
advertising for contractual services which will include costs likely to be subject to the
provisions on Federal Labor Standards and Equal Employment Opportunity and related
implementing regulations. The Recipient will provide technical assistance to the
Subrecipient to ensure compliance with these requirements.
PROGRAM INCOME
If the Subrecipient generated any program income as a result of the expenditure of
CDBG funds, the provisions of 24 CFR 570.504 shall apply, as well as the following
specific stipulations:- -
A. The Subrecipient will notify the Recipient of any program income within ten (10)
days of the date such program income is generated. When program income is
generated by an activity only partially assisted with CDBG funds, the income shall
be prorated to reflect the percentage of CDBG funds used.
B. That any such program income must be paid to the Recipient by the Subrecipient
as soon as practicable after such program income is generated unless the
Subrecipient is permitted to retain program income.
C. Recipient will retain ten percent (10%) of all program income paid to Recipient to
defray administration expenses. The remaining ninety percent (90%) of the
program income paid to the Recipient shall be credited to the grant authority of
Subrecipient whose project generated the program income and shall be used for
fundable and eligible CDBG activities consistent with this Agreement.
D. The Subrecipient further recognizes that the Recipient has the responsibility for
monitoring and reporting to HUD on the use of any such program income. The
responsibility for appropriate recordkeeping by the Subrecipient and reporting to
the Recipient by the Subrecipient on the use of such program income is hereby
recognized by the Subrecipient. The Recipient agrees to provide technical
assistance to the Subrecipient in establishing an appropriate and proper
recordkeeping and reporting system, as required by HUD.
6
That in the event of close-out or change in status of the Subrecipient, any
program income that is on hand or received subsequent to the close-out or change
in status shall be paid to Recipient as soon as practicable after the income is
received. The Recipient agrees to notify the Subrecipient, should close-out or
change in status of the Subrecipient occur.
16. USE OF REAL PROPERTY
The following standards shall apply to real property under the control of the Subrecipient
that was acquired or improved, in whole or in part, using CDBG funds:
Ae
The Subrecipient shall inform the Recipient at least thirty (30) days prior to any
modification or change in the use of the real property from that planned at the
time of acquisition or improvements including disposition. The Subrecipient will
comply with the requirements of 24 CFR 570.505 to provide affected citizens the
opportunity to comment on any proposed change and to consult with affected
citizens.
The Subrecipient shall reimburse the Recipient in an amount equal to the current
fair market value (less any portion thereof attributable to expenditures of non-
CDBG funds) of property acquired or improved with CDBG funds that is sold or
-transferred for a use which does not qualify under the CDBG regulations. Said
reimbursement shall be provided to the Recipient at the time of sale or transfer of
the property referenced herein. Such reimbursement shall not be required if the
conditions of 24 CFR 570.503(b)(8)(i) are met and satisfied. Fair market value
shall be established by a current written appraisal by a qualified appraiser. The
Recipient will have the option of requiring a second appraisal after review of the
initial appr.aisal.
Co
Any program income generated from the disposition or transfer of real property
prior to or subsequent to the close-out, change of status or termination of the
Joint Cooperation Agreement between the Recipient and the Subrecipient shall be
repaid to the Recipient at the time of disposition or transfer of the property.
17. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
The uniform administrative requirements delineated in 24 CFR 570.502 and any and all
administrative requirements or guidelines promulgated by the Recipient shall apply to all
activities undertaken by the Subrecipient provided for in this Agreement and to any
program income generated therefrom.
18. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY
During the performance of this Agreement, the Subrecipient agrees to the
following: In accordance with the Hennepin County Affirmative Action Policy and
the County Commissioners' Policies Against Discrimination, no person shall be
excluded from full employment rights or participation in, or the benefits of, any
program, service or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age,
7
19.
20.
21.
22.
sex, disability, marital status, affectional/sexual preference, public assistance
status, ex-offender status, or national origin; and no person who is protected by
applicable federal or state laws against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected
to discrimination.
The Subrecipient will furnish all information and reports required to comply with
the provisions of 24 CFR Part 570 and all applicable state and federal laws, rules,
and regulations pertaining to discrimination and equal opportunity.
NON-DISCRIMINATION BASED ON DISABILITY
A. The Subrecipient shall comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,
as amended, to ensure that no otherwise qualified individual with a handicap, as
defined in Section 504, shall, solely by reason of his or her handicap, be excluded
from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination
by the Subrecipient receiving assistance from the Recipient under Section 106
and/or Section 108 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as
amended.
B. When and where applicable, the Subrecipient shall comply with, and make best
efforts to have its third party providers comply with, Public Law 101-336
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, Title I "Employment," Title II "Public
Services" - Subtitle A, and Title III "Public Accommodations and Services
Operated By Private Entities" and all ensuing federal regulations implementing said
Act.
LEAD-BASED PAINT.
The Subrecipient shall comply with the Lead-Based Paint notification, i.nspection, testing
and abatement procedures established in 24 CFR 570.608.
FAIR HOUSING
The Subrecipient shall be prohibited from receiving CDBG funds for activity/ies subject
to this Agreement should it not affirmatively further fair housing within its own
jurisdiction or impede action taken by Recipient to comply with the fair housing
certification.
LOBBYING
A. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of
the Subrecipient, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an
officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee
of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the
awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal Grant, the making
of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the
extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal
contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
8
If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid
to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of
any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an
employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract,
grant, loan, or cooperative agreement Subrecipient will complete and submit
Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its
instructions.
23. USE OF EXCESSIVE FORCE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES
Subrecipient has adopted and is enforcing a policy prohibiting the use of excessive force
by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in
non-violent civil rights demonstrations; and a policy of enforcing applicable state and
local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which
is the subject of such non-violent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction.
24. OTHER CDBG POLICIES
The Subrecipient shall comply with the applicable section of 24 CFR 570.200,
particularly sections (b) ISpecial Policies Governing Facilities); (c) (Special Assessments);
(f) (Means of Carrying Out Eligible Activities); and (j) (Constitutional prohibitions
Concerning Church/State Activities).
25. TECHNICAL ASSlSTANCF
The Recipient agrees to provide technical assistance to the Subrecipient in the form of
oral and/or written guidance and on-site assistance regarding CDBG procedures and
project management. This assistance will be provided as requested by the Subrecipient,
and at other times at the initiative of the Recipient when new or updated information
concerning the CDBG Program is received by the Recipient and deemed necessary to be
provided to the Subrecipient.
26. _RECORDKEEPING
The Subrecipient shall maintain records of the receipt and expenditure of all CDBG
funds, such records to be maintained in accordance with OMB Circulars A-87 and the
"Common Rule" Administrative Requirements in 24 CFR 85 and in accordance with
OMB Circular A-110 and A-122, as applicable. All records shall be made available upon
request of the Recipient for inspection/s and audit/s by the Recipient or its
representatives. If a financial audit/s determines that the Subrecipient has improperly
expended CDBG funds, resulting in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) disallowing such expenditures, the Recipient reserves the right to
recover from the Subrecipient such disallowed expenditures from non-CDBG sources.
Audit procedures are specified below in Section 22 of this Agreement.
9
27. ACCESS TO RECORDS
28.
The Recipient shall have authority to review any and all procedures and all materials,
notices, documents, etc., prepared by the Subrecipient in implementation of this
Agreement, and the Subrecipient agrees to provide all information required by any
person authorized by the Recipient to request such information from the Subrecipient
for the purpose of reviewing the same.
AUDIT
The Subrecipient agrees to provide Recipient with an annual audit consistent with the
Single Audit Act of 1984, (U.S. Public Law 98-502) and the implementing requirements
of OMB Circular A-128, Audits of State and Local Governments, and, as applicable,
OMB Circular A-110, Uniform Requirements for Grants to Universities, Hospitals and
Non-Profit Organizations.
A. The audit is to be provided to Recipient on July 1 of each year this Agreement is
in effect and any findings of noncompliance affecting the use of CDBG funds shall
be satisfied by Subrecipient within six (6) months of the provision date.
B. The audit is not required, however, in those instances where less than $25,000
in assistance is received from all Federal sources in any one fiscal year.
C. The cost of the audit is not reimbursable from CDBG funds.
D. The Recipient reserves the right to recover from the Subrecipient's non-CDBG
funds any CDBG expenses which are disallowed by an audit.
10
.RECIPIENT EXECUTION
The Hennepin County Board of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on
, 1994, and pursuant to such approval and the proper County officials having
signed this Agreement, the Recipient agrees to be bound by the provisions herein set forth.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
LEGALITY AND EXECUTION
Assistant County Attorney
Date:
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN,
STATE OF MINNESOTA
By:
Chairman of its County Board
Attest:
Deputy/Clerk of the County Board
11
SUBRECIPIENT AGREEMENT
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
EXHIBIT I
The Subrecipient, as identified below, will be provided with Urban Hennepin County
Community Development Block Grant fund in the not-to-exceed amount indicated to assist
Subrecipient in funding the activity/les in the amount and under the stipulations individually
specified in the Project Description/Projected Use of Funds attached here to:
Subrecipient 1994 CDBG Funds
Brooklyn Center 261,194
Brooklyn Park 534,981
Champlin 78,830
Chanhassen 48,544
Corcoran 22,998
Crystal 147,424
Dayton 20,847
Deephaven 13,711
Eden Prairie 186,897
Edina 197,821
Excelsior 16,595
Golden Valley 113,269
Greenfield 7,281
Greenwood 3,075
Hanover 3,557
Hassan 11,460
Hopkins 160,940
Independence 15,359
Long Lake 10,939
Loretto 3,894
Maple Grove 153,277
Maple Plain 10,474
Medicine Lake 875
Medina 14,002
Minnetonka 181,015
Minnetonka Beach 1,802
Minnetrista 20,208
Mound 69,861
New Hope 176,799
Orono 23,131
Osseo 25,306
Richfield 267,533
Robbinsdale 91,246
Rockford 19,972
Rogers 4,204
Shorewood 17,403
Spring Park 12,088
St. Anthony' 21,403
St. Bonifacius 8,002
St. Louis Park 302,187
Tonka Bay 7,736
Wayzata 29,444
Woodland 1,613
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBO
STATEMENT OF PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS
YEAR XX/1994
COOPERATING UNIT
ACTIVITY
: See Below
: Rehabilitation of Private Property
LOCATION
ADDRESS : Citywide
CENSUS TRACT: :
4. NUMBER : See Below
5. ACCOUNT NUMBER : 59890
6. BUDGET/SOURCES
10.
: $569,581
$569.581
/FY 1993 CDBG
/Program Income
/TOTAL
7. ELIGIBILITY CITATION : 570.202 (a)(1)
8. NATIONAL OBJECTIVE CITATION:
[ ] L/M Area Benefit 570.208(a)(1)
IX] L/M Limited Clientele 570.208(a)(2)
[ ] L/M Housing 570.208(a)(3)
[ ] Job Creation or Retention 570.208(a)(4)
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS:
[ ] S/B Area 570.208(b)(1)
[ ] S/B Spot 570.208(b)(2)
[ ] P/A Exempt
[ ] Exempt (EX)
[ ] Categorically Excluded (CE)
IX] Categorically Excluded/Exempt (CE/EX)
[ ] Assessment Required (AR)
DESCRIPTION: Provide grants to eligible low/moderate income homeowners
for improvements to their homes consistent with the Urban Hennepin County
Procedural Guides for Housing Rehabilitation.
This multi-year activity is funded to the extent indicated for the
following cooperating units. The program is operated by Hennepin County.
$157,194
90,000
30,213
45,000
3,000
468
91 719
11 009
10 000
6 474
9 073
28 991
30 000
32 996
10000
13.444
~ooperat{ng Uni~ Activity
Brooklyn Center 004
Brooklyn Park 011
Champltn 021
Crystal 026
Dayton 033
Deephaven 035
Golden Valley 051
Independence 067
Maple Grove 076
Maple Plain 080
Mtnnetrista 093
Mound 098
New Hope 107
Robblnsdale 125
St. Anthony 138
Wayzata 155
Total
$569,581
11.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this
activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this
agreement.
Supplemental Agreement
Type: [ ] Non-Profit Agency [ ] Public Agency
[ ] Other
An agreement must be executed between subreciptent and any other
agency providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of
subrecipient. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections
contained in Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as
are identified herein.
[Xl
[]
~chedul~
Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by
December 31, 1995.
Labor Standards/Equal Employment Opportunity
Ail construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or
part with federal funds shall Comply with the provisions of the
Davis-Bacon Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and
Safety Standards Act and the Copeland (Anti-Kickback) Act.
Ail federally funded or assisted construction contracts or
subcontracts of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order
11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended by Executive Order
12086, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto in 41 CFR Part
60.
ix]
Procuremen~
Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for
the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services
for federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by
one of the following methods. The method used shall be adequately
documented and contracts shall contain standard conditions as
appropriate.
- Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the
purchase of services, supplies or other property costing in
the aggregate not more than $25,000. If small purchase
procurement is used, written price or rate quotations must be
obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources.
. Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed
when the purchase/s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds
$25,000. Sealed bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm
fixed-price contract is to be awarded to the lowest
responsible bidder. This method is preferred for soliciting
construction bids.
Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more
than one source submits an offer, and either a fixed-price or
ix]
[]
cost-reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is
typically used for procuring professional services.
Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968
In connection with the planning and implementation of any project
assisted under the Act, to the greatest extent feasible,
opportunities for training and employment be given to iow and
moderate income persons residing within the unit of local government
or the metropolitan area in which the project is located, and that
contracts for work in connection with the project be awarded to
eligible business concerns which are located in, or owned in
substantial part by persons residing in the same metropolitan area
as the project. Contracts for work may include, but are not limited
to, contracts for supply of goods and/or services.
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property AcqutstttoB
The standards described in 24 CFR 570.606 shall apply to activity
that involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement
of persons, including displacement caused by rehabilitation and
demolition.
Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistanc~
Ail occupied and vacant occupiable low-moderate income dwelling
units demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of
activity shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be
provided to each displaced low-moderate income household in
accordance with the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Anti-
displacement and Relocation Assistance Policy pursuant to Section
104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as
amended, and the provisions in 24 CFR 570.606.
Property Management
The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply
to all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in
part using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply
for a period of five (5) years after the termination of this
agreement.
..Land Disposition Agreement
This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the
subrecipient community, contains the terms under which the community
can acquire and hold land for a specified use and time period.
Other Requirements:
The standards described in the Urban Hennepin County Housing Rehab
Deferred Payment Loan Program Procedural Guide shall apply to this
activity.
?KA~ XX/199~
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG
STATEMENT OF PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS
yEAR XX/1994
1. COOPERATING UNIT
2. ACTIVITY
: See Below
: Public Service - Westonka Intervention
LOCATION
ADDRESS : Citywfde
CENSUS TRACT :
4. NUMBER : See Below
5. ACCOUNT NUMBER : 59970
6. BUDGET/SOURCES : $11,500
$~1,5oo
/FY1994 CDBG
../Program Income
./TOTAL
7~ ELIGIBILITY CITATION : 570.201(e)
NATIONAL OBJECTIVE CITATION:
[ ] L/M Area Benefit 570.205(a)(1)
[X] L/M Limited Clientele 570.208(a)(2)
[ ] L/M Housing 570.208(a)(3)
[ ] Job Creation or Retention 570.208(a)(4)
9. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS:
10.
[ ] S/B Area 570.208(b)(1)
[ ] S/B Spot 570.208(b)(2)
[ ] P/A Exempt
IX] Exempt (EX)
[ ] Categorically Excluded (CE)
[ ] Categorically Excluded/Exempt (CE/EX)
[ ] Assessment Required (AR)
DESCRIPTION : Finance office supports costs for Westonka
Intervention, Inc., a community based organization which acts to prevent
family violence through intervention.
This multi-year activity is funded from the planning allocations of the
following cooperating units to the extent indicated:
Cooperating Uni~
Activity
Budget
O95 $ 1,800
Minnetrista 101 5,700
Mound 111 1,500
Orono 1,500
Spring Park 134
St. Bonifacius 140 1.000
Total
$11,500
11.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this
activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this
agreement.
[X] Supplemental Agreement
Type: [X] Non-Profit Agency [ ] Public Agency
[ ] Other
Westonka Intervention Project, Inc,
An agreement must be executed between subrecipient and any other
agency providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of
subrecipient. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections
contained in Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as
are identified herein.
[X] Schedule
Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by
December 31, 1995.
[ ] Labor Standards/Equal Emplo~vment Opportunity
Ail construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or
part with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the
Davis-Bacon Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and
Safety Standards Act and the Copeland (Anti-Kickback) Act.
All federally funded or assisted construction contracts or
subcontracts of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order
11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended by Executive Order
12086, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto in 41 CFR Part
60.
[ ] Procurement
Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for
the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services
for federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by
one of the following methods. The method used shall be adequately
documented and contracts shall contain standard conditions as
appropriate.
Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the
purchase of services, supplies or other property costing in
the aggregate not more than $25,000. If small purchase
procurement is used, written price or rate quotations must be
obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources.
Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed
when the purchase/s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds
$25,000. Sealed bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm
fixed-price contract is to be awarded to the lowest
responsible bidder. This method is preferred for soliciting
construction bids.
Competitive Proposals. %~is method is normally used when more
than one source submits an offer, and either a fixed-price or
cost-reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is
typically used for procuring professional services.
Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 196~
In connection with the planning and implementation of any project
assisted under the Act, to the greatest extent feasible,
opportunities for training and employment be given to low and
moderate income persons residing within the unit of local government
or the metropolitan area in which the project is located, and that
contracts for work in connection with the project be awarded to
eligible business concerns which are located in, or owned in
substantial part by persons residing in the same metropolitan area
as the project. Contracts for work may include, but are not limited
to, contracts for supply of goods and/or services.
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitto~
The standards described in 24 CFR 570.606 shall apply to activity
that involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement
.of persons, including displacement caused by rehabilitation and
demolition.
Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistanc~
Ail occupied and vacant occupiable low-moderate income dwelling
units demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of
activity shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be
provided to each displaced low-moderate income household in
accordance with the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Anti-
displacement and Relocation Assistance Policy pursuant to Section
104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as
amended, and the provisions in 24 CFR 570.606.
Property Managemen~
The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply
to all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in
part using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply
for a period of five (5) years after the termination of this
agreement.
Land Disposition Agreement
This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the
subrecipient community, contains the terms under which the community
can acquire and hold land for a specified use and time period.
Other Requirements:
yF..AR X~1199A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG
STATEffENT OF PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS
YEAR XX/1994
1. COOPERATING UNIT
: See Below
2. ACTIVITY
LOCATION
ADDRESS
CENSUS TRACT
Public Service - Westonka Community Action
Network/Operations
: Citywide
:
4. NUMBER
: See Below
5. ACCOUNT
: 59970
6. BUDGET/SOURCES :
10.
o
$17,050 /FY1994 CDBG
-0- /Program Income
$37,050 /TOTAL
ELIGIBILITY CITATION
: 570.201(e)
NATIONAL OBJECTIVE CITATION:
[ ] L/M Area Benefit 570.208(a)(1)
IX] L/M Limited Clientele 570.208(a)(2)
[ ] L/M Housing 570.208(a)(3)
[ ] Job Creation or Retention 570.208(a)(4)
[ ] S/B Area 570.208(b)(1)
[ ] S/B Spot 570.208(b)(2)
[ ] P/A Exempt
9. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS:
[X] Exempt (EX)
[ ] Categorically Excluded (CE)
[ ] Categorically Excluded/Exempt (CE/EX)
[ ] Assessment Required (AR)
DESCRIPTION : Assist WECAN social service referral office
serving low- and moderate-income households within the Westonka area.
Project funds will be used for rental of office space, payment of
telephone bills, and salary support of a full-time program director and
part time assistant.
This multi-year activity is funded to the extent indicated below by the
following cooperating units:
~ooperattng Unit
Activity #
Budget
Greenfield 056 $ 400
Independence 066 1,400
Maple Plain 081 2,000
Minnetrista 096 1,000
Mound 099 8,000
Orono 110 1,500
Rockford 129 250
Spring Park 135 1,000
St. Bonifacius 141 1,000
Tonka Bay 152 _ 500
Total
$17,050
11.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this
activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this
agreement.
IX] S~Supplemental Agreement~
Type: IX] Non-Profit Agency _West°nka Community Action Network
[ ] Public Agency
[ ] Other
An agreement must be executed between subrecipient and any other
agency providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of
subrectpient. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections
contained in Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as are
identified herein.
Ix]
Schedule
Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by
December 31, 1995.
Labor Standards/Equal Employment Opportunity
Ail construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or
~pa~ with federal fUnds ~halI c6mPlY with the provisions of the Davis-
Bacon Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act and the Copeland (Anti-Kickback) Act.
Ail federally funded or assisted construction contracts or
subcontracts of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order
11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended by Executive Order
12086, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto in 41 CFR Part 60.
Procurement
Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the
procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for
federally assisted programs. Ail procurement shall be made by one of
the following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented
and contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate.
- Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the
purchase of services, supplies or other property costing in the
aggregate not more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement
is used, written price or rate quotations must be obtained from
an adequate number of qualified sources.
. Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed
when the purchase/s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000.
Sealed bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed-price
contract is to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This
method is preferred for soliciting construction bids.
Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more
than one source submits an offer, and either a fixed-price or
cost-reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is
typically used for procuring professional services.
[ ] ~ection 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 196~
In connection with the planning and implementation of any project
assisted under the Act, to the greatest extent feasible, opportunities
for training and employment be given to low and moderate income
persons residing within the unit of local government or the
metropolitan area in which the project is located, and that contracts
for work in connection with the project be awarded to eligible
business concerns which are located in, or owned in substantial part
by persons residing in the same metropolitan area as the project.
Contracts for work may include, but are not limited to, contracts for
supply of goods and/or services.
[ ] ~niform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitto,!
The standards described in 24 CFR 570.606 shall apply to activity that
involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of
persons, including displacement caused by rehabilitation and
demolition.
[ ] ~esidential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance
Ail occupied and vacant occupiable low-moderate income dwelling units
demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity
shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each
displaced low-moderate income household in accordance with the Urban
Hennepin County CDBG Program Anti-displacement and Relocation
Assistance Policy pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and the provisions in
24 CFR 570.606.
[ ] ~roperty Management
The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply
to all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in
part using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for
a period of five (5) years after the termination of this agreement.
[ ] ~and Disposition Agreement
This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subrecipient
community, contains the terms under which the community can acquire
and hold land for a specified use and time period.
[ ] Other Requirements:
Y~ XX/199&
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG
STATEMENT OF PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS
YEAR XX/1994
1. COOPERATING UNIT
2. ACTIVITY
: See Below
: Public Service - Senior Community Services/
Senior Center Operations
LOCATION
ADDRESS : Citywide
CENSUS TRACT :
4. NlJMBER
: See Below
5. ACCOUNT : 59970
6. BUDGET/SOURCES : $~4,706 ./FY1994 CDBG
-0- ./Program Income
$94,706 ./TOTAL
7. ELIGIBILITY CITATION : 570.201(e)
NATIONAL OBJECTIVE CITATION:
[ ] L/M Area Benefit 570.208(a)(1)
IX] L/M Limited Clientele 570.208(a)(2)
[ ] L/M Housing 570.208(a)(3)
[ ] Job Creation or Retention 570.208(a)(4)
9. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS:
Cooperating Uni~
[ ] S/B Area 570.208(b)(1)
[ ] S/B Spot 570.208(b)(2)
[ ] P/A Exempt
10.
[ ] Exempt (EX)
[ ] Categorically Excluded (CE)
[X] Categorically Excluded/Exempt (CE/EX)
[ ] Assessment Required (AR)
DESCRIPTION : Funds will be used for the salary of the
center coordinators, program staff and transportation service for the
period between July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995. The project will allow for
the continuation of the center operations and outreach services. Senior
Community Services, a local non-profit organization, has a contract with
the municipally owned senior centers for the staffing and program
administration.
This multi-year activity is funded from the following cooperating units
to the extent indicated:
Southshore Center 301 County Road 19, Excelsior, MN
023 $ 5,000
Chanhassen 036 13,243
Deephaven 050 8,669
Excelsior 3 075
Greenwood 057 '
132 10,625
Shorewood 151 3,609
Tonka Bay $~4,221
Subtotal
Westonka Center - 5600 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound, MN
Minnetrista 094
Mound 100
Spring Park 133
Subtotal
Tamarack Senior Center - 133 South Brown Road, Long Lake, MN
Long Lake 069
Wayzata 153
Subtotal
Delano Center - 205 Bridge Avenue East, Delano0 MN
$ 6,335
24,670
5,896
$36,901
$4,160
3,000
$7,160
Greenfield 055 $1,200
Independence 065 2,950
Loretto 072 524
Maple Plain 082 1,000
Rockford 128 ~50
Subtotal
TOTAL
$94,706
11.
