1998-10-13 AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
TU~DAY~ OCTOBER 13, 1998, "/:30 PM
MOUND CITY COUNCIL CltAMBERS
*Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and
will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember
or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in
normal sequence.
1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
PAGE
PRESENTATION OF CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION TO WAYNE TERWILLIGER,
FOR HIS 50 YEARS OF INVOLVEMENT IN BASEBALL.
3. APPROVE AGENDA.
4. *CONSENT AGENDA
*A.
*B.
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 8, 1998,
REGULAR MEETING ...................................
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 22, 1998,
REGULAR MEETING ...................................
3893-3900
3901-3913
*C.
CASE 98-57: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD & SIDE YARD SETBACKS TO
CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE, JOHN RICHARDSON,
4724 HANOVER ROAD, LOTS 14 & 15, BLOCK 5, DEVON,
PID 30-117-23 22 0038 ...................................
3914-3936
*D.
CASE 98-53: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A THREE
SEASON PORCH, SCOTF KEMPF, 2207 CENTERVIEW LANE, LOT 18 AND
PART OF 15, BLOCK 6, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO
LAKF~IDE PARK, PID 13-117-24 34 0006 ....................... 3937-3955
*E.
APPROVE EXTENSION OF RESOLUTION 97-100, RALPH BAUER,
1774 HERON LANE, PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT - PROPOSED
EXTENSION TO JUNE 1, 1999 .............................. 3956-3958
*F. PAYMENT OF BILLS .................................... 3959-3984
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
-DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS
(AMOUNT TO BE HANDEDOUT
TUESDAY) ....................... 3985-4000
-CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING PROGRAM ................. 4001-4003
3891
EXECUTIVE SESSION; WOODLAND POINT
BID AWARD:. LOST LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ...............
10.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRE~ENT.
D~- FALL LEAF DROPOFF ..........................
RECOMMENDATION FROM PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE:
COMMISSION VACANCY. (INTERVIEWS ARE BEING CONDUCTED AT THE
10/8/98 POSC MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION WILL BE PROVIDED AT
MEETING TUESDAY EVENING).
4~7-4~8
11.
iNFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
A. Department Head Monthly Reports for September 1998 ................ 4009-4033
B. LMCD Notice regarding cancellation of upcoming meetings ................. 4034
C. Dock and Commons Advisory Commission Minutes of September 17, 1998 .... 4035-4043
D. .REMINDER: Committee of the Whole Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, October 20,
1998, 7:30 p.m. Primary agenda item is the proposed 1999 Budget.
Please bring your budget copies with you to the meeting.
E. REMINDER: WCCB Meeting is scheduled for Thursday, October 15, 1998, 5:30 p.m.,
Mound City Hall.
F. ~ER: HRA MEETING HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED FROM OCTOBER
13, 1998 TO OCTOBER 27, 1998, 7 P.M., MOUND CITY HALL.
G. Information from the Suburban Rate Authority (SRA) regarding the upcoming meeting
scheduled for Wednesday, october 21, 1998, Burnsville Community Center. Council-
member Hanus is the City of Mound delegate to the SRA ............... 4044-4055
H. Application from Carl Erickson, 3087 Alexander Lane, re: Vacancy on the Dock and
Commons Advisory Commission. Interviews for the vacancy will be conducted
at the next meeting of the Commission which is scheduled for Thursday, October
15, 1998, 7:30 p.m. You are invited to attend the interview ............. 4056-4058
3892
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, September 8, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road,
in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, and
Leah Weycker. Councilmember Liz Jensen was absent and excused. Also in attendance were:
City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, City Clerk Fran Clark, Finance
Director Gino Businaro, Park Director Jim Fackler, and the following interested citizens: John
Quist, Paul Haik, Dennis & Carolyn Leininger, Mark & Gina Smith, John Eccles, Dale Becker,
Lorell Becket, Timothy Becker, Gene Smith, Bob & Connie Schmidt, Becky Cheme, Greg
Knutson, Gretchen Smith, and Pat Meisel.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of
Allegiance was recited.
*~_~q__rg_Ag.L_n~: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by
the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed
from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
The Mayor stated there is one Add-on to the Consent Agenda. It is the appointment
of Election Judges.
1.0
APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed
and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent
Agenda has been approved.
1.1
*CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus to approve the Consent Agenda, as
amended. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
'1.2
APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 25, 1998 REGULAR MEETING
MOTION
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
'1.3
APPROVAL OF RFSOLUTION 98- RF~qOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION
OF A GRANT AGREEMENT REGARDING HAZARDOUS MATERIAl3;
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANT.
RESOLUTION g98-96 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF
GRANT AGREEMENT
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
MOt]ND CITY COt]NCR, MINUTES- SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
The Council discussed amending Resolution/D8-74, under the Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved,
to read as follows:
"1.
The City does hereby grant a 2 foot front yard setback , 1.8 foot side yard
setback variances for the garage and a 5.4 foot side yard setback (North), .9 foot
side yard setback (South) variances for the House for the purposes of
additio "':'~'
constructing a conforming porch n
A
The City Attorney suggested that if the City does not want some kind of an instrument that
perpetuates the sidewalk being located where it is, then the City Council might want to consider
allowing that sidewalk to remain in place until such time as the neighbor wants it removed from
his property.
Councilmember Hanus asked if the Council recognizes the variance for the sidewalk, is the City
approving the use of the neighbors property? The City Attorney stated no, that the variance only
pertains to the Leininger's property.
The Council discussed the past policy of requiring structures to be removed from a neighbor's
property.
The City Attorney suggested adding a number ?. to the proposed amendment as follows:
7. This action shall not be construed as having creat .q,d or granted the applicant any
rights with respect to Lots 4 and 6.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to reconsider Resolution g98-74.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Polston moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION g98-98
RESOLUTION TO AME~ RESOLUTION g98-74 AS
PROPOSED
The vote was unanimously 4 in favor, with Jensen voting nay. Motion carded.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT.
1.10 Mr. Paul Haik, attorney representing the Beckers who owns two lots on Three Points
Blvd., requested that the City write a letter to the Minnebaha Creek Watershed District stating
that the City does not have a problem with MCWD holding a public hearing on a flood plain
issue.
4
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 8, 1~8
The City Manager stated that there is a concern by the Staff that this property may be a
wetlands. The City Engineer's office has reviewed this and believes that it is and has asked the
Beckers to provide some information relative to delineating the wetlands and until that comes
back he does not want to issue the letter they are looking for.
Mr. Haik stated that he submitted an exemption application to the City Staff on Friday,
September 4th.
The City Attorney stated Mr. LeFevere of his firm spoke to the City Manager this afternoon and
suggested that, although the request for the letter in many ways makes good sense, but that it
is his recommendation that the letter be withheld for the time being. This will give the Staff
time to explore in more detail with the Watershed District, the background on this particular
matter. He did not feel this would be an extensive period of time. The Council agreed.
After discussion the Council suggested that Mr. Haik and the Beckers meet with the Staff and
provide the necessary information relative to the wetlands issue.
No action was taken.
C
C~
1.11 RECONSIDERATION OF CITY COUNCIL'S PREVIOUS ACTION RE:
RELOCATION OF DOCK SITE//41866.
The City Manager explained that at the Special Council Meeting, August 18, 1998, an item was
added to the Agenda, relative to a dock site that had been applied for by a nonabutting property
owner on Devon Common. The Park Director has submitted a memo to the Council outlining
the result of trying to implement the Council's action. It was Fackler's understanding that the
action was based upon no one having to move their docks and as it turns out, docks would have
to be moved. The City Manager stated that it is the Staff's opinion that the action taken at that
meeting is no longer in sink with what the system has. Staff is asking for direction from the
City Council on whether the Council wants this dock within the system and if so, is it to remain
in that location?
The Park Director advised the Council that he has contacted Mr. Albrecht and at this time he
wants to retain the site that he originally had which is closer to his house. His only suggestion
is that due to the constraints on the site during this season, he would like to see the fees from
1998 go toward his 1999 permit.
The Park Director explained that Albrecht was originally assigned to Dock Site #41866, which
is the site he would like to keep. At the August 18th Special Meeting, there was an attempt to
move Mr. Albrecht to Dock Site #41775. Mr. Albrecht does not want to be moved. Because
of damage to the Commons from a storm this Spring, Mr. Albrecht has not been able to put in
his dock. The Park Director stated that all the docks in this area are somewhat off center and
have been put in at different angles.
Mr. Albrecht was not present, but has submitted a letter asking that Greg Knutson speak for him
at this meeting.
The Council asked if Mr. Albrecht wants to put in a dock this year. Mr. Knutson stated that
Albrecht has paid for site, including late fees and would like to stay at #41866.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
The following persons spoke:
1. Mack
2. Anderson/Smith
The above persons spoke of the conflict in the neighborhood because of the dock situation. They
also do not want to move their docks. The neighbors expressed a desire to work this out in the
neighborhood by winter.
There was considerable discussion on centering the docks and installing the docks according to
the ordinance.
The residents asked about the action that was taken at the August 18th Special Meeting.
Councilmember Weycker stated the following: "I want to clarify that the motion made at the
August 18, 1998, Special Meeting is null and void. Site 2 technically does not exist now."
Councilmember Hanus stated, "I don't know that I agree with that."
The Council asked if the neighbors need additional time to work out a solution that will make
the neighborhood happy.
MOTION made byPolston, seconded by Hanus to do the following: 1. leave the docks where they currently are this year;
2. apply the 1998 fees that have been paid by Albrecht to the 1999
season; and
3. next year the applicants for this area will have to put their docks in
on center and according to the ordinance.
There was discussion on the neighborhood working this out by consensus.
The Mayor withdrew his motion.
The Council suggested that the neighborhood work this situation out by consensus.
No action was taken.
1.12 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 98- RFSOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAl,
LEVY FOR THE MOUND HOUSING AND REI~EVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
(HRA),
Jensen moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #98-99
RESOLUTION APPROVING A SPECIAL LEVY FOR
THE MOUND HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY (ltRA)
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
1.13
PRESENTATION OF 1999 PROPOSED BUDGET AND PREIJMINARY LEVY,
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 98- RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED
BUDGET AND PRELIMINARY LEVY AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARING
DATES,
The City Manager presented the proposed 1999 budget and preliminary levy.
Ahrens moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #98-100
RESOLUTION APPROVING PROPOSED BUDGET
AND PRELIMINARY LEVY AND SETTING PUBLIC
HEARING DATES
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
C~
C
ho
Department Head Monthly Reports for August 1998.
Notice from the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) and the Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities (AMM) regarding the 1998 Joint Metro Regional Meeting scheduled for
Thursday, September 24, 1998 at the Sheraton Metrodome Hotel. Please contact Fran
ASAP if you are interested in attending.
Letter from GTE regarding the proposed merger of GTE with Bell Atlantic.
REMINDER: Due to the fact that the Primary Election is scheduled for Tuesday,
September 15, I am recommending that the Committee of the Whole meeting be
canceled. Use of the Council Chambers and Conference Room will be taken up by the
election. In addition, public meetings are not to be held on election day.
REMINDER: The next WCCB meeting is scheduled for Thursday, September 24, 1998,
7:00 p.m., Mound City Hall.
REMINDER: The next Building Committee meeting for the Westonka Community
Center is scheduled for Tuesday, September 22, 1998, 7 a.m. - 9 a.m., Westonka
Community Center. The WCCB is specifically invited to attend this Building Committee
meeting to hear a presentation regarding the preliminary schematic design on the project
because the 9/24/98 WCCB agenda already has a number of issues on it for discussion.
I was contacted recently by a member of the Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District (MCWD) regarding the possible reorganization of the MCWD into
upper and lower watershed districts. There appears to be some interest in doing this
based upon the size and complexity that has been created in recent years. Two members
on the MCWD, both upper watershed members, are supporting such a change (Tom
Maple and Tom La Bounty). Enclosed is some background information about this idea.
It looks like a Mayor's meeting will be held later this month to discuss it further. In
addition, I have enclosed the MCWD proposed budget for 1999. It is in draft form and
will be discussed on Thursday, September 10,1998, 6:30 p.m., Minnetonka City Council
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINI]TES- SEPTEMBER 8, 1998
Chambers, Minnetonka Community Center.
REMINDER: lIRA MEETING, 7:00 P.M. SEPT. 8, 1998.
MOTION made by Weycker, seconded by Jensen to adjourn at 10:10 P.M.
vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carded.
The
Attest:
City Clerk
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 22, 1998
The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session
on Tuesday, September 22, 1998, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood
Road, in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Andrea Ahrens, Mark Hanus, Liz
Jensen, and Leah Weycker. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr.,
City Attorney John Dean, City Clerk Fran Clark, Building Official Jon Sutherland, Assistant
City Planner Loren Gordon and the following interested citizens: Garrett Lysiak, Scot
McKenzie, Michael Mueller, Pat & Irene Harrington, Keith Randklev, Steve Mangold, Greg
Robbins, Craig Gallop, Jim Strommen, Ron DeVinney, Michele Berglund, Dennis Hildebrandt,
Marry Woods, Pam Myers, Men'itt Geyen, Bob Abdo, and Jay Soule.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of
Allegiance was recited.
*Consent Agendac All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by
the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these
items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed
from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence.
Councilmember Weycker asked that Item F (Street Light Request) on the Consent Agenda be
removed.
Councilmember Jensen asked that Item A (Minutes of September 8, 1998) be removed.
The City Manager reported that there are two additions to the Consent Agenda as follows:
1. A Certificate of Recognition for Dr. Jim Byers.
2. Set Date for Public Hearings on Delinquent Utility Bills and the Central Business
District for Tuesday; October 13, 1998.
*CONSENT AGENDA
MOTION made by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus to approve the Consent Agenda as
amended above. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.0
CASE 98-51: MAJOR SUBDIVISION EXTENSION FOR 2240 COMMERCE
BLVD., LOTS 40 & 41 INCLUSIVE, KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO
MOUND, PID #'S 13-117-24 33 0073 & 13-117-24 33 0041.
RESOLUTION g98-101
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A ONE (1) YEAR
EXTENSION OF A MAJOR SUBDIVISION
ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY RESOLUTION//97-106
FOR 2240 COMMERCE BLVD, LOTS 40-41
INCLUSIVE, KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND,
PI])# 13-117-24 33 0073 & 13-117-24 33 0041, P & Z
CASE g98-51 & 97-37
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
*1.1
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- SEPTEMBER 22, 1998
CASE 98-52: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACKS, BOATHOUSE SETBACKS
TO REPLACE EXISTING DECK AND TO ADD DECK AND
STAIRWAY ON BOATHOUSE, PAT HARRINGTON, 4687 ISLAND
VIEW DRIVE, LOT 19, & NWLY ~A OF LOT 18, BLK 1, DEVON,
PID #30-11%23 22 0009.
RESOLUTION #98-102
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A TWO SIDE YARD
AND A BOAT HOUSE REAR AND SIDE YARD
SETBACK VARIANCES IN ORDER TO ALLOW FOR
CONSTRUCTION TO REPLACE THE
CONFORMING EXISTING DECK ON THE
PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE, AT 4687 ISLAND VIEW
DRIVE, LOT 19 & NWLY OF LOT 18, BLOCK 1,
DEVON, PID 30-117-23 22 0009, P & Z CASE//98-52
Ahreus, Hanus, unanimously.
*1.2
CASE98-54: VARIANCE, LAKESIDE SETBACK TO BOATHOUSE TO
CONSTRUCT AN ADDmON ON PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE, SCOT
MCKENZIE, $251 BARTLETT BLVD., P/LOT 32, AUDITOR'S
SUBD. 170. LOT 19 & P/18, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT C, PID #24-
11%24 24 0031,
RESOLUTION #98-103
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A BOAT HOUSE
LAKESIDE SETBACK VARIANCE IN ORDER TO
ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A
CONFORMING ADDITION TO THE PRINCIPLE
STRUCTURE, AT 5251 BARTLETT BLVD, LOT 19
AND WLY 10 F1~ OF LOT 18, BLOCK 1, SHIRLEY
HILLS UNIT C ALSO SELY 15 FY OF LOT 32 AUD
SUBD NO 170, PID# 24-11%24 24 0031, P & Z CASE
#98-54
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
'1.3
APPROVAL OF RESOLIfrION 95- RESOLUTION ELECTING TO CONTINUI~.
PARTICIPATING IN THE LOCAL HOUSING INCENTIVES ACCOUNT
PROGRAM UNDER THE METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT
FOR CALENDAR YEAR 1999.
RESOLUTION//98-104
RESOLUTION ELECTING TO CONTINUE
PARTICIPATION IN THE LOCAL HOUSING
INCENTIVES ACCOUNT PROGRAM UNDER THE
METROPOLITAN LIVABLE COMMUNITIES ACT -
CALENDAR YEAR 1999
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
'1.4
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 22, 1998
PAYMENT OF BILLS.
MOT/ON
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
.1.5 CERTIFICATE OF RECOGNITION.
The City Manager explained that this Certificate of Recognition is for Dr. Jim Byers who has
been named Minnesota Outstanding Person of the Year by the Minnesota Jaycees and who will
be named the Business Person of the Year by the Westonka Chamber of Commerce on
Thursday, September 24, 1998.
'1.6 SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS,
The City Manger recommended setting these public hearings (delinquent sewer and water bills,
and CBD Assessments) for Tuesday, October 13, 1998.
MOTION
Ahrens, Hanus, unanimously.
1.7 MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 8, 1998, REGULAR MEETING.
Councilmember Jensen stated that she voted against Resolution g98-98, Item 1.9, on Page 3680
of the packet.
Councilmember Hanus stated that he would like Councilmember Weycker's comment and his
response regarding the motion that was passed at the August 18, 1998 put into the minutes
regarding Dock Site 41866.
MOTION by Jensen, seconded by Weycker to table the Minutes of September 8,
1998, until the next meeting, October 13, 1998. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
1.8 REQUEST FOR STREET LIGHT, LOWER CUL DE SAC, BEACHWOOD RD,
Councilmember Weycker asked if all the persons affected by this street light had been notified
of this request for a street light. The City Manager explained that 17 people signed the petition
for the street light. Councilmember Weycker asked that all the people who will be affected by
the light be contacted before the street light is installed.
Polston moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - SEPTEMBER 22, 1998
RESOLUTION//98-105
RESOLUTION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF A STREET LIGHT IN THE LOWER
CUL-DE-SAC OF BEACHWOOD ROAD OFF OF
BARTLETT BLVD. AFTER PERSONS AFFECTED ARE
NOTIFIED.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.9
EXECUTIVE SESSION: US WEST WIRELESS' REQUEST FOR VARIANCE
TO TELECOMMUNICATIONS ORDINANCE.
The City Attorney explained that following the last Council Meeting, the City retained a
consultant to review the data supplied to the City by U.S. West Wireless, in connection with its
application process. The City now has the information available from the consultant. Because
of the potential for litigation in this case, should the City take action in the form of the
resolution that was drafted for consideration by the Council, it was the City Attorney's
suggestion that the Council go into Executive Session to discuss the results of the independent
consultant and the implications of the Federal Telecommunications Act on the matter before the
City Council at this time.
Councilmember Jensen excused herself from the Executive Session and any discussion or
decision because she is an employee of U.S. West.
