The URL can be used to link to this page

79-05-08 CITY OF MOUND Mound', Minnesota ~M 79-15i .~M 79-159 2M 79-154 SM 79-152 CM 79-158 CM 79-155 CM 79-157 CM 79-153 Mound City Council May 8~ 1979 City Hall 7:30 AGENDA Continued Public Hearings A. Special Use Permit - A1 & Alma,s pg, 1287 B, Inverness Lane - Water~ Sewer & Street Improvement 2. Non-conforming Use ~ Tract A~ R,L,S. 1150 Pg, 1280-1286 3. Bids on Aerial Platform Fire Truck Pg, 1275-1279 4, Planning Com~,ission Recommendations Pg- 1225-1274 Preliminary Report - Chestnut Road Pg. 1224 Licenses A, Cigarette & Restaurant Licenses-Seton Quick Stop Pg- 1222-1223 B. License Renewals - Off Sale Beer and Restaurant Pg. 1221 7, Comments and Suggestions by Citizens Present (2 Minute Limit) 8, Municipal Clerk's Week 9. Acting City Manager 10, Transfer of Funds 117 Payment of Bills __ Pg. 1218-1220 Pg. 1217 12, Information Memorandu~s/Misc? Pg, 1186-1216 Co~mmittee Reports Lights on Commerce Welcome Signs Other Page 1288 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota May 7, 1979 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 79-160 SUBJECT: Bond Rating Information Memorandum 79-45 (Page 1135) discussed time table for the proposed 1979 Improvement Bond Issue. Our bond rating should be updated. The fee for this should not exceed $1,500. It is recommended that the Council authorize the Mayor and Manager to enter into application 'and agreement for Moody's Municipal Bond Rating. Le~6nard L. Kopp J ~ 1 73 CITY OF MOUND Mound! Minnesota May 7, 1979 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO, 79-51 SUBJECT: OIBrien vs City of Mound and Others The Attorney for the insurance company advised us today that the City has been dismissed from the subject case, O'Brien was the fellow who go hurt while riding a motorcycle that missed the curve on County Road 125 before the realign- ment. .o o ON LAKE MINNE'TONKA 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 INDIAN BURIAL, MOUNDll TELEPHONE (612) 472-1155 May 7, 1979 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Leonard Kopp Public Works Director Information Memos Street Lights On April 30th the short was found in front of the Telephone Office. Drews Elec. replaced the wiring to the pole and checked out the rest of this section of lights. All of the lights on the west side of Commerce worked except the one in front of 23h8 Commerce Blvd. Drews checked and there was power to the pole. We notified NSP and they seht out a repair'man. He checked and said it needed new bulbs. There were no bulbs available at the sub-station and stated he would be back later with some. Friday morning NSP came back and replaced the bulbs in that pole and the one across from Ace Hardware. I noticed that he did not check them out but could not catch him to talk' to him. On Shtttrday night when I checked them I noticed the one in front of 2348 Commerce still ~s out. I contacted NSP this morning and notified them. The lights on the north side of Shoreline are still out and the tentative date for the digging is 2 weeks from now. -- At our meeting with the railroad and County last Friday they said that when they put in crossin9 arms at the tracks it will be necessary to remove the old street light in front of Minnesota Federal. I c~n see no major problem with this as there is a new one right on the corner and it will eliminate one more piece of aluminum wiring under the County road. Welcome to Mound Signs The signs are in the Anderson Bldg. We are working with Minnegasco and the Telephone Co. for getting all utilities located so we can drill the holes and set them up this week. SUBJECT: Information Memos (Continued) Page Thomas & Sons They have installed the cul-de-sac on Grove L~n¢ and should have all the curbin§ completed there today. Their curbing machine still is not here snd they have been told that if it doesn't show up within two days they have %o use forms to curb LanDdon Lane. Buffalo Bituminous There new curbin9 machine is on its way here today with two factory reps. ~o show the operation. They have been usin9 forms all o£ lest week. Their supervisor told McCombs & Knutson that Tuxedo would be curbed and all black by May 20th. Sweeping. Last week we completed the Highlands and are now working on Three Points. Respebtfully, Robert, Shanley Public Works Director RS/jori ........ ,~':,'~-~' ~"~ ~.~'"'~'-"'~., :- .-- ' ......... ~'~'~?':; '"~'~"-'-~.'? r ..~ ~ -- ~- . ~ ,. ~-' - , ....' ,..~ ,:',' '" ' '-' ~~. .. .... .~ ,.. -_~)Z.. _ =, ~.' '. % , "._".' ~ =.-."-t ~"z~-.:'?zz-:k-.''~''' ~. '' .':.~' '.' .~erv]ng way a~a ~ ~.:,.;:,~'-', , ,.?' .'-.., :, , , .: ..__...~....~.~ ..... - "orono School District 278, Mound Weslonka School Distric~ 2,8 .~:' ;~':~',.' ,':-._ [,[;.' - .[' .....-'t'.;,.:?~;./(~}-,).~.~/.~ ~:':,~;{i". ';-:~;.' ' ' :,, · , . ,',,. · . ., ' . . ~ --[ . . : ~ - .. ,-~.- ...... ., t '' .-.- -. . . --' -~ -(Also Serwng Plymouth). : ::..,:.,~..:: ;...,~;~..~:::~.,]%.:;;~,?,. ~ . ....:. ................. . ..... . ,-, - ........ ; '~ . . . .' ........... ,.~,.. .... sC~i~, ' , ,. "~. ..... ' ...... '" · ~.:;~';C ' .:~ ~J(. · ~;' . ~ ' -~?::',.' :, ,~':'~;".~,;:'.'., :' :~,-.,.'j ;''~'::-4',"~ .{.".~,'-.'.'T,~--~t~'~-S~,:~'T~'.'~-.'%-~-'(G~";~:; J .,';~;,Gu]'.t,,~¢~L~;~'~"-~t~fJ-"t~'J "' ..... '"" ..... ' ......... -"' ' ...... "'; ........ j---'gu r ;: .. ;...: · .... --.> :- -,,-'. ,- ';c.j..'~ ~'.'??- u' ---~ :-.r.':,':?.']-':~-' .'?',,:-"~ :k ~):-..'~:..:,;-- ;..-~-,~-.~--. ~-~. ,:::-:,.: ";::~-L~. ..'..-( ;'~:-.'. )lanhJ~g' to fish-4):,,L';' By DOUG HOVELSON ':i iG)cha.ge', the' ground rule~'.!;~::q.'-' -. dividual Slates to' set'~P thei~ ~w~ Lake'~ Rebecca .-. :.- ;There..,were ripples of. vic-.~o:..The court demsmn .-.. a~dresses permit prooram.: That program,...:.~ :. 'orge~ k~ .~-~q:,:~';'torious jOY' spreading around the ~the ..eoncerns.:o[ t~e; (federa. l)~..oac~ it meets with approval ~ fish': in Lako-:,~:'Lake Minnetonkaarea last week; navigable waters a'fit..' ~ ;.'?:'j4_ ';~ :the}U.S..Environmental Protee-'/ tiled'this winter ?in the wake"0£, a. court decision-::~;;The Corps had argued that the :-:ti0n:~,Agency,-.-supplants. the ::- ~letion:caused by.';~concerning the.U.S. Army Corps .--_lake' was a "navigable'.'. body. of Corps~ jurisdictional powers..'. . , "Th heav~,.':~ice gad . of...Engineers,/_authority~.to - water~.with connections to.corn-,; .~: e state operates a very ~xzT;,~L n the~iake, ac--' regulate usage of the lake. .):: ¥ ;mercial. shipping lanes,:.and cellent, permit, program,":, said :'':" /als of'the Hen- -Th~ U.S..Eighth Circuit Court therefore cam~ under the Rivers:. VanNest. "With.it,..there would .;"~]~; rk Reserve Dis- of Appeals, based in St. Louis, ' and Harbors Act of 1899. That act .be no reason to have duplication ', ~ke Rebecca is a handed down a decision Wednes:.. grants- the Corps jurisdictionmfrom the..federal :government." ~ -- . -,::.1:~ ~; · .,:~ .... '. day rej.ecting, for the most part,, over navigable waters...-.:: ',.:: ...... ::..~, .....: ......... ;...., .... .,, direetor o[ the "an appeal [rom the Corps. The ?:~Buttheappealseourt[oundthe ~~~}:~- It :merit o[ Natural COrps was appealing a decision ,:opposite to be true. In it~ deci- ~gement, saiO a made previousI~ in District sion, the court said, "We. agree ...~:,~-,.-.~. ::~:,:. ;..::,:~.~,-,.::..:'~' .... ..: ~ heavy run-o[[ Court-ruling that it had no with the Distriet Court that Lake dip year,'along with...:jurisdiction over the lake. . :-Minnetonka and that portion of ~ . ~.,.~:..,..~ d snow build-up, Dick Hassel, president of the Minnehaha- Creek above Mia- . . ..~:... f ---, ............. .:-:~; -:, ..: ,~..,.. ]e said decaying .Lake Minnetonka. Association,-netonka Mills,..were 8or .:.'>.., .[~:..-~:~: ~/c.-:q .... '.- : ..: . robbed the lake -~ one of the groups seeking to block -.'navighble waters of the U.S.,~ as :,o.t Cor . t.e -. on of the game ~-hail~ the decision as a victory -jurisdiction.'.' ..:,. ~ ........... :'- '~, ;'.;~': ~ .Z ---,- -~ . - ;-~;; ,-- "'--'~- '"'"--: ng walleyes, ..for local sovereignty over what is ...The court did rule, however, By JERRY KVIST -'~. ~: . nd bass. -basically a recreational lake. He- that .the Corps. would retain Amid some lively- discussion s stocked With said that the decision meant that jurisdict~overtheconstruction Monday night, the Orono School 71 and'1972 and '.the lake would now be governed of dams-bad the placement of Board agreed to dip into its of the best bass - by local jurisdictional bodies, riprap in the lake. The Corps was reserves over the next four years. .'...', a. -... - such as the Lake. Minnetonka granted thls regulatory authority, to compensate for an expected '.'-- -: ~ Department of .ConserVation District, rather by the Federal Water Pollution . decline in enrollment.. - '- --' :,':': -...' cos will restock _'-than a federal .-bureau'cracy . Control Act of 1972, However, the - The only disagreement whs in"': ar, but it willbe' headquartered far away-in'.~.court also noted that when Con- how much of the $1.2 million to be ..- 'fore any decent. '~ Washington, D.C.-"It's good~to_:;gress enacted that piece of spent. 'Most board members ..'(~. blished. : '.~ ..-..seetheCorpshasnotbeenableto legislation, it allowed.for in-- favored maintaining at least $1'[:; ·. . , :':.. .- . .... ~ ,.'.:~, ~2~.....;~ ,'.: : - "=.~_.. '.: ~.. - - : .:~ . .: ..~-::~ ,,.- .................. . ...... million in reserves. Board mem-': . :. · · i~: ..., "%'. ".' .~:."~'-: .,' ;,;... . -. ~ :.,:..~:-~. , : ..... ......... .~.:c.~....,:...;~ . · ~.~.--~ '. ' · ~'. .... ~ ~.-'- -:.,'; :' bors Jim Hewetfand Don Ander-'~;. ' 'Siudents al,scorer {un ' '''` ' ' ....... ~" . . ;.:ff:.j' ~ ..~."~/; ..'. . , ':?.' . . ~, ,:~ ., . ...... '~ '-' I will not sit on this boardand ' cut programs when we have that i · - , , · , ~ ' 'much in reserve." Said Ander- ~ b 't {O ' .... n" ~ ~ nS: 'son, sua~estin[that$aXb,000was- Board member Bill Leverin~ ', .... . ,.:.~, -' ;. ~'~E- -t..-s, .' . wasn't comfortable with the $1 :4'" CE OLSON West Germany and their host proaram si,~o it started in 197~. million figure ...... ";' ,'., .:~. i~a~ b~ this court- families [~om Wayzata. foreign "I have Lids in my classes who It would bo extremely ,ali- - ' of State but he relations are not considered are still correspondiug with thek "' - O~ONO ' .""~-"::-~'~- a corner on the crucial but fun. ' ' ~ ' ' -" host families in Germany.'y ' . .~ ..'- · :, - . ' ...... ~-, aproving foreign ' . We really do develop inter- 'For 20 days'the'16 and 17-year ' ' · 10 D~aa ~" '-national understanding, "said - . .,-: -". :.~,, ,~"~':-'.~;~ '-';:"'-.. · .t".; ~'. .... C .,~.-... : -...C.-~.-;,!~",.. ?'~-~ }times 'that [Hnc- ~, ..... ,, t~:-~ e,.~ ~ ..... · "'~'.~ .,'~/~]~ ,~.-,' ,:;~.:'!~,. -- -~- ~-:m,-, ~: ~:.,:..:-~.-:~:'.-;,,;~?-.,~-:,:~-.~ .~. ;~to ................... . . . ............. CLAYTON L. LEFEMERE HERBERT P. LEFLER CURTIS A, PEARSON J. DENNIS O'BRIEN JOHN E. DRAWZ DAVID J. KENNEDY ,JOHN B. DEAN GLENN E. PURDUE LAW OFFICES Lr-FEVERE, LEFLER, PEARSON,O'BRIEN & DRAWZ IIOO FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING NIINNEAPOLI5, MINNESOTA 55402 ~ TELEPHONE May 4, 19 79~ (6,a)~33-o5~3 Mr. Len Kopp, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: Horner v. City of Mound Dear Len: I am enclosing herewith a copy of the Notice of Filing Order and the Order dismissing this lawsuit against the City. As you will recall, this was the result of the contention of the property owner that the City had acted improperly in returning a small piece of vacated, street to the County. This should terminate the matter. The Order does not so indicate, but we were present at the hearing and argued before the Judge. Ve truly you~, VC~u~cis A. Pearson, City Attorney CAP: ih Enclosure 12.?1 STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN Donald E. Homer and Patric~a H.-Horner, Plaintiffs, vs. City of Mound, County of . Hennepin, State of Minnesota, Defendants. FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT Court File No. 744864 NOTICE OF FILING ORDER Plaintiffs a~d their attorney, Robert C -Gove, Esq., 2155 North Lilac Drive, Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 Defendant County of Hennepin and its attorney, Jerome F. Chapman, Assistant County Attorney, A-2000 Government Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 Defendant City of Mound and its attorney, Curtis A. Pearson, Esq., 1100 First National Bank Building, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 - PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on March 30, 1979, the Court issued its order granting defendants' motion for dismissal and that said order was filed with the Clerk of District Court on the same day. A true and correct copy of the Court's order is attached hereto and served upon you by mail. This notice is given pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. APp. P. 104.01. Dated: May 2, 1979 WARREN S PANNAUS Attorney General State of Minnesota RIC}IAPdD B. ALLX~N Solicitor General FiLFD WI'^'I'I':, 01,' l'-li COUII'I'iY OI" III.;NNi':I'IN / Donatfl E. llornor and Patri~ia I1. Homer, d. . City ,[ Mound, County of llennep~n, SLake o[ Minnesota, - ,. · ' '... ,' DISTRICT COURT tV DEI']I'ItT,~jR'i'I[ OUDICIAL DISTRICT [~tlE I .AIl ?ll~il ';1'11,[1'011 l,].a in ti ff~'; ,. Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ORDER File No. 744864 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing before the undersigned, one of the judges of tlse above-named Court, ak a Special Term thereof on March 29, 1979, on the motion of defendant, County of Hennepi~, to dismiss. Jerome F. Chapman, Esq., Assistant County Attorney, appeared .for and on behaif of County of llennepin. Robert C. 'Gove,.. Esq., appeared for and on behalf of plaJ. ntiffs. The Court, having heard 'Eke a. rgunten'Ls of counsel and upon all the files, records and proceedings beJ. ng fu].ly advised in the premises, herein, and the Court IT IS IIEREBY ORI)ERED: · That the Complaint in the above-entitled matter be dismissed as to defe°ndants, City of Mound, County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota. BY THE COURT: '/Dona]d T. 13a].l)'~-.