GENERAL KEQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an ~XH are applicable to this
activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this
agreement.
iX] Supplemental Agreemen~
Type: iX] Non-Profit Agency Senior Community Services [ ] Public Agency
[ ] Other
An agreement must be executed between subreciptent and any other
agency providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of
subrecipient. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections
contained in Subrectptent Agreement and such other requirements as
are identified herein.
Schedule
Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by
December 31, 1995.
Labor Standards/Equal Employment Opportunity
Ail construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or
part with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the
Davis-Bacon Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and
Safety Standards Act and the Copeland (Anti-Kickback) Act.
Ail federally funded or assisted construction contracts or
subcontracts of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order
11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended by Executive Order
12086, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto in 41 CFR Part
60.
Procurement
Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for
the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services
for federally assisted programs. All procurement shall be made by
one of the following methods. The method used shall be adequately
documented and contracts shall contain standard conditions as
appropriate.
- Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the
purchase of services, supplies or other property costing in
the aggregate not more than $25,000. If small purchase
procurement is used, written price or rate quotations must be
obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources.
. Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed
when the purchase/s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds
$25,000. Sealed bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm
fixed-price contract is to be awarded to the lowest
responsible bidder. This method is preferred for soliciting
construction bids.
Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more
than one source submits an offer, and either a fixed-price or
cost-reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method
typically used for procuring professional services.
~ectton 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968
In connection with the planning and implementation of any project
assisted under the Act, to the greatest extent feasible,
opportunities for training and employment be given to low and
moderate income persons residing within the unit of local government
or the metropolitan area in which the project is located, and that
contracts for work in connection with the project be awarded to
eligible business concerns which are located in, or owned in
substantial part by persons residing in the same metropolitan area
as the project. Contracts for work may include, but are not limited
to, contracts for supply of goods and/or services.
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisttio,.,
The standards described in 24 CFR 570.606 shall apply to activity
that involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement
of persons, including displacement caused by rehabilitation and
demolition.
Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistanc~
Ail occupied and vacant occupiable low-moderate income dwelling
units demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of
activity shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be
provided to each displaced low-moderate income household in
accordance with the Urban Hennepin County CDBG Program Anti-
displacement and Relocation Assistance Policy pursuant to Section
104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as
amended, and the provisions in 24 CFR 570.606.
.property Management
The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply
to all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in
part using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply
for a period of five (5) years after the termination of this
agreement.
~and Disposition Agreemen~
This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the
subrecfptent community, contains the terms under which the community
can acquire and hold land for a specified use and time period.
Other Requirements:
YEAR XX/199&
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY CDBG
STATEMENT OF PROJECTED USE OF FUNDS
YEAa XX/1994
1. COOPERATING UNIT :
2. ACTIVITY :
3. LOCATION
A~DRESS :
CENSUS TRACT: :
4. NUMBER
5. ACCOUNT NUMBER
6. BUDGET/SOURCES
o
10.
See Below
Public Service - CASH: HOME Line Program
Community Action for Suburban Hennepin
Citywide
: See Below
: 59970
: ~_7_~__/FY 1994 CDBG
-0- /Program Income
319,700 ../TOTAL
ELIGIBILITY CITATION
: 570.201(e)
NATIONAL OBJECTIVE CITATION:
[ ] L/M Area Benefit 570.208(a)(1)
IX] L/M Limited Clientele 570.208(a)(2)
[ ] L/M Housing 570.208(a)(3)
[ ] Job Creation or Retention 570.208(a)(4)
9. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS:
[ ] S/B Area 570.208(b)(1)
[ ] S/B Spot 570.208(b)(2)
[ ] P/A Exempt
IX] Exempt (EX)
[ ] Categorically Excluded (CE)
[ ] Categorically Excluded/Exempt (CE/EX)
[ ] Assessment Required (AR)
DESCRIPTION : Funds will be applied toward the operating
costs of the HOME Line Program. This program is operated by CASH
(Community Action for Suburban Hennepin). The HOME Line Program provides
the following three services to County residents: a Mortgage Foreclosure
Prevention Program, Tenant Advocacy Hotline and Tenant Organizing. This
service has not previously been provided by or in behalf of these cities.
Cooperattn~ Unit
Activity
~udge~
Champltn 015 $1,500
039 3,000
Eden Prairie 043 2,000
Edtna 079 1,500
Maple Grove 090 2,500
Mtnnetonka 102 2,500
Mound 1,700
Robbinsdale 124
St. Louis Park 147 5,00Q
Total
$19,700
11.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: Requirements with an "X" are applicable to this
activity and are to be included in this section and made a part of this
agreement.
IX] Supplemental Agreement
Type:
IX] Non-Profit Agency Community Action for Suburban Hennepi~
[ ] Public Agency
[ ] Other
An agreement must be executed between subrectpient and any other
agency providing a service or implementing an activity on behalf of
subrecipient. Said agreement must contain all pertinent sections
contained in Subrecipient Agreement and such other requirements as are
identified herein.
IX] Schedule
Activity must be implemented in a timely manner and completed by
December 31, 1995.
[ ] Labor Standards/Equal Employment Opportunity
Ail construction projects of $2,000 or more and financed in whole or
part with federal funds shall comply with the provisions of the Davis-
Bacon Act (prevailing wage), the Contract Work Hours and Safety
Standards Act and the Copeland (Anti-Kickback) Act.
Ail federally funded or assisted construction contracts or
subcontracts of $10,000 or more shall comply with Executive Order
11246, Equal Employment Opportunity, as amended by Executive Order
12086, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto in 41 CFR Part 60.
IX] Procurement
Standards and guidelines are established in 24 CFR Part 85.36 for the
procurement of supplies, equipment, construction and services for
federally assisted programs. Ail procurement shall be made by one of
the following methods. The method used shall be adequately documented
and contracts shall contain standard conditions as appropriate.
Small Purchase. (Informal Method) To be followed for the
purchase of services, supplies or other property costing in the
aggregate not more than $25,000. If small purchase procurement
is used, written price or rate quotations must be obtained from
an adequate number of qualified sources.
Competitive Sealed Bids. (Formal Advertising) To be followed
when the purchase/s, costing in the aggregate, exceeds $25,000.
Sealed bids shall be publicly solicited and a firm fixed-price
contract is to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. This
method is preferred for soliciting construction bids.
Competitive Proposals. This method is normally used when more
than one source submits an offer, and either a fixed-price or
cost-reimbursement type contract is awarded. This method is
typically used for procuring professional services.
[X] Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968
In connection with the planning and implementation of any project
assisted under the Act, to the greatest extent feasible, opportunities
for training and employment be given to iow and moderate income
persons residing within the unit of local government or the
metropolitan area in which the project is located, and that contracts
for work in connection with the project be awarded to eligible
business concerns which are located in, or owned in substantial part
by persons residing in the same metropolitan area as the project.
Contracts for work may include, but are not limited to, contracts for
supply of goods and/or services.
[ ] Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acqutsitto~
The standards described in 24 CFR 570.606 shall apply to activity that
involves the acquisition of real property or the displacement of
persons, including displacement caused by rehabilitation and
demolition.
[ ] Residential Antidisplacement and Relocation Assistance
Ail occupied and vacant occupiable low-moderate income dwelling units
demolished or converted to another use as a direct result of activity
shall be replaced and relocation assistance shall be provided to each
displaced low-moderate income household in accordance with the Urban
Hennepin County CDBG Program Anti-displacement and Relocation
Assistance Policy pursuant to Section 104(d) of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and the provisions in
24 CFR 570.606.
[ ] Property Management
The standards described in 24 CFR Part 570.505 Subpart J shall apply
to all real property which was acquired or improved in whole or in
part using CDBG funds in excess of $25,000. These standards apply for
a period of five (5) years after the termination of this agreement.
[ ] Land Disposition Agreement
This agreement, executed between Hennepin County and the subrecipient
community, contains the terms under which the community can acquire
and hold land for a specified use and time period.
[ ] Other Requirements:
SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION
QUASI PUBLIC FUNCTION- PORTABLE SIGN
City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600 FAX: 472-0620
Portable signs used for the purpose of directing the public used in conjunction with a
governmental unit or quasi-public functions. The period of use shall not exceed ten
(10) consecutive days and requires approval of the City Council. Signs shall be placed
on the premises of the advertised event. A permit is required, however is exempt
from all fees.
1111'
_ PHONE.
APPLICANT'S ADDRESS.. ,?, ~ ~ 5- ~-----~~_v'~ '~v~0
ADDRESS OF SIGN LOCATION ~ /._~ 4;~.~-~) ~<~
(If more than one, please list on separate sheet of paper)
Number of signs:
TYPE OF SIGN: / banner
~temporary
SIZE OF SIGN REQUESTED: ~
DATES OF USE: FROM..'~ ///~/~ TO _
DESCRIBE REASON FOR REQUEST: ~{ ~
wall mount
permanent
ft high x
~ree standing
ftwide = -~ sqft
_
DESCRIBE SIGN (message, materials, is it illuminated, etc.):
ApPl,cant;s Signa.t.ure._- (") Date
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON:
$25.00 Annual Fee
Original
Renewal
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
APPROVED
TREE REMOVAL AND TREATMENT LICENSE
STREET '~ .... ~ITY - '~ STATE
--'- Z~
IS '£HE FIPd~ A CORi~)RATION: PARTNERSHIP:__ PRIVATE OWNER:~u__
IF CORPORATION: NAME, BUSINESS ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBERS OF OFFICERS:
_-'7</,,~ ~,,~,, ,, c ,"'/¢~ /-/;11 ~t.
(Na~e~' ' ' 7 (Address) -
(Telephone #)
(Name) (Address)
(Telephone #)
(Name) (Address)
(Telephone #)
(If more space is needed, use back of application.)
~NAGER OR S~,~ERVISOR
NAME: ,~x,,-m C .
ADDRESS: ~
PHONE #:
EMP__LOYEES
.NAME .ADD .RES___~S
pHON~_~
LIABILITY INSURANCR
CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE MUST ACCOMPANY APPLICATION
15 DAY CANCELLATION CLAUSE
THE CITY BE AN ADDITIONAL PARTY INSURED
CANCELLED INSURANCE AUTOMATICALLY SUSPENDS
IS REPLACED
LICENSE
'~.'~-~ ~5_- NAME OF AGENT:
x-.c m u,
UNTIL INSURANCE
SOUTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORCE
Serving the
Communities
of.'
Carver County
Scott County
McLeod County
Excelsior
Greenwood
Tonka Bay
Shorewood
Chaska
Chanhassen
Shakopee
Mound
St. Bonifacius
Minnetrista
Prior Lake
June 20, 1994
To: Task Force Committee Members
Re: Cash Match Letters and Resolutions
It is once again that time of year to start
preparing for the upcoming grant. If I could ask
each of you to get your letters of intent for
participation and cash match back to me no later
than Ju].y 15th, 1994. I need these letters so I can
meet 'the ODP deadline Resolutions cash come at a
later date as long as it. is before the end of
August.
I haw~ a%tached a copy of last years letters and
resolutions to this me~o.
Thanks in advance.
Sgt. John J. Wolf
July 12, 1994
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT
WITH SOUTHWEST METRO DRUG TASK FORCE
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, authorizes entering into a cooperative agreement
with the Office of the Drug Policy in the Minnesota Department of
Public Safety for the project entitled, "Southwest Metro Drug Task
Force" during the period from January 1, 1995 through December 31,
1995. Edward J. Shukle, Jr. is hereby authorized the execute such
agreements as are necessary to implement the project on behalf of
the Mound Police Department.
BILLS
......... July 12, 1994
BATCH
BATCH
4063
4064
TOTAL
$154,832.64
63,738.53
$218,571.17
U IIIIIIIII
0
I I
0,. .,0 0,. ~o
I Ir
o
o
o
o
0
o
0
oo
0
0
I
o
0
I
o
--I
u
Z
~
0 '0 ~ ~0
,(0,. 0
J
Z
0
Z
0
~D I ZZ
~ 0 0 0 0
~ 0 O0 000 O0
I ti I
U I II I
Z
Q~
uJ
Z
I Z
UJ,~
0
oo
o
o
!
o
o
I
o
° ~ °
III
III I1~1
Z
0
Z
0
.r
0
>-
Z
,,mo
ZZ
0
Z
UJ
o
~'~ >" I~v'~
,r
O,
0
0
%./
'~
L9
tn I
Z
0
I I I I I
IIIII
0
Z
uJ
o
oo
o .-4
o
o
!
0
!
,-4
0
Z
0
O0
3::3:
Z Z ~,.~
,..I .J _,l
,-4
0
oO
o
I
o
o
o
~J
~.~
Z
0
~ I
ZZ
ujr~'
00000000
IIIIIII,
0000000
IIIIIII,
0
o
0
O0
0
0
!
,.*4
0
oo
o
!
o
0
!
o
0
.!
000000000~
0000~000
~~00~
IIl.lilli
.J
UJ
.J
·
t--
Z
0
2=:
n I ,# I
.-4
o
o
o ~ o
O~ 0 o
o o 0
~,~o oo
0---¢
I ,I .I
,-4
~J
..J
,<
Z
':3:
::::)
0
'-!
Z
UJ '::) Z
0 0 :
%/~ ,,r ,--*
,<u,. 0..
>.. L.~ ,,.J
~./I,,,- ~
::3
0
UJL.~ #'~0
~.91 ZZ
<,", uJ
I
I
I
o
oo
0
O0
o
oo
Z
,0 oo
,,< :::)
I ]:
C~
-J
0
OO
!
o~ :
?
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #94-
TO APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE ADDITION
3110 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE, LOT 58,
PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1ST DIVISION,
PID #19-117-2334 0081
P&Z CASE #94-48
WHEREAS, the owners, John and Joleen Price, have applied for a variance to
recognize the following nonconforming setbacks to allow construction of a garage addition,
entryway addition, driveway, and deck:
REQU RED
Side, South 6
Lake 50
EXISTING/PROPOSED
3.7' (to house) 2.3'
41.0' +- (to deck) 9.0'
VARIANCE
and;
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential
Zoning District which according to City Code requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20
foot front yard setback, 6 foot side yard setbacks, and a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high
water, and;
WHEREAS, all other setbacks, lot area, and lot coverage are conforming, and;
WHEREAS, topography on this site is the greatest difficulty to overcome in order to
provide for a garage. The garage as proposed represents a positive improvement, is
reasonabte, and hardcover and setbacks are conforming, and;
WHEREAS, the proposed deck does exceed the 10 foot setback requirement to the
top of the bluff, and;
WHEREAS, the house does not meet the 50 foot setback, it is setback approximately
49 feet, and;
WHEREAS, an 8 foot deck is minimal in size and deck expansion to the north side
is prohibited due to the location of the sewer line, and;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and unanimously
recommended approval with conditions, and with the finding that it is a reasonable use to
allow the proposed 8 foot deck as it is minimal in size, and the location of the sewer line
prohibits expansion to the north.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby approve a variance to allow a setback of 41' from the ordinary
high water to the deck, and to recognize an existing nonconforming side yard setback
of 3.7 feet to allow construction of a conforming garage addition 22' x 24', and
entryway addition 6' x 30', a driveway, and a deck 8' x 36' (approx.), subject to the
following:
Proposed Resolution
#94-48 - Price
Page 2
The survey be updated to show the sewer and water line
locations.
B. Drainage on the property be acceptable to staff.
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth below, pursuant to Section
350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express
understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of
the provisions and restrictions of Section 350:420.
It is determined that the livability of the residential property will be improved by the
authorization of the following alteration to a nonconforming use of the property to
afford the owners reasonable use of their land:
Construction of a garage addition 22' x 24', and entryway
addition 6' x 30', a driveway, and a deck 8' x 36' (approx.),
subject to the following:
This variance is granted for the following legally described property:
Lot 58 in Phelps' Island Park First Division, according to the plat
thereof on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder
in and for said County of Hennepin; That certain premises
bounded as follows: Bounded on the Westerly side by the
Easterly or front boundary line of Lot 58 in Phelp's Island Park
First Division; on the Easterly side by the Iow water line of Lake
Minnetonka; on the Northerly side by the Northerly line of said
Lot 58 extended on a straight line to the said lot water mark of
said Lake Minnetonka; on the Southerly side by the Southerly line
of Lot 58 extended in a straight line to the said Iow water line or
said Lake Minnetonka, according to the plat thereof on file and of
record in the office of the County Recorder in and for said County
at Hennepin.
This variance shall be recorded with the County Recorder or the Registrar of Titles in
Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statute, Section 462.36, Subdivision
(1). This shall be considered a restriction on how this property may be used.
The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin
County and paying all costs for such recording. A building permit for the subject
construction shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City
Clerk.
I ,I I I i, ,,,, · ',
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE ~~'~
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 11, 1994
CASE #94-48: -OHN & JOLEEN PRICE 3110 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE LOT 58 PHELPS
ISLAND PARK 1ST DIVISION PID #19-117-23 34 0081. VARIANCE GARAGE ADDITION.
The applicant is seeking several variances for a new garage, entryway, driveway and deck.
This property is located in the R-lA Zone which requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, 40'
of street frontage. Following are the setbacks and requested variances:
REQUIRED EXISTING/PROPOSED VARIANCE_
Front 20 87 +- Okay
Side North 6 20 +- Okay
Side South 6 3.7 2.3'
Lake 50 41' +- 9'
Bluff 10' 10' + Okay
The topography on this site is the greatest difficulty to overcome in order to provide for a
garage. The applicant has spent a considerable amount of time and effort in developing this
plan. The garage as proposed represents a positive improvement, is reasonable, and
hardcover and setbacks are conforming.
Just prior to the meeting, staff received a revised survey which indicates that the deck does
exceed the 10 foot setback requirement to the top of the bluff.
The location of the sewer and water still needs to be located. It appears possible to re-orient
the deck to the north side to a conforming location.
Staff recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the garage as proposed.
The proposed deck will need further discussion at the Planning Commission meeting when
additional information is expected.
The applicant, John Price, confirmed with the surveyor that there are no utility easements on
his property. Also, according to Greg Skinner, Sewer and Water Superintendent, the water
is located on the street side, and the sewer line extends from the north side of the house and
hooks up to the line on Lot 57. Therefore, the deck, as proposed, does not interfere with the
utility locations.
Mueller expressed a concern that an 8 foot deck will not provide enough space for a table and
chairs. Mr. Price noted that their original plan included a 12 foot deck, however, it has been
scaled back after discussions with City staff. Staff confirmed that the house does not
currently meet the 50 foot setback, that it has been scaled to be 49 feet. Other possible
locations for the deck was discussed. The applicant noted that the deck cannot be larger on
the north side due to a door on the lower level and the location of the sewer line.
Planning Commission Minutes
#94-48 - Price
July 14, 1994
The Building Official stated that an 8 foot deck is minimal in size and in light of the sewer line
location would recommend approval of the deck as proposed, however, the sewer line location
must be reviewed by Public Works and the City Engineer.
Mueller questioned if there are any concerns relating to drainage. The applicant commented
that the driVeway has been cut back 8 feet in width from the original plan, that some type of
rock terracing will be installed along the driveway to help slow the drainage, and he is
considering the installation of a grate at the bottom of the driveway. Mueller expounded that
the intent of the hardcover ordinance is to slow water runoff into the lake by allowing it to first
filter through the ground.
MOTION made by Mueller, seconded by Hanus to recommend approval of the
variance as recommended by staff, subject to the following:
1. The survey be updated to show the sewer and water line
locations.
2. Drainage on the property be acceptable to staff.
The Planning Commission finds there is reasonable use to allow the proposed
8 foot deck as it is minimal in size, and the location of the sewer line prohibits
expansion to the north.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Staff informed the applicant that this request is scheduled to appear before the City Council
on July 26, 1994. The applicant requested that it be heard by the City Council on July 13,
1994.
J ! II I J, ,11 IA, ,11,,
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
CASE NO:
LOCATION:
ZONING'
BACKGROUND
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA OF JULY 11, 1994
PLANNING COMMISSION, APPLICANT AND STAFF
JON SUTHERLAND, BUILDING OFFICIAL ~J~l~x~"~
VARIANCES FOR GARAGE AND DECK
JOHN AND JOLEEN PRICE
94-48
3110 ISLANDVIEW DRIVE, LOT 58, PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1ST
DIVISION, PID #19-117-23 34 0081
R1A
The applicant is seeking several variances as listed below,' for the existing and
proposed development on this site. A new garage, entryway, driveway and deck is
proposed. This property is located in the R1A Zone which requires a lot area of 6000
square feet, 40' of frontage and the following setbacks:
REQUIRED
EXISTING/PROPOSED VARIANCE
Front 20 87 +- Okay
Side North 6 20 +- Okay
Side South 6 3.7 2.3'
Lake 50 41' +- 9'
Bluff 10' Verify Verify
The topography on this site is the greatest difficulty to overcome in order to provide
for a garage. The applicant has spent a considerable amount of time and effort in
developing this plan. The garage as proposed represents a positive improvement and
is reasonable, hardcover and setbacks are conforming. Additional information is
pr n~ed on recycled paper
PLANNING REPORT - PRICE - PAGE 2
needed to evaluate the proposed deck. This site contains a bluff and this plus the 10'
setback must be identified on the survey. In addition, the utilities must be located on
the lakeside in order to evaluate setbacks and prevent encroachment into this
easement. It appears possible to re-orient the deck to the north side to a conforming
location.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend approval of the garage
as proposed. Staff will respond to the proposed deck at the Planning Commission
meeting or as soon as the additional information is provided.
VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
Planning Commission Date:
City Council Date:
Distribution:
City Planner ~ Public Works
City Engineer " DNR
Other
Application Fee: $50.00
Please type or print the foflowing information:
Address of Subject Prope~y 3110 Islandview Drive, Mound,
Lot 5.3
Phelps Island Park 1st Division
Use of ProperS:
John & Joleen Price
Addition
55364
Zoning District
Owner's Name
Owner's Address
Block
PID No. 19-117-23 340081
Homestead
3110 Islandview Drive, Mound, .~N 55364
Day Phone
(John) (Jolee'
347-4831 or 475-410.
Applicant's Name (if other than owner)
Address
Day Phone
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure fdr this property? ( ) yes, ( ) no. ff yes, list date(s) of application,, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
1979 - To build parkinz area which was qranted. The current plan is to remove that
parkin~ area and tie wall.
2. Detailed descripton of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
0'~' ~/-
To add a ~araoe measuring. 22' x 24', an entry way 6' x 30', a driveway and a deck to
existin,~ house (see blue print for details).
~ ,m Il I, Ii ,11 !1 I,,
Variance Application (l 1/93)
Page 2
No.
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No 1~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe reason
for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS: required requested VARIANCE
(or existing)
~oO~
Deck
Front Yard: ( N~.S.,E W )
Side Yard: (~ W )
Side Yard: ( N S E W )
Rear Yard: ( N S E W )
Lakeside: ( N S/~W )
L~Ees;Je. (N~,V )
Street Frontage:
Lot Size:
Hardcover:
· ~o'ft.4q '+/-" ft. I ' +/- ft.
~r,, ft.ii,z.~.~ ft. ~, rt.
4D/ ft.ft. I ,'7t' ft.
.:34tL, sqft 341~, sqft ol< sqft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes (), No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the
uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow
( ) too small
( ) too shallow
Please describe:(,,~!O (J_~-~
) topography
)?drainage
~shape
)oil
xisting situation
ther: specify
Variance Application (11/93)
Page 3
Case No.
o
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land
after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No O0. ff yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes (),
No t~j. If yes, explain:
o
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described
in this petition? Yes (), No,['O. If no, list some other properties which are similarly affected?
9. Comments:
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be
submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this
application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting,
maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law.
Owner's Signatu
Applicant's Signa{tm'e~
Date
Date
'~'~-* ~NCHOR SClENTIFI
~ 001
:5
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALOULATIONS
NAME:
ADDRE,8$:
EXISTING LOT AREA
EXISTING LOT AREA
5'"
HOUSE:
GARAGE:
8Q FT X 30% = '.¢4./6"..
SQ FT X 15%. = /~
LENGTH ' WIDTH
~ . 3 X _ .,~o , 4 =
~. 3 X _ /7. / = /o7.7
~.7 X ..~,~ = .~, /
TOTAL HOUSE *******************
24. o X _ Z~. ~ = ~7Z ,¢',~,,,o~-r,, (?'Z~
X
· TOTAL'GARAGE *'~"~'% *'* * * * * · ·, ~,,,,
DRIVEWAY:
· ."TOTALDRJVEWAY **************.***
DECK: ~:~,o X "
(if imperv-tous ~ /,6',D X ~' ~,~ = 6~, o
surface under ,. - ~ -
deck = 100~)
OTHER:
",TOTALDECK .***,**..****. **** z q 7, z ,' ,. . ~;-~.,
/TOTAL' '" '"'""' ....... ' ' ' ' · ';~'.'