Councilmember Weycker asked if the Chester Park/A1 & Alma's item on the Agenda could be
addressed now. She stated that according to the POSC Commission Minutes the residents of the
area were to be notified of this meeting and they were not. She suggested tabling the item to
a future meeting when residents are notified of the meeting. The Mayor suggested that since
some of the residents are present, the Council could hear them and continue the item to a future
meeting so that all the residents can be notified. The people waiting for this item did not mind
waiting until it comes up on the Agenda this evening.
The Council went into Executive Session at 7:50 P.M.
The Council returned at 9:15 P.M.
The City Attorney stated that the Council has just concluded conducting an Executive Session
where the discussion he explained earlier was held. One additional feature that happened at the
Executive Session was in order for the City Council to feel more comfortable with some of the
technical data that they were discussing during the Executive Session, they asked that Mr.
Garrett Lysiak, the consultant retained by the City, be present for a period of time to answer
questions and provide information to the City Council during the Executive Session. Mr. Lysiak
did discuss his findings with the City Council. He indicated that he had reviewed the base data
supplied to him by the applicant. He then used that data in his own software programs and
based upon that analysis, plus his experience, plus his other discussions with U.S. West, it was
his conclusion that the information supplied by U. S. West to the City and the request made by
U. S. West to the City was generally accurate, generally credible and that there was in his
opinion reasonable and sufficient basis to support the conclusion of U.S. West that a location
on or within the immediate proximity of the location at the school which is being requested here,
at a height which is being requested here, was the only feasible way to provide adequate
4
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- SEPTEMBER 22, 1~8
coverage without gaps within the coverage area that was relevant to this application. There was
also discussion with the City's legal staff and the City Council heard recommendations from the
legal staff and comments from the legal staff concerning the prospects of litigation to follow
action by the City Council on this matter.
The Mayor stated that he would like to switch the next two items around and take Item 7 and
then Item 6. The Council agreed.
C
1.10 REQUEST FOR VARIANCE, HEIGHT CONSTRAINT. WESTONKA SCHOOL
DISTRICT 277/US WEST WIRELESS, 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., UNPLATTED 14 117
24, PID//14-117-24 41 0011.
The Planner explained the U.S. West is proposing to put a 50 foot antenna structure on top of
a proposed lighting standard at Hadorff Field. The lighting standards, as proposed, would be
about 70 feet in height. There are 4 lighting standards. The 50 foot antenna would be placed
on the top of one of those standards for a total height of 120 feet. He stated the ordinance
allows up to 20 feet on top of a 70 foot lighting standard or a total of 90 feet. The variance
being requested is 30 feet.
The Mayor stated the following: "In matters relating to telecommunications towers, there was
a Telecommunications Act passed by the Federal Government in 1996. The Federal Government
has virtually left the cities with their zoning ordinances, very little latitude in enacting and
enforcing a zoning code when it pertains to telecommunications towers where it has been
demonstrated by the telecommunications company that this is the only site that will, in fact,
work within the service area. I would hope that other applicants, other businesses, other people
who would come before this City Council that would look upon this as the City Council giving
something to one business that they would not under the zoning code for others, will realize that
this Telecommunications Act is virtually dictating to the cities what they can do as far as zoning
goes in so far as the Telecommunications Act is concerned. Having said that, we will reopen
the request for a variance on the height constraint for the telecommunications on the School
District property by U.S. West Wireless."
MOTION made by Polston seconded by Weycker directing the City Attorney to
prepare a resolution granting the variance for the height constraint on this light pole
for the telecommunications tower, based upon the conversation with our consultant
and also with our staff, and in view of the Federal law that this request for a
variance be granted based upon the Federal law, that requires it and the
substantiating data that U.S. West has submitted to the City which is, according to
our technical expert, technically correct. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
The City Attorney submitted the following resolution:
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REQUEST OF U.S. WEST FOR A HEIGHT VARIANCE
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes Section 462.353 conveys authority to the City to plan
and Section 462.357 provides enabling legislation for the City to adopt a zoning ordinance and
zoning regulations; and
5
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- SEPTEMBER 22, 1998
WHEREAS, Section 350:530 of the Mound City Code and Minnesota Statutes Section
462.357, suM. 6(2) authorize and require the variance procedures in the City Code; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant in Case No. 98-45 is US West (the "Applican0; and
WHEREAS, Applicant desires to install a communications antenna on a lighting standard
proposed to be constructed on property located at 5600 Lynwood Boulevard ("the Property");
and
WHEREAS, the Property is owned by Independent School District No. 277 (the
"Property Owner"); and
WHEREAS, the antenna Applicant desires to install on the Property will extend 50 feet
above the maximum height from grade of the proposed lighting structure; and
WttEREAS, Section 350:1370, subdivision 2 of the Mound City Code does not permit
antennas on property owned by the Property Owner or other governmental entity if such
antennas will extend more than 20 feet above the maximum height from grade of the structures
on which they will be located; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested a height variance to permit installation of its
antenna on the Property; and
WltEREAS, Section 350:530 of the Mound City Code provides the requirements for the
granting of variances, and
WHEREAS, on August 24, 1998 the Mound Planning Commission conducted a public
heating on the Applicant's request for a variance; and
WHEREAS, on August 25, 1998 the Mound City Council conducted a public hearing
on the Applicant's request for a variance; and
WHEREAS, on September 8, 1998 the Mound City Council further continued the matter
in order to provide a telecommunications expert with an opportunity to review the applicant's
data and make his report to the city, and
WHEREAS, on September 22,1998 the city council reviewed the report of its expert and
received the recommendations of city staff, and
WltEREAS, the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 permits the exercise of local
zoning authority as long as such local authority does not unreasonably discriminate among
providers of functionally equivalent services or prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the
provision of personal wireless services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of Mound
that the application of US West for a variance to install an antenna extending 50 feet above the
supporting structure at the Property is hereby granted. Such approval is based upon the
hardships found by the Planing Commission and reflected in the official minutes, of the August
24, 1998 Planning Commission Meeting.
C
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- SEPTEMBER 22, 1998
Councilmember Hanus asked if this resolution allows or does not allow collocation on this
particular site? The City Attorney stated this resolution is silent on that issue. Councilmember
Itanus then asked if we are considering this an antenna support structure? The City Attorney
stated that is correct. He then asked, "Would the current ordinance allow collocation even
though this resolution is silent on the issue9." The City Attorney stated, yes, subject to any
applicable procedures that would need to be complied with, such as a height variance or
something of that sort. Councilmember Hanus stated that one of his concerns is collocation, if,
in fact, collocation can be extended on this particular tower. His concern is that if another
company were interested in collocation, the tower could be loaded down. We want this to look
like a lighting standard not a tower. He felt we are already pushing that beyond the limit. He
asked if the Council was interested in restricting collocation on this particular site? The City
Attorney suggested that the City Council may want to look at some additional modifications to
the current ordinance. He stated it may be that the City may want to study that particular matter
when looking at those modifications.
Weycker moved and Hanus seconded the above resolution:
RESOLUTION//98-106
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE REQUEST OF U.S.
WEST FOR A HEIGHT VARIANCE
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
C
1.11
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 98-46: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.
LIGHT STANDARDS & MONOPOLE AT 5600 LYNWOOD BLVD., WESTONKA
SCHOOL DISTRICT 277/US WEST WIRELESS, UNPLATTED 14 117 24,
PID//14-117-24 41 0011.
The Mayor reopened the Public Hearing. There were no comments. The Mayor dosed the
Public Hearing.
Weycker moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #98-107
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A CoNDmONAL USE
PERMIT TO ALLOW THE REPLACEMENT OF 8
EXISTING LIGHT POLES AT HADORFF FIELD
WITH FOUR (4) 70 FOOT LIGHTING STANDARDS,
LOCATED WITHIN THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY
RESID~L ZONING DISTRICT, AT 5600
LYNWOOD BOULEVARD, WESTONKA SCHOOL
DISTRICT//277, PART OF UNPLATTED 14-117-24,
, PID # 14-117-24 41 0011, P & Z CASE g98--46
Councilmember Ahrens asked why we need a Conditional Use Permit? The City
Attorney stated that at an earlier meeting it was thought a CUP was not needed, because
a CUP had already been issued for the property. Upon further examination of the
records, the existing CUP was for a different piece of land and did not include this
particular site. The City Planner commented that this is a school facility on residential
property and although the School District owns all the property, there are four different
7
zqo?
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- SEPTEMBER 22, 1998
PID (property Identification) numbers. Therefore each parcel has its own CUP and this
particular parcel had no CUP. The Planner explained that the Conditional Use Permit,
under the Zoning Ordinance, regulates public and institutional type facilities. This entire
site, although zoned residential and B-I, because of the type of facility that it is, would
need to have a CUP for its operation.
Councilmember Hanus suggested the following addition to the proposed resolution:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, hereby approves a Conditional Use Permit for four (4) 70 foot
lighting standards: 0rovided that the lighting stand~srds are constructed ~nd
maintained in accordance with the llghtln_~ code requirements, The maker of the
motion, Councilmember Weycker, accepted the addition.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.12
CASE 98-38; VARIANCE, NONCONFORMING USE AT 2754 CARDIFF LANE,
JACK COOK, 4452 DENBIGH ROAD, LOT 94, PHELP'$ ISLAND
PARK 1~r DIVISION, PID # 19-117-23-24 0029,
The City Planner reviewed his memo dated September 22. Mr. Cook today submitted a letter
stating that he has worked out an arrangement to move his garage from his property to the
property owned by his neighbor Mr. Meredith. Mr. Meredith has submitted a hardcover
calculation and a building permit application. The Planner stated it appears this garage will
work on Mr. Meredith's property. The Planner suggested that since we have prepared a
resolution of denial for Mr. Cook's request for a variance to allow the garage to remain on his
property, we should go ahead and adopt that so there are no loose ends. Staff will then work
with Mr. Cook and Mr. Meredith, to get the garage moved to Mr. Meredith's property. The
Planner suggested giving Mr. Cook 30 days to do this before a citation would be issued. The
Council discussed the issue and felt 60 days was a more feasible time frame.
Polston moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #98-108
RESOLUTION TO DENY A VARIANCE FOR A
NONCONFORMING USE AT 2754 CARDIFF LANE,
JACK COOK, 4452 DENBIGH ROAD, LOT 94,
PHELP'S ISLAND PARK 1rr DIVISION, PID # 19-
117-23-24 0029, P & Z CASE//98-38, AND ALLOW
MR. COOK 60 DAYS TO BRING THE PROPERTY
INTO CONFORMANCE
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRFSENT
There were none.
Ct
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- SEPTEMBER 22, 1998
1.13
RECOMMENDATION FROM PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION ~,?
REOUEST TO PURCHASE TAX FORFEITED LANDS, MICHELLE BERGLUND
5138 HANOVER RD.
The City Manager explained that earlier this summer Ms. Berglund contacted the City about
purchasing 2 lots that adjoin her property. The lots are tax forfeited land. A portion of those
lots are in a wetlands which are not available for sale. The City Engineer has looked at the
property and there is a portion of Lots 29 and 30 that could be sold and are not in the wetlands.
It amounts to approximately 5,000 square feet. The applicant is concerned about the 2 lots being
built upon. The City Staff assured her that cannot happen, but she is still interested in
purchasing the non-wetlands portion of the lots. It has been the policy to send these types of
requests for tax forfeit property to the Park Commission for their review and consideration.
This was done and the Park Commission recommendation was that the property continue to be
held by the City of Mound and that discussions occur with the Minnesota I_and Trust to convey
a conservation easement. This would then give Ms. Berglund what she is requesting, that
nothing be built on the property. Ms. Berglund still wants to purchase the portions of the lots
that are not in the wetlands for her own reasons.
Ms. Berglund stated that the Land Trust is only interested in large parcels (10 acres or more)
and this would not qualify.
The Council discussed the options. Councilmember Hanus stated he wo.uld p~,e~er~ to,haven, s
City be )n contrpl oA: any smgll parcels of land that are tax forfeit
The City Clerk explained that if the Council chose to release the portions of these lots that are
not in the wetlands, Ms. Berglund would have to combine the parcel with her property which
would make it one tax parcel and then if she wanted to subdivide, it would come back to the
City for approval or denial.
The City Clerk further explained that the City is juSt the caretaker for this property. The City
does not sell the land. The City would have to reconvey the portion of the lots that is not in the
wetlands back to the State of Minnesota and Hennepin County and request that it be sold only
to an adjoining property owner. The City receives a portion of the sale price.
The Council discussed the costs of determining what portion would be reconveyed and any other
related costs. They decided it should be Ms. Berglund. Ms. Berglund stated she would pay all
related costs.
The Council discussed putting a conservation easement on the property so that it could not be
developed in the future. The City Attorney stated the City could put a covenant on the property
to preclude any development of the property. Ms. Berglund stated that would be acceptable to
her. The City:Attorney will prepare the covenant.
Polston moved and Hanus secohded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION//98-109
RESOLUTION TO RECONVEY A PORTION OF
LOTS 29 AND 30, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE, THAT IS
NOT IN THE WETLANDS
Ms. Berglund to pay all related costs for this.
9
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- SEPTEMBER 22, 1998
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.14 RECOMMENDATION FROM PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE;
CHESTER PARK/AL & ALMA'S.
The City Manager explained that the Park & Open Space Commission discussed Chester Park
at their September 10th Meeting and heard from some of the residents of the area regarding
conflicts they see at the Park and A1 & Alma's Restaurant and their cruise boats. At that
meeting, the POSC passed the following motions:
Motion by Pederson, seconded by Casey to recommend that the City Attorney
research the Certificate of Title and provide an interpretation for "commercial" as
contained in the Title and what restrictions, if any, are contained on the park. If
it is discovered there are commercial restrictions the City, posthaste, will use all of
its energy and efforts including law suits and citations, to abate the issues of dogs
in the park, drinking of liquor in the park, and use of chemicals for boat washing.
Motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Weycker, seconded by Casey to direct City staff to f'md and document
existing conditional use permit(s), determine the current standing, discuss it with A!
& Alma's posthaste, and inform the Commission and neighbors of the CUP status.
Motion carried unanimously.
The City Manager explained to the Council that the Park Commission cannot direct staff, they
can only recommend that the Council direct staff.
Councilmember Weycker stated that the POSC is looking for a definition for "Commercial Use"
as used in the Certificate of Title. She also noted that at the POSC Meeting a notice was to be
sent to everyone within so many feet of Chester Park and that was not done. The City Manager
stated that the minutes from that Park Commission Meeting were only received right before the
Council Packet was sent on Friday and the notification was missed.
The Mayor asked if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council on the Chester
Park issue. The following persons spoke:
Dennis Hildebrandt, 5229 Waterbury Road
Michelle Berglund, 5138 Hanover Road
Ron DeVinney, 3214 Tuxedo Blvd.
Councilmember Weycker stated that the POSC was asking to have the City Attorney research
the Certificate of Title on Chester Park and provide an interpretation for "Commercial" as
contained in the Title and what restrictions, if any, are contained on the Park. Weycker also
stated that the Park Commission is concerned about Chester Park and the persons who spoke at
that meeting were addressing issues about the Conditional Use Permit which should be addressed
by the Planning Commission.
The persons who spoke brought up the following: 1. Traffic, noise and exhaust from buses and trucks;
2. People from A1 & Alma's using Chester Park;
3qlO
10
C~
C~
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- SEPTEMBER 22, 1998
1.13
RECOMMENDATION FROM PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE:
RE0~T TO PURCHASE TAX FORFEITED LANDS, MICHELLE BERGLUND,
5138 HANOVER RD,
The City Manager explained that earlier this summer Ms. Berglund contacted the City about
purchasing 2 lots that adjoin her property. The lots are tax forfeited land. A portion of those
lots are in a wetlands which are not available for sale. The City Engineer has looked at the
property and there is a portion of Lots 29 and 30 that could be sold and are not in the wetlands.
It amounts to approximately 5,000 square feet. The applicant is concerned about the 2 lots being
built upon. The City Staff assured her that cannot happen, but she is still interested in
purchasing the non-wetlands portion of the lots. It has been the policy to send these types of
requests for tax forfeit property to the Park Commission for their review and consideration.
This was done and the Park Commission recommendation was that the property continue to be
held by the City of Mound and that discussions occur with the Minnesota Land Trust to convey
a conservation easement. This would then give Ms. Berglund what she is requesting, that
nothing be built on the property. Ms. Berglund still wants to purchase the portions of the lots
that are not in the wetlands for her own reasons.
Ms. Berglund stated that the Land Trust is only interested in large parcels (10 acres or more)
and this would not qualify.
The Council discussed the options. Councilmember Hanus stated he would prefer to have the
City be in control of any small parcels of land that are tax forfeit.
The City Clerk explained that if the Council chose to release the portions of these lots that are
not in the wetlands, Ms. Berglund would have to combine the parcel with her property which
would make it one tax parcel and then if she wanted to subdivide, it would come back to the
City for approval or denial.
The City Clerk further explained that the City is just the caretaker for this property. The City
does not sell the land. The City would have to reconvey the portion of the lots that is not in the
wetlands back to the State of Minnesota and Hennepin County and request that it be sold only
to an adjoining property owner. The City receives a portion of the sale price.
The Council discussed the costs of determining what portion would be reconveyed and any other
related costs. They decided it should be Ms. Berglund. Ms. Berglund stated she would pay all
related costs.
The Council discussed putting a conservation easement on the property so that it could not be
developed in the future. The City Attorney stated the City could put a covenant on the property
to preclude any development of the property. Ms. Berglund stated that would be acceptable to
her. The City Attorney will prepare the covenant.
Polston moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION g98-109
RESOLUTION TO RECONVEY A PORTION OF
LOTS 29 AND 30, BLOCK 9, WHIPPLE, THAT IS
NOT IN THE WETLANDS
Ms. Berglund to pay all related costs for this.
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- SEPTEMBER 22, 1998
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
1.14 RECOMMENDATION FROM PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION RE,,
CHESTER PARK/AL & ALMA'S,
The City Manager explained that the Park & Open Space Commission discussed Chester Park
at their September 10th Meeting and heard from some of the residents of the area regarding
conflicts they see at the Park and A1 & Alma's Restaurant and their cruise boats. At that
meeting, the POSC passed the following motions:
Motion by Pederson, seconded by Casey to recommend that the City Attorney
research the Certificate of Title and provide an interpretation for "commercial" as
contained in the Title and what restrictions, if any, are contained on the park. If
it is discovered there are commercial restrictions the City, posthaste, will use all of
its energy and efforts including law suits and citations, to abate the issues of dogs
in the park, drinking of liquor in the park, and use of chemicals for boat washing.
Motion carried unanimously.
Motion by Weycker, seconded by Casey to direct City staff to f'md and document
existing conditional use permit(s), determine the current standing, discuss it with Al
& Alma's posthaste, and inform the Commi~ion and neighbors of the CUP status.
Motion carried unanimously.
The City Manager explained to the Council that the Park Commission cannot direct staff, they
can only recommend that the Council direct staff.
Councilmember Weycker stated that the POSC is looking for a definition for "Commercial Use"
as used in the Certificate of Title. She also noted that at the POSC Meeting a notice was to be
sent to everyone within so many feet of Chester Park and that was not done. The City Manager
stated that the minutes from that Park Commission Meeting were only received right before the
Council Packet was sent on Friday and the notification was missed.
The Mayor asked if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council on the Chester
Park issue. The following persons spoke:
Dennis Hildebrandt, 5229 Waterbury Road
Michelle Berglund, 5138 Hanover Road
Ron DeVinney, 3214 Tuxedo Blvd.