~au ~z~"- ' Ju(lge o[ District Court ted: March 30, 1979 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota May 3~ 1979 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO, 79-151 SUBJECT: Continued Hearing - Special Use Permit - A1 & Alma's A hearing on a special use permit to enlarge the kitchen was continued last Winter until May 8th, Attached is a new plan for ingress~ .egress, parking and updating the existing parking lot that has the approve of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission action was as follows: "Renner moVed and Swenson seconded a motion that Planning Commission recommend to the Council approval of the Special Use Permit and acceptance of the plan owner presented and that owner work with City Engineer to work out any details that might follow with special significance to parking hazards of angle parking along Tuxedo side." This was Item I on the Planning Commission minutes of April 30th. Leonard L. Kopp ~ 5-8-79 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota April 4, 1979 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 79-159 SUBJECT: Non-conforming Use - Tract A, R.L.S. # 1150 The decision on whether or not the subject house was damaged 50% by fire was continued until 'May 8th for further information. The original information was sent the Council with C.M. 79-132 Pages 1057-1065. Attached is a copy of a letter from E. Stanke of Eberhardt. Although this does not give a before and after figure, it does give the Council an experienced real estate man's view of the property. 2o Also attached is a picture from Assessor's file showing the building before the fire. There is no after the fire picture and one taken now wouldn't show the extent of the damage since work has been done on the ~building. At the April 24th meeting, the Attorney for Mr. Zuckman gave the City a copy of Mr. Zuckman's bid for. rebuilding the house. The total bid was for $9,260.00 and included the following: A. Labor for reroofing ' ~)~%.~/'0 B. ~ws - supplied and installed. ' ~ . C. Sliding doors - suppl'ied and installed. / ~-~ /^ D. New ceiling joists, 2" X 8" over living rooms and bedrooms onl~ Eo Sheetrock interior - sand and tape All of the above was $9,260.00 In addition, the owner will: ne Furnish roofing material Redecorate interior Furnish and install all interior trim, kitchen cabinets and counters The bid is silent on plumbing and electrical work as well as exterior painting. It appears electrical work and exterior painting may be required. The Council should determine whether or not the dwelling is more or less than 50% damaged. If more than 50% damaged, then the existing dwelling should be removed. The present house is non-conforming since there are two dwellings on one building site. COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 79-159 Non-conforming Use - Tract A, RLS 1150 - Page 2 If the building is less than 50% damaged, the Planning Commission in Item 12 of their minutes recommended the following variances be granted for building the structure: Motion made to "recommend granting variances of .25 foot side yard variance and a 37 foot lake front variance contingent that the building be found less than 50% destroyed and, if over 50% destroyed, variances should not be granted and the structure would have to be rebuilt in compliance with existing ordinances." cc: Errol Kantor 1625 Park Avenue, Mpls. 55404 May 8, 1979 Mr. Leonard L. Kopp Mound City Mmnager 5341Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Kopp: As per your request, I have viewed the property legally described as Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1150, Henne- pin County, Minnesota. It is impossible for me to say what the condition of the prop- erty was just after the fire; however, I have made the followlmg observations after viewing the conditions of the property as they exist at the present time. 1. The roof, roof boards, and rafters are gone; no lumber which represents that part is visible. The west and north walls are now being rebuilt. Most of the 2 x 4's for these walls are new. The exterior sheeting is new plywood. 3. The ceiling joists are mostly new. 4. The east and north walls are basically older and appear original. 5. The sub floor is older. 6. The cement blocks or basement walls are older. Comments: After looking at the structure on May 4, 1979, it is my opinion that most of the structure is being replaced with new materials. For your information, I am including a percentage of completion report. Sincerely yours, Milton Hilk INSPECTION DATE BUILDING PERMIT DATE ISSUED CONTRACTOR PERCENTAGE OF COMPLETION REPORT OWNER FIAT PARCEL CONSTRUCTION PHASE Excavation Forms Set Foundation &'/or Blocks Joists Set Subfloor ~ram~d Sheathed .Roof < sp,ingled ) Windows Set .Siding On Chimney &' Fire,%ace .... Furnace Set ~ ~0~eC{ed' Plumbing Roughed In ,Wiring. Ro,ughed In In su la ted Lathed Plastered Floors Laid Interior Trim & 'Cabi'n~.~ Doors Hung Water & Sewer Connected Basement Floor ,Wiring Finished Plumbing Fixtures 2 2 ~ 4 2 ~ 7 11 21 { ~ 25 { 4 27 2 44 52 52.5 ,. 54, $ ~ 59,5 62.5 67.5 69,5 71.5 ... 73.5 75.5 '78.5 Linoleum Laid 80.5 Exterior Concrete WOrk 82.5 85.5 Outside Painting Driveway Interior Decorating Finish Hardware 87.5 2 91.5 92.5 Floors Finished 93 Extra & Misc. ~ 100 3 3 '6.5 7 fi-CUMULATIVE Yo B-SINGLE UNIT M-MATERIAL ON HAND P-WORK IN PROGRESS NOTES - PICTURES INDICATED ~ % COMPLETE COLUMN COLUMN INSPECTED BY: 10 The vote was unanimously/four in favor with voting nay. ~'.L. RES. moved and seconded a motion ToE. RES. S.T. The vote was unanimously/four in favor with moved and seconded a motion voting nay. T.L. $.T. RES. The vote was bnanimqusl¥/four in favor with voting nay. moved and seconded a motion * 1 *2 *3 *4 *5 The vote was unanimously/four in favor with voting nay. The City Clerk presented an affidavit of publication in the official newspaper of the notice of public hearing on said Said affidavit was then examined, approved and ordered filed in the office of the City Clerk. The Mayor then opened the public hearing for input on said and persons present to do so were affored an opportunity to express their views thereon. The following persons offered comments or questions: NO persons presented objections and the Mayor then closed the public hearing. The minutes of the meeting of ... to ordain that the following Section Code as Ordinance No. were presented for consideration. ,as amended, be added to the City ... to adjourn to the next regular meeting on at __p.m. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Ci[TY of MOUND April 25, 1979 The Planning Commission The City Manager Variances - Tract A, R.L.~S. 1150 The City Council on April 24th tabled action on the subject house in order to determine if 50% was destroyed by fire and therefore can be rebuilt. If found to be less than 50% destroyed, it can be rebuilt. In order to rebuild, the following variance will be re- quired: Side yard setback .25 foot Lake front setback of 37.00 feet The applicant has asked for a determination on the variances so if appraisal is less than 50% destroyed, th~Y.~ill not b~'held up for another month. This~will be added to the April 30th agenda. Leonard L. Kopp Application on this came out on'March 26th. 5341 MA'CWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 {6'12) 472~1155 PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT For City of Mound, Minnesota Chestnut Road Improvements Sewer, Water & Street Construction May, 1979 I hereby certify that this Report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 5/2/79 ~..~. ~.. Reg. No. 7411 McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERSB LAND SURVEYORS· SITE PLANNERS May 2, 1979 Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Subject: Preliminary Engineering Report Chestnut Road Improvements Gentlemen: As requested, we submit herewith a Preliminary Engineering Report for a sewer and water extension and street improvements on Chestnut Road, from the end of the existing road to approximately 500 feet East. If you have any questions on anything in this Report we would be pleased to discuss this with you at your convenience. Yours very truly, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Lyle Swanson, P.E. LS:jl Enclosure 12805 OLSON MEMORIAL HIGHWAY, MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55441 TELEPHONE (612) 559-3700 22 NORTH MAIN STREET, HUTCHINSON, MINNESOTA 55350 TELEPHONE (612) 897-8029 SOUTHWEST ENGINEERING DIVISION, MARSHALL, MINNESOTA 56258 TELEPHONE (507) 532-5820 GENERAL The owner of Lot 24, Kohlers 2nd Addition to Mound has requested a building permit. There are problems regarding sewer and water availability and street access to this property. The City Council authorized this Preliminary Engineering Report to investigate these problems and to study the feasibility of extending Chestnut Road to Lot 32, the southerly portion of which is City owned land. The City also owns Lots 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. SEWER Map No. 1 shows the location of existing sewers in the area. There is a sewer on the railroad right-of-way and at the end o£ the existing road. The sewer along the railroad right-of-way was laid on piling and the sewer as-built drawings show up to 10 feet of peat under the pipe. This sewer is at too high an elevation to be extended along the right-of-way abutting Lots 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. The sewer at the end of Chestnut is also at too high an elevation to be extended along the existing right-of-way of Chestnut abutting Lots 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. There are three possible ways of serving the properties involved with sewer. The first is to haul in large quantities of fill to raise the grade of the street and the adjacent lots. We do not believe this is feasible because the property to the north is heavily wooded and a number of large trees would have to be removed. It would also be virtually impossible to blend Lot 32 into the new street grade. The second alternative would be to construct a lift station and pump the sewage to the existing sewer. The small number Of lots which would be served by this lift station makes this economically not feasible. The third alternative and the one we recommend would be to shift the alignment of Chestnut Road as shown on Map No. 2. The new alignment would allow the extension of the existing sewer on Chestnut as shown. This will require a replatting of the properties involved, however, it will also provide gravity sewer to all buildable properties in the area. WETLANDS Map No. 2 shows the approximate location of the land below elevation 933 which is the 1965 high water level of Lake Langdon. -2- We would recommend that this property be retained by the City as wetlands. WATER Map No. 1 shows the proposed watermain construction. The watermain should be a 6 inch line which would be looped between Chestnut and Langdon Lane. The easement between Lots 9 and 10, Macks Addition, has previously been acquired by the City. Langdon Lane will not be disturbed by this construction because the watermain was stubbed to behind the curb with the 1978 Street Construction. STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY Right-of-way for the street, as proposed herein, will have to be acquired across Lots 23, 24, 25, 26, and 32, Kohlers 2nd Addition to Mound. STREETS Width - the proposed street will be 26 feet wide, plus one foot on each side for surmountable curbing for a total of 28 feet which will be centered on the right-of-way. -3- Drainage - drainage of the street will be the wetlands on the City owned property. Two (2) catch basins and a small length of storm sewer will be required. Typical Section - the attached drawing shows the proposed typical street section. The street surfacing will consist of 3-1/2 inches of bituminous base and 1-1/2 inches of bituminous wearing course. Concrete Curb and Gutter - a surmountable concrete curb and gutter with driveway aprons will be constructed at the edge of the street surfacing. A typical section of curb and gutter and driveway aprons is attached to this Report. COST ESTIMATE The estimated cost of the work is as follows: Sanitary Sewer Watermain Street and Storm Sewer $16,000 18,000 28,000 The estimated cost includes estimated 1979 construction cost plus 20% for engineering, legal, fiscal and administrative costs. The cost given do not include any costs for right-of- way acquisition. -4- ASSESSMENTS If the sewer and watermain were assessed on a front foot basis to the buildable property the assessment per foot £or sewer would be $16,000 + 580 feet = $27.58/£eet and for water $18,000 + 680 feet = $26.47/feet. If it is assumed that Lots 25 and 26 is one unit and that Lots 27 and 28 are another and if Lot 23 were divided into 3 units and Lot 32 into 2 units there would be 7 units, 156,600 S.F. and 1160 feet assessed for streets with this construction. On the basis of 40% of the cost being assessed on a unit basis, 30% on the area, and 30% on front footage - the assessment for this project, if not combined with another project, would be: Unit $1,600 Front Footage $ 7.24 Square Footage $ 0.054 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS It is the opinion of the Engineer that the proposed project is feasible and can best be accomplished as described herein. -5- The proposed construction requires acquiring right-of- way £rom four property owners. We would recommend that if this project does not go forward that the minimum requirements for issuing a building permit on Lot 24 be - that the sewer and watermain be constructed to the easterly edge of the lot and that a 50 foot right-of-way adjacent to Lot 24 and over- lapping the existing 30 foot right-of-way on Chestnut be given to the City. -6- COST ESTIMATE Chestnut Road ITEM Street and Storm Sewer Tree Removal Excavation Bituminous Base Bituminous Surfacing ESTIMATED ESTIMATED QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL LUMP SUM 1900 CYD 340 TON 145 TON Driveway Aprons Catch Basins Storm Sewer Contingencies Concrete Curb and Gutter 1200 L.F. 100 L.F. 2 EACH 130 L.F. $ 1,000 $ 2.00 3,800 15.00 ' 5,100 17.00 2,4'65 4.50 5,'400 5.00 500 6.00 1,200 14.00 1,820 2,115 Estimated Construction Cost Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Costs Total Estimated Cost $23,40O 4,600 $28,000 -7- Item 6" Watermain Estimated Quantity 750 L.F. Estimated Unit Price $ 12 00 Total $ 9,000 Fittings Service Groups Service Pipe 500 LBS. 7 EACH 175 L.F. 1 00 100 00 7 00 5OO 7OO 1,225 Gate Valve Hydrants Contingencies 4 EACH 2 EACH 200 00 700 00 8OO 1,400 1,375 Estimated Construction Cost Engineering, Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Costs Total Estimated Cost Sanitary Sewer 8" Sewer - 0 - 10' Deep $15,000 3,000 $18,000 530 L.F. 16.00 8,480 Manholes Foundation Material 8 x 4 Wyes 2 EACH 750.00 1,500 50 TONS 7.00 350 7 EACH 50.00 350 4" Sewer Services 200 L.F. Contingencies Estimated Construction Cost 7.00 1,400 1,220 $13,300 Engineering Legal, Fiscal & Administrative Costs 2,700 Total Estimated Cost $16,000 -8- ! I LYNWOOD BLVD. (CO. RD. 15) 2~ I22I i <~ I ~ ~2 .._1 Z 2 I I I I ---~ I I RI~ KOEHL - $ .... ~ PROPOSED ~0 Z r'~ i~IT J ; SEWER .,~ ~,~ .,.