:':'.,. · . ..... ' ;~,
X _ = Ex'/Ir/,~¢. 87~.¢
TOTAL OTHER *******************
TOTAL PROPOSEDHARDCOVER *******************
UNDER (OVER) *****************************,.
.- ..:.;, ,.., .'%. , · ,
MEETS LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS.'* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
·
.,,,. ..' ,' ( 3 ',' / g) 5;:
L ..,
· .!~..
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
...... :: :.,::::::::: ::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::: ::~.: ....... ~..:...~..~.
· :: ...... :::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
,.o.o .... . .........
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::::::::::::::::::::::
. : -0 ;..* . ~ : ....
:::::::::::::::::::::::
~
::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
)i~ ]1t NHOP
:~0~ 30N30153~
7'7
~3
?/'?0
Ji ,J J I, ~, ,il I i,,
I.~.ADDRESS: ~ · J- t~ '1~ ZONE: J lU~UUZ~J~D _ ~ J ZXZSTZN= ___ J
~ired ~t Width: WII . ~ (frontage on an ~prov~ ~blic ~treet}
SETBACKS REQUIRED~
FRONT z N S
SlDgz N S W
R~E:~d~ ~ N W
~SHO~: . 50' f~asur~d ~om 9,~.W.)
E~ISTIN6 ~/OR PROPOSED SETBACKS:
PRINCIPAL BUILDING
FRONT, N S g W
FRONT ~ N S J W
J SIDE: N S E W 4' or 6'
SIDEz N S E W 4' or 6'
REAR: N S E W
~AKESHOI~; $0' Imeasur~d from O.N.W. J
FRONT: N $ · W
FRONT: N S E W
SIDE: N $ · W
SIDI~ N S · W
REARz N S · W
BY, ~
CONFORMI Ni2 ? YES
D."~..i,~;L/.f,.,,~/._..~ I
' ""'
NO
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
July 8, 1994
To:
From:
Subject:
Ed Shukle
Greg Skinner
Public Works
June Activity Report
Street Department
We have completed repairs of water main breaks. We are now
working on crack sealing for sealcoating that will begin at
the end of July. We have also repaired, replaced signs,
removed and dug out storm sewer ditches. We have haul out
about 250 yard of fill from the stockpile.
Water Department
The meter project is coming along. At this time they have
installed about 700 meters. The water tower project should be
completed by the end of July.
Sewer Department
Damon and Scott have been working on the lift station
project and have been filling in for the street department.
JJ Il ! J, ,11 Ii, I,,
LEN HARRELL
Chief of Police
MOUND POLICE
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Telephone 472-0621
Dispatch 525-6210
Fax 472-0656
EMERGENCY 911
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ed Shukle
Len Harrell
Monthly Report for June 1994
STATISTICS
The police department responded to 1,179 calls for
service during the month of June. There were 53 Part I
offenses reported. Those offenses included' 2
burglaries, 3 aggravated assaults, 44 larcenies, 3
vehicle thefts, and 1 arson.
There were 86 Part II offenses reported. Those
offenses included 8 child abuse/neglect, 3 forgery/NSF
checks, 1 weapon, 3 narcotic, 12 damage to property, 2
liquor law violations, 13 DUI's, 1 simple assault, 9
domestics (6 with assault), 4 harassments, 7 juvenile
status offenses and 23 other offenses.
The patrol division issued 121 adult citations and 1
juvenile citation. Parking violations accounted for an
additional 31 tickets. Warnings were issued to 67
individuals for a variety of violations.
There were 3 adults and 6 juveniles arrested for
felonies. There were 43 adults and 3 juveniles
arrested for misdemeanors. There were an additional 7
warrant arrests.
The department assisted in 15 vehicular accidents, 5
with injuries. There were 28 medical emergencies and
130 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies
on 13 occasions in June and requested assistance 11
times. There were 162 zoning ordinance issues
reported.
Property valued at $36,342 was stolen and $11,708 was
recovered in June.
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT - JUNE 1994
II.
INVESTIGATION
The investigators worked on $ child protection issues
and one criminal sexual conduct accounting for 42 hours
of investigative time. The department has investigated
27 child protection matters and 6 criminal sexual
conduct cases in the first 6 months of 1994. Other
cases in June involved burglary, assault, theft, damage
to property, NSF checks, auto theft, indecent exposure,
harassment, hit and run accident, DWI, and absenting.
Formal complaints were issued for theft, assault,
procuring alcohol for minors, and violation of
restraining order.
III.
Personnel/Staffing
Sgt. Hudson remains out on sick time. Officer Ewald
underwent surgery in June and will be out for up to
three months. Officers earned 96 1/2 hours of overtime
and 70 hours of comp-time. Officers used 78 hours of
comp-time, 123 hours of sick-time, 118 hours of
vacation, and 4 holidays.
IV.
Training
Officer Christenson attended a week long course in June
to become a Crime Prevention Specialist. Sgt. McKinley
has begun taking courses in Emergency Preparedness as'a
back up.
Ve
Reserves
The Reserves donated 414 hours during the month of
June.
OFFENSES
REPORTED
CLEARED
UNFOUNDED
JUNE
EXCEPT.
CLEARED
1994
CLEARED BY
ARREST
ARRESTED
ADULT JUVENILE
PART I CRIMES
Homicide 0 0 0 0
Criminal Sexual Conduct 0 0 0 0
Robbery 0 0 0 0
Aggravated Assault 3 0 0 1
Burglary 2 0 0 0
Larceny 44 0 2 4
Vehicle Theft 3 0 0 1
Arson 1 0 0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
2 3
0 2
0 0
TOTAL 53 0 2 6 3
PART Il CRIMES
Child Abuse/Neglect 8 1 2 3 3
Forgery/NSF Checks 3 0 1 0 0
Criminal Damage to Property 12 0 1 1 0
Weapons 1 0 0 0 0
Narcotics 3 0 0 3 3
Liquor Laws 2 0 0 2 3
DWI 13 0 0 13 13
Simple Assault 1 0 0 1 2
Domestic Assault 6 1 2 4 5
Domestic (No Assault) 3 0 0 0 0
Harassment 4 0 0 0 0
Juvenile Status Offenses 7 0 6 1 0
Public Peace 0 0 0 0 0
Trespassing 1 0 0 0 0
Att Other Offenses 22 0 1 13 14
· 6
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
TOTAL 86 2 13 41 43
PART III & PART IV
Property Damage Accidents 10
Personal Injury Accidents 5
Fatal Accidents 0
Medicats 28
Animal Complaints 130
Mutual Aid 13
Other Generat Investigations 839
TOTAL 1,025
Her~nepin County Child Protection 4
Inspections 11
TOTAL 1,179
2 15 47 ~6
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT
JUNE 1994
GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY
THIS
MONTH
Hazardous Citations 57
Non-Hazardous Citations 39
Hazardous Warnings 11
Non-Hazardous Warnings 28
Verbal Warnings 59
Parking Citations 31
DWI 13
Over .10 11
Property Damage Accidents 10
Personal Injury Accidents 5
Fatal Accidents 0
Adult Felony Arrests 3
Adult Misdemeanor Arrests 50
Juvenile Felony Arrests 6
Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests 3
Part I Offenses 53
Part II Offenses 86
Medicals 28
Animmal Complaints 130
Ordinance Violations 162
Other Public Contacts 839
YEAR TO
DATE
359
261
114
211
408
194
46
38
60
20
0
16
189
29
33
157
343
147
577
287
5,092
LAST YEAR
TO DATE
284
284
77
8O
769
177
39
29
44
10
0
20
118
24
38
148
323
194
410
4,406
TOTAL 1,624
Assists 53
Follow-Ups 29
Henn. County Child Protection 4
Mutual Aid Given 13
Mutual Aid Requested 11
8,581
295
295
29
70
42
7,474
204
155
28
56
7
CITATIONS
DWI
More than .10% BAC
Careless/Reckless Driving
Driving After Susp. or Rev.
Open Bottle
Speeding
No DL or Expired DL
Restriction on DL
Improper, Expired, or No Plates
Stop Arm Violation
Stop Sign Violations
Failure to Yield
Equipment Violations
H&R Leaving the Scene
No Insurance
Illegal or Unsafe Turn
Over the Centerline
Parking Violations
Crosswalk
Dog Ordinances
Code Enforcement
Seat Belt
MV/ATV
Miscellaneous Tags
TOTAL
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT
JUNE 1994
ADULT
13
11
5
5
2
44
2
0
6
0
2
0
3
0
21
0
1
31
0
2
0
2
0
152
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
' I
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT
JUNE 1994
WARNINGS
No Insurance
Traffic
Equipment
Crosswalk
Animals
Trash/Derelict Autos
Seat Belt
Trespassing
Window Tint
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
WARRANT ARRESTS
Felony Warrants
Misdemeanor Warrants
ADULT
1
11
12
0
10
19
0
0
0
11
64
0
7
JUV
1
1
1
0
o'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
~11 J J ! Il, ,il !1
Run: 1-Jut-94 10:19 PRO03
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Page 1
Primary lSN's only: No
D ' ~eported range: 05/26/94 - 06/25/94
,ctivity codes:
Property Status:
Property Types: ALt
Property Oescs: ALt
Brands: Att
Mode[s: ALL
Officers/Badges: AL[
Enfors Property Report
STOLEN/RECOVERED BY DATE REPORTED
Prop Prop lnc no ISN Pr Prop Date Rptd StoLen
Tp Desc SN Stat StoLen VaLue
Date Recov'd Quantity Act Brand Model Off-1 Off-2
RecovWd Vatue Code Assnd Assnd
4 94001008 01 01 S 6/04/94 15.000
A 94001131 01 01 R 6/19/94 11,000
A 96001168 01 01 S 6/26/94 2,500
B 94000980 01 01 R 5/31/94 300
B BICYCL 94000949 01 01 S 5/27/94 100
B BICYCL 94000984 01 01 R 6/01/94 200
8 BICYCL 94001033 01 01 S 6/08/94 300
B BICYCL 96001095 01 01 S 6/14/96 117
B BICYCL 96001101 01 01 S 6/16/94 392
B BICYCL 94001103 01 01 6/16/94 25
B BICYCL 94001112 01 01 R 6/17/94 150
S BICYCL 94001135 01 01 S 6/19/94 150
E 94000983 01 01 S 6/01/94 10
94001032 01 01 S 6/08/96 16
E 94001063 01 01 R 6/10/94 1
J 94001119 01 03 S 6/18/94 300
J 94001132 01 01 S 6/19/94 1,200
R 94000969 01 01 S 5/30/94 400
R 94001126 01 01 S 6/18/94 200
R 94001174 01 01 S 6/23/94 100
S 94000965 01 01 S 5/30/94 450
S 94000969 01 02 S 5/30/94 1,000
S 94001039 01 02 S 6/09/94 150
S 94001075 01 01 R 6/13/94 5
S 94001118 01 01 R 6/17/94 33
S 94001144 01 01 S 6/20/94 150
S 94001157 01 02 S 6/22/94 100
S 94001182 01 01 S 6/24/94 400
T 94001072 01 01 R 6/13/94 3
T 94001076 01 02 S 6/13/94 15
T 94001096 01 01 R 6/15/94 49
T 94001097 01 01 S 6/15/94 11
T 94001119 01 02 S 6/18/94 10
T 94001132 01 02 S 6/19/94 620
V 94001076 01 03 S 6/13/94 99
V 94001118 01 02 S 6/17/94 10
~ 94000942 01 01 S 5/26/94 100
~ 94001005 01 01 S 6/03/94 60
t 94001039 01 01 S 6/09/94 50
~ 94001039 01 03 S 6/09/94 5
X 94001142 01 01 S 6/20/94 185
X 94001157 01 01 S 6/22/94 10
X 9400118~ 01 01 S 6/24/94 20
X 94001186 01 01 S 6/24/94 10
1 F2252 411 416
6/20/94 11,000 1 V1021 416
I V2021 HONDA CIVIC 421 422
5/31/94 300 1 U3497 418
1 83494 421
6/15/94 200 1 U3498 DYNO VFR 411
1 U3497 BUTTE 411
1 U3498 HUFFY MOUNTAIN 411
1 U1497 TREK 830 411
1 U3498 FUJ! 10 SPEED 421
6/17/94 150 1 U3498 HUFFY 411
1 U3498 421
1 T6169 411
1 U3289 411
6/13/94 1 1 TG039 430 405
1 T6151 418 422
1 T1029 404 422
1 TC159 421
1 T6159 ALP[NE 419
1 T6159 411 414
1 TF059 404
TC159 421
1 TG029 418
6/13/94 5 1 U3288 418
1 T6169 405 414
1 TG029 418
1 T6169 411
1 TF169 EAGLE ULT[MA 411
6/13/94 2 1 TG021 416
1 T6159 418
6/20/94 49 1 T6159 405 616
1 B3434 421
1 TG151 418 422
1 T1029 404 422
1 T6159 418
1 T6169 405 414
1 T6159 411
1 T6159 411
1 TG029 CRAFTSMAN 418
1 TG029 418
1 TG059 405 422
1 T6169 411
1 T6169 ' 611 422
1 T6169 411
Run: 1-Jut-94 10:19 PRO03 HOUND POLICE DEPARTHENT , Page 2
Primary ISN's c~Ly: No
Date Reported range: 05/26/94 - 06/25/94
Activity codes: ALL
Property Status: ALL
Property Types: ALL
Property Descs= ALL
Brands: ALL
ModeLs: ALt
Officers/Badges: ALL
Enfors Property Report
STOLEN/RECOVERED BY DATE REPORTED
Prop Prop Inc no ZSN
Tp Oesc
Pr Prop Date Rptd StoLen Date Recov'd Quantity Act
SN Stat StoLen VaLue Recov'd VaLue Code
X 94001188
X 94001190
Y 94000939
Y 94001016
Y 94001O67
Y 94001076
Y 94001119
Y 94001120
Y 94001130
Y 94001148
01 01
01 01
01 01
01 01
01 01
01 01
01 01
01 01
01 01
01 01
S 6/24/94 10 1 TG169
S 6/24/94 10 1 TG169
S 5/26/94 1 TOO60
S 6/06/94 21 1 U3068
S 6/12/94 50 1 TG159
S 6/13/94 50 1 TG159
S 6/18/94 50 1 TG151
S 6/18/94 1 TG069
R 6/19/94 135 6/19/94 1 1 TG059
S 6/21/94 10 1 TG169
**** Report TotaLs:
36,342 11,708 53.000
Brand
Mode t
Off-1 Off-2
Assnd Assnd
411 422
411
421 461
404
418
418
418 422
411 418
416
411
Primary ISN's onty: No
Oa~'"eported range: 05/26/94 - 06/25/94
Ti nge each day: 00:00 - 23:59
Ho~ Received:
Activity Resulted:
Dispositions: AlL
Officers/Badges: A~L
Grids:
Patrol Areas:
Days of the ~eek:
Enfors CalLs For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE
ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
9000 SPEEDING 44
9001 J-SPEEDING 1
9003 J-NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L 2
9012 OPEN BOTTLE 2
9014 STOP SIGN 2
9018 EQUIPMENT VIOLATION 3
~ CARELESS/RECKLESS 5
9026 OVER THE CENTER LINE 1
9038 ALL OTHER TRAFFIC 1
9040 NO SEATBELT 2
9100 PARKING/ALL OTHER 31
9200 DAS/DAR/DAC 5
9210 PLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED 6
9220 NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF 21
9300 LOST ARTICLES/OTHER 2
9312 FOUND ANIMALS/IMPOUNDS 5
9313 FOUND PROPERTY 14
9430 PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENTS 4
9440 H/R PERSONAL INJURY ACC. 1
.
9, PROPERTY DAJ4AGE ACCIDENTS 8
9451 H/R PROPERTY DAMAGE ACC. 2
9500 RECREATIONAL VEHICLE ACC/OTHER 3
Run: 30-
Run: 30-Jun-94 10:57 CFS08
Primary ISN's o~{y: No
Oate Reported range: 05/26/94 - 06/25/94
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
Ho~ Received:
Activity Resutted: Att
Dispositions: Att
Officers/Badges: Att
Grids: Att
Patrot Areas: Att
Days of the week: Att
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors carts For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE
ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
9561 DOG BITE 2
9563 DOG AT LARGE 3
956/, DOG BARKING 1
9566 ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS 2
9567 DANGEROUS DOG 1
9710 NEDICAL/ASU 2
97'50 MEDICALS 24
97'51 MEDICALS/DX 2
9800 ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIEO 11
9801 DOMESTIC/NO ASSAULT 3
9802 PUBLIC ASSIST 3
9900 ALL HCCP CASES 4
9904 OPEN DOOR/ALARMS 2
9920 INSPECTIONS OEPARTMENT 11
9944 UNWANTED GUEST 1
9980 WARRANTS 7
9990 MISC. VIOLATIONS 6
9992 MUTUAL AID/8100 4
9993 MUTUAL AID/6500 5
9994 MUTUAL AID/ ALL OTHER 4
A2242 ASLT 2-SUBSTANTIAL INJURY-OTHR WEAP-ADLT-ACQ 1
A3252 ASLT 3-SUBSTANTIAL iNJURY-HANDS ETC-ADLT-ACQ 1
Page
Run: 30-Jun-g4 10:57 CFS08
Primary ISN's onLy: No
Da .... ~eported range: 05/26/94 - 06/25/94
T ~nge each day: 00:00 - 23:59
How Received: At[
Activity Resutted:
Dispositions:
Officers/Badges: AIl
Grids: AIl
Patrol Areas: AIl
Days of the week: AIl
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Carls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE
ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
A3253 ASLT 3-SUBSTANTIAL INJURY-HANDS ETC-ADLT-STR 1
A5351 ASLT 5-1NFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAM 6
A5352 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-ASLT-AC 1
A5354 ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLD-FAM 1
A5501 ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HARM-NO WEAP-ADLT-FAM 1
B3434 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-D-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1
B7 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT 1
08500 DRUGS-SMALL AMOUNT MARIJUANA-POSSESSION 1
DCSO0 DRUGS-DRUG PARAPH-POSSESS-UNK-UNK 2
F2252 ARSON 2'UNINHAB-NO WEA-OT COMCL-10000-19999 1
12109 CRM AGNST FAM-GM-ENDANGER CHLD-OTHER 3
13060 CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD 3
J2500 TRAFFIC-GM-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR 2
J2700 TRAF-ACCID-GM-AGGRAVATED VIOLATION 1
J2900 TRAFFIC-GM-OTHER 1
J2EO0 TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 2
J3500 TRAF-ACCID-MS-ORIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR 10
J3EO0 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 9
K6004 OEPRIVE OF PARENTAL RIGHTS-UNK WEAP-CHLD-FAM 1
M4~ LIQUOR - OTHER 2
M5313 JUVENILE-CURFEW 1
M5350 JUVENILE-RUNAWAY 6
Page
Run: 30- Jun-94 10:57 CFS08
Primary ISN's onty: No
Date Reported range: 05/26/94 - 06/25/94
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
Ho~ Received: Att
Activity Resutted: Att
Dispositions: Att
Officers/Badges: At[
Grids: Att
Patrol Areas: A(t
Days of the week: At(
ACTIVITY COOE
DESCRIPTION
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Carts For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE
TG151
TG159
TG169
NUMBER OF
INCIDENTS
N3190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COMMUNICATIONS 4
03602 08SENITY-MS-INDECENT-EXPOSURE-TO ADULT 1
P2110 PROP DAHAGE'GH'PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 1
P3110 PROP DAHAGE'MS'PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 6
P3120 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT 4
P3130 PROP DAHAGE-MS-BUSINESS-UNK INTENT 1
P3310 TRESPASS-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 1
P3600 LITTER-UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF GARBA6E-MS 1
03299 STLN PROP-NS-POSSESS-OTH PROP-200 OR LESS 1
TO060 THEFT-UNK LVL VAL-FRM HAIL-UNK PROP 1
T1029 THEFT-MORE $2500-FE-FRM BUILDIN6-OTH PROP 1
TC159 THEFT-SO1-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP 1
TF059 THEFT-~O1-5OO-GM-YARDS-OTH PROP 1
TF169 THEFT°~O1-5OO-GM-~ATERCRAFT-OTH PROP 1
TG021 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-BUILDING-HONEY 3
TG029 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-BUILD]NG-OTH PROP 2
TG039 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-COIN MACH-OTH PROP 1
TG059 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-YARDS-OTN PROP 2
TG069 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-HAILS-OTH PROP 2
THEFT-LESS 200-GM-MOTOR VEH-MONEY 1
THEFT-LESS 200-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP 7
THEFT-LESS 200-GH-~ATERCRAFT-OTH PROP 9
Page
~1! Il I, ia, ,Il I, !,
Run: 30- Jun-94 10:57 CFS08
Primary ISN's only: No
D~ .... ~eported range: 05/26/94 - 06/25/94
T, ange each day: 00:00 - 23:59
Ho~ Received: AL[
Activity ResuLted: Att
Dispositions: Att
Officers/Badges: Att
Grids: Att
Patrot Areas: Att
Oays of the week: Att
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors CaLLs For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY COOE
ACTIVITY COOE NUMBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
U1497 THEFT'FE'BICYCLE'NO NOTOR-201-500
U3018 THEFT-MS-BY CHECK'200 OR LESS
U3068 THEFT'NS-BY SWINDLE OR TRICK-200 OR LESS
U3288 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS
U3289 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-35000-OR MORE
U3497 THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-201-500
THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-200 OR LESS
VEH THEFT-FE-OVER $2500-AUTO
VEH THEFT-FE-$251-$2500-AUTO
VEH-501-2500-FE-THEFT-AUTO
WEAPONS-MS-USES-OTHER TYPE-NO CHAR
CRIM AGNST ADMN JUST-NS'OSST LEGAL PROCESS
U,"
V1021
V2021
VB021
W3190
X3080
**** Report TotaLs:
393
Page 5
R~.m~: 30-Jun-94 13:54 OFF01
Primary ISN~s on[y: No
Date Reported range: 05/26/94 - 06/25/94
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
Dispositions: At[
Activity codes:
Officers/Badges: AIl Grids: Ali
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Offense Report
OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS
Page 1
ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL
COOE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING
A2242
~252
~253
~351
~352
ASLT 2-SUBSTANTIAL INJURY-OTHR WEAP-ADLT-ACO
ASLT 3-SUBSTANTIAL INJURY-HANDS ETC-ADLT-ACQ
ASLT 3-SUBSTANTIAL iNJURY-HANDS ETC-ADLT-STR
ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-ADLT-FAM
ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BO HRM-HANDS-ASLT-AC
~354 ASLT 5-INFLICTS ATTEMPTS HRM-HANDS-CHLD-FAN
/[5501 ASLT 5-THRT BOOILY HARM-NO WEAP-ADLT-FAM
B3434 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-D-UNK WRAP-COt4 THEFT
B3494 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK ~EAP-COH THEFT
08500 DRUGS-SMALL AHOUNT MARIJUANA-POSSESSION
DCSO0 DRUGS-DRUG PARAPH-POSSESS-UNK-UNK
F2252 ARSON 2-UNINHAB-NO WEA-OT COHCL-10000-19999
[2109 CRM AGNST FAM-GM-ENDANGER CHLD-OTHER
[3060 CRIM AGNST FAN-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD
J2500 TRAFFIC-GM-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR
J2700 TRAF-ACC[D-GM-AGGRAVATEO VIOLATION
JL>~l:)O TRAFFIC-GM-OTHER
J2EO0 TRAF-ACC-GN-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH
J3500 TRAF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE OF LIQUOR
J3EO0
K6004
M41~
N5313
..... OFFENSES CLEARED
ADULT JUVENILE BY EX' PERCENT
ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED
TRAF'ACC-NS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-UNK VEH
DEPRIVE OF PARENTAL RIGHTS-UNK ~EAP-CHLD-FAH
LIQUOR - OTHER
JUVENILE-CURFEW
1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
I 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
6 0 6 0 4 0 2 6 100.0
1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0
1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0
1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
3 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 100.0
·
3 1 2 1 0 0 1 1 50.0
2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0
1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0
10 0 10 0 10 0 0 10 100.0
9 0 9 1 8 0 0 8 88.8
1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 10
2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0
1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0
· i · I ~n, ,ii i Jrt,,
Run: 30-Jun-94 13:54 OFF01
Primary lSN's onty: No
~eported range: 05/26/94 - 06/25/94
1 ange each day: 00:00 - 23:59
Dispositions: Att
Activity codes: Att
Officers/Badges: Alt
Grids: Att
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Offense Report
OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS
Page 2
ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL
COOE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING
..... OFFENSES CLEARED ....
ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT
ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED
M5350 JUVENILE-RUNAWAY 6 0 6 0 0 0 6 6 100.0
N3190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASS[NG COMMUNICATIONS 4 0 4 4 0 0 0 ' 0 0.0
03602 OBSENITY-MS-INDECENT-EXPOSURE-TO ADULT 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
P2110 PROP DAMAGE-GM-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
P3110 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 6 0 6 5 0 1 0 1 16.6
P3120 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT 4 0 4 3 0 0 1 1 25.0
P3130 PROP DAMAGE-MS-BUSINESS-UNK iNTENT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
P' TRESPASS-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
P3600 LITTER-UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF GARBAGE-MS 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
TO060 THEFT-UNK LVL VAL-FRM MAIL-UNK PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
T1029 THEFT-MORE $2500-FE-FRM BUILDING-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
TC159 THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
TF059 THEFT-201-5OO-GM-YARDS-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 · 0 0.0
TF169 TNEFT-201-5OO-GM-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
TG021 THEFT'LESS 200-GM-BUILDING-MONEY 3 0 3 2 0 0 1 1 33.3
TG029 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-BUILDING-OTH PROP 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0
TG039 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-COIN MACH-OTH PROP 1 0 1 I 0 0 0 0 0.0
TG059 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-YARDS-OTH PROP 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0
TG069 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-MAILS-OTH PROP 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0.0
TG151 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-MOTOR VEH-MONEY 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
TG THEFT-LESS 200-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP ? 0 7 6 0 1 0 1 14.2
TG169 THEFT-LESS 200-GM-WATERCRAFT-OTH PROP 9 0 9 8 0 1 0 1 11.1
U1497 TNEFT-FE-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-201-500 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
Run: 30-Jun-94 13:54 OFF01
Primary ISN'$ on[y: No
Date Reported range: 05/26/94 - 06/25/94
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
Dispositions: AtL
Activity codes: Air
Officers/Badges: AtL
Grids: Alt
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Offense Report
OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS
Page 3
ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN' ACTUAL
COOE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING
..... OFFENSES CLEARED ....
ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT
ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED
U3018 THEFT-MS-BY CHECK-200 OR LESS 3 0 3 2 0 0 1 1 33.3
U3068 THEFT-MS-BY SNINDLE OR TRICK-200 OR LESS 1 0 1 0 I 0 0 1 100.0
U3288 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0
U3289 THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-35000-OR MORE 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
U3497 THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-201-500 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 I 50.0
U3498 THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-200 OR LESS 5 0 5 5 0 0 0 0 0.0
V1021 VEH THEFT-FE-OVER $2500-AUTO 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
V2021 VEH THEFT-FE-$251-$2500-AUTO 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
VB021 VEH-501-2500-FE-THEFT-AUTO 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0
~/3190 NEAPONS-MS-USES-OTHER TYPE-NO CHAR 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
X3080 CR[M AGNST ADMN JUST-MS-OBST LEGAL PROCESS 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
**** Report TotaLs: 129 2 127 65 40 7 15 62 48.8
111 Il ! ~, ,11 Il,
CITY of MOUND
534~ MAYWOOD ROAD
LIOUNB r.'hNNESOTA555~64
,612:Z72-0690
FAX 6!2~412-0620
July 7, 1994
TO:
FROM:
RE:
CITY MANAGER
CITY CLERK
JUNE MONTHLY REPORT
There were 2 regular Council Meetings in June. Packet preparation was done for each of these
meetings. Minutes were prepared after each meeting. There were follow-up items from each
meeting.
June was a very busy month for me. Mound City Days took up part of my time. I think it was
a really excellent weekend and everyone seemed to enjoy themselves. Civic pride prevails
again.
The 1994 Budget process started and all the budget pages were updated and distributed to the
Department Heads.
There were several meetings on elections. One was a mandatory meeting so that the Secretary
of State can tell us how to run an election. The others dealt with the editing of the Election
Judge Training Video that was filmed in early 1994. We have put together a workbook to go
with the video and are currently working on a procedures manual for elections for City Clerks.
There were the usual calls from residents and questions from the general public on property,
cemetery, research items, and other various issues.
printed on recycled paper
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472~0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
July 6, 1994
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER
JOEL KRUMM, LIQUOR OPERATIONS DIRECTOR
JUNE 1994 MONTHLY REPORT
The month of June, unlike May which started out slowly, began very strongly
and just kept building and building. There are many events going on this month which
are beneficial to our store. There is "Mound City Days" festival activities for example.
Even though we were absolutely dead for two hours during the Saturday morning
parade, that day was perhaps the best we've ever had for a non-holiday. Then there
are the three weekends in which parents hold graduation parties for their scholars.
I believe we sold approximately 14 kegs of root beer this month. Baseball is in full
gear, the N.B.A. playoffs are still on, and people are traveling up north to their cabins
or camping, and the don't want to pay those exorbitant prices up there. And,
naturally, there's the lake and people finally have a summer in which to enjoy it. Sales
were up 5.5% grossing out at $142,222. Last year they were $134,935.
As I am writing this we are right in the middle of our "Red, White and Blue" sale
for the Fourth of July. The ad appeared in the June 27th issue of "The Laker"
newspaper. Did you see it? Hope it is a success. Oh, by the way, June 17th marked
by ten year anniversary as Liquor Operations Manager for the City of Mound.
JK:ls
~ll II I I, ,11 !1, I,,
PARKS
CITY OF MOUND
/
JIM FACKLER
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-168'
(612)
FAX (612) 472-0620
The fishing pier was installed at Centerview Beach. Installation was done with the
help of the Department of Natural Resources staff. The Parks Department will now
be responsible for maintaining it. If there is a need for major repairs, the DNR will
contribute towards completing needed work.
The summer parks program has begun and will be located at various parks through
June and July. This program was advertised in the Westonka Community Services
publication for summer programs.
The improvements at Mound Bay Park are complete now with the installation of the
timber boarder along the beach and the back ordered climber for the play structure.
BEACHES
June began the opening of all of the beaches with regular life guard supervision and
daily cleanup of the beaches by the Parks Maintenance Staff. This will be done
through the first part of August and will occupy a lot of time providing this service.
CEMETERY
The caretaker of the Cemetery, Phil Haugen, has had some medical problems and has
had to take some time off from maintaining the cemetery. The parks crew has taken
this work over and will do so until Phil is able to return.
DOCKS
The dock inspector has been busy with inspections of the dock sites for proper
installation and conforming boat registration. This season has been busy due to all
sites being assigned. The dock inspector has also been working with the building
official in the up dating of the Public Lands Permits.
TREE/WEED NOTICES
Fourteen trees have been marked for removal from city property along with three
threes to be trimmed of hazardous branches. One tree was marked on private
property that was hazardous and was removed by the owner. Three notices were
sent requiring the owners to mow private property. Two of the owners complied
while the third did not and a contractor was hired to do the work. This bill is the
responsibility of the owner.
JF:ls
THIS .LAS~ '~[IS YEAR LAST
MON~ MONTH ~ DA~ TO DA~
~ 0F ~ 1994 ,,
~. OF C~ 46 51 ~7 292
11 14 58 59
FI~
~OUND 21 16 117 116
~INNETONKA BEACH
F~ 1 2 7 13
MINNETRI STA
~G~ ~ 1 22 21
ORONO
~ 0 0 o
SHOREWOOD
FI~ 2 4 13 1 5
SPRING PARK
R-~G~ 3 2 15 28
MUTUAL AID - FI~ 1 I 3
TOTAL FIRE CALLS 16 28 117
TOTAL EMERGENCY CALLS ~ 2~ 17~ 187
~CI~ 2 D 5 6
~ID~ 3 8 25 27
~S & ~~S 5 12 34 29
A~ 0 D 2 6
F~E ~ / FIRE ~ 5 fi fi7
- MOUND ~G~ 4~5 ~1 23~ _.
- MTKA BEACH ~G~ ~ D ]~
FI~ 12 ~ 107 237
- M' TRISTA ~.~G~ 48 24 4~5 386
~ 60 54 522 62~
FI~ 21 1 ~ 394 236
ORON0 ~G~ 43 27 172 .350
~ 64 127 566 5 R6
FI~ 0 0 0 27
- SHOREWOOD m~G~ 0 33 55 26
~ O 33 }~
FI~ 35 87 291
- SP. PARK ~G~ 94 27 ~ 575
~ 129 114 ~99 qn5
F~E 15 40 151
- ~ ~D ~G~ 0 27 27
T~ 15 67 178 1 ~q
TOTAL DRILL HOURS 180 172~ I~Z~ q&74
TOTAL FIRE HOURS 328 563 2592 ~39R ,
TOTAL EMERGENCY HOURS 631 ~439 32~
~ F~E & ~G~ ~S 959 1~2 5856 ~45
MUTUAL AID RECEIVED 1 0 3 2
MUTUAL AID ~IVEN 1 2 4 3
MOUND, MINNESOTA
FOR MONTH OF jI~NE lqq4
FIRE FIGHTERS DRILLS & MAINTENANCE FIRE & RESCUE
6/6 6/20 W~ES HRIqS }U~RS RAIE
1 JEFF ANDI~RRFN X X 2 19.00 1~ 37 ~,O0 222.00
X X 2 19.00 0 35 6.00 210.00
2 C. R Ff].
X X 2 19.00 ! 26 6,(~) ].56.00
3 ,)'k-~RRY RARB
X X 2 19.00 2 37 6.00 222.00
6, PA(~ RABR
X X 2 19.00 2 24 6.00 144,00
5 DAVE ~DYD
X (~ 1 9.50 0 18 6.00 108,00
6 ~COTr BRYCE
X X 2 19.00 0 20 6.00 120.00
7 DAVE CARLSON
X X 2 19.00 2 23 6.00 138.00
8 JIM CASEY
X X 2 19.00 0 26 6.00 156.00
9 STEVE COLLINS
X X 2 19.00 5 20 6.00 120.00
10 BOB CRAWFORD
X X 2 19.00 0 26 6.00 156.00
11 RANDY ENGELHART
12 STEVE ERICKSON X X ~ 19.00 0 %5 6.50 2?3.50
13 PHIL FISK X X 2 19.00 2 18 6.00 108.OO
14 DAN GRADY X X 2 19.00 4½ 4~ 6.00 246.00
15 KEVIN GRADY X X 2 19.00 4 24 6.00 144.00
16 CRAIG H]~qDERSON X X 2 19.00 5 35 6.00 210.00
17 PAUL HENRY X X 2 19.00 3 11 6.00 66.00
18 JASON MAAS X X 2 19.00 5 40 6.00 240.00
19 JOHN NAFUS X X 2 19.00 5 27 6.00 162.00
20 JAMES NELSON X · X 2 19.00 1 33 6.00 198.00
21 MARV N~3.qON X X 2 19.00 2 19 6.00 114.00
22 BRET NICCUM X X 2 19.00 8 28 6.00 00
23 GREG PALM X X 2 19.00 9 22 6.00 ~oz.00
24 MIKE PALM X X 2 19.00 0 21 6.00 126.00
25 TIM PAI~M X X 2 19.00 2 30 6.00 180.00
26 GREG PEDEP~ON X X 2 19.00 0 24 §,25 150.00
27 CHRIS POUNDER X X 2 19.00 2 25 ~.00 150.00
28 TONY RASMUSSEN X X 2 19.00 1½ 15 6.00 90.00
29 MIKE SAVAGE X X 2 19.00 5 29 6.00 174.00
30 KEVIN SIPPRFLL X X 2 19.00 0 28 6.00 168.00
31 RON STALLMAN X X 2 19.00 2 16 6.00 96.00
32 TOM SWIm, SON X E~ 1 9.50 0 0 6.00 -0-
33 BRUCE SVOBODA X X 2 19.00 2 ?9 6.00
X X 2 19.00 0 34 6.00
34 gD VANECEK
55 RICK WILLIAMS X X 2 19.00 6½ 30 6.00 1~0 _mm
36 TIM WILLIAMS X X 2 1~.00 1½ 23 6.00
37 D~INNIS WOYTCKE X X 2 19.00 6 30 6.00
37 35 72
~ 92% s?~ ~0 6~.00 90% 959
280 ~;s 684.00
90½ ~ 1,167.00
1DIAL ? '. 5O
DRILL REPORT
MOUND--FIRE--DEPARTMENT
b~scipline and Teamwork
Critique of fires
Pre-plan and Inspections
Tools and Apparatus Identify
Hand Extinguisher Operation
Wearing Protective Clothing
Films
First Aid and Rescue Operation
Use of Self-Contained Masks
~Pumper Operations
Fire Streams & Friction Loss
House Burnings
Natural/Propane Gas Demos.
Ladder Evolutions
Salvage Operations
Radio Operations
House Evolutions
Nozzles & Hose Appliances
Hours Training Paid :
Excused
X Unexecused
0 Present / Not Paid
cel laneous
PERSONNEL
~\~--J.Andersen
5m_G.
_j.Anderson
Babb
%Z~_7_P.Babb
.~_~D.Boyd
S Bryce
kZ~_D.Carlson
\~.Casey
.Collins
.Crawford
\~.l._p'Engelhart
~ S.Erickson
.Fisk
_~_~D.Grady
~_K.Grady
~_C.Henderson
f~.Henry
~J.Maas
~.Nafus
2~ ~J.Nelson
3_M.Nelson
'~i Niccum
Palm
Palm
.Palm
Pederson
.~C.Pounde~
T.Rasmussen
~_~M.Savage
K.Sipprell
%~3,~R.Stallman
Sv°b°da
T.Swenson
Vanecek
Williams
.Williams
.Woytcke
DRILL REPORT
MOUND--FIRE--DEPARTMENT
Discipline and Teamwork
Critique of fires
Pre-plan and Inspections
Tools and Apparatus Identify
Hand Extinguisher Operation
Wearing Protective Clothing
Films
First Aid and Rescue Operation
Use of Self-Contained Masks
Pumper Operations
Fire Streams & Friction Loss
House Burnings
Natural/Propane Gas Demos.
Ladder Evolutions
Salvage Operations
Radio Operations
House Evolutions
Nozzles & Hose Appliances
Hours Training Paid :
Excused
X Unexecused
Miscellaneous:
O Present / Not Paid
PERSONNEL
G'And'ersen
_ .Anderson
Z 2-~J.Babb
~ L P.Babb
S Bryce
D Carlson
-~l~C.Pounde~
~T.Rasmussen
Z~I~ M.Savage
A~-~K.Sipprell
~.%~_~R.Stallman
~__B.Svoboda
l~.~T.Swenson
.~ E.Vanecek
~__~_R.Williams
~T.Williams
~.~_D.Woytcke
DATE
MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT
0
TOTAL MAINTENANCE FOR MONTH OF
MEN ON DUTY
J. ANDERSEN
G. ANDERSON
J~ BABB
P, BABB
D BOYD
S BRYCE
D CARLSON
3 CASEY
S COLLINS-
B CRAWFORD
R ENGELHART
S. ERICKSON
P. FISK
D. GRADY
K. GRADY
C. HENDERSON
P. HENRY
3. MAAS
J. NAFUS
/ J. NELSON
-~ M. NELSON
~/ B. NICCUM
~ G. PALM
0 H. PALM
c~. T. PALM
~ G. PEDERSON
~ C. POUNDER
, /~ _T. RASMUSSEN
~ M. SAVAGE
~ K. SIPPRELL
R. STALLMAN
(Q . T. SWENSON
-~g B. SVOBODA
~ E. VANECEK
~i R. WILLIAMS
/A T. WILLIAMS
~ D. WOYTCKE
TOTAL MONTHLY llOURS
CIT5 of MOUND
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
July 6, 1994
TO:
FROM:
City Manager, Members of the City Council and Staff
·
Jon Sutherland, Building Official
SUBJECT: June 1994 MONTHLY REPORT
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
In June 48 building permits were issued, along with 41 plumbing, mechanical and other
miscellaneous permits, for a total of 89 this month and 350 year to date. Not included in this
month's tally is the Our Lady of the Lake addition and work progressing on Grandview Middle
School.
PLANNING & ZONING
With the assistance of the City Planner, staff processed 17 + zoning cases. In addition, the
City Council acted on several Construction on Public Lands Permits for City Commons.
RENTAL COMPLAINTS
Several complaints were received regarding exterior storage and trash at a four-plex on
Belmont Lane. A citation has recently been issued by our Community Service Officer.
COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER {CSO) ACTIVITY
Total ordinance contacts for the month of June was 162.
JS:bka
printed on ~ecycled paper
a ii
BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT
Month: J~E Year: z99~
THIS MONTH
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 1 ! ! 2 !, 492 9 !, 044,970
SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED (CONDOS)
TWO FAMILY / DUPLEX
MULTIPLE FAMILY (3 OR MORE UNITS)
TRANSIENT HSG. (HOTELS / MOTELS)
SUBTOTAL ! 1 121,492 9 1,044,970
EW CONSTRUCT)ON ,,
COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT) J
OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL
INDUSTRIAL
PUBLIC / SCHOOLS
SUBTOTAL
ADDITIONS/ALTERATION$
ADDITIONS TO PRINCIPAL BUILDING 7 2 ! 9,000 20 399,687
DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS 2 20,736 5 50,57 !
DECKS ! l 44,962 23 91,292
SWIMMING POOLS '0 ! [0,000
REMODEL- MISC RESIDENTIAL 23 58,209 96 323,783
REMODEL - MULTIPLE DWELLINGS 0 3 303,000
SUBTOT~J. 43 342,907 148 !, 178,333
COMMERCIAL (RETAIL/RESTAURANT} 1 6,, 000 5 39,600
OFFICE I PROFESSIONAL
INDUSTRIAL 1 ! 2,000 5 ! 37,527
PUBLIC / SCHOOLS
DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS
SUBTOTAL 2 ! 6,000 ! 0 177, ! 27
DEMOLITIONS Il ' PERMITS I ' UNITS [ VALUATION Il 4~ PERMITS I VALUATION
RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS ! (CO: VENT) .5
NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ! (GA: AGE) 6
TOTAL DEMOLITIONS 2
I PERMITS I UNITS VALUATION ~ VALUATION
48 1 480,399 t 2,400,430
TOTAL
t78
PERMIT~:OUNT J THIS MONT. I YEAR-TO-DATE
· BUILDING 4 8 17 8
FENCES & RETAINING WALLS 9 27
SIGNS ! 5
PLUMBING ! 1 70
MECHANICAL t 4 50
GRADING 2 2
S&W, STREET EXCAV.. FIRE, ETC. 4 18
LTM '" 89 I 35o
05-Jul-94
TO:
FROM:
RE:
MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER
GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR
JUNE FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT
June investment activity
Balance: June 1, 1994 $5,279,263
Bought:
Money Market 4M - Income Reinvested 438
CP Smith Barney 4.22 292,902
CP Smith Barney 4.25 99,577
CP Smith Barney 4.32 373,522
CP Smith Barney 4.05 99,854
CP Dain Bosworth 4.27 103,750
Matured:
Money Market 4M (110,000)
CP Smith Barney 3.72 (291,486)
Fed Home Loan Dain Bosworth 7.50 (100,000)
Balance: June 30,1994
$5,747,820
GFOA Convention
During the first week of June I attended the Government Finance Officers
Association National Convention at the Convention Center in Minneapolis.
Over 4,700 people from the U. S. and Canada attended the conference.
It gave me the opportunity to attend many excellent presentations.
In addition to topics relating to financial accounting and reporting,
I attended presentations that dealt with investments, economic development,
standards in reporting, and total quality leadership.
A sincere thanks to the Council and the City Manager for allowing me
to attend. It was a unique opportunity to get an update on finances and to meet
and talk to many peers on current financial issues.
City of Mound
Monthly Report
Utilities
Month of: June 1994
No. of Customers:
Water
Sewer
Water Used:
(in 1,000 gallons)
Billing:
Water
Sewer
Recycle
Total
Payments:
Water
Sewer
Recycle
Total
Residential
1,064
1,068
18,868
$23,419
$44,538
$3,141
$71 ,O98
$25,828
$46,209
$3,508
$75,545
Commercial
121
121
5,281
$7,278
$13,490
$20
$20,788
$4,348
$11,225
$14
$15,587
07/07/94
Utility- 94
Total
1,185
1,189
24,149
$30,697
$58,028
$3,161
$91,886
$30,176
$57,434
$3,522
$91,132
R[C'D JUL 13 ......
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
To: Brigitte Kay Reuther
Weekly News, Inc.
240 S. Minnetonka Ave.
Wayzata MN 55391
From: Eugene R. Strommen
Executive Director
473-7033
Date: June 24, 1994
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION
PELICAN POINT MULTIPLE DOCK LICENSE
The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District will hold a public
hearing at suite 135, Norwest Bank Bldg, 900 E. Wayzata
Blvd., Wayzata, 8:00 AM on Saturday, July 9, 1994 to consider
an application from John Boyer, Boyer Building Corporation,
for a new multiple dock lfcense at the proposed Pelican Point
development in Mound on Spring Park Bay.
~ug.e~e R. StrOmm-en, Exec or
La~Minnetonka Conservation District
-I'T mi
I
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
July 1, 1994
To:
LMCD Board of Directors
From:
Rachel Thibault
Administrative Technician
Subject:
PUBLIC HEARING, LMCD HEADQUARTERS, WAYZATA
8:00 AM, Saturday, July 9, 1994
Pelican Point Multiple Dock License
Spring Park Bay, City of Mound
APPLICATION: John Boyer, Treasurer , Boyer Building Corp.,
Wayzata, has submitted a new multiple dock license
application requesting a 40 slip seasonal dock on Outlot C
of the proposed Pelican Point development, Spring Park Bay.
BACKGROUND REVIEW: The proposed multiple dock is to serve 40
residences planned at the development, 2820 Tuxedo Blvd.,
Mound. The proposed development will have 20 twinhomes on
13.7 buildable acres. The preliminary plat was approved by
the City of Mound 6/28/94.
Outlot C has been designated to include the shoreline
frontage of the mainland at 1,387 feet, and an island at
1,471 feet, total 2,858 shoreline feet.
The applicant states that the island was a peninsula many
years ago. Dredging in the 1920s, and some erosion, resulted
in a 140' wide channel between the mainland and the island.
The applicant maintains that because the island was at one
time connected to the mainland, it has a justification to
count the combined shoreline of the island and mainland.
The City of Mound has stated that they do not want docks on
the island.
The applicant is applying for a 40 slip dock based on the
combined shoreline of the mainland and the island, 2,858
feet. This amount of shoreline would allow 57 boat storage
units (bsu). Code Sect. 2.02, Subd. 1, allows one boat per
50' of contiquous shoreline. The island is not contiquous,
therefore the code does not allow the island shoreline to be
included for boat density storaqe purposes. LMCD attorney
Charlie LeFevere addresses this point in his memorandum of
6/28/94. The Code does allow up to 28 bsu's based on the
1:50 formula for the 1,387 feet of mainland shoreline.
Mound Mayor Skip Johnson submitted a 6/29/94 letter stating
that the city council supports the 40 slip multiple dock on
the mainland.
Boyer Building Corp., 7/9/94 Public Hearing, Page 2
The proposed dock is within the authorized dock use area of
the site. The dock is located in the center of the
development, with over 100' side setback on the north and
over 500' side setback on the south.
The dock structure is over 20,000 square feet. This requires
an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). The City of
Mound planning consultant is preparing the EAW including the
dock installation. The city of Mound is distributing the EAW
to interested agencies, including the LMCD. A 60 day comment
period is allowed.
Boyer Building Corp. has submitted a dock permit application
to the MN DNR.
The dock construction will be seasonal with steel posts and
wood deck construction.
Attorneys at Law
RC~ T A. AI~OP
R H. BATTY
ST~_ _~N J. BUBUL
JOHN B. DEAN
~r~ARY G. DOBBINS
STEFANIE N. GALEY
CORR1NE A. HEINE
JAMES $. IIOLMES
DAVID J. KENNEDY
JOHN R. LARSON
WELLINGTON H. LAW
CHARLF~ L. LEFEVERE
JOHN M. LEFEVRE, JR.