Councilmember Weycker stated that the POSC was asking to have the City Attorney research
the Certificate of Title on Chester Park and provide an interpretation for "Commercial" as
contained in the Title and what restrictions, if any, are contained on the Park. Weycker also
stated that the Park Commission is concerned about Chester Park and the persons who spoke at
that meeting were addressing issues about the Conditional Use Permit which should be addressed
by the Planning Commission.
The persons who spoke brought up the following: 1. Traffic, noise and exhaust from buses and trucks;
2. People from Al & Alma's using Chester Park;
3qlO
10
C~
C
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- SEPTEMBER 22, 1998
4.
5.
6.
7.
A1 & Alma's Conditional Use Permit;
Increase in charter boat business for A1 & Alma's;
Washing of boats with chemicals at the beach;
Alcohol purchased at A1 & Alma's being consumed in Chester Park
Asked to have this item brought to a future meeting and all residents of the area
be notified.
Bob Abdo, (Attorney representing A1 & Alma's) and Merritt Geyen, addressed the Council on
A1 & Alma's behalf. Mr. Abdo stated as he understands it, the issue relates to use of the park
and the complaints relate to how A1 & Alma's impacts the park. He explained that in A1 &
Alma's Conditional Use Permits there are restrictions on it in its use of the park and A1 &
Alma's recognizes that. A1 & Alma's has the responsibility of keeping the park picked up and
keeping it in good shape, which it does. A1 & Alma's approach is to work things out to satisfy
the neighbors. The object is to be a good neighbor. Ms. Geyen stated she would like to have
the neighbors who are having problems come and discuss this with her and try to work it out.
The Mayor stated that over the years that he has been involved in the City Council and having
worked with the other owners of A1 & Alma's as well as the Geyens, he has found the Geyens
and their Staff very accommodating to the people using the business and they have gone out of
their way to try and please the people within the neighborhood. He asked that the neighbors
work with the Geyens to come to a reasonable solution to the problems.
The Council encouraged the neighbors to work with A1 & Alma's to work out their problems.
The neighbors were also advised that if they have a complaint about A1 & Alma's CUP, they
should let City Staff know and try to resolve it administratively.
The Council discussed the fact that the neighbors were not notified of this meeting.
Bob Abdo stated that A1 & Alma's has not used Chester Park and does not have a policy to use
Chester Park for its business. It skirts the park. The fact that others may use it or that there
are people that are from the public that use it is something else but it is not something that A1
& Alma's encourages. He also pointed out that this business has been there for 45 years. He
expressed a desire to work with the neighbors.
The Council decided that the questions on the Chester Park title and A1 & Alma's CUP are two
separate issues and should be dealt with separately. These will be two separate items on the
November 10th Council Agenda. The Mayor asked the City Attorney to review, per the POSC,
the Certificate of Title on Chester Park and bring the City Council up-to-date on what the title
says. He also asked that the City Staff look at A1 & Alma's Conditional Use Permit and
summarize for the City Council what the conditions are that are attached to the CUP. The CUP
will be referred to the Planning Commission to be heard at the October 26, 1998, Planning
Commission Meeting. The Council agreed and continued this discussion to the November 10,
1998. The neighbors within 350 feet will be notified of the Planning Commission Meeting and
the City Council Meeting where this will be discussed.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
A. Financial Report for August 1998 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director.
B. Correspondence and information from the West Hennepin City/County-Working Group
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- SEPTEMBER 22, 1998
re: pilot project on human services planning and coordination in the West Hennepin
REMINDER- WCCB meeting is scheduled for Thursday, September 24, 1998, 7:00
p.m., Mound City Hall.
REMINDER: Building Committee on Westonka Community Center project meets on
Tuesday, September 22, 1998, 7 a.m. - 9 a.m., Westonka Community Center.
The WCCB is specifically invited to attend this meeting to see preliminary
schematic designs of the project that won't be reviewed at the WCCB meeting on
Sept. 24 due to other items on the agenda.
REMINDER; Bid opening on the Lost Lake Improvement Project is scheduled for
Thursday, October 1, 1998, 11 a.m., Mound City Hall. City Council will review
the bids at their meeting of October 13, 1998. Currently, there are 24 firms that
have picked up plans and specifications. About 8 or 9 are general contractors
where the remaining are subcontractors which have a specialty area.
1.15 TELECOMMUNICATIONS MORATORIUM
The Mayor stated that he has one more item. He stated that based upon the granting of a
variance for the monopole lighting structure and because we are going to be obligated to require
some type of ordinance change, he asked if there was any interest in declaring a moratorium and
instructing the City Attorney and the Planning Commission to revisit and come up with an
ordinance that is workable.
The Council agreed because the way the telecommunications ordinance is written right now, the
City would have a very difficult time denying anyone a tower within the City.
MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to declare a moratorium on the
telecommunications ordinance.
The City Attorney advised that the following resolution needs to be adopted.
RESOLUTION//98-110
RESOLUTION DECLARING A MORATORIUM ON
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES IN THE
CITY OF MOUND
WHEREAS, the City recently adopted regulations pertaining to the installation of
wireless communications facilities in the City of Mound; and
WHEREAS, its review of an application for the siting of such a facility has indicated
that further review and study of the recently adopted controls is necessary; and
WHEREAS, such review and study would include without limitation such items as tower
height, tower of antenna setback from property lines, collocation, fees to be charged for
consultants retained by the City and the maximum height of antenna support structures together
with other matters; and
12
C
m&m ~ m m~ ~
MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINU~$- SEPTEMBER 22, 1998
WHEREAS, the City Council
requests for the installation of wireless
be held abeyance.
believes that pending such studies, consideration of
communications facilities in the City of Mound should
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota as follows:
A moratorium on the installation of wireless communication antenna facilities is
hereby imposed which will last for the shorter of:
a. Three months; or
b. The date on which an interim ordinance is adopted by the City Council:
or
c. The date on which the regulations of the City relating to communications
facilities has been amended, whichever comes fn'st.
During such moratorium, the City shall neither consider nor act on requests for
zoning approvals or other permits required for the installation of wireless
communications facilities.
This moratorium shall not apply to facilities which have been approved by
variances granted on or before the date of this resolution.
Hanus and Ahrens withdrew their motion and second.
MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to adopt the above resolution//98-
110 as presented by the City Attorney. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
INFORMATION & MISCELLANEOUS (CONTINUED)
The City Manager advised that the HRA Meeting for the month of October will
be rescheduled for October 27, 1998, instead of October 13, 1998.
Letter from the LMC announcing there is an opening on the Board of Directors
and asking for candidates to apply.
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Poiston to adjourn at 11:20 P.M. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carded.
Attest:
City Clerk
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
C
13
October 13, 1998
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES IN
ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A PORCH AND CONFORMING DETACHED
GARAGE,
AT 4724 HANOVER ROAD,
LOTS 14 & 15, BLOCK 5, DEVON,
PID# 30-117-23 22 0038
P & Z CASE #98-57
WHEREAS, the applicant, John Richardson, has applied for a front yard and
a side yard setback variances as listed below in order to allow construction of a porch on
the existing principle structure and a conforming 2 car detached garage at 4724 Hanover
Road; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Single or Two
Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot
area of 6,000 square feet, 40 feet of lot frontage, front yard setback of 20 feet, and the
balance of setbacks as listed below for lots of record; and,
WHEREAS, the following lists the requested setbacks:
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Front yard 8.4' 20' 11.6'
Side yard 3.8' 6' 2.2'
; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed porch would match the existing west wall setback
of 4.2 at the rear house wall and the proposed garage would meet all required setbacks;
and,
WHEREAS, the hardcover after construction will be under the 40 percent
requirement by 10 square feet; and,
WHEREAS, the applicant may have to submit a drainage plan if required by
the City Engineer; and,
October 13,
~i¢bardso~ - 47~414anover ~oacl
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has
unanimously recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a variance of 11.6 feet for the front yard setback as
recommended by the Planning Commission in order to construct a conforming porch
attached to the dwelling and a conforming two car detached garage with the
following condition:
a. The porch addition meet the 6 foot side yard setback.
St
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth in this resolution, pursuant to
Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express
understanding that the structures described in the resolution remain as lawful,
nonconforming structures 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 improvements:
Construct a conforming porch on the existing dwelling along with a
conforming two car detached garage.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the
Hennepin County Property Information System:
LOTS 14 AND 15, BLOCK 5, DEVON, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA.
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.
C
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
September 28, 1998
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1998
Those present: Vice - Chair Michael Mueller, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Frank Weiland, Orv
Burma, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant
City Planner Loren Gordon, and Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Chair Geoff
Michael and Building Official Jon Sutherland.
Public Present: Scott and Jane Kempf, John & Jaimie Richardson.
Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Vice - Chair Michael Mueller.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 98-57: VARIANCE, FRONT YARD & SIDE YARD SETBACKS TO
CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE, JOHN RICHARDSON, 4724 HANOVER
ROAD, LOTS 14 & 15, BLOCK 5, DEVON, PID # 30-117-23 22 0038
Loren Gordon presented the case.
The applicant, John Richardson, has submitted a request to construct a porch addition and a
conforming two-stall detached garage. The associated variance requests are listed below.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Front Yard 8.4' 20' 11.6'
Side Yard 3.8' 6' 2.2'
The property is located at 4724 Hanover Road on a 6,400 sf lot which exceeds the R-2
standard. The property consists of lots 14 and 15 of Block 5, Devon subdivision. Current
improvements to the property include a one-story house with a deck located street side. The
basement on the east side of the house walks out to the side yard. Lot 14 is elevated above the
street level 10-15 feet. Two City retaining walls are located in front of the house and extend to
the west. Drainage is generally from the northwest property corner to the southeast where the
elevation drops approximately 15-20 feet.
The proposed porch addition would match the existing west wall setback of 4.2 feet at the rear
house wall. Sketches of the porch submitted by the applicant are included in the case material.
The proposed 24 by 24 feet detached garage would be constructed on lot 15 in a conforming
location. As you will notice the applicant has started grading a pad for the new garage. Although
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
September 28, 1998
not shown on the survey, a 4 feet retaining wall will be located between the garage and rear
property line. Grading and drainage plans will need to be reviewed at the time of building
permit. The applicant is aware the additional information may need to be provided if requested
by the Building Official or City Engineer. Hardcover after the proposed addition would be under
the 40 percent for lots of record by 10 sf. This accounts for all new improvements including the
drive and walkway.
The proposed porch addition does not meet the intent of the code which discourages the
expansion of a nonconforming structures. Staff discussed the possibility of building the porch at
a 6 feet setback with the applicant. The applicant stated he would not object to this option.
Given that both improvements can be built in conforming locations, staff supports the
application with the amendment of a conforming 6 feet porch side yard setback. There appear
to be a practical difficulty with the existing house setbacks. Staff believes the porch addition will
add to the use and enjoyment of the home and add value to the home and surrounding
neighborhood.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as
requested with the following condition.
1. The porch addition meet 6 feet side yard setbacks.
DISCUSSION
Weiland questioned if the grading and drainage would work. Gordon stated that a retaining wall
would be used and the drainage plans would be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer
prior to the building permit issuance. The applicant stepped forward and explained what he is
proposing to do.
Weiland questioned the retaining wall toward Hanover Road. The applicant stated that he was
going to leave it, he is only intending to work on the rear of the property.
Clapsaddle made a recommendation to the applicant to reinforce the retaining wall.
Burma questioned if the lots were combined. Gordon stated that they were.
Mueller asked if the applicant ever saw the previous owners plans back in 1981 when resolution
81-307 was approved. Mueller questioned if the resolution was granted tonight would the
applicants be able to do further improvements without coming before the planning commission.
Gordon stated the 15 year longevity of the resolution would apply.
MOTION by Clapsaddle, seconded by Weiland to move staffs recommendation to
the city council. Motion carried unanimously 8-0.
This case will go to City Council on October 13, 1998
C~
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: September 28, 1998
SUBJECT: Variance request - Front and Side Yards
APPLICANT: John Richardson - 4724 Hanover Road
CASE NUMBER: 98-57
I-IKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5yy
LOCATION: 4724 Hanover Road
ZONING: Residential District R-2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to construct a porch addition and a
conforming two-stall detached garage. The associated variance requests are listed below.
Existin_w~Proposed Required Variance
Front Yard 8.4' 20' 11.6'
Side Yard 3.8' 6' 2.2'
The property is located at 4724 Hanover Road on a 6,400 sf lot which exceeds the R-2 standard.
The property consists of lots 14 and 15 of Block 5, Devon subdivision. Current improvements to
the property include a one-story house with a deck located street side. The basement on the east
side of the house walks out to the side yard. Lot 14 is elevated above the street level 10-15 feet.
Two City retaining walls are located in front of the house and extend to the west. Drainage is
generally from the northwest property comer to the southeast where the elevation drops
approximately 15-20 feet.
The proposed porch addition would match the existing west wall setback of 4.2 feet at the rear
house wall. Sketches of the porch submitted by the applicant are included in the case material.
The proposed 24 by 24 feet detached garage would be constructed on lot 15 in a conforming
location. As you will notice the applicant has started grading a pad for the new garage. Although
not shown on the survey, a 4 feet retaining wall will be located between the garage and rear
property line. Grading and drainage plans will need to be reviewed at the time of building permit.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
#98-57 Richardson Variance Request
September 26, 1998
The applicant is aware the additional information may need to be provided if requested by the
Building Official or City Engineer. Hardcover after the proposed addition would be under the 40
percent for lots of record by 10 sr. This accounts for all new improvements including the drive
and walkway.
COMMENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or
practical difficulty. Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the
following circumstances exist (Section 350:530):
A. Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property which do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or
shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since
enactment of the ordinance have no control.
The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant
of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of
this Ordinance.
C. That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
Do
That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege
that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the
same district.
E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship.
F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to
property in the same zone.
The proposed porch addition does not meet the intent of the code which discourages the
expansion of a nonconforming structures. Staff discussed the possibility of building the porch at
a 6 feet setback with the applicant. The applicant stated he would not object to this option. Given
that both improvements can be built in conforming locations, staff supports the application with
the amendment of a conforming 6 feet porch side yard setback. There appear to be a practical
difficulty with the existing house setbacks. Staff believes the porch addition will add to the use
and enjoyment of the home and add value to the home and surrounding neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approval of the variance as requested with the following condition.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 3
LongTCord Road, Kings Lane, Kildare Road Street vacation request
September 14, 1998
1. The porch addition meet 6 feet side yard setbacks.
123 North Third Slxeet, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
VARIANCE APPLICATION ~ : ' r~/.' ~
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN ss3645EP ':;[ (t :1998
Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
C
A~bpl[cat]on Fee: $100.00
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY) 0¥"(:~~b~' '~
Planning Commission Date: I Case No.
City CouncilDate: ~/~f (~A'~, I~ ?k~'~
Distribution: q-lq ~ ~ Pla ner DNR
~ -Iq -~'~ City Engineer ~ Other
~-Iq~ Public Works ~
SUBJECT Address ~~4 ~,~.~.~ ~:
PROPERTY Lot t~ ~ X~
LEGAL Block
DESC. Subdivision
PID~ :~-~ ~ -~ ~ ~~ Plat ~
PROPERTY Name J~ ](t(2~.~2~ ~,' ~ -
OW.E. , ,ess M'
APPLICANT Name
(IF OTHER Address
THAN Phone (H) (W) (M)
OWNER)
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property?/~yes, ( ) no. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
nurrjber(s) and provide copie§ 6f resolutions.
Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
o
Do the existing structures comply with all ar~e~, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), Nol,~. If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe
reason for variance re.quest, i.e. setback, I_~ aha, etc.):
SETBACKS: REQUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard: ( N(~E W~)~ ~."~ .... . ft. ft. ft.
Side Yard: ( U S ~_~"--~ -ft. ~ ~ ft. ~ ft.
Side Yard: (,¢N_~S E~)W ) ~._~ ft. //'~ ft. ft.
Rear Yard: (~/S E W ) L~ ft. -L¢~ ft. ft.
Lakeside: (N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
: (NSEW) ~ft. ft. ft.
Street Frontage: ~ ft. ft. ft.
Lot Size: ~sq ft ft sq ft
Hardcover: ~ sq ft ~_.~: sq ft .sq ft
Does the present use of the property conform to all regulations for the zoning district in which it is
located? Yes ~J¥ No (). If no, specify each non-conforming use:
o
Please
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
escri .'
( ) topography
( ) drainage
( ) shape
(.~.) .soil
existing situation
( ) other: specify
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyon~,/baving property interests in the
land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (198217 Yes ( ~, No ~)~. If yes, explain:
Was the har~l,ship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
Yes (), No/ti~. If yes, explain:
o
Are the conditions of hardship~.f°r which you request a variance peculiar only to the property
described in this petition? Yes ~), No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly
affected?
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
C, Applicant's Sign~at~~.~l/~_,'~X i~4 ~;/~
(Rev. l l /14/97)
340
September 22, 1981
Councilmember Charon moved the following resolution.
RESOLUTION NO. 81-307
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION RECOGNIZING THE EXISTING NONCONFORMANCIES
AND APPROVING THE DECK ALREADY BUILT AND ALSO APPROVING
THE PROPOSED ADDITION OF A GARAGE - PID #30-117-23 22 0038
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
WHEREAS,
Daniel Christianson, owner of property at 4724 Hanover Road,
described as Lobs 14 and 15, Block 5, Devon, has requested
acknowledgement of existing nonconformancies, i.e. street front
and sideyard setback deficiencies, and approval of the deck
built without a permit and also approval of a proposed addition
for a garage,with additional living space above the garage, and
the Planning Commission recognized the nonconformancies, and
recommended approval of the deck built without a permit and
also recommended approval of a proposed addition for a garage ·
with additional living space above the garage, and
the adjoining property owners to this property have no
objections to the approval of these variances.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND,
MOUND, MINNESOTA:
That the Council does concur with the Planning Commission
recommendation recognizing the existing nonconformancies
and approves the deck already built and also approves
the proposed addition of a garage.with additional living space
above theigarage.
A motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by
Councilmember Swenson and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted
in favor thereof: Charon, Swenson, Ulrick and Lindlan; the following voted
against the same: none; with Councilmember Polston absent; whereupon said
resolution was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and'his
signature attested by the City Manager. -.:,. -- ~
/ ....
City Manager
,¸
C
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CITY OF. MOUND
5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
Phone: 472-0600 Fax: 472-0620
Business Name/Tennent
The applicant is: ,~owner ' -c;nt~act~, ~an~
DESCRIPTION Subdivision PID~
Address ~ ~ /~'u ~ M,
Phone (HI '~ ' ~3~.~ (W) ~S ~'?/SO (MI
CONT~CTOR Company Name License
Contact Person
Address
Phone (HI (WI (M}
ARCHITECT Name
&/OR Address
ENGIN~R Phone (HI (WI (MI
CHANGE OF FROM:
USE TO:
VALUATIONOF WORK:
. ~.~,,_,- VALUE APPROVED:
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING.
PERMITS BECOME NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED
FOR A --ERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COMMENCED.
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 ~-XTERIOR$ 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 SHAM. BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETION. A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE IS A MISDEMEANOR OFFENSE. THE CITY
COUNCIL MAY EXTEND THE TIME FOR COMPLETION UPON WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE PERMIT'TEE, 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 (301 BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR TO THE END OF THE ONE-YEAR PERIOD.
I HEREBY CERTIFY' THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPUCATION ANO KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING
THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE
PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CON~/'RUCTION.