--~ ~"" / SEWER · ; -/'~J ~! ' I ~~..-- A~) I)~,1 ..FI 0 N · ' 26 27 ~ //~-""'"'"'"~ ' BOOK PAGE OMBS KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER ~ WATERMAIN MOUN LYNWOOD I I KOEH PROPOSED STORM SEW; 23 BLVD. (CO. RD. 15) L ION I I I <:1:5 I 6 I I TERRA R-O-W R-O-W "N\\ , SCALE m mi m m TYPICAL SECTION *RESIDENTIAL STREET CITY OF MOUND YPICAL CURB SECTION 3' 10-3/4" -~L SLOPE VARIES. I I I t II ~- 8" MIN. -,-~ ------- -- ~,i ~ 16 -__,____ 6"X "- I0 X I0 W.W.M. I SCALE M~CCcgN NONE April 26, 1979 e erhnrdt Mortgage Bankers · Real[ors Property Managers · Insurance Agents Village of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Attn: Leonard Kopp RE: Home at 5012 Tuxedo Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota Dear Leonard: Having looked at the subject property at 5012 Tuxedo Boulevard, it is my opinion that the fire must have caused over fifty per cent (50%) damage to the. home. Not knowing the condition of the home prior to the fire it is a little hard to make a positive statement. I base my opinion on the remaining structure that was left after the fire. If you have any questions-please feel free to call me. Very truly, Vice President EJS/njl eberhardt company, mound, inc. 2305 commerce boulevard, mound, minnesota 55364-phone (612) 472-1133 a LICE~NSED, BONDED, AND tNSUREI3 Oe-Luxo Builders ond'Remodelem, 5000 GLENWOOD AVE. e MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 55422 CONTRACT AND AGREEMENT l~e. the owner(s) of the premises mentioned ~low. hereby contract With and authorize you as contractor, to furnish all necessa~ martials, labor and workmanship, to install, construct and place the improvements according to the following specifications, terms and conditions, on premises below described: SPECIFICATIONS ,. -,., ~ ,,, ',~- .~; ...~--,~,,._,,_ _,,... ~. ~_.~ ;..~,~- .~../,.,.~,:". ' . , · ~ ..,-?.,..-/, ~ *~ .~.~ ~/~! - ..' '-"'- ,.,..:,.,4 10. Schedule el Payments. The total of Payments (Item ?) is payable at Seller's office designated below or at such other office designated by any assignee of this contract in equal consecutive monthly ( ) installments of $ each and one final installment 'of $ on the day of each month ( ) commencing ,19 , or as indicated: The purchase of insurance coverage is voluntary and not required for credit. (Type of insurance) insurance coverage is available at a cost of $ for a term of. credit. ~,~.,j./'/,~ STATEMENT OF TRANSACTION AND TRUTH IN LENDING DISCLOSURES Deferred Payment Price is computed as follows:(_~,_,,) / ~ 1. Cash Price ' $ ~7~~. /O ~ '~'- (1) 2. Downpayment Cash Downpayment $ Total Down payment $ 3. Unpaid Balance of Cash Price (1-2) $ 4. Other Charges Financed: $ Sales Tax (Not included in Cash Price) [Computed on Unpaid Balance of Cash Price plus Cash Downpayment]" ~ Official Fees for: $ Lien search, perfection & release -\,, Premium for credit life insurance $ '" Premium for credit life and disability insurance Other Total Other Charges Less: Cash Paid. if any Total Other Charges Financed 5. Unpaid Balance -- Amount Financed (3 + 4) $ 6. FINANCE CHARGE $ 7. Total of Payments (5+ 6) $ .. 8. Deferred Payment Price (1 + 4 + 6) $ 9. ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATE O~> · (2) i ., (3) L ''T .m m rn ....... (5) ., (6) (7) o (8) % (9) Z I desire insurance coverage Signed .................................................. Dat(~ ..................... I do not desire insurance coverage Signed .................................................. Date ..................... Seller is entitled to lien rights to the property shown as address of buyer unless otherwise specified. Buyer agrees to execute a promissory note upon delivery of goods or completion of services. Finance charge will begin to accrue from date of said note. ANY UNPAID BALANCE MAY BE PAID. ATANY TIME, WITHOUT PENA,LTY AND ANY UNEARNED FINANCE CHARGE WILL BE REFUNDED BASED ON THE "RULE OF 78's". If Purchaser defaults in the payment of any installment and such default continues for more than 10 days. Purchaser ag rees to pay a late charge of 5% of the installment or $5.00 ($3.00 in Ohio), whichever is lesser. THIS CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO ACCEPTANCE BY DE LUXE BUILDERS & REMODELERS. INC. AND APPROVAL OF THE BUYER'S CREDIT ..... IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have hereunto signed their names this ,, / day of "/'~ '~' /'/"'"~"'~' 19 __ DO NOT M.AKE CHECKS PA YABLE TO ANY INDIVIDUAL -..".' . ).<.× : ,. Company Represen. tatiye /' .., Accepted Signed zx: Owner 5-8-79 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota May 3, 1979 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 79-154 SUBJECT: Fire Truck Bids On Council Memorandum 79-139, the Council received copies of the Fire Truck Bids and tabled the item until May 8th. On Saturday, May 5th, a demonstration will be held regarding two of the trucks bid. Attached hereto is a review of the specifications showing where and where not each of the trucks bid meets the specifications. Also attached is a copy of a letter from Orono requesting a break- down of the Fire Truck Bids and a request the bids not be accepted until they review the bids. cc: Fire Chief D 0 H %4' ! H 0 ~ *, E~ mO 0 0 ~ Box 37, Mound, Minnesota 55364 ENGINE SPECIFIED LTl SUTPHEN MACK Note: REVIEW OF SPECIFICATIONS FOR AERIAL TOWER LADDER TRUCK FOR THE MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT Detroit Diesel 350 H.P. at 2300 RPM Detroit Diesel 328 H.P. at 2300 RPM Detroit Diesel 316 H.P. at 2300 RPM Thermodyne Diesel 260 H.P. at 2100 RPM 8V7i 8V71N 8V71N ET-673 LTl and Sutphen have specified the same engine. The difference in horsepower is in reading the power curve. LTl lists "brake horsepower" where Sutphen lists"rated power output." TELESCOPING BOOM SPECIFIED LTl SUTPHEN MACK TURRET NOZZLES SPECIFIED LTl SUTPHEN MACK WATER FLOW SPECIFIED LTl SUTPHEN MACK Truss bridge or box beam design. Aerial ladder with high handrails for structural support. Truss type. Box beam (aluminum). Two (2) permanently installed 750 GPM each. One (1) permanently installed 750 GPM. Two (2) permanently installed 750 GPM each. One (1) permanently installed (optional dual turrets that provide maximum 1,000 GPM flow). 1500 GPM flow in any position with 1~" tip. Capable of 1,000 GPM flow in any position (supplied 750 GPM nozzle) Or 1500 GPM capability with nozzle positioned directly in line with [adder centerline. 1500 GPM flow in any position or at any angle.. Not specified. BOOSTER TANK SPECIFIED LTl SUTPHEN MACK SPRINGS SPECIFIED LTl SUTPHEN MACK BODY MATERIAL SPECIFIED LTl SUTPHEN MACK Box 37, Mound, Minnesota 55364 300 gallon stainless steel. 200 gallon stainless steel. 300 gallon stainless steel. Not applicable. Alloy steel, semi-elliptical, front and rear. Alloy steel, semi-elliptical, front. Rubber suspension, rear. Alloy steel, semi-elliptical, front and rear. Eye and rubber, front. Slipper and eye, rear. 12 gauge metal. 12, 14, 16, and 18 gauge metal. 12 gauge metal. 14 gauge metal. Reviewed by: Fire Chief, Gene Garvais Captain, Larry Heitz Drill Master, Bud Opitz Lieutenant, Ron Marschke Lieutenant, Brad Landsman As Prepared by: Brad Landsman Acting Secretary Mound Fire Department Truck Committee Date: April 28, 1979 May 3, 1979 Telephone 473-7357 CITY of ORONO Post Office Box 66- Crystal Bay, Minnesota 55323-Municipal Offices On the North Shore of Lake Minnetonka Mr. Leonard L. Kopp Mound City Manager 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Mr. Kopp: I am in receipt of your letter dated April 30, 1979, referring to the Fire Truck bids. I will be out of town Saturday, May 5, 1979, but I will notify our Council of this demonstration. I do want to receive from you a cost breakdown on the fire truck bids to allow us to respond to you before any bids are accepted. Sincerely, Walte r~: .Benson City ~lministrator 5-1-79 CITY OF MOUND Moundt Minnesota May 3, 1979 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 79-152 SUBJECT: Planning Commission Recommendations Attached is a copy of the Planning Con~nission minutes. Council action: Item 2. The following require Lot Size Variance - Non-conforming Use Lot 11, Block 15, Arden Zoned A-2 6,000 Square Feet The subject lot is 4,000 square feet in size and the owner wishes to remodel. The Planning Commission recommends the lot size variance. The Administration concurs. Front Yard Variance Lots 3 and 4, Block 15, Devon Zoned A-2 6,000 Square Feet The Planning Commission recommended a 10 foot front yard variance so a deck can be constructed. The Administration concurs. Front .Yard Variance Lots 1 and 2, Block 2~ Bay Ridge Addition Zoned A-1 10~000 Square Feet The Planning Commission recommended a 10 foot front yard variance for the construction of a new home. The Adminis%ration concurs. Side Yard Variance Lot 17 and Part of Lot 16, Block 14, The Highlands Zoned A-1 10,000 Square Fe~it The Planning Conn~ission reconnnended a 1 foot side yard variance for construction of an addition. The Administration concurs. Non-conforming Use Lot 49, Whipple Shores Zoned A-1 10~000 Square Feet The Planning Commission recommended a ~.6 foot side yard variance on the south side and approval of the existing 6 foot variance on the north side so a deck can be constructed. The Administration concurs. o Side Yard Variance - Non-conforming Use Lots 4 and 5, Block 2, John S. Carlson Addition Zoned Residential B ]. Tq COUNCIL MEMORANDUM 79-152 Planning Commission Recommendations - Page 2 The Planning Commission recon~ended a 4.1 foot side yard variance for construction of a garage with the stipulation the existing non- conforming carport never be added to and, if structure becomes un- sound, it be removed. The Administration concurs. 8. Deleted Street Front Variance Lot 11 and Part of Lot 10, Block 3, The Highlands Zoned A-2 6,000 Square Feet (Lot is 14,244 Square Feet) The Planning Co~nission recommended a 10 foot front yard setback. The Administration concurs because the original platting and the unopened street creates hardships. Possible Appeal - Street Front Variance Lot 2, Block 1, Mill Pond Zoned A-1 10,000 Square Feet The 'Planning Commission recommended denial of a 2 foot side yard variance on one corner of the deck. -~- '~ 11. Non-conforming Use Lot 7, Block 7, Shadywood Point Zoned A-1 10,000 Square Feet The present building does not met side yard requirements or square footage. The Planning Commission recommended 3.2 foot side yard vari- ance on the west, 6 foot on the east and 4,750 square foot lot size. 12. Variances Tract A, R.L.S. 1150 This recommendation will be covered in a separate memorandum. FINAL PLAT - Rustic Place The Planning Commission recommended final approval of Rustic Place on County Road 110. Leo~ard L. Kopp MINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING CO~MISSIONMEETING April 30, 1979 Present: Acting Chairman Gerald Smith, Commissioners Harrie~t Dewey,'Margaret Hanson, Bill Renner, George Stannard and Gary Paulsen; Council Repre- sentative Gordon Swenson; City Manager Leonard L. Kopp, Building' Inspector Henry Truelsen and Secretary Marge Stutsman. MINUTES The minutes of'the April 9, 1979 meeting were presented for approval. Hanson moved and Dewey seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the April 9, 1979 meeting as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. BOARD OF APPEALS Special Use Permit Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 8, Whipple James W. "Bud" Nolan was present. Renner moved and Swenson seconded a motion that Planning Commission recom- mend to the Council approval of the Special Use Permit and acceptance of the plan owner presented and that owner work with City Engineer to work out any details that might follow with special significance to parking hazards of angle parking along Tuxedo side. The vote was' unanimously in favor. 2. Applicant not present - moved to end of agehda. ¸3. Front Yard Variance Lots 3 and .4, Block 15, Devon Raym6nd Skinner present. Stannard moved and Renner seconded a motion to recommend allowing variance as requested. Reason - don't see any continuity in front yard setbacks in immediate area; not detrimental to neighbors. The vote was unanimously in favor. Ll 4~ Front Yard Variance-Lake Front Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Bay Ridge Addition Brent Thomton was present. Dewey~ moved and Hanson seconded a motion to' recommend approval of a 1~ foot front yard variance. The vote was unanimously in favor. o Side Yard Variance Lot 17 and Part of Lot 16, Block 14, The Highlands Bruce'Dodds present. Hanson moved and Lc~J~er seconded a mot~on to approve ~ side yard variance of ~ ~oot. The vote was unanimously in favor. Non-conforming Use Lot 49, Whipple Shores Robert J. Kidd present. Planning Commission .utes April 30, 1979 - ~ 2 6. Renner moved and Hanson seconded a motion to recommend allowing a variance to build a deck. The vote was unanimously in favor. o Side Yard Variance/Non-conforming Use Lots 4 and 5, Block 2, John S. Carlson Addition Colon J. Kelly present.'' Stannard moved and Renner seconded a'mOt'ion to recommend allowing variance to build a garage on the non-conforming use with the stipulation that the carport never be added to and if structure becomes unsound, it be removed. Thevote was unanimously in favor. Deleted as variance not needed. Street Front Variance Lot 11 and Part'of Lot 10, B10ck 3, The Highlands Mrs. William Merriam present 10. Stannard moved and 'Renner seconded a motion to recommend granting a 20 foot street front variance as requested. The vote was unanimously in favor. Side YardVariance Lot 2, Block 1, Mill Pond William Webster of Central Construction Company present. 11. 