ROBERT J. LINDALL
June 28, 1994
HOLMES & GRAVEN
CHARTERED
470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402
{612) 337-9300
Facsimile (612) 337-9310
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL
(~12) 337-921~
Gene Strommen
Lake Minnctonka Consetwation
District
900 E. Wayzata Blvd., Suite 160
Wayzata, MN 55391-1836
RE: Pelican Point Development
ROBERT C. LONG
LAURA K. MOLLI~r
BARBARA L. PORTWOOD
JAM~S M. ~rROMMEN
JAMES J. THOMSON,
LARRY M. WERTRE~M
BONNIE L. WILKINS
GARY P. WINTER
DAVID ~ ~N (D29-1~1)
OF CO~S~
ROBERT C. CAR~ON
ROBERT L. DA~ON
T. JAY SALM~
Dear Gene:
An application has been submitted by Boyer Building Corporation of Wayzata for a multiple
dock license on Pelican Point in the city of Mound. The applicant owns mainland with a
shoreline of 1,387 feet and a nearby island which is not attached to the mainland with a shoreline
of 1,471 feet. The applicant seeks to construct and maintain a dock facility with 40 slips on the
mainland. Under the one boat per 50 feet of shoreline density limitation in the LMCD code, a
facility with 40 slips could only be allowed if the applicant were allowed to count shoreline on
the island. However, under LMCD Code Section 2.02 the shoreline is counted by reference to
"continuous shoreline in existence on May 3, 1978". Because the island shoreline is not
"continuous" with the mainland shoreline, the proposed development would not be allowed under
the LMCD code. The code does not allow the transfer of density credit or combination of non-
continuous shoreline in such cases. This prohibition against transfer of density credit serves
several purposes. The first such purpose is the protection of the vicinity to which density credit
might be transferred. Experience with commercial marinas would suggest that it is generally
physically feasible to accomplish a density of one boat per 10 feet of shoreline. A transfer of
density credit from one part of the lake to another would concentrate any undesirable effects of
such an increased density such as increased boat activity, noise, lights, etc. Such density could
result in adverse effects similar to those caused by a commercial marina at any area of the lake,
including residential zones.
The second purpose served by prohibiting transfer from one area of the lake to another is the
limitation of overall boat density on the lake. It is true that by transferring density from one area
to another, there could be a decrease in density in one area of the lake whenever there is an
increase in another. This may not be of'much comfort to the owners of property in the vicinity
r3£I_he lake shore where the increased density is allowed. But more importantly, it may not be
JUL I
I,{tl10-4
L.~4.C.O.
Gene Strommen
June 30, 1994
Page 2
safe to assume that for each such increase in density in one location, there will be a
corresponding decrease in another.
Many parts of the lake are not currently developed to the level of one boat per 50 feet of
shoreline. This is true for a number of reasons. Development may be at less than 1:50 because
of zoning restrictions, personal decisions not to have the full number of watercraft allowed,
unusual shoreline situations such as property along narrow channels where it is not feasible to
store boats, wetland areas which are not economical to develop at 1:50 level, shoreland which
is held for investment and not currently used for boat storage, publically owned property, and the
like.
If the code allowed transfer of density credit to non-continuous shoreline, the owner of any
property could temporarily or permanently transfer dockage rights to another part of the lake.
For example, if an owner of 300 feet of lakeshore wished to develop an outlot association serving
a new residential development of 30 lots, the current code would only allow dockage for 6
watercraft. However, it could be physically possible to construct 30 slips, one for each
residential lot. If the owner could legally transfer shoreline, for density purposes, from one
property to another, it could acquire undevelopable wetland shoreline on another part of the lake
at a relatively low cost and transfer the density credit to the new residential development.
Another approach would be to solicit the transfer of shoreline credits from other owners who are
p..ot currently using their property to the maximum 1:50 level. Dockage could be purchased, on
a temporary or permanent basis, from numerous property owners around the lake who had, for
example, two watercraft stored on 200 feet of shoreline, and who therefore could transfer the
dockage rights to half of their shoreline to the developer.
It would seem that the development which could .theoretically result from allowing the transfer
of shoreline could cause a substantial increase in overall boat storage density on the lake.
The LMCD could amend its code in such a way as to allow the counting of non-continuous
shoreline. The reasons for declining to do so would be the same as those noted above. If the
board decides that it is appropriate to allow the transfer of shoreline under some circumstances,
I would recommend that any code amendment which is created to allow such transfer include
whatever restrictions or limitations the board feels are appropriate (1) to limit the undue
concentration of watercraft storage in any one area and (2) to assure that the resulting overall
l~ke wide boat storage density does not become excessive.
Il' you have any further questions, please give me a call.
Very truly yours,
Charles L. LeFevere
CLL:ckr
JUN g 1994
..... ..M.C.D.
received
DOCK - NEW
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
iLicense Year
LMCD Receipt # /O&~j '~70 ~ ~No. of Boats
City response due . Boat Density Index
· Can be reached at phone #
(for LMCD use)
Because this form is
to be copied, please
use black ink or type.!
APPLICATION:
NEW MULTIPLE DOCK,
LAUNCHING RAMP, ~
AND/OR MOORING LICENSE
Pursuant to LMCD Code §2.03, a new multiple dock license is requested, in accordance
with all data and other information submitted herewith and made a part hereof.
Ralph Turnquist
/ Boyer Building Corporation
Print or type owner'~ name
4875Re e t W
Shorewgo~, ~N 9~31 /
Owner's address
18283A Minnetonka Blvd,Wayzata MN
Phone; if no
answer, call:
475-2097
Phone; if no
answer, call:
Phone
Business name (if different from owner)
John Bover (~/~c, '~C~J~,-~"/~r(
Contact person; (if different from owner)
18283A Minnetonka Blvd., Wayzata, MN
Street address
55391
Mailing address (if different from street address)
Property located in the City of Mound
Property is riparian to LMCD bay/area(s)~Pelican Point/Spring P~ No(s).
Bay
1. Classification of use per §2.11, Subd. 2 (please check one):
a) commercial marina d) transient g) private residence__
b) private club e) outlot association x h) other (explain)
c) municipal f) multiple dwelling__
2. Type of dock construction, describe and attach to-scale drawing:
Wood palletized, Steel posts
3. Please submit names and mailing addresses of owners of abutting sites and owners
of other affected sites. Such owners may be verified by checking with Hennepin
County property description offices, 348-3271, which can provide actual mailing
labels at a cost of $1.00 per tax parcel. This service usually takes three days,
and you must have your tax parcel identification number ready when calling for
this assistance. M~chael Koc~ - Lakewinds Condo, Manager
Ron Johnson, 4416 Dorchester Road, Mound, MN 55364
4. Documents listed below are required; check that they are attached:
Locator map ~ Scaled drawing showing present dockage~/~ ..
County plat map Scaled drawing showing proposed dockage
--~Scaled drawin~ of docks on abutting properties
Certified land survey, ! o .~l_' '
legal description X and other affected dockage~.
Absence of significant data requested above could result in a processing delay.
(over)
Lake Minngtonka Conservation District
~ 2
New Dock License Application ...... Boyer Buildin_q Corporation
( Name )
5. All required permits, licenses and approvals have been obtained from the MN DNR
and from the city in which the multiple dock, ramp, and/or mooring is ,locate~,
copies attached: ( )Yes ( X)No.. If No, explain; Have verbal approval but have
not received final permit.
6. Public liability insurance: Coverage $ lt000f000 CompanNState Farm Ins~lrmn~o.
All commercial applicants, and others where applicable, must provide the following
additional information 7, 8 and 9:
7. Check the nature of services and parking required by the city:
a) Boat storage ................ number of parking spaces
b) Launching ramps ............. - number of parking spaces
Times ramp is open for public use;
c) Sales ........................
d) Service .....................
e) Boat rentals ................
f) Restaurant ..................
g) Other (explain)
- number of parking spaces
- number of parking spaces
- number of parking spaces
- number of parking spaces
- number of parking spaces
TOTAL parking spaces
8. Rest room facilities provided; Indoor,
~C~C Outdoor portable (number),.__
9. Boat toilet pumping service provided? Yes__ No
AI.I. APPLICATIONS: ,~.~,,_~,._~,.~,_,(~ /~Sb' ~r
10. Lake frontage of site: 2~¢7- feet. Total square footage of dock area including
maneuvering space = sq.ft. If 20,000 sq.ft, or over, an Environmental
Assessment Norksheet (EA~) i8 required. E~q IS ~TTACHED
11.
Boat Storage Units (BSU) computation; Frontage. Z~v ~ 50 = ~7 BSU's
allowable under the one-boat-per-fifty-foot rule. If this number is less than
the total BSU's applied for in No. 12 below, an application for a Special
Density License is required per Code ~2.O5.
12. Number of BSU's applied for:
by Location
at slips ....................... 40 BSU
at slides ...................... BSU
at lifts ....................... BSU
at tie-ons ..................... BSU
at moorings .................... BSU
at off-Lake rack storage ....... BSU
other BSU
40 BSU
TOTAL BSU applied for;
by Use
for rent, lease, etc.. BSU
for service work ...... ~BSU
for company use ....... .BSU
for private use ....... ~BSU
for transient use ..... ~BSU
other
BSU
TOTAL BSU applied for; BSL
(continued)
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
~ 3
New Dock License Application Boyer Buildino CorDorakion
(Name)
13. Watercraft Storage Units (WSU) computation schedule:
33
BSU @ 1 WSU (each slip up to 20
BSU @ 1½ WSU (each slip 20'+ to 24
BSU @ 2 WSU (each slip 24'+ to 32
BSU @ 2½ WSU (each slip 32'+ to 40
BSU @ 3 WSU (each slip 40'+ to 48
BSU @ 4 WSU (each slip over 48
long and/or up to 10' wide) = 33 WSU
long and/or up to 11' wide) = ~_WSU ~
long and/or up to 12' wide) = 14 WSU
long and/or up to 14' wide) = WSU ~
long and/or up to 16' wide) = WSU
long and/or over 16' wide) = WSU
40 BSU
Total Watercraft Storage Units (WSU) = 47 WSU ~.~
14. Fee calculation:
Base fee .............................................................. $ 500
Plus number of Watercraft Storage Units (WSU) 4~ @ $10 as
determined from WSU computation and schedule shown in No. 13 above .... + 470
Total fee enclosed (this fee is for processing of the application
and does not entitle the applicant to a license) .................. $ 970
Fees are non-refundable.
( , .~ / ~,.,,., ~ ~ _
I certify that the information provided herein and the attachments hereto are true
and correct; I understand that any license issued may be revoked by the District for
violation of the LMCD Code. I agree to reimburse the District for any legal,
surveying, engineering, inspection, maintenance or other expenses incurred by the
District in excess of the amount of the application fee. I consent to permitting
officers and agents of the District to enter the premises at all reasonable times to
investigate and to determine whether or not the Code of the District is being complied
with.
I agree to submit a certified, as-built survey upon completion of the docks.
Authorized s igna t ~/~~ ~z~-/L~~¢ Title /Treasurer
Date 5/23/94
Relationship to owner Developer
Return this application and attachments to:
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
900 E. Wayzata Blvd., Suite 160
Wayzata MN 55391
Phone (612) 473-7033
8/92
3
's Bay
BOYER BUILDING CORPORATION
PELICAN POINT ADDITION
A fl?!
Point
Bay
~ Phelps
Point
W~st
A
SPRIHC~ ........
RD.
CT
Crystal
Ca r t n ti n
Bay
0
EDGI wOOD RD.
SH
MINNtWASHTA $CH ~/~
U Z
I I · I I ,il i, I,~
I
--1' 0
J' I
JUN 2 1994
L~4.C.D.
OUTLOT
,y
OUTLOT C
[vistlr~ Zoning: ..
~ch~e ~on ~e~ment: '
~oss ~;[e oreo:
. ..~1o~ ''
.Cro)s vetlo~ oreo: ..
Net ~o~e oreo:
T~ol num~( o~ st~cturet ~o~ed: 'Lr~
Cross density (e~cl~i~
Net de~s;ty (exc~d[~
TGIQI b~tu~;n~s street o~ dr~woy
Totel res~enllol building oreo:
Totel hordcovet oreo:
Tolol ~in~nd site hord c~eroge: . -
Totol moinlo~d site o~n s~e;
T~f ~e o~eo:
Bluff oreo:
Public r~ht-of-woy:
TKr two oreo:
~,~ woy (~n;mum)
~HORE ~TA '
Uoinlond ~keshore fr~tO~e;'
Islond ~kesh~e Ir~loge:
Totol ~keshore frontoge:
Pro.sod ~kogc:
Res;denial S;gnle Fom~
Res;dc.~lk)l. Lo- Oe~;ty (I-4 0U/AC)
P~
~" 598.51~ S~
. ' 32.481 SF
13.7 ~es '
~0 Tw~es
I We(er ~¢ess~s'
40
2.S2 (m/~) ..
2.92 (~/~)
92.07~ 5~
· 90,024 Sr
t82,103 Sr
30.426~
69.574~
246.~.56 SF
34,956.~ S~
4,128.~ S~
263.ee0.16 S~
88.01528 Sr
80 S~oces-l~ I~r Ch, e~;ng Unil)
ESO Spoces per I~eU;ng Unit)
13~6.5 LF
1471.0 Lr
2857.5 Lr
One X.~soc~tion Dock with 40 Boot Azeos
OV,'t~ RB
DEY[3. (N:~ R
'E~o~,er 6u,ta,n9 Corporol,on
18283A U;nnel~ko ~.
~e~en. UN 55391
P: 612-475-2~7
F: 612-475-2~5
· ....' NOT
81TE EXGINEER
'~.K' Xsso,cmte$. Ltd.
922 Uoln Street
Hopkins. UN 55.343
P: 6t2-933-0972
F:. 612-953-1153
., ' Ke~n G. NOrby ond ~s~tes
t togoI Red Circle ~e. S~te 125
. · U,nnel~kO. UN .55345
FOR
SURV~'YOR
Lgon ~,eid ond htS.,ok
741.5 Woyzoto
I,J[nne~>olis. MN ~26
P: 612-~6-6857
F: 612-~6-~9
CONSTRUCTION
PELICAN POINT
ADDITION
2J20 T~[DO
O' 60' 120' 180'
\
Lot ! $\
680~ SF
Lot 18
6936 SF
1 ,}6.07
Lot
,7.~ 4 S F
Lo-t 14
6159 SF /
40 B
AR
ACCESS~O RIES
BUILDING%,
\
\
O
BOYER BUILDING CORP.
PELICAN POINT ADDITION
CITY OF MOUND
SPRING PARK BAY
T
GE
7'3
BEACH
/
/
/
/
JUN 3 0 1994
L. IVl. f~.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
June 29, 1994
Mr. Gene Strommen
Executive Director
LMCD
900 East Wayzata Blvd
Wayzata, MN 55391
RE: Pelican Point
Dear Gene:
Over the past 10 years, the City of Mound has received a number of development
inquiries and proposals for the property commonly known as Pelican Point which lies
on the shore of Lake Minnetonka with street frontage along Tuxedo Boulevard. The
Pelican Point site consists of a 13.7 acre mainland area and an island totalling
approximately 3/4 of an acre. For a variety of reasons, all of the proposals to date
have not received approval and therefore, obviously have not been implemented.
Boyer Building Corporation is currently going through the approval process to
construct 40 twin home units on the site marketed for the empty nester segment of
the population. Their proposal calls for a 40 slip marina to be located as shown on the
attached plan. Boyer's proposed plan which is being processed as a Planned
Development Area is both sensitive to the environment and the surrounding
neighborhood area. On June 14, 1994, the Mound City Council approved the
preliminary plat for Pelican Point subject to a number of conditions, one of which
relates to both DNR and LMCD approval of the proposed dock arrangement.
After approving the preliminary plat, the Mound City Council unanimously approved
a motion "giving strong support to the 40 slip marina at Pelican Point". The motion
further directed me as mayor, to prepare this letter highlighting our support not only
for the project but also for the dock arrangement as proposed.
JUN 3 0 1994
Mr. Gene Strommen
June 29, 1994
Page 2
The proposed plan for Pelican Point will be a high quality development that will have
a positive impact on the City of Mound and the Lake Minnetonka area. We encourage
the LMCD and the DNR to support the plan as proposed. I am available to answer any
further questions that you might have on the City's position on this issue.
Thank you for your consideration.
Mayor Skip Jol~son ~
cc: Ceil Strauss, DNR
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
June 29, 1994
REC'D JUL
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LMCD cities
Treasurer Bob Rascop
1995 Adopted LMCD Budget
The LMCD board of directors adopted the 1995 budget June 22
as presented in draft form to the cities on June 2. The
draft budget prompted no city recommendations for change.
If any member city finds it wishes to object to portions of
the adopted budget, the LMCD is still required to hold a
hearing, consider the objection and determine whether changes
should be made in the budget as a result.
city officials will recall from the June 2 memorandum
accompanying the draft budget that both the Administrative
Fund Operating Reserve and Milfoil Fund Operating Reserve are
being budgeted for current expenses for 1995 from each fund.
The amounts budgeted are estimated to reduce the
Administrative Reserve to approximately six months of
operating expenses of $125,000 and the Milfoil Reserve of
approximately 12 months of operating expenses of $125,000.
The LMCD also administers the Save the Lake Fund which
contains donations by private parties and earned interest.
The Save the Lake Fund is used to fund special projects of
benefit to the lake which the board does not believe are
appropriate for funding from public funds.
The concluding comment of the June 2 memorandum merits
attention. The 1995 LMCD budget indicates that the LMCD will
have to further reduce expenditures in future years or find
supplemental funding sources. The 1995 budget relies on the
use of approximately $60,000 of reserves to fund current
program expenditures. This is acceptable for 1995 because of
funding available from reserves. It will not be in future
years.
A 1993 law amends Minnesota Statutes 103B.635, subd. 2 and
limits "the total funding from all municipalities in the
district" to ".00242% of the total taxable market value
within the district, unless three-fourths of the
municipalities in the district pass a resolution concurring
to the additional costs."
The LMCD board thanks city officials for their interest in
and concern for the projected 1995 budget.
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
900 E. 'Wayzata Blvd., Suite 160
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
473-7033
RECEIVED
LMCD MEETING SCHEDULE
JULY 1994
Monday 4
Saturday 9
Friday 15
nday 18
Wednesday 20
Wednesday 27
Independence Day - Legal holiday
LMCD Offices closed
Public Hearings-New dock license applications
8:00 am, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata
Water Structures Committee
8:15 am, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata
Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force
8:30 am, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata
Lake Use & Recreation Committee
5:30 pm, LMCD Office, Wayzata
Zebra Mussel and Exotics Action Plan Subcommittee
8:30 am, LMCD Office, Wayzata
Administrative Committee
6:30 pm, Tonka Bay City Hall, Tonka Bay
LMCD Board of Directors Regular Meeting
7:30 pm, Tonka Bay City Hall, Tonka Bay
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
LMCD CITIES
BILL JOHNSTONE, cHAIR LMCD
JUNE 2, 1994
PROPOSED 1995 BUDGET
RECEIVEO3 0
Under its enabling act, the LMCD is required to adopt a
budget before July 1 of each year for the next calendar year and
submit the budget as adopted to the member cities for comment.
If any member city objects to the budget, the LMCD is required to
hold a hearing, consider the objection and determine whether
changes should be made in the budget as a result thereof.
In recent years the LMCD Board has solicited city input
concerning the budget prior to its adoption pursuant to the
enabling act. This is not intended to and does not prevent
cities from exercising their right to object to the actual budget
and request a hearing thereon pursuant to the enabling act. It
does afford the cities more time to consider the budget and raise
and discuss questions with respect thereto with their
representatives and the LMCD staff. Consistent with this
practice, enclosed is a preliminary draft of the budget for the
LMCD for the year commencing January 1, 1995. The LMCD Board
received the draft budget from the staff at its May 25th meeting,
and authorized it to be distributed to the cities prior to its
consideration at the Board meeting of June 22th. Please take the
time to review it and direct your questions and comments with
respect thereto to your representative, myself or Gene Strommen,
the LMCD Executive Director. We would appreciate hearing your
comments by June 21, 1994.
Several comments are relevant:
- The enclosed budget, is a draft. It has not been
considered or acted upon by the Board. It will not be acted upon
until June 22th, at which time changes and adjustments may be
made.
- For purposes of presentation the budget is divided into
two principal categories: Administrative and Milfoil.
Administrative covers projected revenues and expenditures with
resect to the normal operations of the LMCD, exclusive of the
milfoil control program. Milfoil covers the projected revenues
and expenditures with respect to the milfoil control program.
- Consistent with the policy adopted by the Board in
February of this year, money in both the Administrative Fund
Operating Reserve (the "Administrative Reserve") and the Milfoil
Fund Operating Reserve (the "Milfoil Reserve") is being budgeted
for current expenses from each Fund in amounts which are
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Page 2
estimated to reduce the Administrative Reserve to approximately
six months of operating expenses ($125,000) and the Milfoil
Reserve to approximately 12 months of operating expenses
($125,000). In addition to the Milfoil Reserve, the LMCD has
established an equipment depreciation reserve therein. The draft
budget anticipates transfer of $35,000 from the Milfoil Reserve
to the depreciation reserve in 1995. This will increase the
depreciation reserve balance to approximately $210,000.
- The LMCD also administers the Save the Lake Fund which
contains donations by private parties and interest income
thereon. The Save the Lake Fund is used to fund special projects
of benefit to the lake which the Board does not believe are
appropriate for funding from public funds. The enclosed draft
budget anticipates approximately $32,500 of expenditures from the
Save the Lake Fund in 1995. This amount will be reviewed later
in the year based on the success of the fund raising efforts and
the needs for special project funding.
- Overall, the enclosed 1995 Budget is essentially flat
from the 1994 Budget. '
- With respect to estimated revenues in 1995 the following
comments are relevant:
(a) The requested funds from the cities total $143,323
consisting of $80,323 for administrative purposes and
$63,000 for milfoil purposes. Under state law, the
maximum amount that the cites can provide (without a
3/4 vote of all of the cities) is $144,135 based on
1993 assessed valuation. In 1994, the amount of city
funds requested, after adjustments for reserve
reductions, was $88,117.
(b) License revenue from multiple dock and other
licenses is estimated to be $86,000 in 1995 compared to
$112,000 in 1994. The reduction is due to (i) a
decrease in multiple dock license fees resulting from
protests from the licensees and an analysis by the LMCD
of the costs associated with regulating the multiple
dock licenses and (ii) the elimination of duplicating
licensing of special events.
(c) Revenue from fines and interest income is reduced
to reflect actual 1993 experience and reduced fund
balances.
(d) The proposed 1995 budget anticipates receipt of
approximately $40,000 of funds from the DNR and
Hennepin County for purpose of the milfoil program.
This is consistent with our 1994 experience. However,
we have no assurance that we will in fact receive the
money. If we do not, it may be necessary to curtail
the milfoil program.
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Page 3 "
- On the expense side, the following conunents are relevant:
(a) The salary expense has increased about 6% due to a
personnel change in 1994 and salary increases. The
salary increases account for approximately 4% of the
total increase.
(b) Office lease expense has increased from 1993 due to
a new lease. It is essentially the same as the 1994
budget.
(c) Legal expenses are estimated to increase by about
10% from 1994's budget, but are about 10% less than
1993 actual. We are continuing to look at this item.
(d) Our contractual services expenses are estimated to
be down 40%, due in large part to the completion of
several projects.
(e) The 1995 budgeted expenditures for the milfoil
program are in line with the 1994 budget. As always
actual expenditures will be affected by lake levels and
the intensity of our harvesting.
One final overall note. The proposed 1995 budget indicates
that the LMCD will have to further reduce expenditures in future
years or find supplemental funding sources. The proposed 1995
budget relies on the use of approximately $60,000 of reserves to
fund current program expenditures. This is acceptable this year
because of the size of our reserves. It will not be in future
years.
Thanks for your assistance.
comment's.