PRINT APPLICANT'S NAME ./'~'PPLJjCAN-T's SI~N~,TURE ' DATE
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
(OFFICE USE ONLY) SPECIAL CONDITIONS & COMMENTS:
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: OCCUPANCY GROUP IDLY: MAX OCCUPANT LOAD COPIED APPROVED
ZONING
BLDG SIZE (SO FT) # STORIES RRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED./ ClI'Y ENGINEER
# uNrrs YES / NO PUBLIC WORKS
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
RECEIVED
SEP 1~ 1998
MOUND PLANNING & INSP.
LOT AREA
LOT AREA
SQ. FT. X 30%
SQ. FT. X 40%
= (for all lots) .............. I I
= (for Lots of Record*) ....... I~:~_~__~.1
LOT AREA SQ. FT. X 15% = (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225,Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
LENGTH WIDTH SQ FT
X =
C
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC.
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
X =
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
x =
X
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
x
X =
TOT~k DfiCK ..........................
X
TOTAL OTHER .........................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
(~/OVER (indicate difference) ...............................
PREPARED BY DATE
8O
DO
Fr.
t4. Z
/,4.1
,4.O
80. oo.
MANOV'F___.
OA D
SEP
MOUND Pb
REI;E1VED
19,98
IN/NG & INSP.
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct r.epresentation of a
survey of the boundaries of:
Lots 14 and 15, Block 5, DEVON, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
And of the locat£on of all buildings, if any, thereon, and all v£sLble
encroachments~ if any, from or on said land. As surveyed by me this
28th day of August, 1981 ' ~_///~ ~
Thomas S. Bergquist
Registered Land Surveyor
Minn. Lic. No. 7725
l'cx
I,oo~ ],^o~ ! Prepared for:
-,..,,,,o. DAN CHR I ST lANSON
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SItEET
ADDRESS:
SURVEY ON FILE? (~.~D/
NO
LOT OF REC()RD? YES / NO
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
R1 10,000/60 B1 7,500/0
Rln 6,000/~9- B2 20,000/80
6,000/40) B3 10,000/60
-~2 14, 000/80
R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100
YARD I DIRECTION ] REQUIRED
EXISTING/PROPOSED
EXISTING LOT SIZE:
LOT WIDTIt:
LOT
VARIANCE
IIOUSE .........
FRONT
FRONT
SIDE
SIDE
N S E W
N S E W
NSE(
N S E~W
/O
RF. AR N S E W 15'
LAKE N S E W 50'
TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30'
GARAGE, SIIED ..... DETACIIED BUILDINGS
FRONT N S E W
FRONT N S E W
SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6'
SIDE E W 4' OR 6'
/D
REAR
LAKE
N S
q) S E W
SEW
50'
'lOP OF BI.UFF 10' OR 30'
IIARDCOVER
C()NFORMING7 YES / NO
? I.,': Kc ID^TED: q- 5-q8
This Zoning I,fi.matim~ SI,ce{ only summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in d,e City of Mouud Zoning Ordinance. For fur~er information, comact ~e City of Mound
Planning Depa~tlne,t at 472-06~.
) ~E R D E E N o
I
010} PZ~'F -'~
ISLAND VIEW DR >
4'3 ;.,40{ 404 3/'1'2-;4°}4°'1~c-
40 ~. ,391 '40
g
40
g,3 I~
.~ 40
~8~ 7;
October 13, 1998
PROPOSED RESOLUTION #98-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES IN
ORDER TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION A CONFORMING PORCH,
AT 2207 CENTERVIEW LANE,
LOTS 18 & PART OF 15, BLOCK 6, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK,
PID# 13-117-24 34 0006
P & Z CASE #98-53
WHEREAS, the applicant, Scot Kempf, has applied for a front yard, side
yard, and shed setback variances as listed below in order to allow construction of a
conforming porch at 2207 Centerview Lane; and,
WHEREAS, the following lists the requested setbacks:
Existinq/Proposed Required Variance
Front yard 15' 20' 5'
Side yard 3.1' 6' 2.9'
Shed 17' 20' 3'
; and,
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-2 Single or Two
Family Residential Zoning District which according to City Code requires a minimum lot
area of 6,000 square feet, 40 feet of lot frontage, front yard setback of 20 feet, and the
balance of setbacks as listed above for lots of record; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed 3 season porch would be built in a conforming
location and would meet all required setbacks; and,
WHEREAS, the hardcover after construction will be under the 40 percent
requirement for lots of record by 430 square feet; and,
WHEREAS, the existing 8 feet by 12 feet shed is within the 20 feet setback
from Noble Drive and the applicant has agreed to move the nonconforming shed to a
conforming location; and,
October 13, 1998
Kernpf - 2207 Centerview Lane
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and has
unanimously recommended approval of the variance recommend by staff; and,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, as follows:
The City does hereby grant a variance of 5 feet for the front yard and a variance of
2.9 feet for the side yard as recommended by the Planning Commission in order to
construct a conforming 3 season porch attached to the dwelling with the following
condition:
a. The existing shed be moved to a conforming location.
o
The City Council authorizes the alterations set forth in this resolution, pursuant to
Section 350:420, Subdivision 8 of the Zoning Ordinance with the clear and express
understanding that the structures described in the resolution remain as lawful,
nonconforming structures 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 improvements:
Construct a conforming 3 season porch on the existing dwelling.
This variance is granted for the following legally described property as stated in the
Hennepin County Property Information System:
LOT 1 8 AND THAT PART OF LOT 1 5 LYING BETWEEN THE NELY AND SWLY LINES OF LOT 1 8
EXTENDED NWLY ACROSS SAID LOT 1 5, BLOCK 6, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO
LAKESIDE PARK, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA,
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.
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
September 28, 1998
MINUTES
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 1998
Those present: Vice - Chair Michael Mueller, Cklair Hasse, Becky Glister, Frank Weiland, Orv
Burma, Bill Voss, Jerry Clapsaddle, and Council Liaison Mark Hanus. Staff present: Assistant
City Planner Loren Gordon, and Secretary Kris Linquist. Absent and Excused: Chair Geoff
Michael and Building Official Jon Sutherland.
Public Present: Scott and Jane Kempf, John & Jaimie Richardson.
Meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Vice - Chair Michael Mueller.
BOARD OF APPEALS:
CASE # 98-53: VARIANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A THREE
SEASON PORCH, SCOTT KEMPF, 2207 CENTERVlEW LANE, LOT 18 AND PART
OF 15, BLOCK 6, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK,
PID # 13-117-24 34 0006
Loren Gordon presented the case.
The applicant, Scott Kempf, has submitted a request to construct a conforming porch addition.
The associated variance request is listed below.
Existing/Proposed Required
Front Yard 15' 20' 5'
Side Yard 3.1' 6' 2.9'
Shed 17' 20' 3'
Variance
The property is located at 2207 Centerview Lane on a 6,100 sf lot which exceeds the R-2
standard. The property consists of lots 18 and a portion of 15 of Abraham Lincoln Addition to
Lakeside Park subdivision. Current improvements to the property include a one-story house
and a shed. With Centerview Lane and Noble Drive on each side of the property, it is
considered a through lot and must meet 20 feet setbacks along both streets. The existing
house has nonconforming side and front yard setbacks. In addition, the shed is setback 17 feet
from Noble Drive which would require a 3 feet variance.
The proposed three-season porch addition would be built in a conforming location to match the
north side wall of the house. The porch would be located 46 feet from Noble Drive. Plans
Mound Planning Commission Minutes
September 28, 1998
indicate the porch will be 16 feet by 16 feet in size and will be of typical design to match the
house. Hardcover as proposed would be under 30 percent by 21 sf.
The proposed conforming porch addition is consistent with the intent of the code and all
hardcover and code requirements would be satisfied. The existing shed is within the 20 feet
setback from Noble Drive. As indicated by the applicant, the shed can be moved if necessary.
Staff would suggest the shed be moved to a conforming location. The existing house setbacks
appear to present a practical difficulty to the applicant. Staff believes the porch addition will add
to the use and enjoyment of the home and add value to the home and surrounding
neighborhood.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council approval of the variance as
requested with the following condition.
1. The existing shed be moved to a conforming location.
DISCUSSION
Mueller questioned the setbacks for this property. Gordon stated that the property is a through
lot, having street frontage for both Noble Drive and Centerview Lane. A 20 foot setback would
apply to each yard space.
Hanus commented on the shed setback and why would we apply a principle structure to the
shed since there is not a driveway to the shed. Gordon stated that a shed is considered an
accessory structure which would require the same setback as a principal building. If it were a
garage, it could be as close as 8 feet to the lot line.
Mueller asked if the applicants were ok with moving the shed. The applicants stated that there
ok with moving the shed.
MOTION by Weiland, seconded by Hasse to recommend staffs recommendation
to approve the variance as requested. Motion carried unanimously 8-0.
This case will go to City Council on October 13, 1998
C
PLANNING REPORT
Hoisington Koegler Group Inc.
TO: Mound Council, Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Loren Gordon, AICP
DATE: September 28, 1998
SUBJECT: Variance request - Front and Side Yards
APPLICANT: Scot Kempf- 2207 Centerview Lane
CASE NUMBER: 98-53
HKG FILE NUMBER: 98-5yy
LOCATION: 2207 Centerview Lane
ZONING: Residential District R-2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Residential
BACKGROUND: The applicant has submitted a request to construct a conforming porch
addition. The associated variance request is listed below.
Existing/Proposed Required Variance
Front Yard 15' 20' 5'
Side Yard 3.1' 6' 2.9'
Shed 17' 20' 3'
The property is located at 2207 Centerview Lane on a 6,100 sf lot which exceeds the R-2
standard. The property consists of lots 18 and a portion of 15 of Abraham Lincoln Addition to
Lakeside Park subdivision. Current improvements to the property include a one-story house and
a shed. With Centerview Lane and Noble Drive on each side of the property, it is considered a
through lot and must meet 20 feet setbacks along both streets. The existing house has
nonconforming side and front yard setbacks. In addition, the shed is setback 17 feet from Noble
Drive which would require a 3 feet variance.
The proposed three-season porch addition would be built in a conforming location to match the
north side wall of the house. The porch would be located 46 feet from Noble Drive. Plans
indicate the porch will be 16 feet by 16 feet in size and will be of typical design to match the
house. Hardcover as proposed would be under 30 percent by 21 sf.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
p. 2
#98-53 Kempf Variance Request
September 26, 1998
COMMENTS: A variance can be granted in Mound only on the basis of a finding of hardship or
practical difficulty. Under the Mound Code, variances may be granted only in the event that the
following circumstances exist (Section 350:530):
Ao
Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances apply to the property, which do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity, and result from lot size or
shape, topography, or other circumstances over which the owners of property since
enactment of the ordinance have no control.
Bo
The literal interpretation of the provisions of this Ordinance would deprive the applicant
of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same district under the terms of
this Ordinance.
Do
That the special conditions or circumstances do not result from the actions of the
applicant.
That granting of the variance request will not confer on the applicant any special privilege
that is denied by this Ordinance to owners of other lands, structures or buildings in the
same district.
E. The variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate the hardship.
F. The variance would not be materially detrimental to the purpose of this Ordinance or to
property in the same zone.
The proposed conforming porch addition is consistent with the intent of the code and all
hardcover and code requirements would be satisfied. The existing shed is within the 20 feet
setback from Noble Drive. As indicated by the applicant, the shed can be moved if necessary.
Staff would suggest the shed be moved to a conforming location. The existing house setbacks
appear to present a practical difficulty to the applicant. Staff believes the porch addition will add
to the use and enjoyment of the home and add value to the home and surrounding neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission recommend Council
approve the variance as requested with the following condition.
1. The existing shed be moved to a conforming location.
123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
(612) 338-0800 Fax (612) 338-6838
ia J, ~ , ,I-, & 4 , ii,
' ,. r- ~,~ ~q VARIANCE APPLICATION
I:. ~_~i;' CITY OF MOUND
~ 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364
~U(~ ~' i7 1993' Phone: 472-0600, Fax: 472-0620
(,._,' ,..'~ ~.. ·"'~.. ..... ~ Application Fee: $100.00
(FOR OFFICE USE ONLY)
Distribution: ',~-'Z~7-~ City Planner/E) R~
'~ ~ ~ ~--f~ City Engineer Other/
-~ ~..-'~'? ~> Public Works
PROPERTY Lot
LEGAL Block
ZONING DISTRICT R-1 R-lA ~ R-3 B-1 B-2 B-3
OWNER Address ~o") ¢...~-~"C,¢r~..,.J L. tO
Phone (H) t.{,")~.- ~c{ ~'~ (W) (M)
APPLICANT Name
(IF OTHER Address
THAN Phone (H) (W) (M)
OWNER)
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or other zoning
procedure for this property? ( ) yes, {/mo. If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution
number(s) and provide copies of resolutions.
Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.):
· Variance Application, P. 2
o
Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning
district in which it is located? Yes (), No-~: If no, specify each non-conforming use (describe
reason for variance request, i.e. setback, lot area, etc.):
SETBACKS: REQUIRED
REQUESTED VARIANCE
(or existing)
Front Yard: ( N ~ £ W ) ft. ft. ft.
Side Yard: ( N~.~?E W ) ~) ft. ~:;;;tj, 1~ ft. ft.
Side Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Rear Yard: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
Lakeside: ( N S E W ) ft. ft. ft.
: (NSEW) ft. ft. ft.
Street Frontage: ft. ft. ft.
Lot Size: sq ft sq ft sq ft
Hardcover: sq ft sq ft sq ft
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:
o
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of
the uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) too narrow ( ) topography ( ) soil
( ) too small ( ) drainage ( ) existing situation
( ) too shallow ( ) shape ( ) other: specify
Please describe:
(Rev. l l/14/97)
J
Variance Application, P. 3
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the
land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (19821? Yes ( }, No ~. If yes, explain:
Was the hards, hip created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a road?
Yes (), No ~. If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property
described in this petition? Yes J~, No (). If no, list some other properties which are similarly
affected?
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.
C~
Owner's Signature
Applicant's Signature
Date
Date
(Rev. 11/14/97)
CITY OF MOUND
HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS
(IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE)
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
OWNER'S NAME: :D~
LOT AREA
LOT AREA ~:~ ,~ ~:}
LOT AREA
SQ. FT. X 30%
SQ. FT. X 40%
SQ. FT. X 15%
= (for all lots) ..............
= (for Lots of Record*) .......
= (for detached buildings only)
*Existing Lots of Record may have 40 percent coverage provided that techniques are utilized, as
outlined in Zoning Ordinance Section 350:1225, Subd. 6. B. 1. (see back). A plan must be submitted
and approved by the Building Official.
LENGTH WIDTH
HOUSE 2<~/' X "~1~ =
X =
X =
DETACHED BLDGS
(GARAGE/SHED)
DRIVEWAY, PARKING (,~-~'~'
AREAS, SIDEWALKS,
ETC~
DECKS Open decks (1/4" min.
opening between boards) with a
pervious surface under are
not counted as hardcover
OTHER
SQ FT
TOTAL HOUSE .........................
X =
~ x t'~- = '~
TOTAL DETACHED BLDGS .................
TOTAL DRIVEWAY, ETC ..................
X =
X =
X =
TOTAL DECK ..........................
X =
X =
TOTAL OTHER .........................
TOTAL HARDCOVER / IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
OVER (indicate difference) ...............................
PREPARED
BY
I
I
DATE
............ '__PL,-AI" OF: ~,UEVE,¥
RECEIVED
SEP 16 1998
MOUND PLAI~NING &/NSP.
C
WAYNE
ELI
d /'
Pho,.:: GR¢¢uwood. 3-$352
ARLEIGH C. SMITH
R~gi.~tcrcd 'Professional Engineer and Land Surveyor
2030 East Wayzata l%ulcuard Wayzata, 2~inncsota
PLAT OF SURVEY
N
i
Scale: I inch --,~"C.' _feet.
"~'4 ,, {.' / -
/
~,'- .
._. /;-' ~ /"-;:. ~ /..,..,~,
'"': / .~~%~ / .,,,,."~ / - ,/ /
..,
/
~~/ .
CERTIFICATE OF LOCATIOi~ OF BUILDING CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
~-) _ -, . . ."-,-), 19 ':' I
1 hereby certify that o~ P i-~
,. ,~lb ~) 19 ~/ I I hereby certify that o~
made a survey ol the proposed location of the building surveyed thc property described above and that the
on the above described property and that the location above plat is a correct representation of said survey.
. ~~.~ ~,~; ...... F'~ ~ . ,.~ .
F 43'10
~ ................... 16 ................ t 27'10
i~ m-y ..... ~ ....... -?--~,2---t-3,0,,4--1
~ ~3t ..... ~-~--~ .... ~- ......... ~~~~.
~ ~ III I~ ' ~.~1 /
~ ..... ~ ill
I I
......... I- ~'-~ ......
28'
LIVING AREA
1272 sq fl
3f~"O
Oi
;v-..~'T'4 I I, I
I I '1
I
I
3 u::,'-.[ "' I
~, BASFMENT
I
, I
I
I
I
I I
I t -
LIVING AREA
lo12 sq ft
L~ ~c_.A LF~
WAYNE EL!
~ ~0H
C
SURVEY ON FILE? YES ! NO
i, Jm, ,~I.
CITY OF MOUND - ZONING INFORMATION SttEET
ZONING DISTRICT, LOT SIZE/WIDTH:
· R1 10,000/60 E1 7,500/0
~iA 6~000/4~.x B2 20,000/80
R2 6,000/40) B3 10,000/60
~2 14,000/80
R3 SEE ORD. I1 30,000/100
EXISTING LOT SIZE: ·
LOT WIDTH:
LOT DI~PTH:
LOT OF RECORD? YES / NO
YARD [ DIRECTION ] REQUIRED ]EXISTING/PROPOSED VARIANCE '"
IIOUSE .........
FRONT N S E W
FRONT N $ E W
SIDE N S E W
SIDE N S E W
REAR N S E W 15'
N S E W ,~
LAKE
TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30'
GARAGE, SiiED ..... DETACItED BUILDINGS
FRONT N S E W
FRONT N S E W
SIDE N S E W 4' OR 6'
SIDE N S E W 4'0R6'
REAR N S E W 4'
LAKE N S E W 50'
TOP OF BLUFF 10' OR 30'
30% OR 40%
iiARDCOVER
CONFORMING? YES C
,? I.Y: ' IpAT.D:
'Fhis Zoning Information Sheet mdy summarizes a portion of the requirements outlined in the City of Mound Zoning Ordinance. For further information, contact the City of Mound
Planning Departmenl at 472-0600. _ ~
t ¥~OOD
0
_.i .--I
E O
e-
m e"
~-
..O "'O
>-
>
October 14, 1997
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A PUBLIC LANDS ALTERATION PERMIT FOR
MR. 10,T.V~t BAUER AT 1774 HERON LANE
LOT 3, BLOCK 3,
LINDEN HEIGHTS ADDmON, PID #13..11%24 11 0005,
PUBLIC LANDS CASE g97-
WH'EI~EAS, the applicant, Ralph Bauer, is seeking an after the fact Public Lands
Alteration Permit to alter and improve the landscape and replace trees cut without prior
authorization by the city; and;
,WH'~'~EAS, the subject property is a portion of Heron lane and Crescent Park
adjacent to the above address and as noted on the attached survey. According to City C°de
section 320 a Public lands Permit is required to do the proposed modifications to the Public
Lands, and;
WHEREAS, the Park and Open Space Commission has reviewed the request and
unanimously recommended approval of the plan with the intent of using as many native plants,
because there are enough selections there, in area A and as proposed in Area B.