12. Renner moved and Swenson seconded a motion to 'recommend the request for a 2 foot side yard variance be denied. The vote was unanimously in favor. Non-conforming Use Lot 7, Block 7, Shadywood Point Steve Miller present. Dewey Roved and Hanson seconded a motion to recommend approval of the 14 foot garage and granting variahces applied for' ReasonS: Rardship and because the adjoining lot is unbuildable. The vote was: ~Hanson, Dewey, Paulsan and Swensgn-Aye.and Renner, Smith and Stannard-Nay. Motions carries 4 to 3. Variances Tract A, R.L.S. ~ 1150 -- Melvin Zuckmans present. Hanson moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to recommend granting variances of .25 'foot side yard variance and a 37 foot lake front variance contingent that the building be found less'than 50% destroyed and if over 50% destroyed, variances should not be granted and the structure would have to be rebuilt in Compliancewith existing ordinances. The vote was unanimously in favor. Chairman requested minutes show that in discussion with Mr. Zuckman, he would be agreeable to subdividing property possibly in the near future. Lot Size Variance/Non-conforming Use Lot ]1, Block 15, Arden Flavin not present. 117/ Planning Commission ~utes April 30, 1979 - Page 3 2. Dewey moved and Hanson seconded a motion to recommend granting permission to build deck as it meets setbacks. The vote was unanimously in favor. Final Plat - Rustic Place 'Stannard moved and Swenson seconded a motion to recommend approval of the s~bdivision of land and establish the minimum street front setback at 35 feet. The vote was unanimously in favor. Side Yard Setbacks in A-2 It was decided to deal with this at next Planning Commission meeting. Meeting Dates - May It was decided because of May 28 being a Holiday, the Planning Commission meetings would be moved ahead.°ne week, making the meetings on: May 7th -3,WorkshoP~Meeting May 21st - Board of Appeals Stannard moved and Paulsen seconded a motion that meeting be adjourned. Every- one in favor. -So adjourned. Attest: AGENDA FOR ADVISORY PLANNING CO~MISS'I~EETING April 30, 1979 Approval of minutes of April 9th meeting. BOARD OF APPEALS 1. James W. "Bud" Nolan, 5201 Piper Road Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 8, Whipple - Map 12 Special Use Permit John K. Flavin, 3041 Brighton Blvd. Lot 11, Block 15, Arden - Map 12 Lot Size Variance/Non-conforming Use Raymond E. Skinner - 4848 Island View D~ive Lots 3 & 4, Block 15, Devon - Map 15 Front Yard Variance Brent Thomton, 6343 Bayridge Road Lots 1 &'2, Block 2, Bay Ridge Addn. - Map 11 Front Yard Variance Se' Bruce Dodds, 3021 Dickens Lane Lot 17 & Part of Lot 16, Block 14, The Highlands - Map 11 Side Yard Variance Robert J. Kidd, 3237 Gladstone Lane Lot 49, Whipple Shores - Map 15 Non-cbnforming Use Colon J. Kelly., 5063 Woodridge Road Lots 4 & 5, Block 2, John S. Carlson Addition - Map 5 Side Yard Variance/Non-conforming Use 8. Daniel K. Campbell, 4512 Montgomery Road (Deleted - variance not needed) Lots 9 & 10, ~Block 9, Avalon - Map 13 . Rear Yard Variance 9. William R. Merriam, 3083 Highland Boulevard Lot 11 and Part of Lot 10, Block 3, The Highlands - Map 11 Street Front Variance 10. Central Construction Company, 2214 Mill Pond Lane Lot 2, Block 1, Mill Pond - Map 4 Side Yard Variance 11. Steven A. Miller, 1956 Lakeside Lane Lot 7, Block 7, Shadywood Point - Map 2A Non-conforming .Use 12, Melvin Zuckman~ 5012 Tuxedo'Boulevard Tract A, R.L.S. 1150 - Map 12 Variances Final Plat - Rustic Place - Map 11 Side Yard Setback in ~-2 MINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING April 9, 1979 Present: Chairman Russell Peterson, Commissioners Lorraine Jackson, Harriett Dewey, Margaret Hanson, Gerald Smith; Council Representative Gordon Swenson; City Manager Leonard L. Kopp; City Planner Charles Riesen- berg; City Inspector Henry Truelsen and Secretary Marge Stutsman. MINUTES The minutes of the March 26, 1979 meeting were presented for approval. Smith noted omission (Item 2 Paragraph 2 Amendment to motion, Line 5) - should include "owner providing plan/time table" and amendment should be corrected by adding the following: 1. Area should be blacktopped the way it was supposed to be in the first place as soon as possible. 2. The Planning Commission is cognizant of a financial bind and they are willing to work along with the owner. 3. In order to make sure, would like to have him present a plan showing how much and when he expects to do each part~ 4. The Planning Commission would like to see the driveways and parking places that are being used blacktopped in 1979 and, in order to insure that, they would like him to post a bond. Smith moved and Jackson seconded a motion to aPProve the Planning Commission minutes of March 26, 1979~eeting as corrected. The vote was unanimously in favOr. - The Planner, Charles Riesenberg, took over the meeting. He reviewed the material which had been sent out. Material was discussed. Particularly the need for wetlands ordinance. Planner to draft an ordinance along the lines Of Orono's and come back with it at next meeting. Discussed revised questionnaire. Comments were: On Item 3, change to: ..... live before occupying present residence? On Item 7, change to: ..... you expect to live in 5 years? On Item 7c, add, "if so, where?" Planner showed maps with present land uses. Discussed. Discussed traffic flow problems at Bank Drive-In Area. Smith moved and Swenson seconded a motion to ask the Council to look at traffic problem we've become aware of caused by ingress at State Bank of Mound--traffic snarls out into the street; especially on Fri- day nights; specifically hazardous on left turns from intersection. The vote was unanimously in favor of sending this to Council. Smith moved and Dewey seconded a motion to adjourn. in favor, so adjourned. The vote was unanimously CITY OF HOUND Mound, Minnesota Date: From: To: April 26, 1979 Henry Truelsen City Council Subject: Board of Appeals - Planning Commission - April 9, 1979 James W. Nolan, 5201 Piper Road Lots 1, 2 & 3, Blk 8, Whipple: Special Use Permit It is rather unfortunate that the individual that bought this property may not have been totally aware of the parking stipulation against the property. However, being a Commercial venture within the City, a previously proposed parking plan submitted to the City Council, should be complied with allow- ing a reasonably stipulated length of time for compliance. John K. Flavin, 3041 Brighton Blvd. Lot 11, Blk 15, Arden - Lot Size Variance/Non-conforming Use I can see no problem allowing the addition of-the open deck, as the deck will be 15 ft. 6 inches from the rear lot line. Raymond E. Skinner, 4848 Island View Drive Lots 3 & 4, Blk 15, Devon: Front Yard Variance No Comment Brent Thomton, 6343 Bayridge Road Lots 1. & 2, Blk 2~ Bay Ridge - Front Yard Variance This variance would project a new structure beyond the sight line of the abutting properties but still would be within the continuity of the general building line. Bruce Dodds, 3021 Dickens Lane Lot 17 & part of Lot 16, Blk-t4, The Highlands - Side Yard Variance I see no problem in granting a variance of 1 ft., as he would still be over 10% of the width of lot for side yard. Robert J. Kidd, 3237 Gladstone Lane Lot 49, Whipple Shores - Non-conforming Use Side yard deficiency of ao existing structure requesting permission to erect a deck. Can see no problem as the topography of the lot is such that aesthet- ically, it would not impare anyof th abutting property owner's view of the lake. Colon. J. Kelly,5063 Wooddridge Road Lots 4 & 5, Blk 2, John S. Carlson Addition ~ Side Yard Variance Existing Non-conforming carport does not meet the side yard requirement of 10 ft. inasmuch as the new garage is intend'ed to be erected, I feel as Board of Appeals - Planning Commission - 4-9-79 continued: page two lO. 12. though this non-conforming use should be removed from the premises or moved to comply with the side yard requirements. Daniel K. Campbell, 4512 Montgomery Road LOts 9 & 10, Blk 9, Avalon - Rear Yard Variance Does not need variance. William R. Merriam, 3083 Highland Boulevard Lot 11 and part of Lot 10, Blk 3, The Highlands - Street Front Variance A 20 ft. street front variance, due to the fact the original lot was platted of the public right-of-way of Parkway Road, that constitutes a legal street front. Since then, the owner has acquired the abutting property southerly to Highland Blvd. However, I feel this does not change the original plat of the original lot. I am rather doubtful at this time of that parkway ever being improved to standards of a municipal right-of-way. The parkway serves only this residence, as a public ingress and egress and can see no objection to allowing this street front variance. Central construction Company, 2214 Mill Pond Lane Lot 2, Blk 1, Mill Pond - Side Yard Variance This structure w~s located on the property by a registered surveyor.' l can acknowledge and accept the 2/10 ft. side yard non-conforming use of the dwelling structure but I feel the deck should be changed in such a manner so as to comply to the 10 ft si'deyard requirement. Steven A. Miller, 1956 LakeSide Lane Lot 7, Blk 7, Shadywood Point - Non-conforming Use Undersized lot zoned A-1 (10,O00 sq.ft.) there are numerous side yard de- ficiencies of both sides of the property Being the structure is located as it exists and the owner has told me that he has tried to acquire added lands to conform on the east_~oundr¥ (land which at this time is not avail'- able). I have some reservations about allowing this non-conforming use; however, due to topography of the lot, it is the most logical place for the proposed addition and garage. Melvin Zuckman, 5012 Tuxedo Boulevard Tract A, R.L.S. 1150 - Variances Building A ~ non-conformancies: 10 ft side yard requiremeht 50 ft lake front setback needs 25/100 ft. variance needs 37 ft,~ " Building. B - non-conformancies: 1~ ft'~-id~'~ard requirement on deck 20 ~t street front requirement needs 5.5 ft. variance needs 3.3 ft " Premises zoned A-1 Residential, at present there are two dwelling units and one duplex. Board oF Appeals - Planning Commlsslon - 4-9-79 continued page three Existing structure razed by fire was one rental unit of the total 3 on premises. To the best of my knowledge, the owner has never resided in any of the three units within the last nine (9) years. I have checked with the tax department and no homestead had been applied for since 1973 (that is as far back as their records go). Final Plat - Rustic Place Because of the existing street front setbacks of adjoining properties, and because of this being a new plat, ! would like a pre-set street front setback of 35 feet to be designated on the final plat as we now require on all new development plats. .~ HT/dd C[//~/y Inspector APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT VILLAGE OF MOUND FEE OWNER. 9~;'7''3`'~t'x~ ADDRESS _--~.'~, _L") ! . ,",' _ LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY- ~VCt?l.J~r) i ~JLjt~lJo ¢3-0?'5'0 SPECIAL USE PERMIT Juse} EXf)"(~l',ll") ~'~J"T'EJ'[~k) PjA T~i ~,uI ~ -Fo Signature of Applicant Address Applicant's Interest in Property Tel. No. State why this use, if granted, would not be contrary to the general purpose and intent of the ordinance to secure public health, safety, general wel[are, and sub- stantial justice. . Residents and owners of property within, ,,, feet: · ~O-,OSg=~. o~n, Vo~; ' H..U OPi ' ,% Plannin'g co~misslon ~utes October 301 1978 - Page 4 Item 12. (Continued) abstained and Peterson voted Nay - Reason is t/~at impact on wildlife would not cause it to be majgr action) (2) The project does'have the potential fOr significant environ- mental effects. · {Same reasons as above) (3} The project ~s of more than local significance. (Same reasons as question 1) ~pecial Use Permit - Expanding Structural .Use & Parking Improvement A1 & Alma's Mr. Nolan present.and also K. Westerlund of Design Sqest Studios Smith moved a motion to accept· the plan and approve Special Use Permit to expand kitchen facilities to provide better and easier servicing of his clientele with additional parking improved as plan represents. The motion was seconded ~y Paulsen. Vote was unanimously in favor. Smith woved a recommendation to the Council, because the request is asking for an addition only to the kitchen and also he is'improving parking that has never been improved, the Planning CommissiOn feels ', the p%~lic hearing should not be necessary and should be waived. Motion seconded by Paulsen and the vote was.~unanimously in favor. A motion was made to adjourn the meeting; vote %gas all in favor; so adjourned. Attest: EESOLUTION N0. 70-189 RESOLUTION GP~NTING SPECIAL USE PEP/tIT FOR PARKING IN A P~SID~NTIAL USE AREA (Al & Alma's) 70-1§9 7-1~-70 %~EP~EAS, a publtc hearing was held on July 14, 1970 at the Village Hall in Island Park to hear a proposal to establish off street parking as a use by special permit on Lots 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, and 26, Block 9, %.q~tpple, for A1 and Alma' s, NOl.l, ~IE:.~EFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY T. qE VIr.?AGE COUNCIL OF I4~iD, IOUND, MINNESOTA: That A1 and Alma's be authorized to use Lots 20,21,22,23,25 and ~.. 26, Blo. ck 9, %'.~ipple, .zoned .Residential A-2, as a parking lot by special use permit. ~ 'BE IT FUP.~{E!{ RESOLVED: '" That Site Plan marked, "Exkibit A" attached hereto and made a · '. ';" ' part hereof amended to allow a va~_ance as to front yard . · ' ' ....... setback~ said. setback to be 15 feet measured parallel to Tuxedo - Poad, requiring all setback areas to be sodded and subject to all other provisions of Sec. 23.011 Subd. (d) Subsection ten (10)'- .of the Zoning Ordinance, be approved. Adopted by the Village Council this lhth .day 6f'Juiy, 1970.'.. 70-189 7-14-70 APPLICATION FOjARIANCE .CITY OF 1ViO'CND APPLICANT _ ///y/ //,~J PLAT~ ~ VT ~, PARCEL Address j~/5~/~'ft//~_l.e./ zfz.,,f_.. LOT_ // B~CK~ PROPERTY 7 INTEREST IN PROPERTY FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Address Telephone Numb e r VARLANCE REQUESTED': FRONT I " i ACCESSORYI YARD FT., BUILDING NOTE: FT.[. SIDE , FO0 TAGE_f~[~) YARD ~ or OTHER (describe) REASON FOR REQUEST: 1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing showing location of proposed improvement in relation to lot lines, other buildings on property and abutting streets. '" 2, Give ownership and dimensions of adjoining property. Show approximate locations of all buildings, driveways, and streets pertinent to the application by extending survey or drawing. 