We look forward to your
lotus.budget95
May 26, 1 ,~94
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1995 Adopted Budget
1993 1993 1994 1995
Budget Actual Budget Budget
1 LMCD Communities Admn Levy
2 Reserve Fund Allocation
3 Court Fines
4 Licenses
5 Interest, Public Funds
6 Shoreland Rules, DNR City Grants
7 Shoreland Rules, DNR Consultants
8 Other Income
(a)
$60,000 ~54,215 $25,117 880,322
43,432 0 65,383 39,625
45,000 37,733 45,000 41,000
117,300 119,577 112,000 86,000
7,000 13,105 6,000 6,000
0 22,665 4,000 0
0 0 2,000 0
0 508 0 0
Income Prepaid at 80% in 1992
9
EW Milfoil Program
a City Levy
b Other Public Agencies
c Private Solicitation
d Reserve Fund Allocation
e
$63,000 $56,925 $63,000 $63,000
57,280 43,069 49,500 40,000
7,930 7,702 0 0
0 0 5,000 18,500
Interest 5,700 15,326 6,000 8,000
D ISBURSiEME
ADMINISTRATION
Personnel Services:
1 Salaries
2 Mgmt Plan Impl/PT Tech.
$105,700 $103,372 $106,150 $113,000
15,000 0 0 0
18,000 18,005 19,600 19,700
Employer Benefit Contributions
T0ta perS°~l::Se~ices.. 138:;7oo:::9121,377 ~125i75o ~132;7oo
Contractual Services:
5 Office Lease & Storage ~10,482 $10,897 911,600 911,647
6 Professional Services 5,550 5,439 5,400 5,700
7 T°tai c°ntr~tu:~i se~i:~~ 16~o32: i iH6,336 17;oo0 i~ H7;347
Office & Administrative:
8 Office, General Supplies 93,500 84,557 $4,300 94,500
9 Telephone 2,300 1,939 2,000 2,000
10 Postage 4,000 3,913 4,000 4,500
11 Printing, Publ. 3,000 1,345 3,000 2,000
12 Maintenance, Office Equipment 2,000 1,656 2,000 2,000
13 Subscriptions, Memberships 200 175 250 200
14 Insurance, Bonds 5,800 3,932 5,000 4,200
15 Mileage, Expenses, Training : 2,500 1,689 3,000 2,500
!6 Total Office& Administration 923,300 $19,206 923,550 .~21;900
Page 2
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1995 Adopted Budget
1993 1993 1994 1995
Budget Actual Budget Budget
Capital Outlay:
17 Furniture, Equipment $5,000 $1,084 $3,000 $2,000
Legal
19 Legal Services $25,000 $25,780 $20,000 $22,000
20 Prosecution Services 27,000 31,670 30,000 30,000
21 Henn. Cty Room & Board 3,170 0 3,000
22 Process Service 200 0 200 0
Contract Services/Studies
24 Shoreland Rules, DNR Consultant
25 Shoreland Rules, DNR City Grants 0
26 Lake Use Density Study 0
27 Public Information, Legal Notices 3,000
28 Public Access Studies 2,000
29 Mgmt Plan Environment Implementation 27,500
:3.0 School District Boater Ed. Program 5,000
TOtal contract s~r~i~e~/StUdieS : i i $37;500
$1,250 $2,000 $0
4,665 4,000 0
0 7,000 0
592 2,000 1,000
0 0 0
14,361 15,000 13,000
0 10,000 10,000
$20,868 : :$40,000 :$24,000
Eurasian Water Milfoil (EWM)
Weed Harvesting Program
33 Trucking Contract
34 Salaries & Employer Taxes/Insurance
35 Administrative
36 Operation Supplies
37 Contract Services
$35,280 $20,324 $28,1 60 $32,000
51,060 34,939 43,360 46,000
6,440 4,049 5,900 6,1 O0
25,500 23,198 29,000 30,500
9,250 7,303 8,500 8,900
38 Contingency 6,380 0 8,580 6,000
39 TOTAL EWM OpERATIONS ~:.~. :~ i~.,133.;910 $89,813 $123;500.1:$:129;500
40 TOTAL:ADMN;EWMEXpENSE i:::~; ~ ~$406i642:$329;304 $383;000 $382,447,
Save The Lake Program Income:
a Private Donations $10,000 $15,076 $22,500 $28,000
b Interest 4,000 3,832 4,000 4,500
Sub Total, Save the Lake 814,000 818,908 $26,500 $32,500
oave the Lake Program Expense:
$14,000 $14,792 $26,500 $32,500
INFORMATIONAL:
EWM Equipment Reserve Allocation $0 $0 $35,000 $35,000
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1995 BUDGET
DISTRIBUTION OF EXPENSE
Market Value
% of Total
Market Value
Share of Share of Share of
EWM Pg. Admin. Total Budget
$63,000 $80,322 9143,322
Deephaven 303,839,500 8.08 5,088 6,492
Excelsior 97,155,800 2.58 1,627 2,071
Greenwood 59,671,300 1.59 999 1,280
Minnetonka 2,946,311,200 20.00 12,600 16,064
Mtka. Beach 69,127,100 1.84 1,158 1,479
Minnetrista 271,390,000 7.21 4,545 5,789
Mound 343,925,000 9.14 5,759 7,341
Orono 658,911,700 17.51 11,034 14,062
Shorewood 425,119,000 11.30 7,119 9,076
Spring Park 57,378,500 1.53 961 1,232
Tonka Bay 128,390,200 3.41 2,150 2,737
Victoria 150,848,900 4.01 2,526 3,221
Wayzata 356,093,300 9.47 5,963 7,610
Woodland 87,833,200 2.33 1,471 1,868
11,580
3,698
2,279
28,664
2,637
10,334
13,100
25,096
16,195
2,193
4,887
5,747
13,573
3,339
TOTAL 5,955,994,700 100. O0
Less Minnetonka 2,946,311,200
3,009,683,500
5,955,994,700
X .0000242
144,135.07
Total of market value less Minnetonka because Minnetonka is a constant 20%.
63,000 80,322 143,322
Calculating per centage:.
City market value divided by 3,009,683,500 times .80 equals per cent
Use only 80% because Minnetonka is always 20%.
i.e. amount of city market value divided by 3,009,683,500 X .80 = % of total
May 26, 1994
Lotus:9§MKTVAL
FRI , 1ST
SAT, 2ND
SUN, 3RD
MON, 4TH
TUE, 5TH
WED, 6TH
THU, 7TH
RI, 8TH
SAT, 9TH
SUN, 10TH
TUE, 12TH
WED, 13TH
THU, 14TH
SAT, 16TH
UN, 17TH
RECEIVEO 3 0
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
JULY. 1994 LAKE MINNETONKA EVENT CALENDAR
9:00 ;tM
10:00 AM
2:00 PM
2:00 PM
10:00 AM
10:30 AM
5:30 PM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
6:00 PM
6:30 PM
6:00 PM
6:00 PM
6:30 PM
6:15 PM
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
2:00 PM
2:00 PM
10:00 AM
10:30 AM
11:00 AM
1:30 PM
5:30 PM
6:00 PM
6:30 PM
6:00 PM
6:00 PM
6:30 PM
6:15 PM
10:00 AM
2:00 PM
10:00 AM
10:30 AM
5:30 PM
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake area
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, West Upper Lake Area
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
Wednesday Evening Bassin', Goose Island
UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area
WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
WYC Sailboat Race, Big Island
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, West Upper Lake Area
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area
SYC Sailboat Race, Big Island
WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
Wednesday Evening Bassin', Goose Island
UMYC Sailboat Race, West Upper Lake Area
WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area
WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
JULY .1994 LAKE MINNETONKA EVENT CALENDAR,. Paqe ~
TUE, 19TH
WED, 20TH
THU, 21ST
FRI, 22ND
SAT, 23RD
SUN, 24TH
MON, 25TH
TUE, 26TH
WED, 27TH
THU, 28TH
SAT, 30TH
SUN, 31ST
6:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
6:30 PM
6:15 PM
6:00 PM
6:30 PM
6:00 AM
9:30 AM
10:00 AM
10:00 A/~
2:00 PM
2:00 PM
7:00 AM
10:00 AM
10:30 AM
1:30 PM
5:30 PM
6:00 PM
6:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
6:15 PM
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
2:00 PM
2:00 PM
6:00 PM
10:00 AM
10:30 AM
1:30 PM
5:30 PM
UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area
Wednesday Evening Bassin', Mtka Boat Works
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area
WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, West Upper Lake Area
Wednesday Evening Bassin',Goose Is/Exc Park Tavern
MYC Sailboat Race, Big Island East
WYC Sailboat Race, Big Island
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, West Upper Lake Area
Westonka MDA Brighter Light Bass Open/Exc Park Tav
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, West Upper Lake Area
WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area
Wednesday Evening Bassin', Goose Island
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
WYC Sailboat Race, Wayzata Bay
SYC Sailboat Race, Big Island
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area
WYC Sailboat Race, Wayzata Bay
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, West Upper Lake Area
WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
900 E. Wayzata Blvd., Suite 160
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
473-7033
LMCD MEETING SCHEDULE
REVISED
JULY 1994
Monday 4
Thursday 7
Saturday 9
Friday 15
Monday 18
Wednesday 20
Wednesday 27
Independence Day - Legal holiday
LMCD Offices closed
Save the Lake Advisory Committee Meeting
5:00 pm, LMCD Office, Wayzata
Public Hearings-New dock license applications
8:00 am, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata
Water Structures Committee
8:15 am, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata
Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force
8:30 am, #135 Norwest Bank Bldg, Wayzata
Lake Use & Recreation Committee
5:30 pm, LMCD Office, Wayzata
Zebra Mussel and Exotics Action Plan Subcommittee
8:30 am, LMCD Office, Wayzata
Administrative Committee
6:30 pm, Tonka Bay City Hall, Tonka Bay
LMCD Board of Directors Regular Meeting
7:30 pm, Tonka Bay City Hall, Tonka Bay
L~KE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
AGENDA
Saturday, July 9, 1994
Norwest Bank Bldg, 900 E Wayzata Blvd, Rm 135
(Elevator handicapped access, west entrance, Wayzata Blvd)
8:00 AM PUBLIC HEARING
Boyer Bui14ing Corp., Multiple Dock License application for Pelican
Point Development, in Mound on Spring Park Bay
8:15 AM WATER STRUCTURES COMMITTEE
1. Boyer Building Corp., multiple dock license application for Pelican
Point Development, Mound, Spring Park Bay; review findings from the
public hearing and make a recommendation to the board
2. Rockvam Boat Yards, Spring Park, West Arm; as-built surveys of Site
1 and Site 2
3. Proposed ordinance amending Sect. 2.07 Temporary Structures,
changing the distance from 200' to 150' and delegating permitting
authority to the Water Patrol
4. Draft ordinance amending Sect. 2.12, Subd. 12 Dock Dimensions, to
allow 10' dock width for gas docks
5. Draft ordinance amending Sect. 2.03, Subd. 11 Service Consoles to
allow construction of a weatherproof shelter to accommodate 2
people in a 6' x 6' space for protection of electronic equipment on
a gas dock
6. DNR proposal to enter into a cooperative agreement with the LMCD,
to authorize the LMCD to issue multiple and permanent dock permits
in lieu of the DNR
7. Suburban Hennepin Regional Park, Minnetrista, regarding proposal to
place a launch ramp on Halsteds Bay per LMCD permit requirements
8. Report on 6/1/94 Envelope Subcommittee meeting
9. Variances application deposit refunds: A. Colson Construction Co.
B. Kent & Mary Carlson
10. Pending issues before the committee (not ready for action):
A. Minnetonka Yacht Club, Deephaven, Carsons Bay; new multiple dock
license application pending resolution of issue regarding
shoreline ownership
B. Minnetonka Boat Works, Wayzata, Wayzata Bay; new multiple dock
license, special density license and dock length variance
applications; Pending revised site plan with structures within
200'
11. Additional business
A. ThOmAS WURST, P.A.
CURTIS A. PEARSON, P.A.
UAmES D. LARSON, P.A.
THOMAS f. UNDERWOOD. P.A.
CRAIG M. MERTZ
ROGER U. FELLOWS
LAW OFFICES
WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & MERTZ
ONE FINANCIAl PLAZA, SUITE IIOO
I~O SOUTH SIXTH STR[I~T
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA $$402-1B03
June 29, 1994
TELEPHONE
RECEIVED
Mr. Ed Shukle
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound MN 55364
Re: City of Orono Case
Dear Ed:
I am enclosing a copy of an opinion of the Court of Appeals rendered
on June 24, 1994. This is an unpublished opinion and it therefore has some
limitations, but I think the discussion of Judge Crippen may be of interest
to the Council and Planning Commission members.
You will note that the findings of the City Council are cited and
the definitions are very similar to those contained in our zoning code, and
people should understand when they buy these properties that the conditions
may be unique and they basically have placed themselves in a position as the
court states where their "plight is at least partially their own doing."
It should not be assumed that municipalities are going to win all
these cases, but it does indicate that with proper factual backgrounds and
proper presentation, the Court has a much easier time sustaining the
municipality's actions.
Sincerely,
CAP:ih
Enclosure
Curtis A. Pearson
City Attorney
~ ~'I~Nct;.O~o COMM~ZCE APP~,L~,TZ COURTS EDmON Jt~E 24, 1994
taken in the underinsured motorist insurance provision prior
~o the 1980 repeal of that provision.
Id., (emphasis in original). Under the add.on approach,
underinsured motorist benefits are recoverable to thc exlznt
damages exceed thc amounl .recoverable from thc
tortfcasor's liability coverage. Id.; Broton v. Western
Nat. Mut. Ins. Co., 428 N.W.2d 85, 88 (Minn. 1988).
Thc analysis unfolds ns follows. Underinsured motorist coverage
is available when a person is injured by Ixvo or 'more vehicles
whenever one of those vehicles meets the definition of underinsured
vehicle. Minn. Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 4a (1992). An underinsured
vehicle is any vehicle subject to a bodily injury damages claim that
exceeds the vehicle's liability limits. Minn. Stat. § 6513.43, subd.
17 (1992). The Petree children suffered damages in excess of the
occupied vehicle liability limits. Thus, the Petree children have
underinsured motorist claims.
Underinsured motorist claimants must first seek benefits from the
occupied vehicle. Minn. Stat. § 65B.49, subd. 3a(5) (1992). Here,
underinsured motorist coverage is unavailable on the occupied
vehicle, however, because of the principles outlined in Thommen
v. Illinois Farmers Ins. Co., 437 N.W.2d 651,654 (Minn. 1989)
and Myers v. State Farm MuL Auto. ins. Co., 336 N.W.2d 288,
291 (Minn. 1983) (undefinsured motorist coverage should not be
converted to third-party liability coverage). Minn. Stat. § 65B.49,
subd 3a(5) fu.rther provides that insureds may recover excess under-
insured motorist coverage from their own carrier when their policy
limit for like coverage exceeds 'the limit of liability of the coverage
available to the injured person from the occupied motor vehicle.'
Here, 'no underinsured coverage is available from the occupied
vehicle. The $30,000 per person, $60,000 per accident limits on
underinsured coverage provided by Penny Petree's policy exceed
the underinsured coverage available from the occupied vehicle.
Therefore, American Standard is obligated to provide underinsured
motorist coverage. .
Also present is the policy consideration that Penny Petree puro
chased underinsured motorist coverage for herself and her children,
yet will receive no benefits because of the fortuitous circumstance
that Swanson also carried lhe minimum amount of coverage.
The conclusion that the Petrees may recover uninsured motorist
benefits from American Slandard appears inescapable and requires
reversal.
This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Sial § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1992)
Hennepin County Crippen, Judge
District Court File No. 91-8308
Richard Stodola, et al., Jeffrey A. Car~on
Steven C. Hey
Respondcnt~ , Carson and Clelland .
305 Brookdale Corporate Center
6300 Shingle Creek Parkway
Minneapolis, MN 55430
VS.
City of Orono,
Appellant.
.Leon R. Erstad
Sandra L. Jones
Erstad & Riemer, P.A.
1000 Northland Plaza
3800 West 80th Street
Minncapolis, MN 55431
~0~ Filed: June 21, 1994
Offic~ of Appellate Courts
t~onsidered and decided by Forsberg, Presiding Judge, Crippen,
· Judger and Mulally, Judge.
' Retired judse of the district co..m?, ~n~t_ lng ns Jt~. se.o_f the Court of
Appeals by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. a~. vi, ! z.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
CRIPPEN, Judge (Hon. John M. Stanoeh, District Court Trial
Judge)
Appellant City of Oronochallenges the district court's determina-
tion that thc city acted arbitrarily and capriciously in refusing to
allow resPOndents to build a shared dock. Appelhnt also contends
that the district court exceeded its authority in ordering the city to
adopt a specific shared dock proposal. We reverse.
FACTS
In September 1987, ~spondents Richard Stodola and Me~t
Peterson bought a lot in the City of Orono from Ewald Gustafson
for the purpose of building a dock, but not a residence, on the
property. Glen Tillotson owned an adjoining lot that had a house
on it. At the time of the purchase, there was an existing dock that
had been constructed in 1960. The existing dock was believed to
be on Tillotson's property, but it was later discovered it was on
respondents' property.
In a letter dated July 30, 1987, Gustafson's atlorney wrote Peter-
son:
This is to inform you that Mr. Gustafson was told by a
member of the staff of the city of Orono that it is necessary
to own a home nearby in order to place a dock on a piece
of property in Orono. We understand that you have made
your own investigation and are willing to take your chances
m 'convincing the city of Orono to grant you a variance.
We just want to be on record as not having made any
guarantees in regard to the use of this proper~y. Would you
kindly sign a copy of this letter so that we may have it in
our files.
Peterson signed the letter and dated it September 24, 1987.
Respondents built a new dock in the spring of 1988. Shortly after
they built it, the city 'red-tagged' the dock, indicating that it was an
illegal dock. The city wrote to Peterson to inform him that the dock
was illegal.
After meetings with city officials, respondents filed a variance
application, seeking "authority to construct boat dock on a non-buil-
dable lot {n_o, primary structure).' The planning commission denied
respondents proposal and the city council passed a resolution citing
the following reasons for denial:
(A) The lack of the principal structure means that there is
no individual responsible for protecting the dock nor the
boats maintained at that dock.
03) An adjacent neighbor [Tillotson] already has a dock [the
1960 dock] located on Tract F.
(C) The property is not wide enough to provide adequate
parking. * * *
(D) Approval of the use of an accessory structure such as a
dock, without a principal structure would establish a nega-
tive precedent in dealing with a similar requests for lots of
similar size.
Respondents later sent a memo to the city council, outlining the
concerns the city council expressed and suggesting a different
proposal that they thou. gM would satisfy those concerns. Respon-
dents proposed conveying some property to Tillotson to provide him
legal access to the lake, and building a single common dock to be
shared by Tillotson, Peterson, and Stodola.
At a city council meeting, the council denied the shared dock
proposal. At a later meeting, the council adopted a resolution
denying the shared dock proposal. The resoluti,o.? indicated that:
Council refused to accept the interpretation ot me aocessory
use/structure ordinance as proposed by applicants based on
the following findings: ·
(A) The City has never credited a preliminary structure on
an adjacent property to allow accessory uses or structures
on lots that did not sustain principal residences.
03) Thc credit of the principal rcsidence for an acceasory
us~structure serving an adjacent property will establish a
negative precedent for the City when dealing with similar
~L~, 24, 1~4
FINANCE AND COMMERCE APpF:IlATE COURTS EDITION
rcqucsts for accessory uses and su'ucturcs on unbuildablc,
~ubstandard lots.
(C-')Thc applicants' .l~'OjX)sed interpretation of thc accessory
.structu re ordinances is m complete con fl ice with thc original
intent of thc code.
Orono, .Minn., Resolution 2576 (Feb. 13, ]989). The resolution
required thc removal of thc dock and it was subsequently removed
by Tillotson.
In May 1991, Stock)la and Pctc~on filed a complaint, alleging:
(1) illegal removal of a non-conforming boat dock, (2) unconstitu-
tional taking, (:3) arbitrary and capricious conduct, (4) vague and
ambiguous regulations, and (5) denial of equal protection. Thc trial
court determined that thc denial of respondents' application was
arbitrary and capricious, and ordered thc city to approve
respondents' application for a shared dock. It stayed the order for
30 days to allow thc parties an opportunity to negotiate the specific
terms of the shared dock project. When the parties could not agree,
the court issued an order adopting respondents' proposal. This
appeal followed.
DECISION
In zoning matters, this court independently reviews the record and
the city's decision. Northwestern College v. City of Arden Hills,
281 N.W.2d 865, 868 (Minn. 1979). For both legislative (zoning)
and quasi-judicial (special use permits and variances), decisions by
· city, the standard of review is whether the action was reasonable.
VanLandschoot v. City of Mendota Heights, 336 N.W.2d 503,
508 (Minn. 1983). Thc nature of the action bears on what is
reasonable:
In enacting a zoning ordinanc: or in amending an ordinance
to rezone, the approach is legislative; what is involved is a
kind of municipal planning in which a wide range of value
judgments is considered. On the other hand, in granting or
denying a special use Igrmit, the inquiry is more judicial in
character since the zoning authority is applying specific use
standards s~t by the zoning ordinance to a particular in-
dividual use.
Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, 417 (Minn. 1981).
Thus, a zoning authority is less circumscribed by judicial oversight
when it acts legislatively than when it acts in a quasi-judicial role.
Id.
Still, a municipal decision-making body has broad discretionary
power to deny an application for a variance. VanLandsehoot, 336
N.W.2d 503,508-09 (Minn. 1983). The fact that a court reviewing
the action of a municipal body may have arrived at a different
conclusion, had it been a member of the body, does not invalidate
the judgment of the city officials if they acted in good faith and
within thc broad .discretion accorded them by statutes and the
relevant ordinances. Id. at 509. In variance cases, reasonableness
is to be measured by the standard set out in the local ordinance. Id.
at 508 n.6.
The city argues that its decision to deny the shared dock proposal
was legislative, and that even if the decision were quasi-judicial, it
still was reasonable. The city argues that, because under the Orono
City Code an accessory use is limited to the exclusive use of the
principal supporting structure, any'dock on Tillotson's land can be
for the use of the people living in Tillotson's house only.
The parties do not make it clear whether respondents arc seeking
a declaration that the ordinance permits the shared dock proposal,
or whether they seek a varianc~ from the ordinance as the ordinance
doeg not permit such a use.. There is, at least initially, an ordinance
interpretation question.
The Orono City C. ode defines 'accessory use or structure" as a
'use or structure subordinate to and serving the principal use or
structure on the same lot and customarily incidental thereto.' Orono,
Minn., § 10.02(1) (1984). Thc cxxle also defines 'use-accessory" as
a 'use subordinate to the principal use on a lot and exclusively used
for purposes incidental to those of the principal use." Id., §
10.02(72). The code provides that: "No accessory building or
structure shall be constructed on any lot prior to the time of con-
struction of the principal building to which it is accessory." Id., §
10.03, subd. 9(A). The code indicates that · dock is an accessory
use under section 10.23, subd. 5(A), which lists "Ia]ny accessory
use as regulated in the 'R-lA' District and 'private docks' subject
to the City Code and other applicable regulations including boat
storage density regulations" as a "permillcd accessory use."
Construing these provisions together, we conclude: (1) a dock is
an accessory use, and (2) the definition of the accessory use and the
prohibition against building an accessory use before a principal use
indicate that the code presumes there has to be a primary structure
on the property in order for an accessory structure to be pertained.
Thus, building a boat dock without a primary structure on the
property would not be permitted by thc code. This construction
explains the denial of respondents' first dock proposal. At issue in
this appeal is respondents' shared dock proposal.
The code makes it "unlawful for any person to engage or par-
ticipate in business use or joint use without first having obtained a
license therefor from the City." Id., § 5.42, subd. 2. The code &fines
"joint use" as *more than two persons joining for the purpose of
using lakeshore property for swimming, bathing, fishing, docking
or mooring boats, Or for any other purpose." Id., subd. IF. In this
case, Tillotson and respondents wished to usc the same piece of
property for docking boats. In addition, the code indicates that
"private" docks are a permissible accessory use. The usc of thc dock
by both Tiliotson and respondents did not seemingly transform it
into a business use, but the proposal did not call for a purely private
dock for the Tillotson home. The definition of "use-accessor3~"
provides that it is a use "exclusively used for purposes incidental to
those of the principal use." Id., § 10.02, subd. 72. In this case, the
principal use, the house, was Tillotson's. The accessory use, the
dock, was respondents'. The~use of the dock by respondents would
not have been incidental to Tillotson's use of his house and the dock
would not have been exclusively used for purposes incidental to thc
house. Read together, these provisions did not permit respondents'
shared dock proposal.
Next, we consider whether respondents were entitled to a
variance. The district court correctly noted that the shared dock
proposal addressed some of the concerns expressed by the city
council regarding the original dock proposal. But addressing the
concerns raised by the first proposal did not necessarily address the
concerns raised by the second proposal. Even though the shared
dock proposal may not have had the disadvantages of the earlier
dock proposal, it had disadvantages all its own. The city council
properly considered these disadvantages in denying the variance.
The Orono City Code provides that:
In considering applications for variance, the Council shall
consider the advice and recommendation of the Board and
the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety,
and welfare of thc community, existing and anticipated
traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk Io the
public safety, and the effect on values of properly in thc
surrounding area. Before granting a variance, thc Council
shall hear requests for variances from the literal provisions
of this Chapter in instances where their strict enforcement
would cause undue hardship because of circumstances uni-
que to thc individual property under consideration, and to
grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such
actions will he in keeping with the spirit and intent of this
Chapter.
Orono, Minn. § 10.08, subd. 3A (1984). The code defines "undue
hardship":
1. The property in question cannot be put to a reasonable
usc i fused under conditiofiS allowed by thc official controls.
2. Thc plight of thc landowner is duc to circumstances
unique to his property not created by thc landowner. * *
8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land
in question are peculiar to such property or immediately
adjoining property.
11. The granting of the proposed ~a~nce wBI no~ in any
way impair health~ safety, comfort, morals, or in any other
respecl be contrary to thc intent of thc Zoning Code.
la., subd. 3(AX1).