NOW, TI~REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, aa follows:
The City does hereby grant a Public Lands Alteration Permit as described above and in the
application and the applicant shall follow the plans as submitted reviewed and approved by the
City Staff, with the recommendations of the Park and Open Space Commission as follows;
The plan is approved with the intent that the applicant shall use as many native plants,
because there are enough selections there, in Area A and as proposed in Area B.
2. The replacement plantings and related work shall be subject to the review and approval of
the Parks Director.
,,
In the event compliance with these conditions is not achieved as agreed within one year of
the date of the city council resolution, the Parks Director shall refer the matter back to the
City Attorney for prosecution.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember I-Ianus and seconded by
Councilmember Weycker.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Ahrens, Hanus, Polston and Weyckcr.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
none.
Councilm~mber ~Iensen was absent and excused.
October 14, 1~7
C;
Attest: City Clerk
,..h',¢' '
,
~!~.th;[s 15 a t~ue '~ncl cOr'r'eCl; r'ePr'~Sent, al:jon, ofa sUr've~,
,lt~inclen..l~..;t~hl;$ AddH:lon; ancr't, he' local;ion': of' '
~.n,y'.ol;fi{~ lap~-ovement,s .o~ encr'oachmen~,s, an 'ex'lsl~tng..tt~
~',",'~j ¢::",,i',,' '*~' '"~' ' COFFIN:
Bills
October
13, 1998
Batch 8093
Batch 8094
Batch 8095
TOTAL BILLS
72,302.60
88,776.97
231,553.42
$ 392,632.99
Q~
0
0
0
~Ot
<:~. uJ
ti
, ~. C (.) C, (' C, 0 · O 0 0 0 0 0 C) 9 ,g ,
t'~-
<.'. E~-= e t t I I I t t I I I I t I t
e L-/ ·
IJ
0
Z
Z
off.
0
C~
>-
r~
i8
"I
· · · · ·
· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·
s~?7
Z:~
0 0 0 0 · 0 0 0 0
,L I , ,II
Z
I
Z
>-
C
RESOLUTION NO. 98
RESOLUTION ADOPTING DELINQUENT WATER & SEWER
ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $ TO BE
CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST
LEVY//14428
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has
met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the following
improvements, to-wit:
DELINQUENT WATER AND SEWER
Mound:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
C
o
PID #
SEE LIST
Such proposed special assessment, copies of which are attached hereto and made
a part hereof, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment
against the lands named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby
found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the
assessment levied against it.
Such assessments shall be payable in equal annual installments as follows:
IMPROVEMENT
INTe
AMOUNT YEARS RATE LEVY #
DEL. SEWER &
WATER 1 8* 14428
e
Payment in full with no interest charges may be made within thirty (30) days
(November 13, 1998) from the date the City Council adopts the assessment roll.
Payments should be made to the City Treasurer at the Mound City Hall.
Partial prepayment of the assessment has been authorized by ordinance (Section
370). If you wish to make a partial payment, the payment must be in $100.00
increments. If the total assessment is under $300.00, no partial payment will be
accepted.
If payment is made after thirty (30) days (November 13, 1998), interest will be
charged to December 31, 1998.
If the assessment is not paid on or before November 13, 1998 the amount will be
spread over the assessment period (1 year). That payment will include interest
for fourteen (14) months (November through December of 1998, and all of 1999).
Payments will become due with your real estate taxes. All payments thereafter
shall be in accordance with the provisions of M.S. 429.061, Subd. 3.
The rate of interest to be accrued if the assessment is not prepaid within the
required time period is eight percent (8%).
The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the
County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists for the County, and such
assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other
municipal taxes.
C
,-]
0
0
0
d
0
0
0
d
0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0
~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
C
C
0
0
H
0
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0
~ I I I I I ! I I I ! I I I I I I
0
0
0
6
0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0
~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
3'/'/2,
0
.~ff3
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
J I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0
0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
j I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0
0
0
,-'1 ,-I 0 0 0 ~-I ¢'~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
~1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I-.I ,~ ,,~ ~ ~1~ ~' 'c~ If~ ~ L~ ~ IA~ ¢~ 0 0 0 0
C~
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
I I I I
~ I I I I
qO00
C
C
October 13, 1998
RESOLUTION NO. 98-
Rr3OLUTION ADOPTING 1998 CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE
ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,178.59 TO BE
CERTIFI'EI) TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AT 8% INTEREST
LEVY//14429
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council
has met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed assessment for the following
improvements, to-wit:
1997 CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE FROM JULY 1, 1996 TO JUNE 30, 199~ IN
THE AMOUNT OF $2,178.59.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF MOUND:
Such proposed special assessment, copies of which are attached hereto and made
a part hereof, are hereby accepted and shall constitute the special assessment
against the lands named herein, and each tract of land therein included is hereby
found to be benefited by the proposed improvement in the amount of the
assessment levied against it.
2. Such assessments shall be payable in one annual installment as follows:
LEVY # IMPROVEMENT RATE YEARS
14429 1998 CBD PARKING MAINTENANCE 8%
(SEE ATTACHED LIST FOR PID NUMBERS AND AMOUNTS)
o
Payment in full with no interest charges may be made within thirty (30) days
(November 13, 1998) from the date the City Council adopts the assessment roll.
Payments should be made to the City Treasurer at the Mound City Hall.
Partial prepayment of the assessment has been authorized by ordinance (Section
370). If you wish to make a partial payment, the payment must be in $100.00
increments. If the total assessment is under $300.00, no partial payment will be
accepted.
0
If payment is made after thirty (30) days (November 13, 1998), interest will be
charged to December 31, 1998.
If the assessment is not paid on or before November 13, 1998 the amount will be
spread over the assessment period (1 year). That payment will include interest
for fourteen (14) months (November through December of 1998, and all of 1999).
Payments will become due with your real estate taxes. All payments thereafter
shall be in accordance with the provisions of M.S. 429.061, Subd. 3.
October 13, 1998
The rate of interest to be accrued if the assessment is not prepaid within the
required time period is eight percent (8 %).
The Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the
County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists for the County, and such
assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other
municipal taxes.
002-
C
~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
~ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0
0
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
MEMORANDUM
October 9, 1998
TO:
FROM:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: LOST LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
As you know, the Lost Lake Improvement Project Bids were opened on October 1, 1998. Three bids
were received. They are as follows:
Ames Construction, Burnsville, MN
Johnson Brothers, Litchfield, MN
H.S. Black Construction
$1,352,290.00
$1,513463.32
$1,956,596.04
The low bid is approximately $6,300 below the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT)
estimate. MNDOT calculates the City's participation amount at $777,461.49. In order for the
project to proceed, a check must be sent to MNDOT following the bid award so that the paperwork
can be processed and the contract executed with Ames Construction. It is our understanding that
construction could begin around the first week of November. Attached for your consideration is a
resolution approving the bid award.
Staff is recommending that the City's share, $777,461.49, be paid for out of the Capital
Improvement Fund (Fund #30). Through the budgeting process, we can determine how much of this
amount should actually be charged against Fund #30 and how much should go against the Liquor
Fund and the General Fund. If you recall, the 1999 Proposed Budget calls for the majority of the
costs to be paid for out of the Fund #30 with the balance being distributed to the Liquor Fund and
the General Fund. We may still want to use this approach and then reimburse Fund #30 whatever
amounts the City Council feels comfortable with. We will also need to utilize Fund #30, Liquor
Fund and the General Fund for the consultant fees and contingency costs associated with the project.
printed on recycled paper
Memorandum to Mayor & City Council
October 9, 1998
Page 2
The following is a sunun~ of the costs:
MNDOT Estimate of Lost Lake Improvement Project
$1,358,563.00
Low Bid from Ames Construction
ISTEA Grant
City's Share
Consultant Fees (Planning and Engineering)
Subtotal
5% Contingency (Applied Against Bid and Consultant Fees)
TOTAL CITY SHARE
$1,352,290.00
$ (574,828.51)
$ 777,461.49
$ 145,000.00
$ 922,461.49
$ 74,864.50
$ 997,325.99
We have been informed by MNDOT that should there be change orders or other cost overruns as a
result of the actual construction project, ISTEA funds would be available to cover eligible costs as
determined by MNDOT.
The attached resolution is a historic action to be taken. The beginning of the Lost Lake
Improvement Project represents years of study and analysis by many city officials, local businesses
and citizens. We are pleased to bring this project to you for your approval.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
C
RESOLUTION 98-
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BID OF AMES CONSTRUCTION FOR THE LOST
LAKE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,352,290.00 AND
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT
IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION (MNDOT) AND AMES CONSTRUCTION
WHEREAS, the City of Mound has been working on the Lost Lake Improvement Project
for several years; and
WHEREAS, the project involves the dredging of the Lost Lake Canal located in the City
of Mound; and
WHEREAS, bids were received on October 1, 1998 at the City of Mound; and
WHEREAS, the Iow bid was received from Ames Construction, Bumsville, Minnesota in
the amount of $1,352,290.00; and
WHEREAS, MNDOT staff has reviewed the low bid and has determined that the bid has
met the plans and specifications as drafted by the City of Mound and MNDOT.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MOUND, MINNESOTA, that it approves the low bid of Ames Construction in the amount of
$1,352,290.00 and authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to execute the contract along with
MNDOT with Ames Construction to perform the work pursuant to the plans and specifications as
prepared by City staff and MNDOT.
The following voted in favor of the resolution:
The following voted against the resolution:
Attest:
City Clerk
Mayor
oog
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Memo
October 6, 1998
City Clerks/School District Clerks
Marge Christianson, Hennepin County Elections
1998 Election Meeting
Recycled Paper
We have scheduled a meeting of city and school district clerks ·
Thursday, October 15, 1998
1:00 - 3:00 PM
Golden Valley City Hall, Council Chambers
We will discuss the upcoming election process; if you have additional items that
should be on the agenda, please call me at 348-5103.
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
MEMORANDUM
October 8, 1998
TO:
FROM:
MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL
ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER ~
SUBJECT: FALL LEAF DROPOFF
We have been talking with staff at the City of Minnetrista regarding the possibility of conducting
a joint leaf dropoff this fall for both cities. The City Council in Minnetrista has agreed to provide
this service this fall for their residents.
I had been talking with Tim Cruikshank, City Administrator, Minnetrista, regarding the possibility
of both of our cities working together on this project. He contacted me this week and we had a
meeting with both city staffs and came up with a plan that he is bringing to the Minnetrista Council
next Monday for their approval. Assuming they will approve it, I would like you to also approve
it at our meeting on Tuesday evening.
Basically, the leafdropoffwould take place in the storage area behind the Minnetrista City Hall and
Public Works Building. This is the site where Mound shares storage of its public works materials.
with Minnetrista. There is enough room at this site to pile the leaves and then to haul them away
following each of the cleanup weekends.
The hours the site would be open would be 9 a.m. - 4 p.m., Saturday, October 31 and Sunday,
November 1. The same hours would be in effect for the following weekend of November 7 and
November 8. Should there be a need to extend the days that it is opened, that decision could be
made following November 8.
There would be a 25 cents per bag charge for the leaves. All leaves must be clean of brush, twigs
or other yard waste. The City of Mound would furnish a worker to collect money, make sure people
dump the leaves in the right area, etc. On Monday following the weekend dropoff, public works
printed on recycled paper
Memorandum to Mayor & City Council
October 8, 1998
Page 2
employees from Mirmetrista and Mound would haul the leaves to the Hennepin County Regional
Park in Minnetrista for disposal. The County will accept these leaves this fall only free of charge.
Reserves from Minnetrista and Mound could be utilized for directing traffic into and out of the site.
We discussed long-term composting and we all agreed to pursue this issue together. For the short
term, this plan seems to be the best approach to handle the demand that we will be seeing in a few
weeks.
Does this sound good to you? We can discuss this more Tuesday evening. If you have any
questions, please contact me.
.~O~ OF
NO. OF CALLS
MOUND FIR~
' . (628
62 62 573
H!NNETONKA BEACH FIRE
M!NNETRISTA FIRE
ORON0 FIRE
S~OREWOOD
SPRING PARK FII~E
HUTUAL AID FIRE
TOTAL FIRE CALLS
TOTAL EMERGENCY CALLS
COMMERCIAL
o'z~ss ~ ~zsc~mrrsoos
- HOUND
- MTKA BEACH
- H'TRISTA
- ORONO
FIRE
FIRE
SHOREWOOD
FIRE
- SP. PARK'
C
TOTAL DRILL HOURS
TOTAL FIRE HOURS
TOTAL EMERGENCY HOURS
/UL~L F/RE & EMERGENCY HOURS
MUTUAL AID RECEIVED
MUTUAL AID GIVEN
7
1
0
17
45
O
0
0
631
24
O
24
147
142
289
27
69
96
0
0
0 ~.
14
144
158
132
0 ~
132
0
24
38
1
2
0
557.
0
28
28
68
117
185
124.
112-
236
28
'- 50
42
10
52
7
3
39
7
2
315
7
31
0
118
13
80'
2437.
· 3509
5946 ·
341'
126
467
636
681
1317
1213
577
1790
40
66
106-
815 ·
714
1529 '
287
287
5
TO DAI~
593
70
49
25
4
2
16
5
6
4
301
292
2
38
0
7
99
3836
3184
7O20
348
8O
428
945
658
1603
1225
423
1648
81
38
119
35O
998
1348
196
80
276
;27.5
MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT
MOUND, MINNESOTA
FOR MONTH OF September 1998
FIRE FIGHTERS DRILLS & MAINTENANCE FIRE & RESCUE
9/21 9/28 H/IRS ~
1 o~F~' ANDERSEN " X X 2 1~9.00 6 6.50 370.50
2gREG ANDERSON X X 2 19.00 5.5 6.50 286.00
3PAUL BA~]$ X X 2 19.00 3 47 6.50 305.50
4 DAVID BOYD X X 2 19.00 0 31 6.75 209.25
5 SCOTT BRYCE , (~) X 1 9.50 0 30 6.50 195.00
6JIM CASEY X /~ 1 9.50 2.5 24 6~50 156.00
7 BOB CRAWFORD X X 2 19. O0 3.5 37 6 50 240.50
8RANDY ]~GEtMART X X 2 19.00 10 31 %_ 50 201.50
9DAN GRADY X X 2 19.00 0 38 6_5(~ 247.00
10~Vl~f; ~RADy ~ X 1 9 ~ 50 0 25 6~ 50 162.50
llBRUCE GUSTAFSON "X X 2 19.00 2.5 49 6.50 318.50
12PAT HANLEY X X 2 19. O0 5 41 6.50 266.50
13CRAIG HENDERSON X Z~E,,]~ 1 9.50 2 ~ 6.50 240.50
14PAUL HENRY X X 2 · 19.00 3.5 6.50 221.00
1 ~ATT H]~iGES X X 2 19.00 5.5 . 6.50 286.00
16MATT JAKUBIK X X 2 19.00 4 43 6.50 279.50
isROGER KRYCK X X 2 19.00 2.5 41 6.50 ' 266.50
1830HN LARSON X X 2 '~ 19.00 2.5 45 6.50 292.50
1RIASON MAAS X ' X 2 19.00 4 40 6.50 260.00
20tONY MYERS X X 2 1'9.00 2 39 6.50 253.50
21JOHN NAFUS X X 2 19 ~ O0 2 37 6.50 240.50
22JAMES ~ON X X 2 19.00 5 33 6.50 214.50
2~RET NICCUM X X 2 19.00 2 29 6.50 188.50
2;~-'R~G PALM X X 2 19.00 2.5 ' 35 6.50 227.50
25MI f,g PALM X X 2 19.00 2.5 33 6.50 214.50
26TIM PALM X X 2 19.00 4 38 6.50 247.00
27GRMS PEDERSON X X 2 19.00 0 31 7.00 217.00
28~S POUNDER X X 2 19.00 3 36 6.50 234.00
29RI CWARD ROG~-~ X X 2 19.00 2 43 6.50 279.50
3OMl~ SAVAGE X X 2 19.00 10 38 6.50 147.00
31KEVIN SIPP~.L ~ X 1 9.50 1 2~ 6.50 156.00
~ fiE_]--- 0 -0- 0 6.50 00
32RON STALIMAN ~- 227.50
33BRUCE SVOBODA X X 2 - 19.00 2 II 35
__34ED VAN~C~X w X Z ~ q. m ~, 3~ '6~o
36TIM I.~IT.?.T/~.[S % × 2 lq:DO 5.5 II 32 6.50 ?OR_OD
33 34 67 ~ 8,668.25
82.5 85 167.5 636.50 114.5 1330
167.5 ~ 636.50
114.5 FAIN~ 1,250.00
~[rAL 10,554.75
City of Mound
Monthly Report
Utilities
Month of: September 1998
No. of Customers:
Water
Sewer
Water Used:
(in 1,000 gallons)
Billing:
Water
Sewer
Recycle
Payments:
Water
Sewer
Recycle
1,084 126
1,088 126
20,760 3,004
Total
$34,982 $6,010
$62,103 $16,851
$5.870 $124
Total
$37,465 $6,008
$66,418 $16,206
$6,119 $97
~ $22.311
Utility-98
Total
1,210
1,214
23,764
$40,992
$78,954
$5.994
$125,94(
$43,473
$82,624
$6.216
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
Chief Len Harrell
Monthly Report for September, 1998
The police department responded to 1,183 calls for service during the
month of September. There were 22 Part I offenses reported. Those
offenses included 1 criminal sexual conduct, 4 burglaries, 16 larcenies,
and 1 vehicle theft.
There were 69 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 3 child
abuse/neglect, 1 forgery, 4 narcotics, 12 damage to property, 3 weapons, 5
liquor law violations, 5 DUTs, 5 simple assaults, 7 domestics (3 with
assaults), 8 harassment, 6 juvenile status, and 10 other offenses.
The patrol division issued 88 adult and 4 juvenile citations. Parking
violations accounted for an additional 12 tickets. Warnings were issued to
73 individuals for a variety of violations.
There were 2 adults and 7 juveniles arrested for felonies. There were 29
adults and 10 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were an
additional 7 misdemeanor warrant arrests.
The department assisted in 12 vehicle accidents, 4 with injuries. There
were 30 medical emergencies and 94 animal complaints. Mound assisted
other agencies on 14 occasions in September and requested assistance 7
times.
Property valued at $7,166 was stolen in September.
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
MONTHLY REPORT - September, 1998
Il.
INVESTIOATIONS
The investigators worked on 2 criminal sexual conduct cases and 4 child
protection issues accounting for 54 hours of investigative time. Other
cases included assault, burglary, threats, domestic assault, DWI, damage
to property, forgery, NSF checks, theft, harassment, and absenting.
Formal complaints were issued for 5th degree assault, underage
consumption, disorderly conduct, theft, transporting a loaded firearm,
careless driving, Gross DWI and driving after cancellation, obstructing
justice, and marijuana in a motor vehicle, harassing communications,
derelict auto, barking dog and dog at large.
Personnel/Staffi nl~
The department used approximately 56 hours of overtime during the
month of September. Officers used 96 hours of comp-time, 175 hours of
vacation, 83 hours of sick time, and 6 holidays. Officers earned 30 hours
of comp time.
IV. TRAININ0
Officer Ringate attended a two week school to become a "Use of Force"
instructor for the department. Officer Maas attended "Emergency
Driving" for police officers. I attended the fall conference for Emergency
Preparedness sponsored by AMEM (Association of Minnesota Emergency
Managers).