3. Attach letters from adjoining affected prope.rty owners showing attitude toward reque's't', ":' , ' sim l,./j I ' -- ,'.. __ cou~]~r~-solution or var~n~ granted ~ecomes null and void. / Variance s are not~n~ ~ ~/ble, ~// ~ '/ '-- - ' ~ V /~ Signature- ' PLANNING COMMISSION RE COMMENDATION DATE COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO.. DATE gnon- conforming use Plat of Sum:ey fox- Herber% E. Bischke of Lot I1, P, lock 15, Arden Hennepin Cotu~Ly', l<innesotz I Certific-ato o,f' Survey: I her~b_'~, certif~ that this is a true and correct repr~..~entaticn ~ " Arden ~:nd th~ of ~ su~,ey of the ~'~daries of Lot I1, ..loc,. 15, location oF all existing builciings thereon. It does not purport to shou other improvements or Scale: 1" = 30' Date : 10-12-78 o : Iron ~nrker ' Gordon Alvin R. l~ehder [~:nd Survei:or$ and : 1.o n,~ s LOnli L,~ke, t-linneso%a 'i APP LI CA TION FOR ~ RIANCE CITY OF MOU~ NAME OF APPLICANT FEE $ D .00 PROPERTY ADDRESS _ '/£'/£ .... PLAT.,,k~ 7 ~?0 PARCEL_ Address_~/F ~,"~' /g~ ..... LOT 5' ~ ~' BLOCK Tele pl~one . Number z/?2 ~-~%~°c) ADDITION ~z~ [/o zL/ INTEREST IN PROPERTY FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Address Telephone Number YAtLIANCE REQUESTED: FRONT ] ] ACCESSORY YARD [ /~ FT., BUILDING -NOTE: YARD . LOT SIZE REAR I ' I LOTSQ- YARD FT. FOOTAGE N. C. U. '-',-' or OTHER (describe) REASON FOR REQUEST: 1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing showing location of proposed improvement in relation to lot lines, other buildings on property and abutting streets. 2_.. Give ownership and dimensions of adjoining property. Show approximate locations of all buildings, driveways, and streets pertinent to the application by extending survey or drawing. ~. Attach letters from adjoining affected prope .rty owne rs showing attitude toward re que ~ t', "~ it!,u,1.3 ' , - 0 ~Q I1 council~ ~ .solution or variance ranted becomes null and void PLANNING COMMISSION RE COMMENDATION DATE COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO.~ *non- conforming use DATE fE~[IFI]~:.~E (DF 5~[2~7EY' ,o, Hussman.lnvestment Co, , , , '.i Scale: 1"= 30' Deicription: Lots 3 and 4, -- Block 15, DEVON. We hereby certify thai this is a true and correct representation of a survey of 'the boundaries of the land above describe~l and of the location of all bulldings~ if any, thereon', and all visible encroachments, If any, from or on said lend. ted this__ 4~h day of February ,1972. E6AN, F & NOWAK i le ~,'o 1603 :Boo~ ,~o by ?&~/ ! / cc:) i~( ~.._.~AP~iCATION FOR VARIANCE CITY OF M~D NAME OF APPLICANT Address ~~. INTEREST IN PROPERTY FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Address ~ ~ .z/.? ~ £/¢~ FEE $ ..... ~NING. PROPERTY ADDRESS /_~ PLAT_ (~ ! ~-DO PARCEL Telephone Number z/?o~- .~o?o~ ADDITION_ ~ AY' Telephone ~ '~. Number /~NCE REQUESTED: FRONT[ [ACCESSORY YARD , l O FT. BUILDING. YARD - LOT SIZE FTJ LOT SQ. FOOTAGE/G! YARD B LOCK~ ~ N. C. U.* or OTHER (describe) REASON FOR REQUEST: '-"., 7( '.~. . 4,'7R -a%,-9 Z o 1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing showing location of proposed improvement in relation to lot lines, other buildings on property and abutting streets. -- 2. Give ownership and dimensions of adjoining property. Show approximate locations of all buildings, driveways, and streets pertinent to the application by extending survey or drawing. 3--. Attach letters from adjoining affected property owners showing aititude toward permit must be applied for within one year from the date of the ~olution or variance granted becomes null and void. are not transferable.~ ~ ANT: ' '~'7~0'~7L-. .- DATE- Signature DATE CITY OF MOUND PLANNrING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO DATE *non- conforming use / I have no objections to Brent Th°retort building his home as he has it positioned on the sight plan. East lot owner: Loren E. Bystal 6333 Bcsjridge Road Mound, MN 55364 West lot owner: Carl F. Johnson 6343 Bayridge Road Mound, MN 55364 APP LICA TION FO~i~VARIANCE ~'-- '-' CITY OF M~D ' NAME OF !"). ~ Telephone Numbe r ~-~ fADDI TION .~ · PROPERTY ADDRESS B C~,~ / PL^T ~/~/~ P~C~L ~ ~ 0 / INTEREST IN PROPERTY FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Address VARIANCE REQUESTED: FRONT 1 YARD FT. { SIDE REAR [ ' YARD FT. Telephone Number ACCESSORY -BUILDING NOTE: 1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing showing location of proposed improvement in relation to lot lines, other buildings FT: on property and abutting streets. Z. Give ownership and dimensions of adjoining property. Show approximate. locations of all buildings, driveways, and streets pertinent to the application by extending survey or drawing. 3. Attach letters from adjoining affected prope.rty owners showing attitude toward request', "' LOT SO. N. C. U.* or OTHER (describe). A building permit must be applied for within one year from the date of the council resolution or variance granted becomes null and void. Variances are nohtransferable. A P P LI GA N T ~-/d-~__ (_/f~-.F~/-/~ DA T E Signature PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION DATE COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO.. DATE *non-conforming use / '~ ~/7 ?..':.?:.... X spu~I~l:'~iI{ oq% ¢?I ~°°IH ~LI pu~ 9I s%o5 u! ~o~aS jo %~yg £~ APP LI CA TION FO~i~A RIANCE CITY OF M~D NAME 0~' APPLICANT Address Tele phon~- ' - 0 Number WI-II~' I., INTEREST IN PROPERTY FEE oWNER (if other than applicant) Address FEE PROPERTY Telephone Number VARIANCE RE QUE.S TE, D: FRONT [ t ACCESSORYl YARD , ' FT. BUILDING ' , , ySIDE YARD REAR YARD LOT SIZE NOTE: FT.] LOT SQ. . : · N. C. U,* or OTHER (describe) ' REASON FOR REQUEST: 1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing showing location of proposed improvement in relation to lot lines, other buildi.ngs on property and abutting streets. Z. Give ownership and dimensions of adjoining property. Show approximate locations of ail buildings, driveways, and streets pertinent to the application by extending survey or drawing. 3. Attach letters from adjoining affected property..owners s .howlng attitude toward request,' · · City OF i 'iOLINO A building permit must be applied for within one year froTM the date of the council resolution or variance granted becomes null and void. ira e b e APPLICANT ~ ' S~nature PLANNING COMMiSSION RECOMMENDATION DATE COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO., DATE ;',:non- conforming use /,,% ' ' ~' '~ ~ '~'~ ' · ' ' ' 1595 SEL~'AVENUE ST. PAUL [5104 ' - . ,.~ - ?,:.: .... · ~.. .. . .:. · . . . ~,..~ ' . , : ..;.'. ~ .?.--.~-:.>., ~ "~Y L:;9.' ' "' "' '~ 'k .... 0,'.', < ,, "' · '; ';..~-' .' ' ....~ ? · ' . '~', -k: ,'. ' ..' i'.. .~'~' : ."~~ . . . . - : '. . ., .-,.. ,- :~"~' ' ' · " ' ' '~ :'' ' i * ' :. ' ' "~' ..: ....... , .... . ,,- . .&. ' : " ........ ~:'" .. ~'~ · . "~ , ~ '~... .. , · . ~ ~ . '~ ~. . -'~: .- ~ ..: .-,. .~. ~ .-~. .~-: ~. ~ ~ - . , . , ~ · .: .... .: -~"... . . ~",'~' .... ' . · ' .A, ',: .,... .~ ~ , ..., · . '., ~ -. . .. . '.. . " '~' ' " ' ~ " "'"': - '"':"" ': " .. ,..... .. , : '~ . ..:~ "., .. ...~,. ., ... .. .. ~ ", .~ ,..: ;...~. ':7 ..~.~ :, · . .... :. . . : .~ :. * ':- -~..~.. ... , ~.,, '-..~.....' ";.. ~ , : , ,~. . ' , . . ,.. :,:~ .. ~ ....?, '~,'?.,.' .., .- . ~. . . .~,'. : . :, ['.;. : ,::'., . - :.~ .. · .~. . :'.".'¢' . ." ~ ': .' ' ' .' : · .. ' , ~ ~ .': ',.' , ,' ~. . ',". ' '~ '~. ' ~' ¢': ~ ................ , .......... > -. .... ... ....... :'a :-~ ::5..:-,.( ..:.'...' , .:' . . . . ~, ~ ~ .. .- . .~ ~ . "-: .' ' ~.': . .' ' ' · ' i,-' " ~,': ~ '.. } ." '..:'.,: .... 3 4=;-~ ,.: .. .;... . . : , · . ~' ~ ..- . . .~~...I .: .' . . . .~~ .... ~ . ~. ~~~~~, ; · , ~ '~ .... ~""' " ' ' x' " ~ ' ' '"" ' '' :" : '~'" ' '"~ : · ".~ C. . , ': '~x vx .. ~ -.~ .:. '- · " '. ~.: .... ' .:: ... . .. .... .: . ...:, ..'. '.:'>' .~.-., ~ X · -. ' . ' .~' ~ . ' . ' -.' '- . ' .... ' ~' ':':"'""" ':'" '' '" " '~ ' '" "'-"-: -" ;','4' :':~, %~"' -.:.':: ~.' ':-: .-; .... ,:,-'-.'~,:~ .~,.,,~ · I~.' . .. : ._ '..:'..' '. ', :~ ;'.,. · · 5';"~ ' "-' · "t'.::' .'.-.. .: '.';~ : - ; ; . ' .. , . .,-. ¥:~. - . ..... .... ..... "'" ':"' · · ' ;' · '-"",... . - .....//! ,.i.,:. :...'. :. . ~ [ ' '~ .. .. ' .. ... , . . .::.-? : . . .., :. .'.' "''i:'-"°' · .. . ;.~ · . ." .. , .".. ~ '. .'.~ . : .'. ,. ~ 'I ... "" ~" · " "' '1 ':, " .. ,: -., .~.. .. .~: · ., " ".:'...'~ .... ' '' ' ': t/TIFICA:TIg P LOCATION OP B. UI NC, (:Et:tTIFIC~TF, OF SUtlV~Y:. ! b.,rebv c~rttf), t}mt oa --* ' "~ a .... .. . z _, 19 ..:~_t~ ...... ! hereby certlly th'at on " ,:'. 't.ht~ ,',u*¥¢,y. plan. or report wa~ prepared by me or ti.~er my thi, ourvey, plan, or. report' wn~ prelpar~d' by'- m~ o." ti'nde, r my direc~ ~:~p~r~'~toa and t}mt I am ~ du.}), RegLqtered l,a~id Sur- direct. ~uI~rvi,ion and that .'1 oJ~ ,, drily.: il~terlx] 'Laud :-'~ "' :~~.Oycr trade' t[=~ law~ 0.,~ t.ho ~tato of Minnesota. ' i. ! Surveyor under the ]a:~'~ of th~'Stmto'of'~{in'-~rot~ -- .;"~...-,., .'~ . ~ ./~) ~ . : : ..,.......- ............................................. ' ' · :. '~. ~,~. v . _.~d'_'~ _. This is to inform the Mound City Council that we have seen the proposed deck plans for 3237 Gladstone, and have no objections to its construction. ~ame ' / Address Name Address APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE CI T Y OF M( FEE $__ NING ~ PARCEL ~} ~,, BLOCK INTEREST IN PROPERTy ~'~ FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Address Telephone Number VA PJ~NCE REQUESTED: FRONT [ [ACCESSORYI YARD FT. BUILDING NOTE: FT.I YARD LOT SQ. r'OOTAGE .//? N. C. U. ;:" or OTHER (desCribe) REASON FOR REQUEST: ..~<. ~..~ ~--~- <'V' -'~-~ 1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing showing location of proposed improvement in relation to lot lines, other buildings on property and abdtting streets. -' 2--. Give ownership and dimensions of adjoining property. Show approximate locations of all buildings,' driveways, and streets pertinent to the application by extending survey or drawing. 3. Attach letters from adjoining affected property owners showing attitude toward request;.'''~ ~ % ,,., ~\ ,'. '-. ! . . . " fE'~k ~B _bh~'ld},ng perm, t must be arvhed for w~thin one ear from the d t , :-:-~-~-~,: ,, . Y a e of the { ,. ,,,~9 council P~solut~on or variance granted becomes null and vol . : Uv'~l~' . ,,! i! d ' i .~n o n ~r~r~a~ce'~s are not transferable __ · . ~ . PLANNrING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION DATE COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO -.-non- conrorlT£1ng use DATE ................. l¢.Vz 'tO 0 o ........ ~ 0 ..... ~:... - ..... '. o :;':'"5.:: > .......... ----~--~.' -::.::- ~ ..-:-:: .... ::;.~.;:.: .... :: . ::. ~ . ........... :" ....... ' ....... '~"'~" ...... ::~ ."4 0 ~ '0 . .t2 APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE CITY OF Md~D NAME OF , APPLICANT .~Address INTEREST IN PROPERTY FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Addre s s PROPERTY '__~[~I\)Cl LOT.yII, ~t-]0 .~L ' BLOCK, k~'~.. , Number q7..2-:~' / ADDITION ~ - Telephone Number ~.~RRLANCE REQUESTED: ~o~ ~/ ] ^CCESSORY YARD / ,~,~ FT.i BUILDING I NO TE: FT.I SIDE YARD FT-]. LOT SIZE ! FTj REAR I FTJ YARD LOT SQ. FO 0 TAG E ~,'~ .{//' ~/_ N. C.U.* or OTHER (describe). REASON FOR REQUEST:' 1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing showing location of proposed improvement in relation to lot lines, other buildings on-property and abutting streets. 2. Give ownership and dimensions of adjoining property. Show approximate locations of all buildings, driveways, and streets pertinent to the application by extending survey or drawing. 3. Attach letters from adjoining affected property owners showing attitude toward requej~', ~i~'~'g ~ ~-~Qt~gI permit must be applied for within one year from the date of the ri ~?R 2 0q~'~iif o~ao~or variance granted becomes null and void. Ji I e Varian~d,are not transferable. ~' ,~ ~ ~-~-------' ' ~V~,~. ~, ~.~:l..~~ .~.~_~. ,~o 1~/77 ~ITV ~'~ ~ ~/1 ~p~ICANT. _ ... DATE .. PLANNING COMMISSION RE COMMENDATION DATE COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO._ DATE ;:-'non- conforn~ing use /ot37 APP LICA TION FO~ARIANCE CITY OF NAME OF APPLICANT _Central Construction Cmmpany ..... ' 715 Florida Ave. S., Mpls, 55426 Te le phone ' Number 546-3947 ~iNING_ SiFl§le family residential PROPERTY ADDRESS 2214 Mill Pond ~ ane PLAT LOT ? ADDITION. Mill PARCEL ....... BLOCK _! PnnrI INTEREST IN PROPERTY Builder & ,Seller FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Frank R_ Eranta ~ Address 2214 Mill Pond Lane Central Construc'tion Co. Telephone Number 546-3947 VA PJ_ANCE REQUESTED: FRONT I ACCESSORYI YARD FT; BUILDING YARD. 2 FT. LOTSIZE REAR YARD FT. NOTE: FT.I LOT SQ. . ~ibe) -B ' REASON FOR REQUEST: 1._. Attach a survey AND scale drawing showing location of proposed i~nprovement in relation to lot lines, other buildings on property and abutting Streets, 2--, Give ownership and dimensions Of adjoining property, Show approximate locations of all buildings, driveways, and streets pertinent to the application by extending survey or drawing. .3_. Attach letter~ from adjoining affected property owners showing attitude toward request,. ., Builder constructed deck so that one corner..protrude.~_two feat beyond the ten foot side yard yard..setback. 0wner.(Franta) & Central Construction Co., reques~.$..~na~ variance Da gran~ea allowing deck to remain as is with one corner to be 8'-0 1/4" from property line. Signature CITY OF MO , PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION DATE COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO, DATE *non-conforming use O Denotes Iron Monument I hereby certify that this is a true and correc4 representation of a survey of the boundaries of: Lot 2, Block 1, MILL POND, Hennep|n County, Minnesota. And of the location of all buildings, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from oron ~aid land. As surveyed by me this 14th dayof Novembe~t.9 7R _ - /~: · ' -. . ' ' '~'", '. .'l'homas S. Bergquis-~'~.'l Land Surveyor. Minn. Reg. No. ' 7725 ~,:~))..~)~)/~ i~McCOMBS-KNUTSON AssoCIATES, INC. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY for C£NTR L COALS I. CO. ].