As thc city conectly argues, respondents were aware when they
purchased .the property that they might not be able to build
59
I
1
negative _p,r~cedent ,f. or other pieces of property;
respondents hardship was not a .condition uniqu.e.to ~coC~r
piece of pmocrty. Furthermore, thc city reasonamy
sidered the afeared dock proposal to be. contra,fy t,o the.
of the Zoning Code. As mcasur~l by thc stanaaras s~t torm
in the Orono City Cod(:, thc city's action in denying
respondents' shared dock proposal was reasonable.
Because we determine that the city's denial of respondents'
second proi~sal was reasonable, we do not reach thc issue of
whether the district court exceeded its authority in ordering the city
to adopt a specific shared dock proposal.
Reversed.
FINANCE ~ COMMERCE Atn'~-~ l ATE COO K-is EDITION
a dock without obuining a variance because the property
had no prim,u'y structure. Respondents' plight is at least
pLni~lly their own doing. In addition, in denying thc
variance, the city cited the coflcem that it would set a
This opinion will be unpublished and
amy not be dted except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1992)
Clay County Huspeni, Judge
District Court File No. CX921160
Steven Timm, Trustee for
the Heirs of Chad Timm,
Plaintiff,
VS.
Northern States Power Company, et al.,
Defendants,
and
Often Valan, Jr.,
third-party plaintiff,
Craig E. Johnson
Jne A. Johnson
Wcgner, Fraasc, Nordeng,
Johnson & Ramstad
15 South Ninth St.
Fargo, ND 58103
Appellant,
Marcus J. Christianson
Daniel L Giles
Christianson, Stonebcrg,
Giles & Myers, P.A.
300 O'Connell St.
Marshall, MN 56258
Filed: June 21, 1994
Office of Appellate Courts
Considered and decided by Huspcni, Presiding Judge,
Kalitowski, Judge, and Amundson, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
itUSPENI, Judge 0'Ion. Homer A. Saetre, Retired, District Court
Trial Judge)
Appellant Often Valan challenges the trial court's determination
that although the exclusion language of the policy was ambiguous,
appellant's expectation, of insurance coverage was not reasonable
and therefore respondent North Star Mutual Insurance Company
was not obligated to defend or indemnify appellant under a farm
liability policy for the death of appellant s employee on appellant s
farm. B~caust we find that the language in thc policy unambiguous-
ly excludes appellam from coverage in this instance, we affirm on
grounds other than those relied upon by the trial court.
VS.
North Star Mutual
Insurance Company,
third-party defendant,
Respondent.
FAUi'~
Chad Timm (Timm), an employee on appellant's farm, was
electrocuted when rig grain auger he was helpin.g apl~_ll.ant_mOwV~
contacted high voltage power lines owned by Northern a,~ates ro
Company. Appellant had a farm liability policy with responden!
North Star Mutual Insurance Company (North Star) and tendered
defense to respondent when Timm's family an~l for wrongful death.
Respondent denied liability on the policy, invoking an exclusion in
the policy that denied bendits "if benefits ag payable or are required
to be provided by an insured under a workers' compensation * * *
law." Since appellant never re, ad his North Star policy, he did not
know about the exclusion and firat learned about it when his in-
surance agent visited him in the hospital foilowingTimm's accident.
For many years before Timm's accident, appellant purchased
farm liability and workers' compensation insurance, but he dropped
the workers' compensation policy based on his agent's repre-
sentation that the farm liability would be sufficient. A few months
before Timm's accident, a n~ighbor told appellant that the law
required him to have workers' compensation insurance. Appellant's
insurance agent verified the neighbor's atatement and provided a
quote for coverage. Appellant also obtainM a quote from
another insurance company, but ultimately never purchased a
policy. He thus had no workers' compensation coverage at the time
of Timm's accident.
Appellant sued respondent, seeking'a judgment that the farm
liability policy covered Timm's accident and that n~x)ndent was
obligated to defend appellant. At trial, the court found that the
policy's exclusion language was ambiguous, but that appellant's
expectation of insurance coverage was not reasonable and that
respondent therefore was not obligated to defend and indemnify
appellant for any damages arising out of the wrongful death action.
DECISION
1. Appellant, while contesting the trial court's denial of(overage,
docs agree with the trial court's conoluslon that the language of.the
policy exclusion is ambiguous. Respondent, however, challenges
that conclusion,t
~ R~-snnnde. m did not file a no6c~ of review challenging thc findings of
-- r- ' · '~1 coufl's decision, we will
ambii~uity. Because we are affn'mmg tb~ ~ .........
exercise our authofit~y under Minn. R. Civ. P..102 and .l~;O4.aaa
;.=,. ,4.<nlte m~nondent's failure t~ satisfy the proceourM rules. _.a~...n~. u,
~,'~.~.,.~,~g ~fi-~ las. Co., 394 N.W.2d 791,794 (Minn..1986) ~aeosw, n_
.'.'~."~'~'~'~.~" its nnwer to address soecific issues (:lcspjte a pa~l. y:s
fa;h,r~ tO satisfy th~ oro(~dutal rules Is wltnl~l mc ~°u~ ~ a ='"':"' ~'.~"~
.... ~ -. · · · · · b~ mistaken, however,
Exercise of our d~scretwn m thLs runner should ? ........
fo~ condouatioa of respondem's failure m comply w~tb the rules o~ cay,
appellate proc~lure.
Wc agree with respondent. Determining whether thc language of an
insurance policy is ambiguous is a question of law. Illinois
Farmers Ins. Co. ~. Coppa, 494 N.W.2d 503, 506 (Minn. App.
1993). This court will avoid reading an ambiguity in. to a c~n~aCts
in order to provide coverage if thc plain language is oear. tar~a
· ltartfor~! Accident & Indem. Co, 285 Minn. 324,.327, 173
tl.W.2d 21, 24 (1969).
In concluding that the policy exclualon's language w. as am-
biguous because it was capable of more than one meaning, the court
stated:
The policy excludes coverage where 'benefits arc payable
or are requi~ to he prodded t,y :n ~.red_~,~.n~r_,
workers' compensation, non-occupauonM.? ..s~_m,~,
cupational disease or like law.' Because prsmun t ltmmj
has e~ec~d to proc~ with a com.m, on l.? ~m~ _~s remedy.
rather than a workers' compensation cJasm t~nefits are no[
required to be pwvided to the Heirs of Chad Timm under
the workers' comi~nsatioo law and it is possible to con-
dude that the exclus~' 'onary clause does not ap~iy.
Our reading of the policy is that the exclusion unambiguously (:kales
coverage in this case. The. trial court's interpretation goes beyond
the language of the policy by Iookin8 to the type of claim brought
against the insured. It is rather the contract between the insured and
~r that ~te~min-- wheat cover? ~ ,v..),?: .not ·
party's decision regarding what cause o! acuon xt wm t)nng agmm
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 27, 1994
Those present were: Commissioners Franl~ Weiland (Acting Vice-Chair), Michael Mueller, Bill Voss,
Jerry Clapsaddle, and Mark Hanus, City Council Representative Liz Jensen, Building Official Jon
Sutherland and Secretary Peggy James.
The following people were also in attendance: Ed Surko and Cklair Hasse.
MINUTES
The Planning Commission Minutes of 1994 were presented for approval.
Hanus requested a modification to the minutes on page 2, 3rd paragraph, and explained that his intent
was that he thinks due to the lateral impact a fence may be preferable. Therefore, the first sentence
in this paragraph was amended as follows:
"Hanus commented that due to the lateral impact, it is his thou.qht that a fence may
be preferable to ~' ....... ~'~ "'"~' ~ ~ ........
........... ~. ............ c.,., foliage in this instance because of the
limited space between the retaining wall ~3nd the curb."
MOTION made by Voss seconded by Clapsaddle to approve the Planning Commission
Minutes of June 13, 1994 as amended. Motion carried unanimously.
INTERVIEWS FOR NEW COMMISSIONER:
A___~. EDWARD SURKO, 2314 CHATEAU LANE
Mueller confirmed that "Ed" is preferred, and questioned if Mr. Surko would not be more suited for
the Economic Development Commission, considering his experience. Ed explained that he has had
more experience in that area, and has had little "planning" experience, however, he is interested in
learning more about planning, and would like to help in some way. He has the time to devote to the
Commission. He has worked in construction on oil rigs.
When asked where he sees the City in twenty years, he stated that he has only lived in Mound since
April 15, 1994, however he sees potential for redevelopment in Mound to attract possibly some
tourism. Based on his experience, he has seen City's deteriorate, and has seen what he does not
want to happen to Mound.
He has not been involved in any other volunteer organizations, political or otherwise. He has coached
children's basketball and baseball. He has no future plans for elective office.
What does he see as problems in Mound? He sees Mound as a mixed community, in terms of
economics. He sees problems with businesses, but he also sees a lot of potential for Mound. Mound
needs to attract businesses into the City, then the rest will follow.
He sees fut~Jre development for the lost lake area to include a boardwalk type atmosphere for
merchants and tourist to merge with the community with dockage and store fronts.
He has no conflict with meeting times.
Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1994
B._~. CKLAIR HASSE~ 6627 BARTLETT BLVD.
Mr. Hasse was a City Council member for one year in 1974, and also served on the Park Commission
and Planning Commission for an undetermined number of years until his job interfered with his
schedule to attend the night meetings.
In the last twenty years, he feels the lost lake area should have been completed since a lot of money
has been spent on plans. He has resided in MOund since 1949, and he has stayed here because he
likes the lake and the people. He is a charter member of the Jr. Chamber.
He would like to see the lost lake area remain in a natural state, not developed into a park or
anything, just remain natural.
He is in favor of housing maintenance, however, he feels the rental ordinance should be split between
multiple dwellings and single family rental dwellings. He has a rental dwelling and does not feel he
should be responsible to keep the sidewalks shoveled free of snow and ice.
He has no conflict with meeting times.
DISCUSSION BY THE COMMISSION ON INTERVIEWS;
Chair Weiland noted that the secretary has received a ballot from Geoff Michael who was unable to
be present this evening. The Commission determined the ballot should not be entered into the vote.
The difference between the two applicants was noted to be great. There was considerable discussion
about the good qualifications of both applicants.
The ballots were submitted to the secretary to be tallied. The applicant with the least amount of
points wins the vote.
Ed Surko 1,1,2,1,2,1 = 8
Cklair Hasse 2,2,1,2,1,2 = 10
MOTION made by Voss seconded by Clapsaddle, to recommend Edward Surko be
appointed to the Planning Commission to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of
Brian Johnson, with the term expiring December 31, 1994. Motion carried 5 to 1.
Those in favor were: Clapsaddle, Mueller, Voss, Jensen, and Hanus. Weiland was
opposed.
The City Council will review this recommendation on July 12, 1994.
TRUTH IN HOUSING DISCUSSION.
Mueller explained that the proposed ordinance and forms have been modified to include the concerns
expressed by the Minnesota Society of Housing Inspectors (MSHI) board members on November 22,
1993. A few minor questions still remain, as outlined in the memorandum from Peggy James,
Secretary, dated March 17, 1994, as follows:
2
Planning Commission Minutes
June 27, 1994
On the Disclosure Report, Part A - Housing, the extra "comments" section that was at the end
of the form was eliminated, only because the rest of the form fit on four pages. If it is
important to have this put back in, please advise.
The Commission noted that this is okay.
Please verify that item 15 is correct in the Evaluator's Guide, Part A - Housing; relating to
"copper" water lines.
The Commission modified this item to read as follows:
"15. Copper or Acceptable Material on Street Side of Meter
'A.
The Evaluator shall indicate if the water piping on the street side of the meter
is copper or a material accepted by the State Plumbing Code."
Also, item 15 on the Disclosure Report, Part A - Housing, should be amended to read as
follows:
"15. Copper or Acceptable Material on Street Side of Meter?... __yes no"
Please verify that item 86 is correct in the Evaluator's Guide, Part A - Housing; relating to
zoning.
The Commission modified this item as follows:
"86. The ~ Seller shall ensure that both "Part A - Housing" and "Part B - Zoning" of
the Truth in Housing Disclosure Report are submitted together."
Also, item 4 on the first page of the Disclosure Report form, Part A - Housing, was amended
as follows:
"4.
This is a two-part Report. The seller or seller's agent must make sure that this
. complete Report is publicly displayed on the premises when the house is shown to a
prospective buyer. The seller or agent must give a copy of this Report, both Part A and
Part B, to the buyer prior to the signing of a Purchase Agreement."
Jensen noted a typo on the Disclosure Report form, Part A, on page 2, at the top, "work" should be
"word". Also, "non" should be capitalized and bolded.
Mueller also noted a correction on Page 2, "a) Sump basket..." should be moved under item 2; this
will correlate with the guide.
MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Voss, to send the Truth in Housing
Disclosure Report form, Part A - Housing, and the Evaluator's Guide, Part A - Housing,
back to staff to develop an implementation plan, and for review by the City Attorney.
The implementation plan and attorney's comments should then be returned to the
Planning Commission for review prior to holding a public hearing. Motion carried
unanimously.
3
Planning Commission Minutes June 27, 1994
The Commission determined to add a questioned to the form as 2.B., and move the current "B." to
2.C., as follows:
"2.
ZONING HISTORY
B. There are documents on file at the City which suggest this property is nonconforming
........... YES NO "
Subsequently, 2.B. was added to the Zoning Guide, as follows:
"2. Zoning History:
B. The City Zoning Administrator shall indicate if there are documents in the property
jacket at City Hall which indicate that the property is nonconforming, such as a survey
or resolutions for variances, subdivisions, or conditional use permits."
The Commission feels this information is very important and they want to move the concept forward.
Mueller noted that the title of the guide should be changed from "Evaluator's Guide" to "Zoning
Administrator's Guide".
MOTION made by Mueller seconded by Clapsaddle to send the Truth in Housing
Disclosure Report form, Part B - Zoning, and the Zoning Administrator's Guide, Part B -
Zoning back to staff to develop an implementation plan, and for review by the City
Attorney. The implementation plan and attorney's comments should then be returned
to the'Planning Commission for review prior to holding a public hearing. Motion carried
unanimously.
Proposed Ordinance Addina Chapter 318 to the City Code relatin(~ to Truth in Sale of Houses..
MOTION made by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland to send the Proposed Ordinance
Addition Chapter 318 to the City Code Relating to Truth in Sale of Houses back to staff
to develop an implementation plan, and for review by the City Attorney. The
implementation plan and attorney's comments should then be returned to the Planning
Commission for review prior to holding a public hearing. Motion carried unanimously.
The Commission suggested that all the documents be cleaned up by removing the strikeouts and
underlining.
The Commission requested that staff have the implementation plan and City Attorney's comments
available for review at the July workshop meeting.
CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT.
Councilmember Jensen reviewed the City Council Meeting Minutes of June 14, 1994.
4
Planning Commission Minutes
June 27, 1994
Hanus asked if the City Attorney could provide an opinion relating to a recent case decided by the
U.S. Supreme Court relating to municipalities exacting land dedications from developers. Jensen
stated that she will check with the attorney.
MOTION made by Voss, seconded by Mueller, to adjourn the meeting at 10:08 p.m.
Motion carried unanimously.
Acting Vice-Chair, Frank Weiland
Attest:
5
June 30, 199~,
Joan Growe
Secretary of State
180 State Office Building
St. Paul, MN 55155
Joan: Re: Election Judge Training Video
A committee of metro area city clerks and election officials have been working for the past 18
months on an optical scan election judge training video. The project has been completed and our
video will be released July 15. The Elections Division of the Secretary of State's office has been
aware of this project for some time.
We are concerned about a duplication of effort. We believe sharing information, time, money, talent,
and expertise ia the best way to keep taxpayers' costs down. Therefore, we were concerned and
surprised to see a new training video presented by the Elections Division at the Secretary of State°s
election training in June. We were especially shocked to see the title of their video was exactly the
same as oursl
Our committee's goals are the same as yours - a good instructional product. If we had pooled our
resources and talent, the final product could have included both the general content in the State's
video and the specific content outlined in ours.
Local election administrators are your direct link to election iudges and ultimately, the voters. We
hope you recognize this important link. Collaboration and interagency cooperation is the key to the
successful conduct of elections in the state. We, through the Minnesota Clerks and Finance Officers
Association, have been actively pursuing a better working relationship with your office for the past
two years.
The Committee would like to meet w{th you to discuss better ways of working together. Please call
Joyce Mercil at 673-2073.
Sincerely,
The Election Judge Training Video Committee
Laurie Ahrens - Plymouth
Fran Clark- Mound
Tom Ferber - Richfield
Darlene George - Crystal
Cathy Iago - Cottage Grove
Nancy Iverson - Maple Grove
Myrna Maikkula -Broo. klyn Park
Jo¥ce Mercil - Minneapolis
Shirley Nelson - Golden Valley
Sue Olesen - Burnsville
Liz Wilt - Eagan
July 9, 1994
To: Peggy James and Park Commissioners
JUL 111
"'1 12"I] JUL 1 3
From: Tom Casey
Re: Park and Open Space Commission agenda - July 14, 1994
Pelican Point Referendum
I will be attending the 14th North American Prairie
Conference in Manhattan, Kansas during the week of July 10-17
and, therefore, unable to attend our July, 1994 POSC meeting.
Because the preliminary plat for Pelican Point has been
approved by the City Council, it is important to move quickly
to put the referendum on the November general election
ballot. Therefore, I have the enclosed the following
materials along with this memo in the July agenda packet for
your consideration and action:
1. Proposed referendum (with accompanying numbers)
2. "A Public Nature Area Is For Everyone - and Forever"
(St. Paul Pioneer Press - 6/5/94)
3. "The Greening of the Suburbs" (Wayzata Weekly News -
5/26/94)
4. "Woodbury OKs Bond Issue For Park Improvement"
(Mpls. Star/Tribune - 5/7/94)
5. "Parks Or Prisons? Fighting Crime With Green Space"
(Mpls. Star/Tribune - 6/13/94)
6. Metro Region Forest Management Plan - Summary Report
pages 16-17 (Desired Future Conditions)
Some of the Park Commissioners have expressed opposition to
protecting Pelican Point from development. However, whether
they agree or disagree with protecting Pelican Point is no%
the issue. The object of the proposed referendum is to give
the citizens the choice of whether to preserve Mound's last
remaining undeveloped parcel of private land. To say it
another way, it would be presumptuous and undemocratic for
the POSC to deny the citizens of Mound the chance to vote on
this issue. (If any Park Commissioner opposes spending money
to protect Pelican Point, they have the same opportunity as
anyone else to vote against the referendum at the ballot
box.)
Thank you for your consideration.
cc: Park Commission Agenda 7-14-94
GEd Shukle,~ity Manager
RESOLUTION FOR REFERENDUM
WHEREAS, the Park and Recreation Section of Mound's
Comprehensive Plan states that Mound is presently 91%
developed and that the City of Mound should expand its
existing ownership of natural areas and open space;
WHEREAS, the citizens of Mound are concerned about the
loss of habitat throughout the world and recognize the need
for local efforts to protect and restore natural habitat; and
WHEREAS, Pelican Point will be lost forever to
development unless immediate steps are taken to acquire and
protect this property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Mound
Park and Open Space Commission requests that the Mound City
Council place the following question on the November 1994
general election ballot: '
"shall the Mound City Council issue general
obligation bonds in the amount of $1,240,000.00
for the purpose of acquiring Pelican Point in
perpetuity as park land.,,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in the event that the fair market
value of the property, costs of acquisition, bond costs, etc.
exceed the dollar amount above, the dollar amount shall be
amended to reflect a more accurate calculation.
tOo .
~0
000
ooooooooooooooo ,_o ,,
LU oooooo0ooooooooI ~ II
"~ I II
0
Il ! I I · il. n, t
~0
n-
~0
0
I
(/'J 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 Il
LLI 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 O0 0 0 i CD
II
0
Lt'" LI"I L'~ ILl
11 ! ! I I II I, I,
45
ill I I l, !1 !~, ,,
lights so the bar leagues can get in a doubleheader
after work.) i
Huge outlying parks are necessary, not only for the
nature appreciaters who can't afford a cabin up
north, but also as a way to preserve the environment,
Flyways, such as the land along the Mississippi Riv-
er, act as hotels/or songbirds and game birds when
they're migrating.
The great need for this park won't come for anoth-
er 20 ),ears, when Washington County likely will be
home to another 63,000 people. But now is the time to
start on this park. Most of the land is owned by one
private landholder and the Shiely Co., which mines
gravel on the island. Both are amenable to talking
about a long-term plan for selling the land to the
county. The legal hassles and expense can be kept to
a minimum if the' acquisition is started early.
Not everyone likes the idea of taking a huge piece
of beautifulland and saving it for a park ia the dis-
tant future. The most notable naysayers are the offi-
. cials of the surrounding towns. They don't want to
spend the money up front for a project that won't :
come to fruition for many years, and they hate the
thought of losing potential tax base. But development
costs public money, too -- ask any community that
has had to build roads', libraries, fire stations and --
schools to support the new houses. ·. ,
· Besides, the park plan asks only for Lower Grey
Cloud Island; Upper Grey Cloud Island to. the north.
would still be available for other uses.
And the metro~)olitan aYea will get plent~,~of devel.
opment in the next 20 )'ears. Let's hope we save
enough space so that families like mine who moved
here in the '80s and '90s can still find the beauty that
appealed to us in the first place. ' , .
-- In fact, th e-~-6p'l~-wh-6-w-ill 'a-bpF~-t~-' rOrOrOrOrOrOrOrOrg~ Cloud
Island Park most aren't even alive yet. I hope to take
my grandchildren there. ..
Debta O'Conn~' covers education and writes a Neighbors col.
oran that runs every Sunday. She also can be reached by com-
puter at ploneerdeb @aoi.com.
[1! i ! I, ,11 ~,
].
.- t :'.-' -',
v :'. ,.j.:
,.. ,.':;:, '
ia ,[ I I l, II ,n, a,
Wood.bUry'OKs'"
'bOnd' SSue'f°r.'?'
park improvement
Woodbury residents approved a $7.8
million park bond issue by a ,130-
votemargir~$aturday. ~ ?.".'?. : ! ;
';'~ ".~' ;'.',.i-' .' ..'~' "7'
The vote wa~' 2,033 1o'1,903 for the
;bonds, which'will pay for improving
,14 'neighborhoOd parks, buy more
park land'and develop an 80-acre
recreation complex with an ice arena-.
field house and soccer and ball fields,
Paying. 0ff*th¢ bonds will,increase
roperty'taxes on the average
125.000 home by almost $70 a year,
said Bob Klatt, park and recreation
-director., He said thc turnout of 23
· percent of YegislCred voters was good
for a referendum.- ; ,
Work wii'! start this year on the rec-
reation complex and icc arena, which
'will open in stages, starting in 1995,
Klatt said. · ~
J ! I I l. !1 .n,
· ,. , '~.~
' ' - ' '.' ,q,. .....' ~ ~.: "'~.~ -':9
,
'~H',~' s~flfing iaea
"Dick T~cy'~'s~p''a* fcT- d~
;that urban parks'fost'e~.crime,'
to
tho
cartoon detective, that'si beimuse park:..systerfis, Minneapolis and St.: Paul may
'trees and shrubbery giv~ ne'er-do-wells ~' 'b~ better eqU. ip~d in~ this reg/rd-than
1 ces from which ti5 leap out on ' --'most :American crees.-. But the trust
hid,.ing p .a .... , -..~.;.~r^~,.~,.j.:,.:,-~ m'e~g~'tha('thi~' nation ~eedslhund~'.;
unsuspccxmg. .pass.ers°Y'-. ':t' UClCtU!~" ' ':'""'t ::': of addiuonal xn~ ' ' '-' ~ '"" 'nei-~cit'¢, .-'par'ks has appn-
cording to Xracy, me. way t.o ma.ke,a ~,y :'"°,;,,n'even here '~ :.-:'": '~-;' ':'" 0'.
· {e is to ave over me par?,s. --/'. ,:':'. .... ,,~:;.v. ,. . ...: ;, ~,'; - .:: -:. - ·
sa p . . .,, . ;.-.'..':":..-..:.--:,:~:-,- -,...7.,:..,~;-.,- ,- fi.' - '-'.' --- ."
st for Public Land has a bette ..... . - -
.The Tru . ..' ..... · :-:' · · d Chairman Mark An--
idea: To fight urban 'crime, ..provide .,pm County Boar
' r~ ' arks ai~d'playgroiinds.--' draW' and others 'fori"a'jobs"and public-'.
more inne '_ty p ..... _,.:., ..,x;t,o aro~ram* to'make up for the ~ela-
rofit ~an rranc~sco-oaseo ,~ ,,,,,-,.- v e,- , · . ·
~hA nonp , , · ' ...... les and o n spaces m
: · '. ' v I '- txve.lack of par . pc . .