V. COMMUNITY SERVICES OFFICERS
Officers Holzerland and Piper addressed 41 animal complaints, 66
ordinance violations, and 181 miscellaneous calls for services. Five
citations were issued.
Not available.
1ol3
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
SEPTEMBER 1998
OFFENSES ~ EXCEPT- CLEARED BY ARRESTED
~EPORTED UNFOUNDED CLEARED ARREST ADULT JUV
jTI CRIMES
Homicide
Criminal Sexual Conduct
Robbery
Aggravated Assault
Burglary
Larceny
Vehicle Theft
Arson
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0
16 1 1 4 1 7
1 0 0 1 1 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL
22 I I 5 2 7
PART II CRIMES
Child Abuse/Neglect 3 1 0 1 1
Forgery/NSF Checks 1 0 0 0 0
Criminal Damage to Property 12 0 0 1 1
Weapons 3 1 0 2 2
Narcotic Laws 4 0 0 4 4
Liquor Laws 5 0 0 5 5
DWI 5 0 0 5 5
Simple Assault 5 0 1 2 2
Domestic Assault 3 0 0 3 2
Domestic (No Assault) 4 0 0 0 0
Harassment 8 0 1 2 3
Juvenile Status Offenses 6 0 1 4 0
Public Peace 1 0 0 1 t
Trespassing 2 0 0 2 0
All Other Offenses 7 0 0 3 3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
6
0
3
0
TOTAL
69 2 3 35
29 10
PART II & PART IV
Property Damage Accidents
Personal Injury Accidents
Fatal Accidents
Medicals
Animal Complaints
Mutual Aid
Other General Investigations
TOTAL
8
4
0
30
94
14
873
1,023
HCCP
Inspections
4
66
TOTAL
1,183
4O
31 17
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
SEPTEMBER 1998
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 Violations
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
Overweight Vehicles
Miscellaneous Tags
TOTAL
5
4
0
2
0
31
1
0
23
0
3
1
1
0
4
0
0
12
1
5
1
0
0
lO0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
4
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
SEPTEMBER 1998
Insurance
Traffic
Equipment
Crosswalk
Animals
Trash/Derelict Autos
Seat Belt
Trespassing
Window Tint
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
WARRANT ARRESTS
Felony
Misdemeanor
20
18
11
0
2
14
0
0
0
8
73
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ol/.
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT SEPTEMBER 1998
GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY
Hazardous Citations
Non-Hazardous Citations
Hazardous Warnings
Non-Hazardous Warnings
Verbal Warnings
Parking Citations
DWI
Over .10
Property Damage Accidents
Personal Injury Accidents
Fatal Accidents
Adult Felony Arrests
Adult Misdemeanor Arrests
Juvenile Felony Arrests
Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests
Part I Offenses
Part II Offenses
Medicals
Animal Complaints
Ordinance Violations
Other Public Contacts
THIS YEA/~ TO L~T YEA/{
MONTH DATE TO DATE
41 482 737
46 402 607
16 143 193
29 371 519
62 714 736
12 280 468
5 54 77
4 35 64
8 66 64
4 27 33
0 0 0
2 19 38
34 306 342
7 51 30
10 158 158
22 285 216
68 585 631
30 264 231
94 513 474
66 335 255
873 7,395 6,609
TOTAL
Assists
Follow-Ups
HCCP
Mutual Aid Given
Mural Aid Requested
1,433 12,485 12,482
29 483 547
88 634 414
4 59 30
14 147 138
7 54 77
Run: 29-Sep-98 16:11
PRO03
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Primary ISN's only: No
Date Reported range: 08/26/98 - 09/25/98
Activity codes: All
Property Status: All
Property Types: All
Property Descs: Ail
Brands: All
Models: All
Officers/Badges: Ail
Enfors Property Report
STOLEN/RECOVERED BY DATE REPORTED
Prop Prop Inc no ISN Pr Prop Date Rptd Stolen Date Recov'd Quantity Act
Tp Desc SN Stat Stolen Value Recov'd Value Code
Brand
Model
Page
Off-1 Off-2
Assnd Assnd
Prop type Totals: 250 0 1.000
Prop type Totals: 230 0 1.000
Prop type Totals: 22 4 5.000
Prop type Totals: 3,700 0 3.000
Prop type Totals: 1,375 0 2.000
Prop type Totals: 189 188 3.000
Prop type Totals: 5 5 2.000
Prop type Totals: 1,225 0 1.000
Prop type Totals: 170 80 6.000
Report Totals: 7,166 277 24.000
Run: 30-Sep-98 10:
11 CFS08
Primary ISN's only: No
Date Reported range: 08/26/98 - 09/25/98
Cl range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
How Received: Ail
Activity Resulted: Ail
Dispositions: All
Officers/Badges: All
Grids: All
Patrol Areas: All
Days of the week: All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDE/gTS
9000 SPEEDING 31
9001 J-SPEEDING 1
9002 NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L
9014 STOP SIGN 3
9016 FAILURE TO YIELD 1
9018 EQUIPMENT VIOLATION 1
C! CROSSWALK VIOLATION 1
ALL OTHER TRAFFIC 2
9041 J-NO SEATBELT 2
9100 PARKING/ALL OTHER 12
9200 DAS/DAR/DAC 2
9210 PLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED · 23
9211 J-PLATES/NO-EXPIRED-IMPROPER 1
9220 NO INSURANCE/PROOF OF 4
9240 CHANGE OF DOMICILE 4
9253 STOP ARMVIOLATION/NO TICKET 2
9300 LOST ARTICLES/OTHER
9309 FOUND/RUNAWAY 2
9312 FOUND ANIMALS/IMPOUNDS 3
(~"~? FOUND PROPERTY
Page
Run: 30-Sep-98 10:11 CFS08
Primary ISN's only: NO
Date Reported range: 08/26/98 - 09/25/98
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
How Received: All
Activity Resulted: All
Dispositions: All
Officers/Badges: All
Grids: All
Patrol Areas: Ail
Days of the week: All
MOUND POLIC~ DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
9450 PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENTS 8
9561 DOG BITE 2
9564 DOG BARKING 1
9566 ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS 5
9567 DANGEROUS DOG 2
9720 MEDICAL/DOA 1
9730 MEDICALS 28
9732 MEDICALS/CI
9800 ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIED 11
9801 DOMESTIC/NO ASSAULT 4
9802 PUBLIC ASSIST 1
9810 LOITERING/LURKING 1
9900 ALL HCCP CASES 4
9904 OPEN DOOR/ALARMS 2
9921 INSPECTIONS CITATION 1
9930 HA/~DGUN APPLICATION 11
9932 OFP VIO. CRIME CONTROL & LAW ENF ACT OF '94 1
9933 RESTRAINING ORDER ON FILE 2
9951 SEX OFFENDERS 2
9980 WARR~/qTS 5
9992 MUTUAL AID/8100 8
9993 MUTUAL AID/6500 4
Page
Run: 30-Sep-98 10:11 CFS08
Primary ISN's only: No
Date Reported range: 08/26/98 - 09/25/98
~W'~trange ea=h day: 00:00 - 23:59
HOW Received: All
Activity Resulted: All
Dispositions: All
Officers/Badges: All
Grids: All
Patrol Areas: All
Days of the week: All
ACTIVITY CODE
DESCRIPTION
9994 MUTUAL AID/ ALL OTHER
A5355 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-CHLD-ACQ
A5356 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HA/~DS-CHLD-STR
A5506 ASLT 5-THRT BODILY HARM-NO WEAP-STR
A9502
AL351
Bl164
B3330
B3394
B3494
DA540
DC500
13060
J2701
J3501
J3E01
L2071
C
M4140
M5313
TERR THREATS-INFLT BB-UNK WEAP-ADLT-ACQ
DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-AD-FAM
ASLT-DOMESTIC-MS-INFLT BODLY HRM-HI~DS-ADLT-AC
DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY H/LRM-HANDS-CH-FAM
BURG 1-OCC RES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT
BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC-D-UNK WEAP-UNKACT
BURG 3-LrNOCC RES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT
BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UN'K WEAP-COM THEFT
DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEB-POSS-MARIJ-UNK
DRUGS-DRUG PAP~APB-POSSESS-UNK-UNK
CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD
TRAFFIC-GM-AGG DUI-UNK INJ-MV
TP-AFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UN-DER INFLUENCE
TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV
CSC I WEAP-UNK ACT-ACQUAINT-UNDER 13-F
JUVENILE-USE OF TOBACCO
LIQUOR-UNDERAGE CONSUMPTION 18-21
JUVENILE-CURFEW
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
NUMBER OF
INCIDENTS
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
4
4
1
2
1
2
Page
Run: 30-Sep-98 10:11 CFS08
Primary ISN's only: No
Date Reported range: 08/26/98 - 09/25/98
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
How Received: AIl
Activity Resulted: Ail
Dispositions: AIl
Officers/Badges: Ail
Grids: Ail
Patrol Areas: Ail
Days of the week: Ail
MOUlqD POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVI~"f CODE
ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF
DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS
M5350 073VENILE-RUNAWAY
N3070 DISTURB PEACE-MS-PUBLIC NUISANCE
N3190 DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING CO~¢K3NICATIONS
N3370 VIOLATION OF ORDER FOR PROTECTION
N3380 VIOLATION OF HARASSMENT RESTRAINING ORDER
Pl140 PROP DAMAGE-FE-UTILIT COMM CARRIER-UlgK INTENT
P3110 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT
P3120 PROP DAMAGE-MS-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT
P3310 TRESPASS-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT
P3600 LITTER-UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF C,~.BAGE-MS
TB029 THEFT-MORE 2500-FE-BUILDING-OTH PROP
TC029 THEFT-501-2500-FE-BUILDING-OTH PROP
TC159 THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OT}{ PROP
TF021 THEFT-201-500-GM-BUILDING-MONEY
TF029 THEFT-201-500-GM-BUILDING-O~{ PROP
TF159 T~EFT-201-500-GM-MOTOR ~FEH-O~ PROP
TG029 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-BUILDING-OT~ PROP
TG059 T}{EFT-LESS 200-MS-YARDS-OT~R PROP
TG061 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MAILS-MONEY
TG069 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MAILS-OTHER PROP
TG151 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTORVEH-MONEY
TG159 THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR VEH-OT}{ER
140,L,'
2
l
8
1
1
1
10
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
l
1
2
Page
Run: 30-Sep-98 10:11 CFS08
Primary ISN's only: No
Date Reported range: 08/26/98 - 09/25/98
range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
~.~' How Received: All
Activity Resulted: All
Dispositions: All
Officers/Badges: All
Grids: All
Patrol Areas: All
Days of the week: All
ACTIVITY CODE
DESCRIPTION
U2497
U3028
U3288
VElll
W2629
W3980
THEFT-GM-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-201-500
THEFT-MS-ISSUE WORTHLESS CHECK-200 OR LESS
THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS
VEH-200 OR LESS-MS-PARTS-MOTOR VEH-AUTO
WEAPONS-GM-POSS-PISTOL-OTHER PERSON UNDER 18
WEAPONS-MS-OTHER ACT-FIREWORKS-NO CHAR
CRIM AGNST ADM JUST-GM-GIVE FLSE NAM-POL
CRIM AGNST ADMN JUST-MS-TAMPER WITH WITNESS
Report Totals:
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Calls For Service
INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE
NUMBER OF
INCIDENTS
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
305
Page
Run: 30-Sep-98 10:17 OFF01 Page 1
Primary ISN's only: NO
Date Reported range: 08/26/98 - 09/25/98
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
Dispositions: All
Activity codes: All
Officers/Badges: All
Grids: All
ACT ACTIVITY
CODE DESCRIPTION
A5355 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-CHLD-ACQ
A5356 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HA~S-CHLD-STR
A5506 ASLT 5-THRT BODILY~L%RM-NO WEAP-STR
A9502 TERR THREATS-INFLT BH-UNK WEAP-ADLT-ACQ
AL351 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-AD-FAM
AL352 ASLT-DOMESTIC-MS-INFLT BODLY HRM-HNDS-ADLT-AC
AL354 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-CH-FAM
Bl164 BURG 1-OCC RES FRC-N-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT
B3330 BURG 3-UNOCCRES FRC-D-UNK WEAP-UNK ACT
B3394 BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT
B3494 BURG 3-UNOCC RES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT
DA540 DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-UNK
DCS00 DRUGS-DRUG PAP. APH-POSSESS-UNK-UNK
13060 CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD
J2701 TRAFFIC-GM-AGG DUI-UNK INJ-MV
J2E01 TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV
J3501 TRAFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE
J3E01 TR~-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV
L2071 CSC 1 WEAP-UNK ACT-ACQUAINT-UI~DER 13-F
M3005 JUVENILE-USE OF TOBACCO
M4140 LIQUOR-UNDERAGE CONSUMPTION 18-21
M5313 JUVENILE-CURFEW
M5350 JUVENILE-RUNAWAY
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Offense Report
OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS
..... OFFENSES CLEARED ....
OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT 07JVENILE BY EX- PERCENT
REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED
2 0 2 i 0 0 I I 50.0
I 0 i 0 i 0 0 i 100.0
i 0 I I 0 0 0 0 0.0
i 0 i 0 i 0 0 I 100.0
i 0 1 0 0 1 0 I 100.0
2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0
2 0 2 1 1 0 0 I 50.0
1 0 I 1 0 0 0 0 0
I 0 I 1 0 0 0 0 0.0
I 0 1 I 0 0 0 0 0.0
I 0 I I 0 0 0 0 0.0
2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0
2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0
i 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
i 0 i 0 i 0 0 i 100.0
i 0 I 0 i 0 0 i 100.0
4 0 4 0 4 0 0 4 100.0
3 0 3 0 3 0 0 3 100.0
I 0 i i 0 0 0 0 0.0
2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 100.0
i 0 I 0 i 0 0 I 100
2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 100.0
2 0 2 i 0 0 1 i 50.0
Run: 30-Sep-98 10:17
OFF01
Primary ISN's only: No
Date Reported range: 08/26/98 - 09/25/98
Irange day: 00:00 - 23:59
each
~ Dispositions: All
Activity codes: All
Officers/Badges: All
Grids: All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Offense Report
OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS
Page 2
..... OFFENSES CLF. ARED ....
ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT
CODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOLTNDED OFFENSES PENDING AR/{EST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED
N3070
N3190
N3370
Pl140
P3110
P3120
P3310
C
TB029
?C029
FC159
TF021
TF029
DISTURB PEACE-MS-PUBLIC NUISANCE
DIS~73RB PEACE-MS-Fd~RASSING COM~gJNICATIONS
VIOLATION OF ORDER FOR PROTECTION
PROP D~U~AGE-FE-UTILIT COMM C~IER-UNq~ INTENT
PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-LTNK INTENT
PROP DAMAGE-MS-PUBLIC-UNK INTENT
TRESPASS-MS-PRIVATE-UN-K INTENT
LITTER-UNLAWFUL DEPOSIT OF GARBAGE-MS
THEFT-MORE 2500-FE-BUILDING-OTH PROP
THEFT-501-2500-FE-BUILDING-OTH PROP
THEFT-501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP
THEFT-201-500-GM-BUILDING-MONEY
THEFT-201-500-GM-BUILDING~OTH PROP
TF159 THEFT-201-500-GM-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP
TG029
TG059
TG061
TG069
TG151
TG159
C
U3028
U3288
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-BUILDING-OTH PROP
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-YARDS-OTHR PROP
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MAILS-MONq~y
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MAILS-O~7{ER PROP
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MO/X)R VEH-MONEY
THEFT-LESS 200-MS-MOTOR %rEH-O~7~IER
THEFT-GM-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-201-500
THEFT-MS-ISSUE WORTHLESS CHECK-200 OR LESS
THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS
100.0
37.5
100.0
0.0
10 . 0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
Run: 30-Sep-98 10:17 OFF01
Primary ISN's only: No
Date Reported range: 08/26/98 - 09/25/98
Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59
Dispositions: All
Activity codes: All
Officers/Badges: All
Grids: All
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Enfors Offense Report
OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS
Page 3
ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL
CODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING
..... OFFENSES CLEARED ....
ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- PERCENT
ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED
VElll VEH-200 OR LESS-MS-PARTS-MOTOR VEH-AUTO 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0
W2629 WF2%PONS-GM-POSS-PISTOL-O~'HER PERSON L~gDER 18 I 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0
W3980 WEAPONS-MS-OTHER ACT-FIREWORKS-NO CHAR 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100.0
X2200 CRIM AGNST ;%DM JUST-GM-GIVE FLSE NAM-POL I 0 1 0 i 0 0 I 100.0
X3040 CRIM AGNST ADMN JUST-MS-TAMPER WITH WITNESS i 0 i 0 1 0 0 i 100.0
Report Totals: 84 3 81 37 29 11 4 44 54.3
C;
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
To: Mayor, City Council and City Manager
From: Joel Krumm, Liquor Store Manager
Date: October 1, 1998
Re: September 1998, Monthly Report
C
Sales for the month of September were awesome. There were times in the past when I would have
gladly traded this month's sales for any other summer month's sales. Gross sales were,
$153,916.00. Last September sales were, $130,770.00. After the third quarter we stand at
$1,343,444.00. At this time last year we were at $1,223,187.00. So for the year we are up
$120,257.00. If the trend continues it looks as though we are looking at an eight percent increase
over last year.
As I mentioned in last month's report, I had lost quite a few of my part time clerks due to one
reason or another. We have been severely under staffed. Consequently, it has not been a bowl
of cherries for Julie or I. There have been many long days and nights. At times I was close to
working 60 hours a week. Things are slowly turning around. Three new employees have been
hired. They all seem like conscientious people with good work habits. I hope they will stay
around for a long time. So now I need to hire one more person for a night shift and one person
for a day shift. If you know of any retired individual who is in good physical condition with idle
time on their hands, and who would like to work a few hours in the afternoons, let me know.
Sorry no finders fee. Just a grateful thanks from yours truly.
printed on recycled paper
TO:
FROM:
RE:
MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND Cl~ MANAGER
GINO BUSINARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR
SEPTEMBER FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT
Investment Activity
Bouqht:
Money Market
Money Market
Money Market
CP
CP
CP
CP
Norwest
US Bank 5.445%
Smith Barney 5.578%
Smith Barney 5:606%
US Bank 5,338%
60,079
483,000
246,724
308,940
370,068
424,820
Matured:
Money Market
Money Market
CP
CP
CP
CP
Norwest
US Bank
US Bank
Smith Barney
(120,000)
(16,ooo)
5.656% (601,426)
5.685% (304,776)
As a member of the Improving Fiscal Futures P°licY Committee of the League of
Minnesota Cities, I attended the wrap.up meeting to finalize policies for the 1999
legislative session. Many finanCial issues were discussed, bUtof main Concern
to us is the level of revenues given by the state to local government in the form
of Local Government Aid (LGA) and Homestead and Agricultural Credit Aid (HACA).
EmPloyees Health Insurance Benefits
The City Manager and i attended the Logis Heathcare 'Group annual meeting
on Employees Health insurance Benefits, A major change will be made in 1999,
Where before employees coUld choose ~between three HMO, now only one will be
offered. Meetings will be held on October 15, 1998 in Mound City Hall to explain
the impact of the new change,
The Government Finance Officer ASsociatiOn Annual Conference was held in
Alexandria On September 23, 24, 25. As usual it was Well attended, the presentations
were excellent, and it offered an ideal opportunity to share information With fellow
Finance Directors. Thanks to the City Manager and to you for allowing me to attend,
Accounts PayablelAccountin(] Clerk
Kathleen Hoff was selected to fill the part time position of Accounts Payable/Accounting
Clerk. She comes to us with many years of experience in accounts payable and with
a four year degree in accounting from the University of Minnesota Duluth,
C:
DATE:
TO:
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687
(612) 472-0600
FAX (612) 472-0620
II/IEMOI~A IIfD LIM
October 6, 1998
FROM:
City Manager, Members of the City Council and Staff
Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~-~
SUBJECT: SEPTEMBER 1998 MONTHLY REPORT
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
There were 51 building permits issued in September for a construction
value of $ 260,852. we issued 25 plumbing, mechanical, and miscellaneous
permits for a total of 76 permits this month, and 585 permits year-to-date.
Total valuation now stands at $ 3,970,320.
Five (5) more permits have been issued to repair damage to property due
to the storm and high winds that hit on May 15, 1998.
PLANNING & ZONING
The Planning Commission reviewed Seven (7) cases and sent Four (4)
variance cases and one (1) Major Subdivision Extension case to the City
Council. One case was withdrawn and a Street Vacation case was tabled.
kl
C
printed on recycled paper
City of Mound
BUILDING ACTIVITY REPORT
Month: SEPTEHBER Year: 1998
THIS MONTH YEAR TO DATE
~UCTION
SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED 6 770,584
SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED (CONDOS)
TWO FAMILY / DUPLEX 2 68/4,015
MULTIPLE FAMILY (3 OR MORE UNITS)
TRANSIENT HSG. (HOTELS / MOTELS)
SUBTOTAL 0 0 8 1,454,599
COMMERCIAL ~RETAIL/RESTAURANT)
OFFICE / PROFESSIONAL
PUBLIC / SCHOOLS
SUBTOTAL 0 : 0 0 0
ADDITIONS/ALTERATIONS
ADDITIONS TO PRINCIPAL BUILDING ]- [ 20,000 21 833,8 [ 9
DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS 2 : 16,220 22 252, 139
DECKS 10 , 36,910 54 184,277
SWIMMING POOLS 0 ' 3 23,717
REMODEL - MISC RESIDENTIAL 37 87,722 228 1,045,662
REMODEL - MULTIPLE DWELLINGS 0 ' 1 8,576
SUBTOTAL 50 256,852 329 2,348, 190
COMMERCIAL IRETAIL/RESTAURANT) . : 3 50,670
OFFICE/PROFESSIONAL 1 4',000 3 6.700
INDUSTRIAL 1 500
PUBLIC / SCHOOLS
DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS , ,
SUBTOTAL 1 4,000 12 164 r 031
RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS 1 2,300
NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS :: :: 2 1,200
TOTAL DEMOLITIONS 3 3 ! 500
# PERMITS # UNITS VALUATION # UNITS VALUATION
8
TOTAL *
51 260,852 352 3.970.320
· BUILDING 51 352
FENCES & RETAINING WALLS 19
SIGNS 8
PLUMBING [ 2 [ 0 4
MECHANICAL 11 81
GRADING 3
S&W, STREET EXCAV.. FIRE, ETC. 2 18
TOTAL I 76 I 585
1o$o
C~
uJ
I-
n
LU
L1
Il_
LJJ
LIJ
_J
Z
0
0
h-
z
0
0~00~000000000000000000~00000000~
0~00~000000000000000000~00000000~
Z
LLI
w
w
~ 0 O~
zzO0 w ~w
~ ~0000 ~ ~ ~ ~ 00000~ ~ ~ O0
0
~ z ~ ~z
~ w ~ O~
w 0 W
~ 0 Z
~ ~Z
~ ~ OW
>o~ ~ ~~ <~=~o~oo~ooo~
~5~ ~ ~5~
~Z 8 Z
z
w
0
~000
~o~ §~oooo
m ~ m
f¢31
Z
LU
I--
W
w
n-
O
0
~ O0
0~0~~ O0
www~°~O~~
~ w w
Om
Z ~
~ ~ 0
~ Z
0 0
~ Z ~
~ 0 ~
CI
GENERAL PERMIT REPORT FOR MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 1998
MONTH YEAR DAY PERMIT# ADDRESS
SEPT
SEPT
SEPT
SEPT
SEPT
SEPT
SEPT
SEPT
SEPT
SEPT
SEPT
SEPT
SEPT
SEPT
SEPT
SEPT
SEPT
SEPT
SEPT
SEPT
SEPT
SEPT
SEPT
SEPT
SEPT
CONTRACTOR
98 1 4072 3011 ISLAND VIEW DR
98 I 4073 4731 WILSHIRE BLVD
98 1 4074 2974 PELICAN POINT CIR
98 1 4075 2974 PELICAN POINT CIR
98 1 4076 4804 CARRICK RD
98 8 4077 2150 SANDY LANE
98 8 4078 2600 WILSHIRE BLVD
98 9 4079 5855 BEACHWOOD RD
98 9 4080 2147 GRANDVIEW BLVD
98 9 4081 3213 DEVON LANE
98 9 4082 1942 SHOREWOOD LN
98 11 4083 2150 SANDY LANE
98 14 4084 2424 AVON DR
98 14 4085 3011 ISLAND VIEW DR
98 15 4086 2424 AVON DRIVE
98 16 4087 1901 LAKESIDE LN
98 16 4088 4737 ISLAND VIEW DR
98 21 4089 6048 EVERGREEN RD
98 21 4090 4574 DENBIGH RD
98 21 4091 2150 SANDY LANE
98 23 4092 1761 SUMACH LANE
98 30 4096 2226 COMMERCE BLVD
98 28 4098 5220 WINDSOR RD
98 28 4099 4932 GLEN ELYN RD
98 29 4102 2226 COMMERCE BLVD
ORV BURMA
SEDGWICK HEATING
STEINKRAUS
SURGE WATER COND
CULLIGAN WATER
WESTONKA S&W
SUPERIOR PLUMBING
COUNTRYSIDE HEATING
VOGT HEATING
TIM'S QUALITY PLUMB
CUSTOM PLUMB
DONAHUE MECH
GENERAL P&H
AL'S MASTER PLUMB
JEFF STAGGS
COUNTRYSIDE HEATING
COUNTRYSIDE HEATING
CUSTOM PLUMBING
COUNTRYSIDE HEATING
ADVANTAGE AIR
DAVID THURK
GILBERT MECH
LARRY OLSON PLUMB
CUSTOM PLUMB
GILBERT MECH
PERMIT TYPE
PLUMB
MECH
PLUMB
PLUMB
PLUMB
W&S/ST EXCAV
MECH
MECH
MECH
PLUMB
PLUMB
PLUMB
PLUMB
PLUMB
MECH
MECH
MECH
PLUMB
MECH
MECH
MECH
SPRINKLERS
PLUMB
PLUMB
MECH
RECEIVED OCT - ;~' lg98
LAKE IvlINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
MEMO
TO:
LMCD BOARD MF2'4BERS
LMCD CITIES
EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCR MEMBERS
INTERESTED PARTIES
FROM:
LMCD OFFICE
SUBJECT: UPCOMING MEETING CANCRI.ATIONS
DATE: 10/01/98
By agreement of the Board of Directors of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District, the
following meetings have been canceled:
· ~. Workshop/Planning Session scheduled for October 7th
o~. EWM/Exotics Task Force scheduled for October 9th
· ~- Regular Board Meeting scheduled for October 14th.
Please note our new address and telephone number effective October 1.
CITY OF MOUND
DOCK AND COMMONS ADVISORY COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 17, 1998
Present were: Commissioners Mark Goldberg, Jim Funk, Frank Ahrens
and Council Representative Mark Hanus. Also present were Park
Director Jim Fackler, Dock Inspector Tom McCaffrey, and Secretary
Jodi Rahn. Those absent: Dennis Hopkins.
Also in attendance were: None
Goldberg called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m.
Goldberg introduced and welcomed Mark Hanus to the Dock and Commons
Advisory Commission.
MINUTES
Motion made by Hanus, seconded by Ahrens to approve the
minutes of the June 18,1998 DCAC meeting as amended Page 7,
item 4 should read as follows: Ahrens stated granting a permit
to a non-abutter to remove trees is something that has not
been permitted before. He believes it is unfair to do this
with out approval from the abutting land owner. Motion carried
unanimously.
AGENDA CHANGES
No action.
REVIEW: DCAC WORK RULES
Fackler asked if anyone would like to make any changes to the Dock
and Commons Advisory Commission Work Rules.
Hanus commented about some concerns he had with item 20."Call of
question"
Goldberg asked if there had been any response to the Dock & Commons
Advisory Commission opening. Fackler stated that at this time he is
not aware of anyone responding to the add that was published in the
Laker.
Ahrens stated that on Section 256.05 Composition. The Dock and
Commons Advisory Commission shall consist of six members. Five
members (to be composed of three inland and two abutting property
owners, all of whom must be active in the City licensed dock
program)shall be appointed by the City Council and may be removed
by a four-fifths vote.
o35
Motion made byGoldberg to adopted the Work Rule as is. Motion
carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION: 1999 DOCK APPLICATION FORMS
McCaffrey stated that the only changes that have been made to the
forms is the dates have been changed from 1998 to 1999.
Hanus stated that the "NOTICE" form should read as following.
In order to help reduce congestion of docking areas, dock site
holders are allowed to install one "combined use dock" with an
adjacent dock site holder if the choose.
One dock may be installed on two sites.
Both dock holders would pay the same standard fee for their
individual sites.
The design and installation of the dock will need to be
approved by the Dock Inspector.
The site holders may return to their original single dock
configuration anytime throughout the boating season at their
discretion.
Goldberg stated that he felt the changes were improvements. He also
addressed concerns that no one was using this design. McCaffrey
stated that at this time several people are using the design and
have been for several years.
Hanus suggested to leave program alone and felt that even if only
a few people are using the program it should be left alone.
Goldberg suggested trying to find a way to let people know this
program is out there.
McCaffrey stated he thought with the notice out there, more people
would be interested in the program but stated the people out there
are aware this design in available.
Goldberg asked if there were any complaints he has gotten that may
need to be addressed. McCaffrey stated he has never had anyone
call.
Ahrens asked McCaffrey how does this work. McCaffrey explained if
they each have 30 feet and put it in the middle 15 feet between
each dock if they wanted to. Ahrens stated assuming they are
adjacent to each other and stating the whole idea is to eliminate
the number of docks in a area.
2
Hanus stated on the 1999 Dock License Application the following
changes should take place.
To Share a dock, there is a $30.00 fee for the shared space.
Hanus stated the benefit of this multiple dock system is the
potential of getting more people dockage on the lake. As people
give up the ability to have multiple boats in this multiple system
the by product is more BSU available in the system for other
people. He suggested adding a check off box to the form that could
be used by abutters or non abutters.
Yes, I am interested in sharing a dock with someone however I
don't know any one. Can the city help me.
Inlander
Yes, I would like to share a dock but I don't know anybody do
you have someone.
Hanus stated to run a list, in the Spring, of people willing to
share and a list of people that want to share and match them up.
This way the city can get more BSU'S on the lake.
Fackler stated that there already is a box on the form stating
"Yes, I would like to share a dock with another Mound resident"
Hanus stated he would like to make the box more visible. Ahrens
stated we are trying to pick up the first time applicants that
don't have a dock and this would be the only way to get into the
system and would be a way of reducing the waiting list.
Hanus asked how many new dock sites come up each year. McCaffrey
stated that in the last three years the average has been 5 ¼ a
year. It has been a very limited turn-over. It used to be 10 to 12
but the last three years there have been seven, and with three
spots open this year. The people that are not sharing docks have
been contacted five times. McCaffrey believes the people not
sharing a dock want it that way. They understand they could be
saving sixty to eighty dollars a year but rather have the dock by
themselves.
Funk stated the application would fit well if it was a renewal
application for someone who has a single dock and does not fit are
multiple dock systems. Suggest a separate application for those on
a multiple dock with its own set of rules.
McCaffrey stated that they have looked over this form and feels
that not a lot can be removed.
Goldberg asked over the last couple of years how many people have
applied for a dock site and have been turned down. McCaffrey stated
in the last three years the average per year has been around forty
two to forty four.
Goldberg addressed changing to a lottery system rather then having
people come to City Hall on the first working day in January and
waiting in line. Goldberg has concerns about people coming in the
early morning hours and having to wait.
Hanus stated that the way it has been run in the past should be
changed because if you apply for a dock and don't get one and apply
again the next year you should carry precedent to that next year.
At this time the Advisory Commission voiced many concerns about
applicants applying and applying and never becoming any closer to
receiving a dock space.
McCaffrey stated there is not twenty people out of the forty that
are repeats but explained there was one women this year who was
right at the cut off and also just missed the cut off last year.
He explained that at this time it is a first come first served.
Goldberg stated he likes the idea of having a lottery and the idea
of giving people who keep applying a extra priority chance of
receiving a dock. Hanus stated he agrees that the people that are
applying year after year if they are first or last should receive
extra priority.
McCaffrey stated when people call regarding the dock program he
does explain to them that at this time it is a first come first
serve but explains to them that it has been discussed that a
lottery system or another way of doing the program may happen. He
recommends they call at the end of December regarding any changes
in the program. McCaffrey explained the way the program is set up
now a list is put on the door for the applicants to sign.
Goldberg asked if there was any reason we keep doing the program
first come first serve and if not would like to change to the
lottery program.
Ahrens asked if we recommended this to the City Council would it
require a change in ordinance.
Fackler stated he believes it would.
Hanus asked if there was an ordinance that indicates first come
first serve. McCaffrey stated he believe he has never read that.
Goldberg asked staff what they felt about giving repeat people
extra priority or if they felt there was any downside. Hanus
stated there might be problems with people not understanding the
program and felt something should be done in the office on paper
without giving out extra lottery balls. Suggested it could be a
lottery with priority attached to it.
Goldberg stated again how important it is to him to give the people
applying every year a more chance of winning. McCaffrey suggested
putting there name in for every year they have applied giving them
a better chance of there name to be drawn. Goldberg asked it there
was anything in the ordinance.
Fackler stated ordinance 437.05. Applications for and Issuance of
Dock Licenses. This ordinance will require modification and will
need the City Attorney John Dean look into it. Limiting the number
of days giving them until February 28 to sign up.
Ahrens stated Applicants signing up after the February 28th drawing
will still be put on a list in the order they can in.
Fackler suggested the lottery be picked at the March 1999 Dock and
Commons Advisory Commission meeting.
McCaffrey stated it would have to done in such a way that it is
public information.
Hanus stated that in the application there should be a section
stating when and where the drawing will be held.
Goldberg suggest we retro the number of chances to the applicants
that have applied for number of years. Hanus agreed and it should
be put in the language explaining the system.
Goldberg questioned how many years the records are on file.
McCaffrey stated by law the City is required to keep them 7 years.
At this time Goldberg asked if there was anything else on the
applications.
Hanus suggested any changes he makes also conflict changes in the
ordinance and a recommendation to Council to change the forms and
amend the ordinance Changes to the following sheets.
CITY OF MOUND DOCK PROGRAM INFORMATION:
a. First Priority.
b Second Priority.
c. Third Priority.
d. Last Priority.
e. Administration of Priority.
RULES AND REGULATIONS:
Subd. 2. Annual Review of Map.
Ail references to the Park Advisory should say Dock Commission.
Sub. 12. Dockinq of Non-Owned Water craft.
Suggested the first two sentences should remain but everything
after 48 hours, should be moved to Subd. 7. Construction Materials;
Use of Car Tires. Within the same section the sentence the
statement regarding (All docks shall be built or placed with the
longitudinal axis there perpendicular to the shoreline unless
variations otherwise may be permitted in accordance with the
topographical conditions of the area.) Hanus stated it should read.
(All docks shall be built or placed with the longitudinal axis
there of Parallel to the adjacent lot lines. Variations maybe
permitted as required by the topographical conditions of the area.)
The word perpendicular is indirect conflict with the LMCD rules.
He believe the LMCD rules which over lie our rules say it has to be
parallel to the adjacent lot lines.
Fackler stated he would check with Greg Nybeck but said the LMCD is
dealing with private property owners when there lot lines extend to
the water.
Ahrens stated it was always intended that abutting property owner
would have there dock in front of there house and non abutter
would not.
Ahrens discussed a problem in Avalon Park were set back
requirements had to be met because of private property on both
sides and had to take into account there property lines because
they went out into the lake because that restricted us on the type
of dock that could be used.
Hanus stated that there will be problems if we do not adopted the
LMCD rules.
Discussion was made in length regarding the last City Council
Meeting with concerns about set backs, property lines, water space
and dock locations.
Fackler stated your dock site is your water space and abutting
property owner has the first opportunity for the dock site within
the property lines as they extend to the lake.
Hanus stated with one added sentence the problem could be solved.
By adding that, it would be dealt with on a complaint basis.
Fackler addressed his concerns regarding the complaints. He
believes complaints will take place with this issue.
Goldberg suggested if we did not make any changes and went on the
way we were, we would function fine.
Hanus stated he is still concerned about this issue and will have
to get a ruling on it from the LMCD.
C
Fackler stated the City has four hundred and fifty sites (450) and
has had one complaint. He questioned if the City changes the whole
system, it could possibly affect other applicants. Why have a rule
if your.not going to enforce it.
Comments were made regarding enforcing rules on a complaint bases
and the fairness to all applicants. One objective would be to make
the ordnance fit with the LMCD.
Ahrens stated the
p~operty lines.
applicants dock location must stay within the
Funk stated the lines were laid out with the commons in mind and if
these were all private property it could had very well been laid
out differently and where ever they intersect the commons lines
then go parallel to the shore. He stated that is a better
assessment of where the abutters water space is then following the
lot lines.
At this time, diagrams were drawn by some of the Advisory
Commissioners and Staff. There was discussion regarding the common
lot size in Mound and the effect when adjusting of abutting docks
what will be the effect on the non-abutting docks.
Afer a very lengthy discussion regarding Subd.12., Goldberg stated
that first two sentences will remain the same and everything after
the words 48 hours will be moved to Subd.7.
Hanus addressed concerns regarding a article in the Laker Paper and
the dock site which staff issued in front of the Smith site and his
understanding was that the dock was not to be issued this year. He
feels it created a problem because of the curb location of
everyones dock in the area and feels there is not room for this
current site. He stated this issue came up in the last City Council
Meeting September 8, 1998 regarding the Mack, Smith and inland
dock. He stated if everyone stayed in there current dock site
there would not be room.
Goldberg asked if the lot lines are extended perpendicular to the
shoreline into the lake would the Mack's dock be encroaching.
Fackler stated the dock would not. Hanus stated at this time they
currently are.
At this time Hanus read an addition he would like to add to Subd.
7. "Docks will be centered on the docksite number assigned. The
dock center is the longitudinal center of the entire dock
complex". That means if you have a L shaped dock the center of your
dock is the center of the entire complex not just the center of the
stick that goes out. If a specific assigned location is not usable
due to terrain, obstructions, etc. staff and the DCAC will:
1. Recommend shifting to a usable location and assign a new
7
location and assign a new location number to match the site.
2. Recommend removal.
basis.
This will be addressed on a complaint
A 10 minute break was taken.
Fackler stated that if the above statement would be added to Subd.
7. large % of the docks could be required to move.
McCaffrey stated that in the eight years of being the dock
inspector for the City of Mound he can only think of one or two
that presented a problem and feels if this ordinance is put into
effect we will have the potential to have the complaints change
from less then three to possible around thirty.
Hanus stated that the problem in the Devon area is what has brought
this light and feels it has not been dealt with by staff.
Fackler stated if staff would be allowed to go down to Devon and
put everyone back into their proper spot it would work and
explained he has measured the location several times. Fackler also
addressed that if a agreement is not made between the neighbors on
Devon commons come this Spring, staff will enforce where the docks
sites are to be installed. At this time, there are three dock sites
encroaching on other dock sites.
Hanus stated that someone must be outside of there water space in
the Devon area or it would have worked.
Fackler stated again there are three boat lifts outside of there
water space. He mention that in 1994 the City received a complaint
from Andrea Ahrens regarding the resolution which required forty
foot spacing and people not complying with the resolution, that is
why everything had to be moved down all the way from Anderson/Smith
to Knutson. So now what is happening is everything is being asked
to move back.
Hanus and Ahrens addressed concerns regarding which dock site has
Smith chosen.
Fackter stated he went to the City Manager regarding the neighbors
of Devon Commons and stated it is up to the neighborhood to come up
with a discussion for the dock locations that they all agree with.
Goldberg stated at this time he would like to see if the
neighborhood can come to a agreement with the dock locations at
Devon commons and is against passing something else that would add
fuel to the fire.
8
Hanus stated he feels it should be added because it requires a
action of staff and right now there is no requirement.
Goldberg stated he would like to avoid making changes at this time.
Hanus asked staff how will the issue be resolved if changes are not
made.
Fackler stated that come next year with the cooperation of the
neighborhood and everyone stay within their water space it will
work.
Hanus stated he does not agree that the original motion is dead
because when he agreed to the motion assuming the docks did not
have to be moved he was referring to dock spaces. He felt it was
a fair assumption to assume somebody would be in their water space
and not outside of it.
Goldberg stated they do not even Know what the motion is.
Hanus agreed and stated if it is to be resolved it has to be done
at the Council level. He also stated he does not believe'it is a
dead motion because if everything is done the way we talked about
it should work.
Hanus stated he can wait for now in regards to the addition to
Subd.7. if everything get resolved between the neighbors and if not
he will bring the issue back.
Goldberg asked if there was any other changes regarding the
remaining dock applications.
Hanus stated on page 23 number 3. last paragraph should read:
"Share fee: To share a dock, there is an additional $30.00 fee for
the shared location."
Fackler stated the Dock Applicants & the Lottery will be put back
on the agenda for October.
Motion was made by Hanus to approve all documents with the
proposed changes, seconded by Ahrens. Motion carried
unanimously.
ADJOURN
Motion was made by Ahrens, seconded by Hanus to adjourn the
meeting at 9:45 p.m. Motion carried unanimously.
C~
9
R T
E R
E D
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-mail: attys@kennedy-graven.com
RECEIVED OCT ' 8 I098
JAMES M. STROMMEN
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9233
e-mail:jstrommen~kennedy-graven.com
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Suburban Rate Amhority Executive Committee
Jim Stromm~f/~66('~6'~
October 7, 1998
SRA Executive Committee Meeting
There will be no Executive Committee meeting prior to the 4:00 p.m. Quarterly Meeting at
the Burnsville Community Center.
Hope to see you all at the Quarterly Meeting!
JMS-151107
c H
A R
T E
R £
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612} 337-9310 fax
e-mail: att~@kennedy-graven.com
JAMES M. STROMMEN
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9233
e-mail :j s~'ommen~kennedy-graven .corn
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
City Managers/Adminis~rs/Directors/Altemates
Suburban Rate Authod~f//'~
October 7, 1998
Notice of Quarterly Meeting
The quarterly meeting of the Suburban Rate Authority will be held at 4:00 p.m. on October 21,
1998, at the Bumsville Community Center. (Map attached).
There are significant developments in PUC-proposed utility right-of-way use law or proposed law
since the last meeting. Please attend for an update.
Please RSVP no later than 10:00 a.m. on October 20, 1998, by calling Shannon at 337-9279.
JMS-150968
SU160~3
DIRECTIONS TO
CITY HALL [
BURNSVILLE
Cliff Rd.
Cl'
Civic Center
Parkwa
134th St.
100 CIVIC CENTER PARKWAY
DIRECTIONS TO THE NEW ~URN&'VILLE CITY HALL
100 CI~IC CENTER PARKWAY
895-4400
Take 35W going south. Exit at Burnsville Parkway going East.
Go East on Burnsville Parkway to Nicollet. Take a right on
Nicollet going south. Get into left lane. After Pa~sing 130th
Street (Rose garden on southeast corner), be prepared to make
left turn at sign: Burn~ville Civic Center, Ice Center. City
Hall will be on lef= after you turn onto Civic Center Parkway.
Take 35E going north. Exit at County Road 42. Make a left tur~
on to County Rd. 42 going west (right lane). Continue
approximately 2 blocks to Nicollet Avenue, making a right onto
Nicollet going north (right lane). After passing 134th Street,
be prepared to make a right turn at sign: Burnsville Civic
Center, Ice Center. City Hall will be on left after you turn
onto Civic Center Parkway.
Take.3$E south to County Road 11. Take ri ht o
~ettlng into left lane immediatel- ~_ ..~ ~. ~Coun~y Road 11
~Urn at 134th Stre~ ~ ...... z. ~- ~/~.m~oc~, ma~e a left
making a ri-ht tu-i'-~.we~=' ~o approximately 7 to 8 block~
. ~ ~A, unuo ulvic Center
passing Ice Cente nn l~e~ .~ ...... Par_k~ay. Follow along,
r ....... ~z=y nail will be on right.
1o¥7
AGENDA FOR THE QUARTERLY
MEETING OF THE
SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY
Bumsville Community Center, Bumsville, Minnesota
October 21, 1998
4:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER:
2. ROLL CALL:
e
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Ratification of acts at July Meeting
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
5. COMMUNICATIONS:
8.
9.
10.
OLD BUSINESS:
Report on US West Generic Cost Proceeding (Memorandum gl)
US West AFOR Petition (Memorandum #2)
Electric Undergrounding (Memorandum #3)
- ROW Rulemaking (Memorandum g4)
NEW BUSINESS:
LOCATION AND TIME OF NEXT ANNUAL MEETING; GUEST
CLAIMS
ADJOURNMENT
JMS-145533
SU160-3
T
ID
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) .537-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-mail: attys@kennedy-graven.com
MEMORANDUM
JAMES M. STROMMEN
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9233
e-rnail:jslromrnen~kennedy.graven.corn
MEMO #1
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Altemates
Suburban Rate Authority
October 7, 1998
Report on US West Generic Cost Proceeding
C
The SRA continues to monitor this case. The active parties have submitted their proposed findings
to the administrative law judge. The issue in this proceeding is the cost to US West of a customer
access "loop" for purposes of leasing the loop to potential local service competitors of US West,
such as AT&T, MCI and others. The other main issue in this proceeding is whether rates should be
deaveraged by geographical location, i.e., city or rural.
The Office of the Attomey General recommends approximately a $16.50 per month cost for the
loop in US West territory. The OAG also recommends that there be no deaveraging of loop costs
in this proceeding. The wholesale price to competitors should be based on an average amount. The
universal service fund should be in place before deaveraging between urban and rural service areas
is considered. The OAG points out that no party to the proceeding knows how to identify
customers by density zones. So even within wire centers there are variations in cost of service that
cannot be adequately broken down.
US West argues for approximately a $29.00 per month cost. It heavily relies on cost of replacing
existing plant. US West also opposes deaveraging because out-of-state customers would absorb
higher prices, until the universal service fund is in place.
The Department of Public Service recommends a cost of approximately $18.00 per month. It also
opposes geographical deaveraging of loop costs at this point.
The various studies used to calculate loop cost have reflected a cost between six dollars per month
in densely populated areas to over two hundred dollars a month for the extremely rural areas.
Generally, it appears that SRA communities would be beneficiaries of geographic deaveraging
(current residential rate, without taxes equals $15.50).
JMS-151119
C H A
R T
E R
E D
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-mail: attys@kennedy-graven.com
JAMES M. STROMM]gN
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9233
e-mail:j strommen®kennedy-graven.corn
MEMO #2
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates
Suburban Rate Authority
October 7, 1998
US West AFOR
The PUC recently issued an order on the US West petition for an alternate form of regulation
(AFOR), originally filed on October 21, 1997. This form of regulation would freeze basic local
service rates and allow some flexibility to US West to raise the rates of more competitive services
(call waiting, Caller I.D., etc.) without going through a rate case. The proposed plan duration is
five years.
As you know, the SRA intervened primarily on the issue of pass through of franchise fees or taxes
and fight-of-way management costs or other police power fees. The SRA strongly and successfully
objected to the conclusion of any right-of-way management fees or police power costs to customers
in the city during the AFOR.
PUC ACTION
On September 8, 9, and 21, 1998, the PUC heard comments from the parties and deliberated about
the AFOR. The PUC could either accept the AFOR plan, reject it or submit modifications. The
modifications could be accepted or rejected by US West. The PUC proposed modifications.
The SPA had agreed not to oppose the plan because it included the desired language of no pass
through of right-of-way costs and had a $0.77 per month reduction in residential customer rates in
the metro area, as well as an approximately $3.00 per month reduction in metro business rates. The
only parties opposing the AFOR were those who sought reductions for mr'al customers of $0.50 a
month, together with a reduction in metro rates totaling $1.00 per month. This money would be
taken from the access charge reductions in the A_FOR plan that would have passed through to
customers calling long distance.
JMS-151120
C
US West AFOR
Page 2
The PUC's Order has modified the AFOR and the parties have until October 30 to comment on the
modifications. The modifications are technical in nature and do not directly affect the SRA
provisions. The primary focus of the PUC was to assume greater control over the classification of
service offerings and the ability to investigate US West during the five-year plan period. The PUC
also sought to retain additional jurisdiction over US West for any violations in its service and
potentially impose a substantial penalty amount.
It is unclear 'whether US West will accept these provisions, which affect primarily the freedom of
US West from PUC oversight during the AFOR. If US West objects to the modifications, it is free
to file a rate case at any time. It is unclear whether a rate case will result in increases in residential
rates. The position held by the DPS and OAG is that US West is over-earning now. A rate case
could then result in a reduction in certain rates, it could also result in an increase in rates and
complicate the other rate issues that are being studied now.
No action is necessary by the SRA at this time.
JMS-151120
SUt60-3
C H A
R T
R E
D
470 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-mail: attys@kennedy-graven.co m
JAMES M. STROMMEN
Attorney at Law
Direct Dial (612) 33%9233
e_mail:j stro~kennedy-graven.com
MEMO #3
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Alternates
Suburban Rate Authority
October 7, 1998
Electric Utility UndergroundingfNSP v. City of Oakdale
The next year will be a significant period for the clarification of municipal undergrounding rights
in the fight-of-way. The first front involves the issues litigated in the NSP v. City of Oakdale
case currently before the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The second front is the right-of-way
(" ROW") rulemaking proceeding before the PUC (see Memo #4).
NSP v. City of Oakdale
The briefing has been completed and oral argument is scheduled before the Minnesota Court of
Appeals in November. A decision by the court of appeals will be issued early next year. The
City of Oakdale's brief is available upon request.
At stake is the fundamental authority of the City to require undergrounding of electric
distribution lines placed on city ROW and the method of payment for the increased cost of the
undergrounding. The increased cost is the incremental additional cost over the standard
overhead installation. Overhead installation has been determined by the utility and the PUC as
the standard. Though the issue of the proper standard is not before the court, it is a legitimate
issue for the PUC at some point. Clearly NSP and the other utilities favor overhead lines.
The real contested issue in the case is payment for the additional cost, the city or the ratepayers
(of the city or generally). It is not clear that the court will actually rule on the payment issue,
because the City of Oakdale facts do not involve an ongoing demand to require undergrounding
and refusal to pay, as required by NSP's tariff. Rather, the ordinance is silent on payment but
NSP argues that it must provide that the city pay before NSP will go forward with
undergrounding. On behalf of Oakdale, I am arguing that the police power to undergrounding
does not require the City to pay.
Utility Undergrounding
Page 2
At issue is whether the PUC has authority to require the city to pay directly for the
undergrounding, even when made necessary pursuant to its police powers, particularly aesthetics.
I argue that NSP is required to recover fi.om ratepayers by petition to the PUC or by tariff. The
PUC clearly has authority to determine which ratepayers will be responsible for the added cost,
be it the general ratepayer, ratepayers in the city, or some other ratepayer designation such as
within a geographic area of the ROW. Ultimately the issue is a ratepayer versus taxpayer cost
beating and the authority of PUC over municipal ROW management.
C
JMS-tS1122
SU160-3
Iq A
R T
E D
470 Pillsbu~ Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis MN 55402
(612) 337-9300 telephone
(612) 337-9310 fax
e-mail: attys@kennedy-graven.com
JAMES M. STRO1VI1V[EN
Attomey at Law
Direct Dial (612) 337-9233
e-mail:j strommen~kennedy-graven.com
MEMO g4
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
City Managers/Administrators/Directors/Altemates
Suburban Rate Authority
October 7, 1998
Telecom PUC ROW Rulemaking
PUC ACTION
There has been a significant development in this rulemaking procedure establishing ROW
management rules for utilities including the ROW, including cities. On September 23-25, the
PUC heard arguments regarding the scope of its authority under the 1997 ROW Act and specific
rules proposed by the industry and the League of Cities. At this point, the PUC will issue
proposed rules for comment and potential adoption in 1999.
It is clear that the PUC has asserted broad jurisdiction over all phases of ROW construction
standards and fee structure. Also, the PUC has interpreted the legislation as allowing the PUC to
promulgate rules on construction standards in the ROW for telecoms and g.as, electric and cable
providers. The PUC agreed that the terms of any existing and future franchise would prevail
over any rules, however.
This raises a new issue in the negotiation of franchises. When these rules have been promulgated
(assuming they are not overturned as being overly broad) they will become part of the
negotiation for new franchises. In the absence of a franchise, cities will no longer be empowered
with traditional rights to location and relocation in the ROW but will be subject to PUC issued'
rules on those matters. The League and the SRA expressed their opinions that the PUC was not
empowered to assert such broad jurisdiction either over non-telecoms or over so many phases of
traditional city ROW management, e.g., location and relocation permit fees.
It is possible that these matters will be resolved at the PUC or in the courts during 1999 and
2000. On the other hand, the substance of the rules is yet to be finally determined and may be
rules with which the cities can function adequately. The PUC's argument, however, is that
uniformity is necessary across the board to ensure adequate competition between and among all
utilities.
1997 Telecom PUC Row Rulemaking
Page 2
This will be a very important issue at the October meeting and your views on the matter are
invited. I will attempt to provide a copy of the proposed rules as soon as they are published.
CURRENT IMPACT ON SRA CITIES
The ROW management picture becomes ever more complicated as we move through the PUC
rulemaking procedure and the PUC asserts broad jurisdiction.
The followin~ are points to remember for cities at this point:
Cities retain full authority to enact right-of-way management ordinances consistent with
the 1997 ROW Act. The PUC has issued no rules yet. Such rules may be appealed, and,
a result, not go into effect in 1999. So as of this moment, there is no PUC rule on any
issue.
o
o
If the PUC preliminary position is upheld, the ROW management rules will affect all
fight-of-way users, including non-telecoms. Franchised utilities such as gas, electric and
cable, however, will be governed by the terms and conditions of the fi'anchises on the
various affected provisions such as location, relocation, permit fees, abandonment,
undergrounding, street vacation requirements, etc. In the absence of a franchise and if the
PUC jurisdiction is upheld, PUC rules will govem city ROW management over gas and
electric companies.
The franchise right over gas, electric and cable, including the right to raise revenue
through franchise fees, is not challenged by the proposed rules.
Right-of-way management of telecoms by municipalities will largely be controlled by
PUC rules unless the PUC's enabling jurisdiction under the 1997 Act is found to be
narrower than the PUC has asserted. This will become significant when the PUC rules
are finally issued in 1999, probably in June.
The PUC assertion of jurisdiction is another preemptive act over cities, in addition to the
significant preemption over city zoning rights in wireless telecommunication tower siting
matters. It is clear that the industry is gaining some headway in its position that local
government units are barriers to competition, incapable of uniformly and fairly
facilitating entry of the new technology in the ROW.
JMS-151121
SU160-3
RECEIVED SEP ,' 9 '199 .
September 27, 1998
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN. 55364
Please consider my application for the open vacancy on the City of Mound's Dock
& Commons Advisory Commission. I am a new resident of the City of Mound, and
would like to actively participate and volunteer my time to help the City with
reCommendations. Please see my attached resume for my work history and
background. If you would like a work reference, my current supervisor is a City
Councilmember for the City of Shorewood. His name is John Garfunkel and his
work number where he can be reached is: 828-8538.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Carl R. Erickson
3087 Alexander Lane
Mound, Mn. 55364
472-1956
3087 Alexander Lane
CARL ERICKSON
· Mound, MN 55364 · Telephone (612) 472-1956
CAPABILITIES PROFILE
Innovative, multi-faceted professional who will bring to the workplace a positive
attitude, a flexible and agile mental character and a strong, broad based skill set.
Educated in all phases of business management and will provide leadership that
will keep your organization at the forefront of the industry.
EXPERIENCE HIGHLIGHTS
C
People Management
o Developed an effective worlfforce and increased productivity' 36% while
reducing turnover 95 %.
o Created a strong desire to succeed in subordinates by applying Management
by Objectives philosophy.
o Increased work quality by creating self-directed work teams within
department.
Communications
o Created written documem that established procedures and objectives for work
unit.
o Effectively builds relationships with a wide range of personnel.
o Coordinates essential MIS/Operations functions.
o Served as liaison to nationwide vendors. Responsible for the preparation and
distribution of reports.
Computer Systems
0
O
Extensive use of IBM Mainframe application.
Working familiarity with contemporary database and relational marketing
techniques including statistical analysis support.
Carl R. Erickson page 2
EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE
April 1998-Present SUPERVALU- Central Support Analyst
1989-April 1998 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
(Benefit Redemption Branch)
Contracted by SHEPARD-PATYERSON - Minneapolis, MN
Computer Operations Analyst
1986-1989
INTCO TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC. - Lakewood, NJ
Mechanical Line Supervisor
1981-1985
UNITED STATES NAVY- USS NIMITZ CVN-68 Norfolk, VA
2nd Class Petty Otticer
EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA - Minneapolis, Minnesota
Carlson School of Managemem
1992-1997 B.S.B. in Business Management
Jack Collins Memorial Scholarship Recipient
Deans List
BRICK COMPUTER SCIENCE INSTITUTE - Brick, NJ~
Certified Computer Programmer 1988
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Minnesota Association of Urban Management Assistants
International City/County Management Association
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ·
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ I--' 0 0
0 0 '.,4 -..I
· . .....
0
0
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0
o
o
0
m m i i m m m i , m m m i m m m i i m ·
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0
' ~ ..... ~ i. ...... ~ ' ' - ~
0
0
0
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ·
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0
......
0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ·
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
= o ~ o ~ o o ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ 4 ~ = ~ ~
~' i ~. ~. · · h. · · b ~. · . ~
~ ' ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 · ~ ~ ~ ~
H
0
0
0
0
I-I
0
0
0
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ·
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~
0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0
.....
0
0
0
0