~ 3 ~ Oor lrudion ompOny April 18, 1979 Planning Commission City of Mound, Minn, 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minn. 55364 Re: Application for Variance ~ Lot 2, Block 1 2214 Mill Pond Lane, Mound, Minn, Gentlemen: In ~'e§ard to the above Variance Application for Lot 2~ Block 1, Mill Pond, we advise that we are Owners of adjacent Lot 3, Block 1 and that we have no objection t~ 'the request that the corner of the deck be allowed to remain as. is. Sincerely, Central Construction Company William C. Webster 7'15 Florida Avenue South, Minneapolis, Mn 55426 6'12-546-3947 CITY OF MOUND ZONING PROPERTY Y INTEREST IN PROPERTY: FEE OWNER (if other than applicant) Address Telephone Numb e r VARIANCE REQUESTED: FRONT I ACCESSORY} YARD FT- BUILDING , NOTE: 1. Attach a survey AND scale drawing showing location of proposed improvement SIDE YARD SIZE N. C. U.* or OTHER (describe) REASON FOR REQUEST: .LO-.¢ .. in relation to loft lines, other build.ings on property and abutting streets. 2--. Give ownership and dimensions of j adjoiningproperty. Showa.pproximate .~'9'-O FT.- locations of all buildings, driveways, and streets-pertinent to the application ~,, ~,) by extending survey or drawing. - 3. Attach.letters. from adjoining affected · ~r dpe rty. owner.s 'b boWing -~tt[tude towar'd request~ : must be applied for within one year from the date of the or variance granted becomes null and void, notZransferable. . Signature C/Tv ,~. ,--- ~ , .... ;t ~ ';' '"'"' '~ ':'" ....... P~j/~I~-Ni-N~-.'COMMISSION RE COMM ~NDA TION / DATE COUNCIL ACTION: RESOLUTION NO._ DATE ::-'non- conformin~ use , / L~6AL DESCRI~¥1oN; Lot .7, 13 z~" ~-----r--Z //% ,- ' ~ ' ' o Denotes iron monumeat ~. . Proposed lowest floor eiev. = r~ Denotes o! fset make · ' ' Proposed top of foundation ele~. x ooo.o. Denotes existing elev. BENCH MARK: { ooo.o } 'Denotes Proposed elev. · · , Denotes surface drainage ' " ' ' Proposed garage floor elev.= · ·· I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of File No. the boundaries of the above described land and of the location of all buildings, if any, thereon, and all visible encroa,chmentSo if any, from o[ on said land. /)¢~ ~/ B"o~k ~ Page I)E~]ARS - GABRIEL · LAND SURVEYORS, INC. 3030 Harbor Lane No. Plymoulh MN 55441 Phone: (612) 559-0908 CITY of MOUND April 25, 1979 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: The Planning Commission The City Manager Variances - Tract A, R.L.S. 1150 The City Council on April 24th tabled action on the subject house in order to determine if 50% was ~estroyed by fire and therefore can be rebuilt. If found to be less than 50% destroyed, it can be rebuilt. In order to rebuild, the following variance will be re-. quired: Side yard setback .25 foot Lake front setback of 37.00 feet The applicant has asked for a determination on the variances so if appraisal is less than 50% destroyed, they'.~ll not bE held up for another month. This will be added to the April 30th agenda. c.~. ~ i [ Leonard L. Kopp Application on this came out on March 26th. I / / .xa/r, CIITY of MOUND April 25, 1979 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472~1155 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: The Planning Commission The City Manager Final Plat - Rustic Place Last year the Planning Commission and Council approved the pre- liminary plat for Rustic Place (four lots along Bartlett Boule- vard). The final plat is ready for the Planning Commission approval. CITY of MOUND April 16, 1979 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: The Planning Commission The City Manager Side Yard Setback in A-2 Presently any lot in A-2 in excess of 60 feet wide must have a 10 foot side yard setback. While those less than 60 feet wide, the setback is 6 feet. The Council asks if the Planning Commission would 'co~sider recom- mending a Change in the' above to make it equal to what is being prepared for the new zoning ordinance which they thOught was 8 feet, CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota May 4, 1979 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 79-158' SUBJECT: Preliminary Report - Chestnut Road Attached is a copy of the preliminary report on Chestnut Road improvements - sewer, water and street construction. The next step is to accept the report and call a public hearing. E~o,~ard L. Kopp ~ ~ ~-8-79 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota May'8, 1979 · COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 79-161 SUBJECT: License Renewals for the House of Moy Applications have been received from the House of Moy for renewal of the following licenses: Restaurant 'On Sale Beer License Leonard L. Kopp CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota May 3, 1979 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 79-155 SUBJECT: Cigarette and Restaurant Licenses The owner of Lot 2, Skarp's East Lawn, on land zoned commercial which permits retail sales, has applied for restaurant and cigarette licenses in order to sell (Stewart) sandwiches, cigarettes and pop to the boaters as they come through Seton Channel. This will be listed on the May 8 agenda. .',. / 5-8-79 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota May 3, 1979 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 79-156 SUBJECT: License Renewals The following license renewals have been received: Off Sale Beer - National Food Store Restaurant - James H. Brugger DBA Branty's A separate resolution is needed for each application. /211 5-8-79 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota May 4, 1979 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO. 79-157 SUBJECT: Municipal Clerk's week The attached proclamation was received from the International Institute of Municipal Clerks. I~ is recommended the week of May 13 through May, 1979 be proclaimed Municipal Clerk's Week. International Institute of Municipal Clerks 160 NORTH AL TADENA DRIVE · PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91107 · (213) 795.6153 CONTACT: John Hunnewell DATE OF RELEASE: April 16, 1979 FOR RELEASE: Before May 13 MUNICIPAL CLERK'S WEEK MAY 13 - 19, 1979 CELEBRATES HISTORIC OFFICE With the founding of our country, municipal clerks, 'Using their quill pens, first recorded the development of our democracy. Through the evolution' of our government, this most historic and important office still exists as a vital service in all parts of the world today. Leaders of our national., state and local governments are being urged to introduce legislation calling for the designation of May 13-19, 1979, as Municipal Clerk's Week. This week cites the Clerks' continuing conscientious, unswerving, and untiring efforts for the governments in which they serve. Today's municipal clerks continue to dedicate themselves, discharging the awesome responsibility vested in them as custodians of legal covenants, as well as acting as liaison between-the people and their elected officials. With their roots deep in our democratic system of government, the municipal clerks everywhere are demonstrating that they are continuing to meet the challenges that lie ahead for local government. The International Institute of Municipal Clerks, therefore, encourages recognition for one of our country's most time-honored professions and sets aside this special time of May 13 to May 19, 1979, as Municipal Clerk's Week. /71~7 MUNICIPAL CLERK'S WEEK MAY 13 - 19, 1979 WHEREAS: the success of any unit of government is measured in direct proportion to its ability to meet the needs of its people; and WHEREAS: it is imperative to our citizenry that municipal government operate in an orderly and efficient manner; and WHEREAS: the Municipal Clerk serves as the central source of knowledge and records of municipal government, which records must be readily available to municipal departments, com~nmnity groups, and individual citizens; and WHEREAS: the Municipal Clerks undertake a variety of administrative, financial, informational and human services which are vital to an effective and responsible government at the local level; and WHEREAS: Municipal Clerks strive continually to improve the administra- tion of their office, consistent with applicable laws· and · sound management practices, in order to fulfill their responsi- bilities to the community; and WHEREAS: Municipal Clerks are dedicating themselves to pursue training and professional education which will expand their knowledge and their awareness of the needs of their local governments and their citizens. NOW, THEREFORE, I, , Mayor of do hereby proclaim the week of May 13 through May 19, 1979, as MUNICIPAL CLERK'S WEEK in recognition of the vital services they perform and their outstanding dedi- cation to the communities they represent. DATED this day of , 1979. MAYOR CITY CLERK -8-79 CITY OF MOUND Moundr Minnesota May 3, 1979 COUNCIL MEMORANDUM NO, 79-153 SUBJECT: Acting City Manager The City Manager will be attending the City Managers Conference in Brainerd on May 9, 10 and llth, It is recommended an acting Manager be appointed for that period, 5-11'79 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota May 3, 1979 INFORMATION MEMORANDUM NO. 79-50 SUBJECT: Appraisal Bus Garage Attached is a copy of the appraisal on the bus garage showing it is worth about $100,000. The owners have asked if we would be willing to lease rather than purchase? /2.1 AN APPRAISAL OF The Brandvold-Reilly Garage Northeast Corner of Lyn~vood and Beln~ont Mound, 1V[inne s ora for Mr. Leonard Kopp, City Manager City of Mound' Mound, Minnesota O. J. SANSKI, MAI, SREA lO-la R E A L E S T A T E A P P R A I S F R S A N D C O N S U L -r A N T S1 April 30, 1979 Mr° Leonard Kopp City Manager City of Mound Mound, Minnesota 553 64 Dear Mr. Kopp: In accordance %vith your request I have made an inspection and an appralsaI: · of the Brandvold-Reilly Garage at the northeast corner of Lynwood and Belmont Streets, Mound, Minnesota. In the following pages in synopsis form are memoranda, calculations, commentary and value conclusions pertaining to f~his real estate. ]Based upon my observation and investigation it is my judgment that Considered as of April 19, 1979, the day the property was inspected, this property had a market value, subject to the limitations '~fid conditioAs as hereinafter stated, in the amount of: ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1oO, ooo. oo) The accompanying report contains data secured from my personal investigation and from other sources considere~-to be reliable. It has not all been checked and verified and its correcLness therefore cannot be guaranteed. ¥ e ry//t.~ly yours, . O J J/ih 8567 t' t R ~ A L I~ $ T A T E: A-P- P R ~"~ I S E R S A Iq lB C O N S U L T A N T S TABLE OF CONTENTS ~[~em Purpose of the Appraisal ...... Pr. opsrty l~ights Appraised Marker Yalue Defined Legal Desc ription .... Zoning ................................... Highest and Best Use- The Site ................. Descripfion of the Improvements l~eplacemenf Cosf Approach ................. A/Iarket Data Approach- Sum/nary and Conclusion C e rtific a~ion .......... ~ ............ ]EXHIBITS Plao~og raplaic Legend Photographs --- Sire Map .... Twin City Metropolitan Area Mapz_- ..... A s sumpfion s and C onditions- Qualifications of Oo J. Janski Descripfion of SREA Designation ~age 1 1 1 2 Z Z.. 4 6 9 15 16 17 18 19 Z0 Z1 Z3 i'~'"' ~ A L E' S T A T E APPRAISERS AND C O t'J S U L T A N T S~ PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the market value of the property, as it is hereinafter described. PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED The property rights appraised in this report consist of the Fee Simple Interest in the property. MARKET VALUE DEFINED According to the Real Estate Appra[gal Terminology by the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers and the Society of ReM Estate Appraisers, 1975 Edition, "Fair Market Value" is the term used synonymously with "Market Value." In the same publication, ~'Market Value" is defined as: "THE HIGHEST PRICE IN T.ERMS Ot;' MON.lgY WHICH A PROPERTY WILL BRING hNA COMPETITIVE AND OPEN MARKET UNDER ALL CONDITIONS REQU~ITE TO A FAIR SALE, THE BUYER AND S.ELLER, EACH ACTING PRUDENTLY, KNOWLEDGEABLY AND ~S- SUMiNG THE PRIC~] IS NOT AFFPJCTED BY UNDUE STIMULUS." 2 IR .E A L E S T A T E,. -__ .. A P P R A I S E t~ S, ...... , A N D C 0 N S U g T A N T Sl The property is legally described as Lots 1Z, 13, Addition to 1V~ound, Hennepin County, 1Viinnesota. 14 and Koehler's ZONING This proper~y is zoned according to information supplied by Clerk in the Municipal offices as commercial property; however, the same party advised that a special permit had been issued to authorize the construction of %he subject property, o'he. of the conditions of which included painting all exterior walls of the. structure. As shown in the photographs accompanying %he report two 3valls are yet to be painted. HIGHEST AND BEST USE The highest and best use has been'defined as: "The most profitable use to which a properly can be put" and also, "that use of the land which may be expected to produce the greatest net return to %he land over a given period of time.r' The present use of the property also represents the highest and best lime. 1, I1 3 THE SITE This property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Lyn~vood Boulevard and Belmont Drive in the downtown area of the City of/Wound. This location is north of the former Great Northern l{ailroad right-of-u/ay and about one block north of Concord Boulevard or County Road 15. The land generally slopes from north to south, that is, from rear to fror/t. The site is served Wi~h public utLli[ies (municipal) , these being public sewer and public %rater. Natural.gas is also available, Street surfacing in this area is bituminous. '.There are"no curbs or gutters~ The immediate neighborhood is somewha~ m~xed in character. Imme- diately east of the subject property and immediately north of the subject property are single family residential homes, south and %vesterly of the subject prope~;_y are a variety of small corrutnercial and industrial properties of mixed age and quality. There are several undeveloped sites nearby. The site is not prime for either cornnaercial or industrial uses %vhich in this area are generally centered along Commerce Boulevard ,and Concord Boulevard. REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS AND CONSULTANT I ! DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPROVEA/LSNTS -Located on the site is a one-story garage building constructed in 1969. The total building area is 6, 844 square feet. The walls are constructed of 1Z-inch blocks, 19 courses high (i2 feet +). The hillside wall has concrete pilasters and 4-foot deep, 11 course buttresses se'paratLug the ten garage stalls. There are a total of eleven 6-section garage-type doors to house a total of twelve vehicles. The floor in the garage storage and repair areas is bituminous and there is a 10-foot bituminous apron ha' front of the doors. There is a metal floor drain in the garage area. The roof structure is carried by twvo-by six and two-by-eight trusses, 48 inches on center. These support spaced one-inch sheathing boards (unlnsulated) under corrugated metal c.°~er. The g,abled roof structure has plywood in the gable ends." There are two (Sterling) gas-fired space heaters with metal flues'and a wall-hung space heater in the office area. An office area which also includes a toilet room cOntains a. bout 180 square feet. , The toilet room and the office have asphalt tile floor cover, the xvalfs are painted concrete blocks. There are two plumbing fixtures,, a lavatory and a water closet, as ~vell as a ceiling-mounted exhaust fan and a sheetrocked ceiling in the bathroom. In the offic~area the doors and trim are oak. ' There is a 100-ampere electric ~grvice, 1Z0-Z40 voI. tage. The office storage includes 12~ lineal feet of wvall cabinetry. In the repair section of the garage the ceiling is insulated with two-by-eight styrofoam sheets and there is also a Sterling space heater hung from the ceiling. This is also the location of a Briggs gas-fired water:heater. The roll-up door in this part of the building is electrically operated. There is also a floor drain and an exhaust fan in this area. Outside the building is a Z65-gallon oil storage tank, a single gasoline pump and a reported Z, 000-gallon underground fuel storage tank. There are retaining avails on three sides of the property. These are concrete I -o7 D~.SCRIiOTION OF THE IMioROVtEMENT$ (Continued) blocks with unmortared joints. The general condition of the property is fair to good;however, there is some collection of %vater in the northeast corner of the building. The source of this water and/or correctional matters was not determined. In other respects the condition of the property is good. /.loY ;[v~ E A L ESTATE APPRAISERS AND C O N S U 1_ TAN T Sl REPLACEMENT COST APPROACH The Replacement Cost Approach as a metbod of estimating real estate value is sometimes referred to as "Depreciated Replacement Cost Approach" and the "Summation Approach". Briefly stated, this method involves the estimation of.the' cost to replace the improvements today. From this is sub- tracted the estimated depreciation and to that result is added the 'market value of the land. The estimate of the replacement cost of the improvements is based upon current costs of constructio.n of improvements of similar quality and does not necessari, ly involve identical production. The depreciation estirha.te reflects' the loss in value not only as the result of age, wear and tear, etc., (all of which is classified as physical deteri, oratlon) but also in- cludes the elements of functional and economic obsolescence. The former includes, in part, outmoded facilities, changlng public attitudes, etc., whereas the latter reflects the ele- ments outside the property which are destructive of real estate values. These ca__n be changes in neighborhood uses, legislation, highway construction, etc. The calculations on the £ollowing page are a summary of the Replacement Cost Approach. ESTATE APPRAISERS AND C O N S U L T A N T -~-1 tLEPLACEMENT COST APPROACH (Cor~ti~nued) Direct Unit Construction COSt Estimate Marshall Valuation Service Section 14 Page 13 Type Class D low cost service garage Basic Unit Cost $9. g2 per sq. ft. Square Foot Refinements Roof Sheathing/cove r Bituminous Floor Cabinets/Ele c. door/Misc. Heat Equip. Total __Height & Size Refinemen. ts Wall Height Floor Area/Perirn-~ter 6, 844/ 410 ...96 1. 085 _Temporal & Locational Multipl.iers Current Cost Multiplier (Central USA, Class D Sec. 14) Local {Mpls. ) Multiplier 1.11 1.04 Application $8.77 x.96x 1.085x 1.11 x 1.04 = $-.70 -.35 4.40 +.20 ' $8,77 $10. 545 Rounded to Say $10.55 per square foot /olog [[REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS AND C O N S U L TAN T S1 REPLACEMENT COST APt°ROACH A - Direct Construction Cost Estimate B (6, 844 square feet @ $10.55 = $7Z, 204) - .Site Impr??ements (Including tank, pump) Indirect ConstructiOn Cost Taxes and interest durLug 'construction, interim and permanent financing fees and charges, title insurance and legal, m{scellaneous fees estimated typically to be 5% of Direcf Construction Cost (A+B) D - Total Direct and Indirect Construction Oost E F G Estimate of Depreciation (10/40) Depreciated Cost Estimate Land Value (See Market Data Approach). Total Value Indicated (Continued) $ 72, ZOO $ 2, 300 Say Say $ 3, 700 $ 78, Z00 $( 19, 500) $ 58, 700 $ 46, 200 $104, 900 SAY $105, 000 9 'iF.l E A L. E S T ~ 'T E /~ P P R A I S E R S A N D C O N S U L T A N T S_ MARKET DATA APPROACH The use of Market Data in estimating real estate values involves the comparison of the subject property as a real estate entity with other similar real estate entities which have recently sold or are now for sale. These considera- tions are limited as much' as possible to properties which are believed to have a high degree of similarity and to transactions which involved informed buyers and sellers' who negotiated freely in the open market and where the transactions can be considered as being truly representa- tive of the market. I I AS a method, it is based upon the idea float a prudent man will pay no more for a property than i't'will cost t6 secure a comparable substitute. Thus, it is that sales which have occurred in [he recent past and which have involved highly comparable improvements, or no improvements, as the case may be,-and which are located in the immediate neighborhood, are given the most weight under this approach. While a large number of'sales of properties have been considered, only those believed to be especially pertinent are noted here. I have related them to the subject and have considered factors influencing their value, i.consider the data adequate, and under these circumstances, a valid support to the conclusions indicated. REAL E ST A T /5 APPRAISERS AND C O N S U b TAN T ~ MARKET DATA APPROACH (Continued) 'A number of properties simlar to the subject property, wh-~ch were receDtly sold or leased, have been checked and related to the subject propert.¥ as to location, size, age, conditzon, extent,and quality of income, and to other. matters influencing market value. A sampling of supportive market data is indluded ~n this report. .- The analysis indicated that the land, considered as if vacant, would be marketable at about $46, 200 and the total property (land and buildings) would be marketable at about $99, 000 as indicated below: ' LAND ONLY 34,200 square feet of land area @ $1.35 = $46, 170 TOTAL PROPERTY 6, 844 square feet of building area @ $14.50= $99, Z38 tlr E A L E S T A T'E A P P R A I S E R S A N D C O N S U L T A MARKET DATA APPROACH (Continued) Transactions Relating to Land Value A somewhat irregular tract of land wifoh frontage on Concord Boulevard, Montclair Place and Bartlett Boulevard sold in November, 1975 for $30, 000. The commercially zoned tract contained about 35, 226 square feet. The sale was made on the basis of about $. 85 per square foot of land area. However, adjusting this sale down%yard because of its shape, upward because of its preferred location to the subject property, and adjusting it on the basis of a 1Z% annual increment time of sale, indicates after adjustment to conform to the subject property,' · $1.26 p~r square foot. A property at County Road 15 near Kings 'Road h~ Spring Park sold in March 1976 for $16, 300° The commercially zoned lot contained 16, 500 square feet and %vas' located in the northwest corner of County Road 15 and Kings Road. The sale was equal to $. 99 per square foot of land area; however, there was some · financial distress on the p_~rt of ~he seller indibating it must have been somewhat below market value at the time. Adjusting for this and the preferred location to the subject property and .adjusting it upward on the basis of a 12% annual increment since the sale was made indicates a $1. 19 per square foot of application to the subject property. ~ A property at the nort}£Qvest corner of Lynwood Boulevard and Belmont Drive, Mound, sold in July 1976 for $Z9, 600. This is directly across Belmont Drive from ~e subject proper~y. The sale was equal to $1. Z0 per square foot; however, adjusting the sale upward to reflect the higher prices currently prevailing on the basis of a 1Z~ annual increment indicates $1.65 p¢r square foot. MARKET DATA APPROACH (C ontinued} Comments on Sales · The property involved i~ Sale lqo. 3 most closely conforms to the subject property; however, it is preferred to the subject property in that it is closer to the center of the city. However, the three sales show a mean of $1.35 per square foot and median price is $1.26 per square foot. I believe $1.35 per square 'foot is a reasonable conclusion of unit price, value to this marginal commercial site, /2. ol ESTATE A P P R A I S E R S A N D C O N S U LTA NT Si MARt~T DATA APPROACH (C ontlnued) Sales Relating to Land and Buildin~ Yalues A garage building on the County Road 19 north of the Soo, Line tracts in Loretto, .Lot 14, Aud. Subdivision #232, was sold in 1974_. for $35, 000. The building contained 4, 150' square feet and was built in 1969. At the time it was tenant occupled by ¥illage AU~Oo The structure had two 6-section and two 4-section roll-up doors and was located on a site containing about 12~ 375 square' fe~t, Adjusting the sale downward to reflect the superiority of the building to the subject property, upward to reflect, the subject's greater amount of land and again upward to reflect the higher prices now preVailing indicates a unit price appropriate for th,e subject property of about $13.48 per square foot. The property at 5542 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound, sold in May 1974 for $115, 000. The garage building is' old .'.biff the: sale included ~vo 3-bedroom rental houses on tlae tract of lknd which amounted to about 81, 457 s'quare feet. Adjusting this sale downward compensates for the %xvo houses and upwarclby 75~ to reflect the 12% annual increment for five years that indicat~ a price of $14.52 per square foot of garage area. It is to be noted that thegarage facilities are older; however, the ratio of land to buLlding is more favorable than the subject. A garage and service st. ation at 6201 latest Highway No. 7, St. Louis Park, built in 1956 sold in 1974 for $71, 000 of which $61,000 was allocated to the real estate. This is a service garage for trucks and the concrete block, brick structure was superior to the subject property of which location contained 6, 918 square feet. Adjusting the sale for differences in age, quality of structure, as well as for the time of sale to make it lqlore closely conform to the subject property indicates a unit price of $21o 25 par square foot £or appli- cation to the subject. /Leo REAL ES'FATE APPRAISERS AND CONSULTANTS MARKET DATA APPROACH (Continue d) Sales Relating to Land and Bui/din~ Values (Continued) A garage body shOp at 4Z15 East Lake Street, built in 195Z, sold in October 1974 for $80, 071. The building contained 10, 464 square feet and was located on a site containing 17, 955 square feet . The unadjusted sale was equal to $7.65 per square foot. However, adjusting the sale dowmvard for quality 'of building and land value, upward for differences in age and upward about 67% for the time at which the property sold, indicates a unit price of $11o 7Z per square foot for application to the subject property. Comments on Sales These transactions after adjustment show a mean u.nit price of $15.24 per square foot and a median ~mit price of $14. O0 per square foot. It is my judgment that this property would probably sell in the open market, assuming typical buyers and sellers were neither under compulsiOn, at $99, 000 to $)~00, 000. R E A l-. E S T A T E A P P R A I S E R S A N D C O N S U L T A S SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The approaches to value indicate: 1. The Replacement Cost Approach $105, 000 The Market Data Approach $ 99, 000 3. The Lncome Capitalization Approach Not used This [s somewhat of a specialized property d'es[gned and built for school bus and storage and hcadquar~ers, My search did not produce any recent sales of highly comparable properties; therefore, substantial temporal and oLh.er adjustn~ents were made to compensate. My investigation did not develop market data relating to tenant occupancy of properties of %his type which is the basis of t/~e formulation of an Income Capitalization Approach. Income capitalization as a method_gl measuring real estate property values tends to reflect investorts' attitudes, his motivation, is profit on equity Lr~vestment. It seems that buildLngs of this ~ype are not numerous and are constructed for occupancy and are infrequently bought or sold or tenant occupied. For these reasons the Income Capitalization Approach %vas not atten.p~ed. The lleplacement Cost Approach and Market Data Approach narrowly bracket market value at $100, 000 and I believe provide adequate support for this conclusiot]. .!,..~, ,]',.~. ..... ~'i/x.~t~k'.[ ~ ,i?~ O~¢~O~.[,x~r,'~,%-= ]]¥t.,,,"~'~ i 10 "~'I. 2/~TH STI~EET ~/,IN;'!F_/.?Ot,',S, ~/,.N ~.r' .",,rn.,r '"'" //,':: ",.,.,.,..,., "- ", "' 'oz'~",,_, .~, ~r;~ E A I~ ESTATE. - A P P r~ A i S E R S AND O O N S U L T A N T S-J Ii I i ! hereby certlf~ that I have no undisclosed interest in this properb/, present or intended, and that my employment is not contingent upon the valuation found, and that I have personally inspected the property. I £ur~her certify that according to the best of my knowledge J:he contents of fl~is report are true, and that no important £acts have been xvithheld or overlooked; that the appraisal has been ~ de in accordance with the Standards o£ practice and code of ef/~ics of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers and the Society of Real Estate Appraisers. Subject to the lirnltations and conditions recited, I estimate f/lc rnarke~ value of this property to be: ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($100,000.-00) 1177 !.? PHOTOGRAPHIC LEGEND PHOTOGRAPH PHOTOGRAPH #Z PHOTOGRAPH This is a vie~v of the front or the south side of the Brandvold-Reilly Garage at the northeast corner of Lynwood and Belmont, Mound, Minnesota. This is a view of the Brandvold-Reilly Garage showing the south and %vest sides of the structure. This is a view of the Brandvold-Reilly. Garage showing the rear or north xvall of She structure as xvell as the west end of the building. PHOTOGRAPH # 1 PHOTOGRAPH#2 PHO T OGi~A PH # $ '(]A'-IE) D..,,'. AN, gf i & ASSOCZA..' ',g, ZNC. W. 26Tt~l ST~£L:T /N. tN,~'I[:'At~OI.!$, MN $~J04/,~¢ I2-325-2422 E S T A T E A P-P R A I S E R S. A N D C O N S U L T. A N T SJ UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS AND CONTINGENT CONDITIONS '6. e 10. The appraiser has no present or contemplated interest in the subject property and the employment in and compensation for making this appraisal is in no manner contingent upon the valuation reported.' The land value herein applies only to the present use of the property and is invalid under any otJmr program, The appraiser by reason of this appraisal shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court with reference to the subject property. · 'No responsibility is assumed by the appraiser for legal matters affecting the property nor is an opinion on title rendered here~v~th.'. It is assumed that management is competent and that the o~vnership is responsible. , No survey has been made and it is assumed the improvements have been Properly placed. ' Possession of this report or any copy ihereof does not imply the right of publication nor may the report be used by anyone but the applicant without the consent of the appraiser. Liens and encumbrances have been disregarded and the property appraised as if held in fee simple, free and clear of all encumbrances. It ts assumed construction will be in accordance with plans, specifications and other exhibits, and in conformity with local codds and ordinances. Neither ali nor any par~ of the contehts of this report shall be conveyed to the public through advertising, public relations, news sales or other media, without the written consent and approval of the author, particularly as to valuation conclusions, the identity of the appraiser or firm with which he is connected, or any reference to the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers or to the Society of Real E state Appraisers. i.':-:-: ' :' '- ' "'-'-:~ ,' · · :' .~."-; .... :i'.,'t .....' Lt~'~'~, '-.-' . - Education and General Experience , - ,"i~-~ : .-~ . . .... .~,',, .~, :.~.. ::-.~ ~-.-?.S~dled archit~ture and law at S~ John's Universl~, Unlverst~ of Minne~ and SL Paul College 'of 'Eaw~ a'pPral~! ' ~'~f'~' ' ....... '~:':2/cou~s by American Institute of Real Estate Appmlsem and others, aEended Appraisal Seminars. Real es~te exper[. .~;:.~: ... ~, i~:~('~ ~ence dates from 19~ and Includes reD,gage financing,, real estate sales, residential construction, land acquisition and · '..~.-...: .. ,~_l~,.~development..,.::~._ into residential subdiv~slon, cost estimation '0n ~arious .~p~. of const~ucHon, construction InspacUon; :., . L,.....has se~ed as consultant ~ gov~mmen~l agencies, lending Instl~H0ns, building contractdrs'an~ Investors, In land L~.~ '.....,','~':i.acquisition and developmen[' ~':~'::~;:~:"~'" ~';~::~;~'~'~ovem'~h;Pea0d".;i.~9~"[; present date In the s~teS' of Minnesota, North Dakota,-South Dakota, Wisconsin, Michl- .,J':.~:;.:.: .' ":~t ~(Lgan, Tennessee, 'Florida,. 19?a, .Montana ~nd 'Illinois.' Prope~les app~alse~ lnclude'~esidential,:'comm~rclal n ~..-,:-::'~?";~.::/J~:?prope~ies, urban'and r~mi land, ms0~r~nert e'"~'~ ~,;.~;~-~-:-:~." - -' .... · . . ..... I dustrial ~;'-~-~.~;." .". ",::~-;~'~ormerly a adnet in Janskl & nibs' .... ' ~' ' ' .... .... : t.-.:... :-t-~7..~.,~. ;.~:~t,L ~ ~. :: :..,..-~--- .-,:,- . . P. On, independent real estate appralsem and consult - '-,.-~=~=-~'~:- "" :'~" '- ~ _,.?:: .....~:: ..; agencm~ such as U.S..Depa~ment o[ JUStiCe, U.S.' Depa~ment of Interior..U ~ G~',~ '~__.,L_: :.'. PP... Y ~; L:'?.."? ;::.;~:,~Fedeml Housing Admlnistratlon,.Veterans'Admlnlstratlon,' Minnesota State Hi hwa" De ' ...... ~ ....~ ;": :p.r..;:~Highway Department, FarO0 Redeveloo~e~t'Authnrl~ ,;,,~_ ....... . :' _~ . y . payment, .Hen,epln Coaa~ ~ ' ¥:~:~?'"" ' ~ " . p rk boards, Umvem~ of Minnesota~ Hemline Univer- ~ 't --: ' :' .::"~ si~ and va~ous charitable.and religious organizations, Qua ilied as expe~ witness bef0r .v ' ~ ...'.~f::..- -(':./Including Dlstrlct Cou~ of Hennepln, Ramsey,' Anok~ Dakota and Ca~e~ CounUes e anous reYerees and Coups A~' . .-- · ....':?:. . · . . .Has acted as chairman of Dlstrlc ;:;_-. :?; :... _.:: Co~ ap~omte~ ~?.m~it,s.~nd h,~t act~d as~arblter in disputed real estate roarers involvino'lease ..... , .... ,,~ ~ ..- ' .... . -..' Appralsal~ For: .-~ :;;.:, :,:, ~ ,:.,~ -:;., ~:,~, .... :., >:.,:,.~.:..:~ :..,..:....: ~,:..:.,...;~ ,~, ~ .. :.~.~ :,¥: ,4,~ ..?,:-.. z..,.:...:t., .~. ~:~ ~/. ?,.:t~t~ -t,..- -,~s.v ,-*.-.-_, '~ ::~;, t' "' :"'-'. ~coa, Black & Decker Mfg Co, Fo~d Moi0~ C~"~-~,'~Z"~-~',;:~'~:'~~ ["t'L'~'2:'":"~"~? f:'?'~: "~&:'t?~?-~'"t"~'~"~%:~t't~ ~..t ' '" : Gill t ' · · -, ....... ,, ~p~,ance uwtsmn~/ueesa~er Industries, General 'Electric. ' [~ 't-.:-~. - ' · ~ :.et e Safe~ R~or Co.. IBM, Mlnnea~lls-Honeywell, Mtnneso~ Mlnln and Menu ~ ?"" .--, g 'lecturing Co Nation · · ~- -~. ;. . :-~, .... ~. [. No,hem States Power Co, No~hwe~ern Bell Te'~-~--:,=y.u~u ~o., ........ uwens-iu;nois.' -' . ~, al B~scmt. Co., ~r : "; ' ' "'~:': 'Insurance Co American Unit ... .......... ~yju,,, ~es[em electric, westinghouse E ectdc,'Aetna ~ '., .~'...'::'4." Franklin Life '~uardlan Lif~ ed Ins. Co., Bankem Life & Casual~ Co., Connecticut General Llle,'Early Ameri~n Lif~, ~ ~, 'J.::: :.=- .~ :::.'.':: , , aeffemon National Li~e, LaWe~ Title Ins. Corp., Lincoln National L' .'::('/: . ::-~J~"Guaranty Insurance Co::' Mutual Life of New Yor~,' M~al Trust Life ins. Co., No,wes,em" NationalLi[e inS.Lifec°''lns.M°~ga~eCo.; Pan ~ '-(~ ~'.. ':: ?¥'American Life, Penn Mutual Life Ina. C°., State Farm~tual, Teachem Insurance and Annuity Assoc o~ NY C ~ -~ :'_: ' '. ~.-::.c~ ~e~,~ Sav~.~ ~.~ Lo~". S~. E~.~.. S~n~~ ~.~ ,~.. ........... ._ . . : .... T~ ~ ' ' 'Federal Savln s and L · . ~ ....... , ~u~mwusmm ~eoeral ~avings and Loan, Minnesota · ' '"-: ~' --". -~ g Dan, Rmt Federal ~avlngs and Loan, 8e~ice Savings & ~n of St. Paul, Western Funds Savings ' . :.'::.; '. -. ~7.'..- Society; First National Ban~ of M~neapolis, Franklin National Bank, Farmers and Mechanics Savings Bank, First · ~':~:'-: · ;-"~? nehaha National Ban~, Marque~e National Bank, Midland Na~onal Ban~, and No~western Naflona Banks ~ ..:.: .:: ' ". :: and Mo~gage Co., First Southdale National Bank- Rlchflet~ ~,~ ~--,- ...... .. _ . -. , St~te Bond · ~ : ......... ~=-~ ~,u ~ms[ uo.,.twm u~ Rapid Transit ~. :::~: Minnesota Socle~ for Crippled Children and Adults, Merchants Motor'Freight Inc.; Calhoun Vista A a· """ ' ' " --, ~,,~p=~n~ ~.u u~}O Hallway :.,. .... ;;,.. . . .:: ~lev~r C?., ~y Scouts of America, Minneapolis, No~hfleld and Southem Railm-, ~" ...... ,.- __~ ~en~,..Ot,s ..-. .-.': ~o., Hrmcemn ~ommunl~ Hospital,' Emanuet Hospital of Mankato, St. Cloud Hospital. -,.-~':" ,' ::,,.:~:/'~,,-: ~::'.-:. ,.' .....' -. .~':.; .... -'' --".-." ..... ".: · ':' ;~'~ :: .... "-':: -:~. '.:" ~'~L'.~...',.:':::':.~.~' ~.: ' ¥:'. ?:. 't'~ ,-: ~'~:::: ~::~'"~.": '.~':.' ~" :' ' .... , ... .~ , ,.- , '.., .. '..,., .;, ~,.:,,~.., :.:. ~: ; .) .:,.,?t,: :,:,::-?,.;..,,):.t.,.~.,..,_~. ~ ' '"~--' . ' '.', ~' -.'--.L:-'''. :. :', ~ -~ ':.: : ,~,~-"." : t; .::,'~:.'.'"'.'',.',/~ ~ ".-" 'L t'- ,'':',','.. ' r Mlnnesota Chapter American Inshtute of Rear Estate Appraisers, (MAI), Sen{or Res{d~Atl~l ApPraiser ' . . -. '.~: - apo{{s°t the Soc]etYBoard of°f RealoEStateTri_StateAppraisers, (SRA),of theSenl°r Real RightEStateofAppraissr' (SR~):Assoc}ate Member of M{nn~ Realtq~, ~hapter Ame:ican WayAs~clation. :...', -...:.. :.. :.' .... '..' .. ...... ":- ' "" "f:".'.':/./-:..:.-,-(',.".~.".:?:...:"::':~:~.:~/,::~'.':.'~'~:.::: .:"-:;: ' U-". ::.' .: '~:".~",.': '? Y '". :- .-'. '.. ..: " ,. '"..~'-: ~?.": ~"'.-,.:, .-'. ~;'' ,?.~': '...:z .'. :,.",,, ~':.::.-. :" . - , ' . ·, ..,. ' , ,.,.' .~'.:. .- ' · , :. , ' ..' '-' . . .'.'.. ~ _:.""~ .:{:' :.:..;' .:t:".':.:L.." ,'...' ".':..' . j '. :;~.~ 2 :: . -.-J ;- .. 'J. ' .' .:. "..": .~' ' ...'. ' . ' . .' ' ' "· -' - ;" · "," - ,:','t:: '"- '"'*: ,.: '~'. "',." " · _ '-', t :'. ~ ,, ".-;,., ,.: . . .' ',, .. ' :.. - '. ': '. ,;:.,"~:.'::".t' ::~", '~:.'.~':.'.:. ;':'-'- .... .. .' '. . '.' · .... ' ".' .. ."'' ..... :".'~" ' ~ '.'" ,"':' U' ~' "-.' ":: ." ',:' ' - "., · , - · ,. - . :..:-~. %',.....,...: ~.:.', ..~:.,,.".,:.~L::...,,-..-~:.~:,.-, ;..,.'::-.~ .;'.~ ~.;.~,~ . '~ :. ;..'., . : :.',:. ~ '. . ..,:~:::, .;The international. Society' al,Estate Appraisers.is.prou( rize '.4" :~ . :_credenhals. Authorization goed'thr0~h':": '~ NovemSer 6~',~1¢8= re pro and ownerships m acc( ance with accepted definitions ';;'members of the society of Real Estate ApPraisers'who :?~';of market value,'abd to extend appraisal analysis beyond ". have extensive technical training, long and varied exPeri-' ,'~ ~,.:cu~rent market Value .~o 'provide a basis', for decision: '~ence, wh° have earned the'r~spect of the community and ':~::making to clients ~esponsible fo~ commlttm fun " ..~heir peers?r their expert knowledge, outstanding abil- :::':':asse,s in the~al~',i .... =-~ -; .... :' , ' ~-g - ds'-°r · .- 1. be a SRPA member of the Soc ety - >'" .... ~'::: ': .:-~.~-. :, ~;4',~fF.. F ...... ,: ~,~,uu,~ require a comprenensive oral examination by ~ ' ~ have succes f ' '" ...... ' ' ~' ~;...:..an examination board of the Admiss OhS ' : o. nave prepared a demonstration report on an income produci'ng~ ~imeoperauons, rewewofappraisalandanalysisreportsandath~ough 4. have 8-12 years of experience a~ a market va ~e ap'pr~i~e~'0f'i~c~ ..... ~ation includes contact with other SREA members, professional aP- :~:~., :,.~-?: ::: ":.~' prope~y, including some substantial concurrent experience in real' :' praisers clients, attorneys iudnes an ' - ' estate anal s s such as re aratm . . = d personsln t~e commumty The - .: :: studms, cash flow analysis and other applications of statistical mea- ':-' . . B.~uun Is awamea mr?ye, years 0nly...- :. ,,~;~ ~, ,,, ::` ~:.:.f; · have a record o~ posnwe contnbuhon to the advancement of the real Re-Cerbfmahon ',::.,:.:.~,;,..:.::,,:~.?'~:?:..:.:.:::.? estate ~ppra~sal a~d.analys~ profession such a~ pa.rbc~pabon i~ .- AmemberwshnntorenewtheqnEAaesJgnationmustapplyfor~ecer....:?..::. professmnalAssoc~ahon aHa~rs, teaching or contributing to the de sm,=~,, u . ~,, , . . . velopment o[ training courses or writing or research work i~ the . . ......... at the end of the bye (5} year period. Upon apphcabon for pro~essional field -., ... · ...... . ,.. ,, ....,~, .,., recertificaton, an applicant is expected to show evidence of integrity, ' ' ~ ~',~';~. 7. have earn~ an excellent ,eputat on for the h~nestYa~d i~tegrit~ and '' ~ontinued technical training experience and ,ofessmna " ~ ..... ~'~- . .. .... : :'.,:..~ ..... :.'. ~ ' commensurate w,th current SREA Admissions standards Re-Certified November 6 19 ~ ' ' ': " CITY of MOUND May 3, 1979 53,11 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55394 (612) 472-1 t55 Mr. Lawrence Baker 1680 Bluebird Lane Mound, MN. 55364 Dear Mr. Baker: Last Tuesday, the Council was informed that the City had not received an easement from you for street construction and as a result a 26 foot wid~ street would have to be built since we cannot go on your property without the easement. The Council directed 'that the Engineer advise us in writing and that you be sent a letter by Certified Mail advising you of what will happen since we do not have' an easement. First, the street will be 26 feet b~c~ of curb to back of curb, which means there'will be no"parking on'either side of the street. On other streets, you can park on one side. : ' Second, the Contractor will not be:able to slope the land to the curb since, it'would require going onto your property so there will be a bank behind the curb. Third, we will be able to restore the driveway only to the property line; you wild-have to take care of it on your prop- erty. A copy of the letter from the Engineer is attached. The City appreciate~'your position in this matter and hopes that you will understand theirs. If you have any questions on this, you may call the Engineer. Yours truly, LLK/ms Encl. cc: McComb$-Knutson Associates City Council Public Works DeDartm~nk CiTY of MOUND May 4 ~ 1979 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-I 155 Mr. Walter R~ Benson¢ Administrator City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN. 55323 Re: Fire Truck Bids Dear Mr. Benson: In reply, to.your letter of May 3rd, attached is a breakdown of the bids received for the fire truck. From a review of what meets the specifications, it appears that the Sutphen is-the low bidder. A copy of the review of the specifications is attached. It has been the Council's hope to act on the bids on Tuesday, May 5th, after the Saturday demonstration, Sincerely, City/Manager LLK/ms cc: City Council G. Garvais /l£? CITY of MOUND May 3, 1979 534"1 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 Craig Spencer, Administrative Asst. Bureau of Public Service 2300 Government Center MinneaPolis, MN. 55487 Dear Craig: Enclosed is the City's request for the land of Beachside Developers; Lot 20 and Part of 19, also Part of Lot 34 and Part of Lot B, Shirley Hills Unit D, also Lots 28 to 31, The Bartlett Place and also Part of Lot 32, Auditor's Subdivision 170 (Plat 61290 Parcel 5915}.. This is the same .land that we sent a letter to the County Board on asking them to hold up the repurchase. ~ou are holding ~he repurchase request. It is requested that this be held with the repurchase request and be held .until the City and Developer can work out something on this prop~ erty. This' morning the Developer brought in petition? for rezoning the land from Multiple Dwelling to Residential. These petitions will go to the Planning Commission and City Council next week. This should be re- solved soon. Sincerely, Leonard L. Kopp City Manager LLK/ms cc: G. Ramm, Land Department City Council ~ May 2, 1979 NOTICE OF MEETING OF BOARD OF MANAGERS Thursday, May 31, 1~79 (Please note changed meeting date.) 7:30 P.M. Wayzata City Hall 11 ?&