'conse~axion group a~ues..pe~uas.x .e:~ '.':,~,q}c .uiii~ehrmlii-compared to~ the
n~w re ri that crime can De sxgntx~ .,: ,.,,;.? ---_ ~- - ' ' "13 en
in a po, · .-* ' ' -- '-,- --,;- ~';',';~,, s lAke-studded southern nalL; y .
educeo when cities provmc au~-; ...-1 . , . '
ica.ntly r . ... . ._,__.~ ...:.~.~.,. '- hanci'nlt th~.north s" s'upply of greenery
,quMe aha well-malntamcu n~tpt,.,,.,--.. ,-
hood parks and, recreation facilities:'.-, .-.::'. andstrengttien:' play- space,"the areaPr°p°nentS'bverall' aS a hope. place tOin
, - ~-'~ '.-"!. _ . '."..'?.= ', ",'r; -"
- 'Ph0enix~'.:~izi', for examplc, ~xi~eri- , which i° live. A feasibility report On the
~need a' 55 pe. rcent decreas~'iri rep°rted'=-' idea is exi>ect d to be-released later this
month~ -' .',: --; ?,:; /5 ::-' -J:".' "- '- .' .'
ju~Tenile crime after the summer el°sing i, ¢'
tin~ for recreational facilities was.' ex- . .:" ":':':~'-. 7::;. i .'-;~-' "---' '-'*-:.'-"
'~en&d to 2 a,m, In a' philadelphia pre-' With 'itS focus- on crime-ftghtih~, the
- i:ibct;', crimi~.droppcd' 90 'pcreent"afterv'' TrUst.for .Public Land. rePOt! ~m. akes a_
'police helped'plant gai-dens ahd':clean ' riarrow~r'''case for urban ~rks and rec-
...... -'---~ :-'~0,-~ M,,ers, Fla ,-.'.reation facilities. But eve..n in that limit,~
~p vacanl io~. ~uu u.t ~ ~, -. ~ * ? ~ ·
juvenile'arrests ch-opped by almost one-.."-: ed context, the arguments are'compct
tiff rd' afteff'!he city began. a youth' iaea-, '"" h,'ng, i" 7-L :=;'xi:?.i: .: ..::': .,.'~i 'i,,_ ': .'.""
i!.e~mcs and recreatton_ pr.o_,gra.m: ....... · ..The t~st's .report .refutes Republican
~ -~-i-- ':...'.' . '" ....... ' ' ' t
One 'ob .rio_us ..reason for' SuCh results 'is. -.,' cgmplaints '. tha money,.earmarked in
noun slers' wh6'cbristitute 'a ": congressional 'crime., bills 'for: midnight'
thaI-whe. . - ¥ g - " ' m' '" basketball' 'le'ag'ues'and '0ther"re~eafion- '.
majo,/part ofthe urban crime proble ........ ,, ,__ ,_:,. -. __. _=._.:,
havean alterfiati-Ve-wa~ ~o expend time'-~-? p~rograms womo oe uctt. er spent
- - e x~/iie sta o~i't of trouble, But '? on cells. "The-truth is :the other.way
pnd.en rg¥, . ~y ,. Y - · ,: ,--,: ...... :?"'d~'oahd: iffhiany cases,-'money spent on.
'- as the Philadeipma exampte xnm~c~,: ..-- ·
}:leanup .and beautification' of urban' .=:.parkS'is money thati~W0n't have to be
spaces can have a positive,impact as':-.spcnt.onpi-isoncells,' ;'*;' .- .' . .
. .... ................... . .... : ..::.: .-:: ............ !-_/..i i:i'-_ _'. :_.' .'-
1! ! ! I a, ,il s, a,
Metro Region Forest Resource Management Plan - Summary Report
DESIRED FUTURE CONDITIONS
Imagine the Twbt CRies metropolitan
area of the future. The desired future
conditions (DFC's) describe a vision for the
Metro Region forests .at some point bt the
fitture. Ute DFC's in thi~ platt represent the
collective thoughts of all those who were
bn,olved in the planning process.
ACROSS THE REGION
Throughout the Region, thriving
human communities are interwoven with
natural area open space which work
together in an ecologically sustainable
pattern. Extensive use of well-managed
native and cultivated vegetation have
improved air and water quality, have
increased wildlife, have effectively
eliminated the urban heat island, and
contribute significantly to the quality of life.
All areas providing habitat for
endangered and threatened species,
wetlands, and significant examples of
remnant natural communities are being
preserved and protected as special
management areas in public or private
ownership.
Major river corridors mostly
resemble pre-settlement conditions of native
bottomland forest interwoven with prairie,
wetlands, and wooded ravines and bluffs.
Together with some undeveloped secondary
streams, these riparian corridors connect
special management areas.
Buffer strips are retained along
environmentally sensitive areas such as
lakes, bluffs, steep slopes, streams, rivers,
rare communities and special management
areas.
Biological communities suitable for
permanent retention have been designated
as natural area open space. Open spaces
are being actively managed to help natural
processes, such as the hydrologic system,
function without impediment and to
preserve ecological communities.
Abandoned railways have been
converted to trails and open space. All
residents live within walking or biking
distance of a regional park or natural area
open space.
The water quality of area lakes and
wetlands is excellent. Stormwater runoff is
not polluted with sediment from erosion or
from the use of fertilizers or pesticides.
Wood waste from removed trees is
utilized for fuel, mulch, lumber and pallet
material. Landfills are no longer used for
dumping wood waste. Property owners
leave many dead trees standing, when not
hazardous, to pro,,Sde habitat for birds and
other wildlife.
Tree losses from insects, diseases,
and fires have been lowered to .5% to 1%
per year.
URBAN AND DEVELOPING AREAS
The developed areas of the Metro
Region have a dense tree canopy cover of
over 50%. In addition, valuable open areas
including lakes, wetlands, and prairie
abound. The tree cover varies throughout
each community, with limited interruptions
from large buildings, parking lots and utility
lines. The dense canopy shelters homes in
the winter, cools the cities in the summer,
provides habitat for a variety of birds and
16
other wildlife, and contributes to property
value.
a A minimum of 10% of the urban
rea is kept in natural area open space land
including large patches of restored native
forests, wetlands, and prairies. Housing
developments are clustered and interlaced
with corridors of natural habitat.
Trees have been strategically placed
around homes and small commercial and
institutional buildings to max/mize summer
shade, to minimize winter shade, and to
reduce winter ,,,,finds in order to conserve
energy. Some outlying subdMsions and
communities have large shelterbelts, planted
to the west and north to protect the
neighborhoods from winter winds.
Attractive yards and properties
designed to function like native plant
communities have replaced much of the
high maintenance turfgrass, Vegetation
consists of carefully designed plantings of
trees, shrubs and other plants which
increase biological diversity and contribute
to a healthy ecosystem. Plantings are
typically mulched to encourage an active
humus layer and reduce maintenance.
Mowed tuffgrass is used selectively to
demonstrate care for the landscape and
allow for recreational activities. Noxious
weeds and plants are controlled.
Native trees and shrubs, from local
seed sources best adapted to the local
environment, have been planted wherever
site conditions are appropriate. Introduced
species have been planted where site
conditions limit the use of native species.
Each community has planted no more than
10-15% of any one species of tree and no
more than 5% of any single cultivar. A mix
of ages of trees (about 10% of each ten
year age class) thrive in every community.
Having diversity in the type and ages of
trees has dramatically reduced the
occurrence of disease and insect problems
and provides habitat for a variety of birds
and other urban wildlife species.
Development in wooded areas
preser,,'es 60% of the trees maintaining a
70% tree canopy cover in residential areas.
RURAL FORESTS AND
UNDEVELOPED LAND
17
Rural forests continue to contribute
substantially to the environmental quality
and economic vitality of the Region.
Thoughtful forest preservation,
reforestation, and management have
resulted in unique systems of thriving forests
in each of the regional landscapes. The
forest species planted and the management
practices used to sustain the forests are so
well-suited to site conditions that the
benefits of these forests are optimized.
The rural forests in the Region are
managed primarily for wildlife, aesthetic and
recreational values. Rural woodlots have
been reserved and are being managed to
have a variety of mostly native species and
a good mix of ages. Native forest plant
communities and working timber stands
have been re-established where new forest
cover is needed and on marginal
agricultural lands. A diversity in the type
and ages of trees has increased forest health
and provides habitat for a range of wildlife
species.
Several large tracts of land have
been established as regional forest
preserves. Many tracts of rural forestland
have been purchased for environmental
educational purposes.
All farms have implemented
complete soil and water conservation plans.
All farmsteads have shelterbelts and field
windbreaks along with strategic shade trees.
Wood products come mostly from
thinning operations. Wood from the
thinning or har,,'est of rural forests is utilized
for fuel, chips for mulch, lumber and pallet
1! ! I ! I, n ,n, n
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
May 9, 1994
TO: PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION
FROM: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER~''~
SUBJECT: BOND REFERENDUM - ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR PARK PURPOSES
In reviewing the Park and Open Space Commission Minutes of April 14, 1994, and
subsequently discussing the matter with the City Council, it is at the City Council's
direction that I contact you regarding your request to have a bond issue during the
General Election to be held in November 1994.
As I read the Minutes of the April 14, 1994 meeting, it appears that the motion that
was passed was intended to have a question on the ballot in order to poll the
community on whether they were interested in authorizing city funds, through the
levying of additional taxes, to pay for acquisition of land for park purposes. Upon
reading this information, the City Council asked the city attorney if such a question
can be asked on a ballot. The city attorney responded that Minnesota law does not
permit the city to hold an election of an advisory nature. It is improper and illegal.
The City Council does have the authority to hold a special election or place a question
on a ballot. The City Council is not going to do so based upon there being no
information, no program or study that really develops the issue to the point where the
City Council can realistically ask voters to spend x dollars on a project. The City
Council is not in the position to go forward on any type of an election because there
hasn't been any type of a program developed with regard to the purchasing of
additional lands for park purposes.
Hopefully, this will clarify the City Council's position on this matter. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
ES:Is
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Eurasian Water Milfoil Task Force
Agenda
8:30 am, Friday, July 15, 1994
Conference Rm. 135, Norwest Bank Bldg., Wayzata
Introductions, Chair Tom Penn
Review, accept/amend minutes of 6/10/94 meeting;
LMCD milfoil harvest report, Project Mgr Todd Grams;
a. Harvest progress since June 20 start date following
operator training from June 13-17;
b. Overview of milfoil growth being found in the lake
this year compared to 1993;
c. Forecast for harvesting as the season continues;
d. Experience in fragment clean-up at public accesses;
e. Results of herbicide treatment at public accesses;
MN DNR report, Chip Welling:
a. Garlon 3A (triclopyr) update on test treatment in
Phelps and Carsons Bays with Carmans Bay control site
b. Sonar (fluridone) update on test treatment in East
Parkers and Lake Zumbra;
c. New milfoil sightings among lakes throughout the
state, and/or progress for control among infested
lakes.
d. Additional milfoil control priorities;
Zebra Mussel and Exotics Action Plan Subcommittee report
per meeting of 6/15/94 and agenda items for Wednesday,
July 20 meeting (proposed agenda items):
a. Zebra Mussel Draft Control Plan update on progress;
b. Transportation survey on movement of boats;
c. Survival rate studies of zebra mussel larvae
(veligers) in boat bilge/wet wells;
d. LMCD staff report on DNR opening of three public
accesses on.Mississippi River in light of zebra
mussel presence and threat of spread by boats;
6. Weed puller harvester development progress, LMLOA report
7. Lake association reports;
8. Hennepin Parks update;
9. Additional business;
10. Next meeting (August 12) and adjourn;
FRI, 1ST
SAT, 2ND
SUN, 3RD
MON, 4TH
TUE, 5TH
WED, 6TH
.~HU, 7TH
~'RI, 8TH
SAT, 9TH
SUN, 10TH
TUE, 12TH
WED, 13TH
THU, 14TH
GAT, 16TH
SUN, 17TH
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
JULY 1994 LAKE MINNETONKA EVENT CALENDAR (Revised)
9:00 AM MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
10:00 AM
2:00 PM
2:00 PM
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake area
10:00 AM
10:30 AM
5:30 PM
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, West Upper Lake Area
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
10:15 PM
6:00 PM
6:30 PM
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area
Excelsior Chamber of Commerce Fireworks, Exc Bay
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area
6:00 PM
6:00 PM
6:30 PM
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
Wednesday Evening Bassin', Goose Island
UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area
6:15 PM WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
10:00 AM MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
6:00 AM
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
2:00 PM
2:00 PM
Limited Bass Predator Classic, Exc. Park Tavern
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
WYC Sailboat Race, Big Island
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, West Upper Lake Area
10:00 AM
10:30 AM
11:00 AM
1:30 PM
5:30 PM
MYC Sailbqat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area
SYC Sailboat Race, Big Island
WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
6:00 PM MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
6:30 PM UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area
6:00 PM
6:00 PM
6:30 PM
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
Wednesday Evening Bassin', Goose Island
UMYC Sailboat Race, West Upper Lake Area
6:15 PM WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
10:00 AM WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
2:00 PM UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area
10:00 AM
10:30 AM
5:30 PM
WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
JULY 1994 LAKE MINNETONKA EVENT CALENDAR, Paq~ ~ (Revised)
TUE, 19TH
WED, 20TH
6:00 PM
5:00 PM
6:00 PM
6:30 PM
UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area
Wednesday Evening Bassin', Mtka Boat Works
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area
THU, 21ST
FRI, 22ND
6:15 PM
6:00 PM
6:30 PM
WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, West Upper Lake Area
SAT, 23RD
6:00 AM
9:30 AM
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
2:00 PM
2:00 PM
Wednesday Evening Bassin',Goose Is/Exc Park Tavern
MYC Sailboat Race, Big Island East
WYC Sailboat Race, Big Island
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, West Upper Lake Area
SUN, 24TH
7:00 AM
10:00 AM
10:30 AM
11:00 AM
1:30 PM
5:30 PM
Westonka MDA Brighter Light Bass Open/Exc Park Tav
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, West Upper Lake Area
SYC sailboat Race, Big Island
WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MON, 25TH
TUE, 26TH
6:00 PM
6:00 PM
MYC sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area
WED, 27TH
5:00 PM Wednesday Evening Bassin' Goose Island
6:00 PM MYC sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
THU, 28TH
SAT, 30TH
6:15 PM
10:00 AM
10:00 AM
11:00 AM
2:00 PM
2:00 PM
6:00 PM
WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
WYC Sailboat Race, Wayzata Bay
SYC sailboat Race, Big Island
MYC sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, East Upper Lake Area
WYC Sailboat Race, Wayzata Bay
SUN, 31ST
10:00 AM
10:30 AM
11:00 AM
1:30 PM
5:30 PM
MYC sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
UMYC Sailboat Race, West Upper Lake Area'
SYC sailboat Race, Big Island
WYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
MYC Sailboat Race, Main Lower Lake
7/6/94
]OPIED FROM JULY ISSUE
OF MANAGING
..... Fo
O~TC~
WHAT DO WE PAY THESE FOLKS FOR?
SOMEBODY TELL ME NOW!
Just when some elected local official got
caught doing something reprehensible
and y~u thought you'd seen the bottom
of the barrel, Congress goes it one better.
Here's the deal (and quite a deal it is, too):
You know all those labor laws that place
employers in the private sector at liability:.
The Americans with Disabilities Act, the
Civil Rights Act, the Equal Employment Op-
portunity Act, the Occupational Safety and
Health Act, and the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act? Believe this: Those same
statutes that are being strongly imposed on
busine~,es do not app/y to Congress, What's
more, an amendment making Congressper-
sons and their top aides personally liable for
discrimination claims fried by staffers is be-
ing opposed by key iegislator~
Wl~t's curious is that the people making
the laws see themselves as above compliance
with those laws. Says Michael R. Losey,
SI'HR, p~ident and CEO of the Society for
Human Resource Management ($HRM) and
a longfime MANAGING OFFICE TECItNOL*
OGY columni~ "It's an issue of practicality.
Congressional coverage [by these laws]
would provide for sound public policy and
provide Congress with immediate feedback
about how their laws work in the real world."
Among the opposition are House Speaker
Tom Foley, l)*Wash., and Rep. Charlie Reose,
D-N.C. Foley offered this explanation (and
notJting more) in a .ROLL (:ALL (a Congres*
sio~ publication which updates readers on
the status of bills) article: "I'm opposed to
that, I have alwa~ been opposed to th~ and
I will continue to be opposed to that." Well,
tha~ ~ dear, at least.
8HRM notes that the Post Ot~ce and CMl
Service Committee is considering the issue.
The chair, Rep. Bill Clay, D-Pa., supports cov-
erage for House staffers under the ADA, CMl
Rights Act, and Age Discrimination in Em*
ployment Act. The Federal Employee Fair*
nessAct, H.R. 2721, is aimed at improvingthe
review of discrimination claims filed by fed*
er'al workers, and was recently amended by
Rep. W'dllam F. Goodling, I~-P~., to allow Con*
gressio~ a~ffers to take theft complaints to
co~ and hold Congressional members and
their top aides liable for up to $50,000 in pu*
nJtive dm-~ge~
SHRM strongly supports Goodling's pro-
posal. 'q'nis is the first time that meaningful
Congressional coverage has been passed by a
committee," Losey note~
Foley doesn't believe members of
Congress are like private-sector managers
because, he says, Congressional staff mem-
bets are more likely to file lawsuits to gain
political ground. But here's the kicker. Foley
would rather have taxpayers foot the bill for
damages paid to staffers from public funds.
Hmmm...have taxpayers foot the bill. Now
where have we heard that before?
Losey disagrees with Foley's position.
'qqmt's punishing the wrong people and pro-
vides no incentive for Congressional mem-
bers to really understand the law, not to men-
tion obey the law."
Congress is considering coverage as part
of overall Congressional reform being consid-
ered this year. However, questions remain
about the strength of coverage being consid-
ered. For example, will the penalties be the
same for private-sector employers and for
Congress?
fi, say, the m~ine's readers had to pay
for my discriminatory acts, what would that
teach me about obeying the law or the reason
for discrimination laws in the first place?
Nothir~ What's more, you wouldn't be very
happy about having to pay for my non-com-
pliance with the law while you have to com-
ply with it--and you'd be right.
Are you angry yet? Call your Representa-
tive(s) and complain. Write them a letter.
Send them a fax. That's why they're there.
Then write or fax me (216/696-7648) and tell
me what response you received, or if you got
a response.
Shouldn% our ruling bodies be exemplary
in compliance with the laws they set? And
shouldn% the offending individuals have per-
sonal liability for their lapses in legal compli-
ance? Sounds reasonable enough to me. ·
LURA K. ROMB
I:
II ! I I II 1, I
MINNESOTA ELECTION LAWS - 1991
county agency shall assist applicants and recipients in completing the voter registration
cards, as needed. Applicants must be informed that completion of the cards is optional.
Completed forms shall be collected by agency employees and submitted to proper election
officials.
History: 1988 c 689 art 2 s 136
275.60 LEVY OR BOND REFERENDUM; BALLOT NOTICE.
Notwithstanding any general or special law or any charter provisions, any question
submitted to the voters by any local governmental subdivision at a general or special
election after the day of final enactment, authorizing a property tax levy or tax rate increase,
including the issuance of debt obligations payable including the issuance of debt obligations
payable in whole or in part from property taxes, must include on the ballot the following
notice in boldface type.
"~By VOTIN__.__G "YES" ON THIS B~_.~LOT QUESTION, YOU ARE VOTING FOR A
PROPE_~.~~REASE..
For purposes of this section and section 275.61, "local governmental subdivision"
includes counties, home rule and statutory cities, towns, school districts, and all special
taxing districts. This statement is in addition to any general or special laws or any charter
provisions that govern the contents of a ballot question.
This section does not apply to a school district bond election if the debt service payments
are to be made entirely from transfers of revenue from the capital fund to the debt service
fund.
History: 1991 c 291 art 1 s 28
289A.08 FILING REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIVIDUAL INCOME, FIDUCIARY
INCOME, CORPORATE FRANCHISE, MINING COMPANY, AND ENTER-
TAINMENT TAXES.
Subd. 14. Voter registration form. The commissioner shall insert securely in the
individual income tax return form or instruction booklet distributed for an odd-numbered
year a voter registration form, returnable to the secretary of state.
The form shall be designed according to rules adopted by the secretary of state. This
requirement applies to forms and booklets supplied to post offices, banks, and other outlets,
as well as to those mailed directly to taxpayers.
s 3Hist°ry: 1990 c 480 art 1 s 3,46; art 5 s 4,5; 1990 c 604 art 10 s 23; 1991 c 291 art 11
351.01 RESIGNATIONS.
Subdivision 1. To whom made. Resignations shaH be made in writing signed by the
resigning officer:.
(1) By incumbents of elective offices, to the officer authorized by law to fill a vacancy
in such office by appointment, or to order a special election to fill the vacancy; (2) By
appointive officers, to the body, board, or officer appointing them, unless otherwise
specially provided.
Subd. 2. When effective. Except as provided by subdivision 3 or other express provision
of law or charter to the contrary, a resignation is effective when it is received by the officer,
body, or board authorized to receive it.
Subd. 3. Contingent resignations prohibited; exception. (a) Except as provided in
paragraph Co), no resignation may be made to take effect upon the occurrence of a future
contingency. Statements explaining the reasons for a resignation must not be considered
to be contingencies unless expressly stated as contingencies.
(b) A resignation may be made expressly to take effect at a stated future date. Unless it
is withdrawn as provided under subdivision 4, a resignation is effective at 12:01 a.m. on
the stated date.
RELATED LAWS - 8
HANDBOOK FOR MINNESOTA CITIES
Two, the proposed bond Issue should be
part of a long-term capltal Improvement
plan for the city. This plan is a study
showing the capltal expenditures which
the city will need In future years, the
probable dates when the cry will need
them, their estimated cost, their priority
when compared with other needed expen-
ditures, the continuing operating and
maintenance cost burdens which they will
add to the annual city budget, and the
probable availability of funds to pay for
them.
Every cry should have such a plan and
should update It annually. Different
capital expenditures obviously have a
different priority for the city as a whole.
and only ff a proposed bond Issue is
evaluated In terms of the long-term capital
needs of the city can the council feel
assured that some higher priority project
would not be unwisely postponed because
of the program under consideration. This
particular planning step helps to assure
maximum long-range benefit for the ctty
from each dollar the city spends In servic-
Ing and repaying the proposed debt.
Three, the council should clear the
proposal with the long-range financial
plan of the city, giving consideration to
such questions as: Will the taxes the cry
levies to service the debt Impose too great
a burden on cry taxpayers in future
years? Will the necessary taxes prevent
other, more Important tax levies tn future
years? Will the proposed bond Issue
seriously Impair the city credit rating by
causing a higher rate of interest on future
bond Issues or by using up too great a
percentage of the city's borrowing capac-
Ity? Planning of thts nature should deter°
mine whether the proposed bond Issue
will financially harm the cry In the future.
If, after this planning Is complete, the
council decides to Issue the bonds, It
must pass a resolution stating Its Intent,
the amount to be borrowed, and the
purpose of the Issue.3° The resolution
should also provide for an election on the
Issue If necessary.
Election Requirements
Most bond Issues must receive the
approval of the voters. The exceptions
a.]~:3i
· Bonds the city issued to pay any
unpaid Judgment against the city;
· Bond Issues to refund other bonds:
· Bonds that are payable wholly or
partly from the proceeds of special
assessments. Including bonds
guaranteed by the full faith and credit
of the city (this exception does not
apply ff less than 20 percent of the
city's cost of the improvement comes
from the special assessments);~
· Bonds that are repayable wholly from
the Income of revenue-producing
facilities; or
· Bonds the city issued under the
provisions of a law permitting the
issuance of obligations without an
election,
When an election Is necessary, the city
must conduct it in the same manner as
any other election. The question may go to
the voters at either a general or special
election. The city must follow notice
requirements In the law, and must also
state the maximum amount and the
purpose of the proposed bond issue in the
notice. Voters must vote separately on
each purpose for which the city is plan-
ning to issue the bonds, h~e~c.t_[0n_~i~.,
Invalid when a slngl_e__questl0n Includes
two separate purposes for voter consider-
a-U6n. For example. It would be Improper
to submit a proposal to issue bonds for
the construction of a city hall and the
acquisition of a power and light utility in a
single election quesUon,a3
If the voters reject a bond Issue. the
council may not resubmit the question of
authorizing the obligations for the same
purpose and in the same amount within a
period of 180 days from the date of the
election. If the council submits a question
a second time after 180 days and voters
do not approve It. the council may not
submit the exact same question for at
least one year after the second election.34
Negotiating the Actual Sale
With four exceptions, cities must sell all
bonds publicly through either competitive
bidding or public subscription? These
exceptions are:
· Bonds and obligations a city issues
under laws specifically authorizing a
different method of sale;
· Bonds and obllgaUons a city sens In
an amount not exceeding $1.200.000
In any 12-month period: