83-02-0816. MISCELLANEOUS/INFORMATION
A. Memo from City Planner
B. Letter Regarding Closing of Metro DNR Headquarters
C. February Schedule - Humphrey Institute
D. Press Release - Dave Durenberger
Pg. 312-313
Pg. 314-318
Pg. 319-321
Pg. 322
Page 250
REGULAR MEETING
OF T~E
CITY COUNCIL
11
January 25, ]983
Pursuant to due'call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Mound, Nennepin County, Minnesota, was held at 5431Maywood Road
in said City on January 25, 1983, at 7:30 P.M.
Those present were: Mayor. Bob Polston, Councilmembers Pinky Ch~ron, Gary
Paulsen ~nd Russ Peterson. Councilmember. Gordon Swenson was absent and
excused. Also present were:. City Manager Jon Elam, City Attorney Curt Pearson,
Building Inspector Jan Be~.trand, Police Chief Bruce Wold, Water Superintendent
Greg Skihner and City Clerk Fran Clark. The following i.nterested citizens
were present: Rodney Wilkens, Jay Pete~sen, Frank Livingston, John & Helen
Livingston, Jane M. Weisman, Mike and Debbie Netka, Stephen Kepke, Sharon
Thiesfeld., Linda..$tahlke, Bill and' Dorothy Netka, Stephen Levin, Gladys
Watson, Helen Cole, .To~ Watson', Dan Cummings, Pat Flynn, Roe Miles, Curt
Johnson, Mr. & Mrs. John Wagman, Steven Gronwall, George Boyer, Scott Turner,
Tom Goulette. .
The Mayor opened the meeting, welcomed the people in attendance and lead the
Pledge of Allegiance.
M I NUTES
The Minutes of the January ll, 1983, Regular Meeting were presented for cons.id-
eration. Councilmember-Peterson asked that a typographical error on page 2
under Water Me~ers, second pacagraph, be corrected (change' the word then to
~hey). Peterson moved'and Charon seconded a motion to approve the minutes
of the J~nuary ll, 1983, :Regular Meeting, as cprrected. The vote was unanimously
in favor.' Motion carried.
.PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL' USE 'PERMIT - TOM WATSON
Mayor Polston asked the City.Att°rney to explain what actions are proposed
to be taken. The City Attorney explained that there are 3 separate
applications for the Council's consideration. They are:
l. An amendment to the. Conditional Use Permit to allow~--~XPansion of
the area for an arcade, dancing and a Class I restaurant.
2. The Dance Permit.
3. 'A Restaurant License.
He then e~plained the difference between a Class I and Class II restaurant
as defined in the Zoning Ordinance.
The City Manager then explained that the Council was given the following
additional .information before the meeting tonight:
a. Part of the Zoning Ordinance dealing with Conditional Use Permits.
b. The 'Incorporation papers for the Electric Light Company.
c. 2 additional.letters 'from. c~t|zens agai;nst the amendment.
d. A memo from the Building Official.
e. The Arcade Ordinance.
The Mayor then opened the public hearing and asked if anyone would llke to
speak for' or against the amendment.
12
January 25, 1983
TOM WATSON - Explained that he wants this amendment so that he can
cater to the young people in town without drugs and liquor. He will
have the Police Dept. on duty to help security. W~nts to hold dances
2 nights a week probably Friday and Saturday. He has been open for
1½ years with very little trouble.
ROE MILES - Locksmith in town, next to Arcade. Too'dark in the small'
parking area by the entrance to the Arcade. Kids congregate, has had
tires on a car slashed, kids running all over the roof of Moys and his
shop and the Police later found stolen property on the roof. Against
the amendment. 'Parking by his shop has impeded his business because
he cannot get cars close enough to.his shop to work on locks~
BILL NETKA - owner of apartment building at 2360 Commerce. He stated
he has tolerated the Ar.cade for 2 years. During that time the kids
have tresspassed on his property,, littered, harassed his 'tenants and
there'has been vandalism of approximately $1,000. The business people
used to be able to park in the back lot but now don't because of the
damage done to their cars by the ~ids.
CURT JOHNSON - owners of adjacent office building. Has had cars parked
in private parking lot where it is dark and vandalis.m has been happening.
Also had a sign damaged.
SHARON THIESFELD - has a beauty shop at 5575 Shoreline Blvd. Her
customers have been harassed., there is no room for customers to park,
the litter.and graffiti are terrible. Is not against the kids'having
a place to go but feels it should be in another area.that is less
congested.
STEVE LEWIN - Minnetrista resident. Agreed it is too dark around the
entrance and parking i~ limited there, but there is a largeP area to
park across the road. is in favor of the Arcade.
STEVE KEPKE - Tenant in apartment building at 2360 Commerce. Has been
harassed by the kids when out on the patio barbecuing. Against the
Arcade.
RODNEY WILKENS -.Felt that with proper supervision and direction from
the City Council the Youth Entertainment Center would be' an asset.
MRS. WAGMAN - asked about Mr. Watson's Building Permit and why he
was doing much more than the permit was taken out for.
The City Manager explained that Mr. Watson has taken out a permit
for t~e corrected amount of work. done.
The City Attorney explained that Mr. Watson proceeded with the extra
work at his own risk. The City has given him no assurance that they
would grant approval for his dance hall/restaurant/arcade.
JAY PETERSON - Stated he saw alot of positive aspects for this facility.
It would be a centralized facility, to get together with no liquor or drugs.
13
January 25, 1983
TOM GOULETTE - Mr. Watson's idea would be a positive addition to Mound.
Most of the problems that have been encountered have not been while the
kids were under Watson's supervision.
STEVE GRONWALL - It will be a real nice setup with different things to do.
MIKE NETKA - Caretaker of apartment building at 2360 Commerce Blvd.
There have been littering problems and harassment of the tenants in
the apartment building. Some patrons of the facility have used the
apartment building's docks on the Lost Lake Channel which is trespassing.
MRS. WAGMAN - Would want to make sure that the sidewalk on Shoreline
Blvd. in front of Moy's Restaurant was not a congregating place for the
kids.
The Mayor asked if Mr. Watson would like to address any of the above
statements.
TOM WATSON
1. There would be no problem in front of Moy's because the entrance
to his facility is off of Auditor's Road.
2. Mr, Miles insists on taking the parking places that Mr. Watson
rents from Mrs. Moy. There are actually very few cars that use
the parking lots for his facili.ty. Most of the kids either walk
or ride bikes.
3. He too has'had some vandalism, but nothing out of the ordinary.
4. He has brought the building up to code as it should, be. There
are always bad things to say about anything.
5. If someone trespasses by using a private dock, the owner can call
and have the boat towed out. There is a 6 foot fence that was
put up on the apartment building property and why would anyone
want to dock their boat there and climb over the fence.
7. The stolen merchandise on Moy's roof had nothing to do with the
Arcade.
8. The trash around.the Arcade is picked up on a regular basis.
The Mayor closed the public hearing. He then stated that the Council should
make a decision based on the facts as they exist and not allow emotionalism
to determine the outcome.
Councilmember Peterson asked Mr. Watson what Howard Thompson has to do with
the operation. Mr. Watson replied that he owns the arcade machines, leases
them to him and they split the profit.
The Council informed Mr. Watson that they have the Incorporation Papers
for the Electric Light Company and Mr. Thompson is listed as an incorporator.
Mr. Watson replied that Mr. Thompson has not been connected with the corporation
since December 10, 1982. Mr. Watson then submitted a paper from Mr. Thompson
stating that he resigned from,]The Electric Light Co., Inc., as an incorporator
and member of the Board of Directors on December 10, 1982. The paper was
not notorized.
The City Attorney then explained to Mr. Watson that the Council cannot issue
licenses in sensitive areas, such as young people, if there is a person of
questionable character involved in the operation. According to the Police
14
January 25, 1983
Department investigation of the original applications which listed Mr.
Thompson as having a financial interest in the business, it was found
that Mr. Thompson had I felony conviction , 4 misdemeanor convictions
(including possession of marajuana), 15 traffic violations and outstanding
warrants for his arrest. The point being that if Mr. Thompson has money
in the operation, the ordinance prohibits the Council from issuing
licenses.
The City Attorney then read Subdivision 6 of Chapter 36 of the City Code,
"lneligi.bility for license. Existence of any of the following
conditions shall render the applicant ineligible for a license.
(2) If the applicant, manager, or persons owning the licensed
activity:
(a) is not a persons of good moral character and repute ..... "
Mr. Watson then stated that he has no contracts with Mr. Thompson and that
Mr. Thompson has no controls over the Arcade. Mr. Watson stated that he
has had 3 different suppliers of machines since he was issued the Conditional
Use Permit and he could change suppliers.
The Mayor then read the proposed conditions for approval.
Councilmember Peterson suggested that maybe Mr. Watson could have 2
Police Reserve Officers patrol the outside area during the dances. He
suggested that no dances be held prior to a school day. He also asked
Mr. Watson how many people would have to attend to break even. Mr.
Watson replied he thought about 200 would have to attend to break even.
Peterson then suggested a 60 day trial period because he thought the
-idea has merit and Watson has good intentions.
The City Attorney then cautioned the Council about granting a temporary
60 day license because there are all kinds of problems if the Council then
wanted to revoke the license.
Mayor Polston then read the Criteria for Granting Conditional Use Permits,
Section 23.505.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Councilmember Charon stated that she would have to vote no as long as
Thompson is in anyway involved.
Mr. Watson asked if he should change suppliers.
Councilmember Peterson stated that the Council could table this until Watson
gets a new supplier of machines.
Mayor Polston stated he couldn't support the dance hall now or next week
because he doesn't feel locating this facility in the Central Business
District is correct zoning.
Councilmember Paulsen stated that as long as Mr. Thompson is involved in
the business, he could not support an action to approve. By the machines
remaining, Mr. Thompson is still involved. The paper submitted by Watson
regarding Mr. Thompson's resignation was not notorized.
15
January 25, 1983
Mayor Polston asked if there was an action the Council would like to take.
Councilmember Peterson stated that if it is proven the lh0mgs0n is not
involved, he would probably be for the amendment.
Mr. Watson stated that'he could change suppliers and Lieberman coul~supply the
arcade machines. He also stated that he would supply proof that Mr. Thompsbn
is not involved with the Arcade.
Mayor Polston moved and Peterson seconded a motion to deny the.amendment
to the Conditional Use Permit for the following reasons:
a. it will be injurious to the use and enjoyment of other property in
the immediate vicinity.
b.
The
use is not reasonably.related to the ove~l~lall needs of the City
and to the existing land use.
c. The use will cause traffic hazard or congestion.
d. Existing uses adjacent will be adversely affected because of
curtailment of customer trade brought about by inltrusi.on of
noise to the downtown business district.
e.The use would not be in the best interest of the surrounding area
or the community as a whole.
The City Manager reminded the Council that according to the Zoning Ordinance,
"No application for a conditional use permit shall be resubmitted for
a period of one year from the date of said order of denial"
CounciimembeF Peterson wi'thdrew his second.
Charon moved the following motion.' Grant approval of the amendment to the
Conditional Use Permit .for a dance hall and restaurant stipulating the
proposed conditions of approval on page 97 & 98 of the Council Packet and
adding #17, "That proof be given to the City that Mr. Thompson is not
involved with the operation". Also approving the expansion from 700 square
feet to approximately 4~000 square feet and making the plans for'the
expansion Exhibit A of the Conditional Use Permit. The motion died for
lack of second.
There was considerable discussion about Resolution #82-277 which extended
Mr. Watson's hours of operation and whether it should have included an
expansion of this operation.
Charon moved and Paulsen seconded a motion directing the City Attorney and
Staff to prepare a resolution amending the prior conditi~c~p~l use permit
incorporating the plans, specifications, findings and colons. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
The Mayortsuggested that #7 on the Agenda be taken up at this time because
the people ~nvolved have waited for some time. The Council agreed.
LIVINGSTON AGREEMENT - RESOLUTION #82-249
Ms. W~isman was present representing Mrs. Wagner who is purchasing the
subdivided property from Mr. Livingston. Mrs. Wagner would like to add a
detached garage to the cottage property. The Agreement, "Exhibit A", which
was added to Resolution #82-249 approving the subdivision stated that,
"No additions, second floor or other improvement will be made to the cottage
unless the new owner puts in a separate sewer line to serve the structure".
16
January 25, 1983 ~/
Since the detached garage has no plumbing, she would like t atement
added to the agreement which would allow her to add the deta~ed garage.
Charon moved and Peterson seconded the following motion'to'amend the
Agreement incorporated into Resolution #82-249 adding under c. "This
agreement shall not prohibit the addition of a detached, garage,'.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING - DELINQUENT UTILITY'BILLS
The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked if anyone present would like
to be heard in regard to an¢ of the delinquent water and sewer bills proposed
to be shut-off. There were none. The Mayor closed the public hearing.
Charon moved and peterson seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #83-19
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS
IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,241.66 AND AUTHORIZING THE STAFF
TO SHUT-OFF WATER SERVICE FOR THESE DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS
The vote was'unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PARK COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS
Charon moved and' Peterson seconded the following resolution.
RESOLUTION #83-20
RESOLUTION APPOINTING CHERYL BURNS AND ART
ANDERSON TO THE PARK COMMISSION - TERMS TO
EXPIRE DECEMBER 31, 1985
The vote was unanimously in favor. MOtion carried.
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
The Mayor asked if there were any comments or suggestions from citizens
present. There were none.
CITY 'WATER SYSTEM - GEORGE BOYER
George Boyer, from Hickok & Associates, was present with an 1983 Update
on Water System Improvements for the City of Mound. He reported that
with Tonka Corporation leaving, it changes thel.r recOmmendations from 1977
because that reduces the water usage by 200 million gallons per year.
Therefor% the ground water sources are adequate thru the year 2000.
Mr. Boyer also submitted a separate report on Island Park water sour'ce
alternatives. They are as follows with preliminary cost estimates:
'IP-1
a. New Hinckley Well
b. Well Pump
c. Pump House (complete)
d. 250,000 gallon standpipe
$110,OOO
10,000
60,OO0
14o..,oo0.
$320 ,OOO
This is not being recommended because of very poor water quality and
the possibility of also having to put in a water treatment plant for
the objectionable water quality.
17
January 25, 1983
IP-2
a. Booster Pump Station
b. 2,700 L.F. - 8" DIP
c. 250,000 gallon standpipe
a. Booster Pump Station
b. ~,7OO L.F. - 8" DIP
$ 52,000
67,5OO
140,OOO
$247,5O0
$ 52,000
67,500
$119,500
Both IP-2 and IP-3 h'ave distribution system improvements, Consisting of
a new 8 inch line from Shoreline Blvd. to the corner of Wilshire Blvd.
and Emer~l~ Drive. This would be required in order to provide sufficient
flow qua~ltity at the booster pump station.
IP-3 and IP-2 are essentially the same except that the 250,000 gallon
'standpipe-is not on IP-3.
The City Manager reported that IP-2 could be done in stages and probably
would be done using reserves instead of water revenue bonds.
George Boyer stated that the new mains and.the booster pump station
will help the pressure problem on the Island.
NO action was taken. The staff will proceed with plans and specifioations
in order to go.for bids in the Spring.
\.
SET DATE'- 1983 CITY BOARD OF REVIEW
The City Manager reported that the County has suggested that the City Board
of Review be held on Tuesday, May 31, 1983. That Tuesday is the 5th Tuesday
of the month and would be fine with'the Staff if the Council feels it is
alright.
Charon moved and Peterson seconded a motion to set the date for the 'City
Board of Review for Tuesday, May 31, 1983, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers.
The vote was unanimously.in favor. Motion carried.
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - PARKING ON ISLAND VIEW DRIVE
Police Chief Wold expla'ined that he is pr~posingno parking on both sides of
Island View Drive from Radnor Rd. to Manchester Road. The reason being that
this area is a big hill with a very hazardous s'loPe and the hill is hard'to
drive up and when vehicles are parked on it only one vehicle can get through.
When two vehicles meet they could easily hit each other.
Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded the following.
ORDINANCE #445
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION'46.29 (al, SUBSECTION
24 OF THE CITY CODE BY ADDING "NO PARKING ANYTIME
BOTH SIDES' OF ISLAND VIEW DRIVE FROM RADNOR ROAD TO
MANCHESTER ROAD"
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
18
January 25, 1983
ANNUAL GAMBLING & ENTERTAINMENT PERMITS - RENEWAL
Charon moved and Peterson seconded a motion approving the renewal and
issuance of permits to the following:
A Gambling Permit to American Legion Post #398, 2333 Wilshire Blvd.
Permit period from February 1, 1983 through January 31, 1984.
An Entertainment Permit to the Three Points Tavern, 5098 Threat Points
Blvd; Permit period from February 1, 1983 through January 31, 1984.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion-carried.
PAYMENT REQUEST - PERKINS LANDSCAPING
The City Manager reported that a payment request from $10,958,43 has been
received from Perkins Landscaping.for work that has been completed in the
Mound Bay Park ImprovEment Project.
Charon moved ~nd Peterson seconded a motion to approve Payment Request #2
in the amount of $10,958.43 to Perkins Landscape ~or work completed in the
Mound Bay Park Improvement Project. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
PAYMENT OF BILLS
Charon moved and Peterson seconded a motion to approve the payment of bills
as presented On the pre-list, in the amount of $99,234.14, when funds aFe
available. A roll call vote was 3 in favor with Mayor Polston abstaining.
'Motion cbrried.
SET DATE FOR PROPOSED USE HEARING OF 1983-84 HUD FUNDS
Peterson moved and Charon seconded a motion to set the date for the Proposed
Use Hearing for 1983-84 HUD Funds in the amount of $92,822, for Tuesday,
February 22, 1983. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carr|ed:
INFORMAT'ION/MISCELLANEOUS
A. January Calendar for the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs.
B. Letter from the City of Orono and Lake Access Parking Agreement.
C. Westonka Chamber of Commerce "Chamber Waves" - January - 1983.
D. Metro Council's 1983 Leglslative Program - Annual Report
E. PropOsed Metro Council's District Boundary Lines.
Fo
Letter from Councilmember Swenson regarding actions taken at the
January 11, 1983 Council Meeting.
G. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District - Agenda - January 20, 1983.
H. Job Training Partnership Act Materials for the League of Minnesota Cities.
I. "Main Street News" Report.
J. Public Notice - U.S. Army.Corps of Engineers.
K. Letter from Senator Tad Jude.
19
January 25, 1~83
Polston moved and Charon seconded a motion to adjourn at 12:20 A.M.
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
The ~ote
Jon E)am, City Manager
Fran Clark, City Clerk
~ILL5 ..... JAHUA~ Z~, I~O~
F.H. Bathke
Bill Clark Standard
Continental Telephone
D i ctaphone
Dept of Property Taxation
Empi re Crown Auto
Fire Control Extinguisher
Henn Co. Sheriffs Dept
The Hozza Assoc.
Iten Chevrolet
Illies& Sgns
The Laker
Sharon Legg
Lowel 1 s
League of MN Cities
Lakeland Cablevi sion
McCombs Knutson
Wm Mueller & Sons
Mpls Oxygen
Mi nne'gasco
City of Mound
Metro Waste Control
M.F,O.A.
N.S.P.
Navarre Hdwe
N.S.P.
Perma-Top
Planning & Devel.op
Spring Park Car Wash
State Bank~,'of Mound
Specialty Screening
State of MN Treas
City of St, Petersburg
State Treas
II
II II
Stern Levine
20th Century Plastics
Village Chevrolet
Wurst, Pearson, Hamilton
Xerox Corp
R.L. Young.dahl
Griggs Cooper & Co.
Johnson Bros. Whl Liq
MN Distillers
Old Peoria
Ed Phillips & Son
10.35 Bor'chert Ingersoll 7,500.00
4,188.O7' Baldwin Supply 104.88
1,100.63 Holly Bostrom 189.00
78.48 Burger Chef 25.00
40.00 Davies Water Equip 263.64
12.95 John Ewald Ill 26.85
189.05 Jon Elam 50.18
32.36 Forestry Suppliers 94.92
150.00 First Bank Mpls 4.00
107.87 Govt Training Service 35.00
2,750.50 Henn Co. Chiefs Police Assn 15.00
54.14 Hawkins Chemical 244.75
42.73 Wm Hudson 30.00
235.00 Identi Kit Co. 360.00
105.OO Internatl Assn Chiefs Police 25.00
4,355.00 Internatl Confr Bldg Offcl 224.75
2,207.00 Kustom Electronics 163.45
325.65 K Mart 141.84
36.73 Doris Lepsch 45.00
1,795.40 League of MN Cities 30.00
50.40. LOGIS 1,177.69
2,524.50 MN State Fire Chiefs Assn 50.00
210.O0 MN Rescue & First Aid .15.O0
1,921.89 Metro Waste Control Comm 26,126.47
118.95 MN Curriculum Serv 60.00
193.12 Natl Fire Protection Assn 16.00
35..00 Natl Office Systems '316.11i
1,549.OO NW Bell Tele . 72.80
95.70 N.S.P. 4,192.15
5.10 Otsen Chain & Cable 39.98
72.00 Pitney Bowes Credit 26.00
10.00 Paper Calmenson 314.40
5.00 Power GrouP Products 136.97
557.83 Repro Printing 120.04
15.00 Suburban Community Services 831.75
5.00 St. Boni Farm Store 4.50
645.00 Specialty Equip Co. 3,658.50
4.85 T & T Maintenance 30.85
16.73 Title Insurance 720.99
4,938.14 United Fire Fighters Assn 25.00
768.48 Western Area Fire Train Acd 1,241.00
1,863.40 Widmer Bros. 2,810.50
Xerox 82.72
4,716.92 Chris Bollis 48.60
2,098.25
1,154.34
1,767.53
3,487.84 TOTAL BILLS 99,234.14
Abdo, Abdo & Eick 720.00
Acro Minnesota 63.67
Appl ebaums .. 16.
Air Com~") ~ ~ 96.~
REGULAR MEETING
OF THE
CITY COUNCIL
2O
February 1, 1983
Pursuant to due call and notice'thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of. Mound, Hennepin County,' Minnesota was held at 5341Maywood Road
in said City on February 1, 1983, at 7:30 P.M.
Those present were: Mayor Robert POlston, Councilmembers Pinky Charon, Gary
Paulsen and Russ Peterson. Councilmember Gordon Swenson was absent and
excused.' Also presen, t were: City Attorney Jim Larson, City Manager Jon Elam,
Police Chief Bruce Wold, City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interested
citizens: Roe Miles, Tom Helget, Stephen Kepke, Gerald Babb, Bruce Charon,
Mr. & Mrs. Netka, Russ Falness, Roland Beach, Pat Flynn, Steve Gronwall,
Rodney Wilkens, Tom Watson.
The Mayor opened the meeting, welcomed the people in attendance and lead the
Pledge of Allegiance. He then thanked the Girl Scouts who provided the
cookies for the evening.
TOM WATSON -'AMENDMENT TO CONDI~I'ONAL USE PERMIT
The City Attorney stated that they have prepared a resolution as was directed
by the Council at the last meeting. This resolution has incorporated certain
findings that the Council is required to make when considering a conditional
use permit. The'criteria for these findings is found in the Zoning Ordinance
Section 23.505.1. The City Council may now adopt the resolution that has'
been prepared .and add. or delete Conditions as they wish. It was th~ Attorney's
recommendation that if the council decides to adopt other than what was
directed to be drawn up that they would direct the City Attorney to prepare
it for the Council's consideration.
Mr. Watson submitted a Certificate of Amendment of Articles of Incorporation
for the Electric Light Company to the City Council.
The Mayor stated that the public hearing was closed but that the CoUncll would be
willing to allow anyone who wished to speak. There were no comments, He then
stated that the Ci.ty Council has received two more letters this week against
the Arcade. All Councilmembers were given copies tonight.
Councilmember Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded a motion directing the City
Manager and 'the City Attorney to prepare a resolution of denial for the Tom
Watson conditional use permit amendment, incorporating the provisions of the
draft resolution that was considered by the Council and prepar!ng findings
to set forth the reasons for denial. This resolution to be returned to this
Council f6r final consideration at the meeting February 15, 1983.
· '~D'i'scussion"-followed. Councilmember Peterson stated that he has spoken to
· a number of people this last week with regard to "youth centers" and one
of those was the Chief of Police in Stillwater. Stillwater had a similar
'facility that was open for 6 years but has been closed for approximately
5 years now. It was run by a responsible individual. It had some
problems with liquor and drugs being brought in by kids from other areas
and ultimately closed because of lack of attendance. The problem with
Mr. Watson's proposal is that this would not just be a facility for Mound
21
February 1, 1~83
teenagers but would command attendance from miles around and a
potential for many problems.
Councilmember Charon commented that since Mr. Watson is currently
in violation of his current Arcade License, she could not see why
we were even considering an amendment to his conditional, use permit.
She stated that maybe the Council should be considering revocation
and that would have been her motion. She doesn't care what papers
Mr. Watson brings in, she still believes Mr. Thompson is involved
'and'the only way Mr. Watson can prove differently is to show up in
Police Chief Wold's office tommorow morning giving the City a release
to investigate his (Mr. Watson's) financial background.
.Councilmember Paulsen agreed and commended Councilmember Peterson
on his stand.
Mr. Watson stated that he is going to have Twin City Novelty Corp.
supplying his machines.
A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
The Council then discussed what shOuld be done about the Mr. Watson's current
violations of his Arcade License, etc. The City Attorney suggested a 2 level
approach. First, have theChief of Police and the City Manager develop a
set of facts outlining the various violations that have occurred and allow
Mr. Watson access to this list of charges and violations. Second, would
then be the setting of a public hearing so Mr. Watson has the opportunity
to respond to the specific charges and allegations being brought with
respect to his licenses.
Charon moved and Paulsen seconded a'motion directing the Staff to cOnduct
an investigation and finding of facts and then, based on those facts, make
a recommendation to the Council on the possible action the Council should
take with regard to Mr. Watson's licenses and conditional use permit.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM.CITIZENS PRESENT
The Mayor asked if there were any comments or suggestions from citizens
present. There were ~one'.
STATUS OF WATER METERS
The City Manager.reported that he feels there is a solution to the problem
of the stuck meters and the Water Superintendent, Greg Skinner was there
to explain. Greg stated that of the'120 that were stuck, they are down
now to 77. Neptune has agreed to replace all the bad registers with. the
new type registers for a small fee. This fixing up program will be less
costly than rewiring the entire town. This program will also help the
financing for the improvement of the Island Park water service.
22
February 1, 1983
PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL
Mayor Polston explained that he has received a memo from Don Ulrlck asklng
that the City Council support him as the Private Industry Council
representative from this area. The PIC group is being formed as part of
the Jobs.Training PartnershipAct and will assure representation of
educational agencies within each service delivery area.
Polston moved and Paulsen seconded a motion directing the City Manager to
send a letter,.recommending that Don Ulri-ck be appointed as the'Private
Industry Council representative from this area. The vote was unanimously
i'n favor. Motion carried.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS'
National League of'Cities Congressional-City Conference - This conference
.will be held March 6 thru March 8. 'Th~ City Manager suggested sending
the Mayor. The Mayor asked if any of the other Councilmembers would
like to attend.
Charon moved and Peterson seconded'a motion authoriZng the Mayor and
the City Manager to attend the National League of Cities Congressional-
City Conference in Washington D.C. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
Metropolitbn'Council "Review" - January 21, 1983
LegiSlative Bulletin - League of Cities - Summary of Major Bills
Ind. School Dist. #277 - School Board Minutes - January 10, 1983 Meeting
January 17, 1983 Meeting
E. February, 1983 Calendar
F. "LPA News"- January Local Planning Assistance Newsletter
G. Twin Cities Labor Market Information -'January 1983'.
H. Miscellaneous L.M.C.D. Information - Gray~s Bay OUtlet Control Report
and an article on the "Lake Lovers Ball" to be held February'lO'at
Lord Fletcher's.
I. Legislative Program Approved the the Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities Membership 1983-84.
CHANGE OF MEETING DATE
The City Manager suggested that becuase there doesn't seem to be anything
pressing for the February 8 Agenda that the Council might want to cancel
that meeting and hold a meet!ng after the joint meeting with the Planning
Commission on February 15, 1983.
Paulsen moved and Peterson'seconded a motion to change the meeting date
for the regular meeting on February 8, 1983 to February 15, 1983. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
February l, 1983
The City Manager then brought the Council up to date on a couple of
storm sewer situations and some administrative items.
Mayor Polston .suggested that the City formulate a formal street light
policy. The City Manager stated he would send letters to some other
communities and see how then handle their street light policy.
Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion .to adjourn at 8:55 P.M.
vote was'unanimously in-favor'. Motion carried.
The
Jon Elam, City Manager
Fran Clark, City Clerk
o#ouo
t,
t
Case No. 83-100
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
Planning Commission Agenda of January 31, 1983:
Board of Appeals
Case No. 83-100
Location - 1972 Shorewood Lane
Legal Desc.: Lot 19, Block 2, Shadywood
Point
Request: Variance and Administrative Appeal
Zoning District: R-1
Applicant:
Bruce W. Larson
1968 Shorewood Lane
472-2686
The applicant is requesting that he wants to use the structure on the property as
an accessory building in his letter attached to the variance application.
Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance definition 23.302(2) an "Accessory Use or Struc-
ture - a use or structure or portion of a structure subordinate to and serving
the principal use structure on the same lot and customarily incidental thereto".
Pursuant to Section 23.407(1) "No accessory building or structure shall be con-
structed on any residential lot prior to the time of construction of the princi-
pal building to which it is accessory". Section 23.604.4 Permitted Accessory
Uses - Within any R-1 District, the following uses shall be permitted accessory
uses:
Garages
Fences
Gardening and other horticultural uses where no sale of products
is conducted on the site.
One lodging room per single family dwelling
Lawn, garden and utility building
Recreation Equipment
Open off-street parking space not to exceed three spaces per dwelling
Private docks, in accordance with Lake Minnetonka Conservation Dis-
trict ~egulations.
Recommend: I would like to give you some background on my dealings with this
property.
I received a complaint last Spring regard?ng the condition of the
mentioned structure. On June 14, 1982, I wrote a letter to the then
owner, Henry Stefan, to remove the structure. I then heard from Tim
Heyman, Real Estate Agent, who was selling the property and requesting
a vacation of a portion of a City street lake access to make the lot
size conforming (9800 square feet instead of lO,O00 square feet re-
quired). The Real Estate Agent then informed the City not to pursue
the street vacation because the property was sold to the neighbor,
Bruce Larson.
When Mr. Larson brought in the requested variance, I mentioned to him
that he could not have an accessory building without a principal struc-
ture; also the structure was in very poor condition. It is leaning
into the lake with no adequate frost protection; it is served with
sewer which is not necessary for an accessory building and should be
disconnected; the well should be checked; improper plumbing; support
joists (floor) are rotting. The loft area has a low ceiling with step-
ladder, no supports over windows, heating appliance not installed to
meet code. Square footage is 460.
Jan Bertrand
Building Official
Case No. 83-100
Ge'Se No. 83~100 Variance:and Administrative Appeal for 1972'shorewood Lane
'Lot 19, Block 2, Shadywood Point..·
Bruce Larson, applicant, was presentand also Dorothy Gerard of'1960 Shorewood
Lane.
The Bui.lding Official explained the. Administrative'Appeal was because she had
reques, ted the structure'which l's-nonconforming and l..n very poor condition to
be removed..Mr; 'Larson-~s.:request Is to use the structure as'an accessory
building;' proposed use of the'structure was not.stated. The Code states" ....
..structure subordinate to and serving the principal use structure on the same
lot and customarily i.ncldentat thereto." To be an accessory to his present
home, the lots would .have to .be combined.
-Mr. Larson wants touse the.structure for..the next few. years,'would.put beams
in to ~upport..the.front..and.make'it safe... He does .not wish to.combine the lots.
He stated that the structure.had been there for 25 or 26 years, but'has not been
used for over ten years. HiS.Wife had made the complaint, but only because no
one ever took care of the property.except.themselves.
Ms. Gerard commented years ago"..a permit was taken out'f°r.a boathouse and a
house Was constructed instead.' The Planning'Commission discussed the request.
The structure is t~o.close'.to.lake and nonconforming~ .Former owner was to have-
removed the structure. One.Commiss'loner. quoted a similar case where.they had
had. to post a bond to -insure rembval of the structure..
Je'nsen. moved and Reese seconded .the motion that the Plan~ing CommisSion ~e-
commend .that·the City'Council deny the variance and the administrative appeal.
-The vote was unanimously in favor.'
Mr. Earson s~ated he would be'out of town when these items would.come up and
would.not appeal· the denial to the City Council.
I, x_U .... il CITY OF MOUND
~ll~! -. ~ :'~4PPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
~ti~'"~ ~'j:;~ .,.,..~-~,~.L~i]DI ~}:~ (P1 ease type the following information)
2. Legal Descriptl.on of Property:
'Addition -~/~ ~ ~' ~ c~a o c~
3. Owner's Name.T/~/2 ~ Q ~ Cu.
Address
· CASE NO. 83- 1 O0 l/
Fee paid .3~-.o~
4. Applicant (if other than 'owner):
Name
Day Phone No.
Address
5. Type of Request:
f other, specify:
(~'Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit
( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review "
( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D.
( ) Amendment
( ) S'ign Permit
( )*Other
.-
~, Present Zoning District R
7. Existing Use(s) of Property
Nas an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? L/)~_~ If so, list date(s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s)
Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request.
I certify that all'of the above statements and the statements contained in any required
papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entr~ in
or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City
of Mound for the' purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such
notices as may be requi~ ~-~
Signature of Applicant , ~-~, ~ Date /.~
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Date
Council Action:
Resolution No.
Date
Request for Zoni.ng Variance Procedure
83-100
(Z) Case #
.D. Locati°n of: Signs, easements; underground utilities, etc.
E. Indicate North compass direction
F. Any additional, information as may reasonably be required by the City Staf~
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
III. Request for a Zoning Variance
A. All Information below, a site plan, as described In Part !1, and general
C, .Do the ex.lstlng-structures comp]y, with adll area~height.and bulk. regulations
for the ·zone district in'which i't.is.]ocate/d?~. No ',( ) '
If ;'no", spec[fy'each non-conform,rig use: ~_~,~.lc[- De.- ~~
O.. ~h'ch unique physical characteris(ics of thin'ct p4perty preven~ its
~easona~]e use for any of the .uses .permitted in that zoning distrlct~
( ) .Too narrow (.) Topography ( ) Soil
( ) Too. small ( ) Drainage.. ( ) Sub-surface
( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape' ( ) 'Other: Specify:
application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled.
Does the present use of the property' conform to al ! use regulations for
the z6ne dlstrict In .which It Is located? Yes ( ) No (~j'
If "no", specify ea~li n'on-conforming use:
E..Was the hardship described above'created by the action of anyone having
property interests-in the la~d after 'the Zoning Ordinance was adopted?
'' Yes (.) No '( ) If yes, explain:
F. Was the hardship created by'any'o,the~j: man-made change', such'as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes ( ) No~ If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for'which:you request a vari~s~ce peculiar
'only to the property described in this petition? Yes ~ No ( )
If no, how many other properties are similarly affected?
H..What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations
that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using
maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional
sheets, if necessary.)
Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to'property in the
same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
December 21, 1982
CASE 83-10[
THE JOHN HENRY COMPANY
BRUCE I. ARSON
Mound Planning Commission
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, [v~ 55364
Attn: Jan Bertrand
My plan for the building lacated at
1972 Shorewood Lane, Mound, I~N is to level
and secure it by replacing the beam on the'
lake side and whatever else is necessary.
We plan to paint it the same color as our
house next door and repair all windows, doors
and etc.
It will be used as a accessary building
during the summer months for the next few
years. ~here will not be anyone living in
it full time nor will it be rented.
Very truly yours,
/Bruce W. Larson ~_~a____-~
1968 SHOREWOOD LANE, MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 612/472-2686
Case No. 83-101
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
Planning Commission Agenda of January 31, 1983:
Board of Appeals
Case No. 83-101
Location - 2340 Fernside Lane
Legal Desc: Lots 16 & 17, Block 3, Shirley
Hills Unit A
Request: Zoning Map Amendment
Zoning District: R-2
Applicant:
Dave Moore and Rick Illies
P.O. Box 15
Navarre, MN.
Phone: 471-8457/932-9513
The applicant is requesting that the zoning district in which his property lies
be changed from the R-2 single family 6,000 square foot of lot area to R-3 single
and two family, 6,000 square foot of lot area per living unit zoning district.
He would then like to remodel the existing walkout structure to allow for a duplex
rental of the house. He has attached a site drawing with his application.
Pursuant to 23.504.1 which states "Zoning Amendments shall not be issued indis-
criminately., but shall only be used as a means to reflect changes in goals and
policies of the community as reflected in the Comprehensive Plan or changes in
conditions in the City." The R-3 and R-4 zoning districts to each side of County
Road 15, to the north of the property in question, are designed to be buffer zones
to the single family R-2 and R-1 proceeding to the south.
The Code Section 23.610.5 for lot area, width and yard requirements for the R-3
district (or R-2) will be met even if a two car garage would be attached.
Recommend:
The Zoning District line running west to east is somewhat of an arbi-
trary line with no natural boundaries such as streets, railroad,
lake, etc. The present use of the area when I toured the block,
tended to be single family homes. The planned use of the district
was R-2 under the previous Zoning Ordinance. If we are to seriously
consider a Zoning Map Amendment, ~ feel we should probably re-zone
going south on Fernside to Bartlett Boulevard, then proceed east on
Bartlett to Montclair (adjoining the B-2 district) then proceed west
from Montclair on Shoreline to Fernside and return to the beginning.
Although the original platting of the area would not allow one lot
(parcel) large enough for a two-family dwelling, the present trend
seems to indicate higher density housing and /or conversions from
single family homes to two family homes.
If the Planning Commission recommends approval, the City Council
at their February 1st meeting could set a public hearing. A sug-
:gested date for the public hearing would be February 22nd.
Jan Bertrand
Building Official
JB/ms
Dave Moore and Rick Illies Case No. 83-101
Case No. 83-101 Zoning Map Amendment'for .2340 .Fernside Lane
Lots 16 & 17, Block 3, Shirley Hills.Unit A
Dave Moore and Rick Illies were present.
The applicants are requesting ~he Zoning District for Lots 16 and 17, Block 3,
Shirley Hills Unit A be changed to R-3 from R-2 so that the existing structure
can be remodeled for ~ duplex. The abutting properties on north are zoned R-3.
The Building Inspector explained that there really isn'-t a natural boundary for
the zoning and, if you're going to consider rezoning, her recommendation would
be to include the area going south On Fernside to Bart'lett, then East to Mont-
clair.~ from Montclair west on Shoreline to Fernside and back to beginning. The
Planning Commission discussed whether ground floor space would count as habitable
space? (One room on ground floor would not be counted as habitable.) Number of''
doors and size of windows were questioned? Would parking area met the require-
ments? (There is parking for more than 4 cars.~) The applicants' remodeling
plans include putting in larger window ~nd proper d~or downstairs; plans on
having one unit upstairs of approximately llOO square feet and one down'of 800
square feet. The Building Inspector stated that 1. door in each unit iS all that
the Building Code requires.
The Chairman stated that the main issue is how the Planning Commission would li''~
to handle the request for a change of Zoning District? ' '
Byrnes stated that since there a. re very nice single family home on Bartlett
(R-2 Zoning), he would like to propose to the City Council that.the¥ include
in the R-3, the property, the line of which extends south of the existing
down Fernside to the north property llne of parcel (Lot) 14 and go in an
easterly by.northeasterly direction along the property line to Norwood and
using the southerly boundary of R-3 at point, and returning to Ferhside. This
would include Lots 6, 7, 15, 16 and 17 of Block 3~ Shirley Hil.ls Unit A.
There was no second - motion failed for lack of a second.
Vargo stated ~hat he would like to say that it doesp't seem appropriate to re-
zone anywhere you want simply because it works out to one's advantage. If he
'understahds it correctly, they could let out a Foom in the house without re-
zoning.
Vargo moved and Reese.seconded a motion to recom~nend denyihg the request.
Byrnes voted against the denial; all others voted in favor. Motion carried.
il-'! ....... ....)~'-~...~ APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
'.:: ~/~..~U~, (Please type the followlng ]nform, tlon)
1 Street Address of Property.
2. Legal Description of Property: Lot~
/
3. Owner's Name
CASE 83-.~-101
Fee ~a i d /*~-~)t
Date Fi led
Block
.Day Phone No. "
Address
!
Applicant (if other than owner):
5. Type of Request:
Day .Phone No
(.)' Variance ( ) Conditibnal Use Permit
( ) Zoning Interpretation ~ Review
( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D.
Amendment
Sign Permit
*If other, specify:
Existing Use(s) of Property /_~A/ - r_',¢'~'~; ,~ ~.'./
(~,)*Other
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property?.. /k~ if so, list date(s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s)
Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request.
I certify that all'of the above statements and the statements contained in any required
papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in
or upon the premises described in .this application by any authorized official of the City
of Mound for the' purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such
notices as may be(/"/~ - /~/~) ~'~'~~reg'u'i-red'xbylaw. /~/~/d~//~ //~/K~
7"' /'/-'
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Date
1 Action:
Regolution No.
Date ~7,~'
~/R?
Procedure for Zoning Amendments
(2) Case # 83-101
D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
E. Indicate North compass direction
F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections
III.An Amendment to .the Zoning Ordinance (Answer either. A or B below)
A. It is requested that section ' of the Zoning Ordinance be amended
as follows:
Reason for Amendment:
Amendment to Map:
It is requested that the property described below and shown on the attached
site plan be rezoned'from R~'. .... to ~P-?j .
Address of Property: ~3~)''~J~2~ ~,~
Legal~description of property (lot.~ block, subdivision or metes and bounds)
Attach additional sheets, if necessary)
Note:
Present Use of Property: ~/~/- OeQ~O,¢c~/
No application of a property owner for an amendment to the text of the ordi-
nance or the zoning map shall be considered by the Planning ~ommission within
one year period following a denial of such request.
FERNSIDE
CASE NO 83-101
2340 Fernside Lane
(D
Case No. 83-102
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
Planning Commission Agenda of January 31, 1983:
Board of Appeals
Case No. 83-102
Location - 5042 Tuxedo Boulevard
Legal Desc.: Lots 5 & 6, Whipple Shores
Request: Variance of Lot Width
Zoning Distr~ct: R-1
Applicant:
Robert J. Veilleux
5042 Tuxedo Boulevard
Phone 472-6444
The applicant is requesting to split his parcel of land thereby creating another
building site on Lot 6, Whipple Shores. His existing house and garage are on
Lot 5, Whipple Shores. His attached survey shows an encroachment of a sidewalk
which Mr. Veilleux plans to remove.
The detached garage meets the setback requirements for lakeshore lots pursuant
to Section 23.407(5), but the driveway was not located on the survey as well as
the utility locations. Pursuant to Section 23.604.5(2)~ the minimum lot width
is 60 feet. The lot width of Lot 6 is approximately 47 feet~ Lot 5 is approxi-
mately 49 feet; a deficiency of ll to 13 feet. (Established at the building set-
back line of 30 feet). The lot area of both lots exceed 10,O00 square foot
required area. Pursuant to Section.23.408(3)b, the walkway on the existing
house to rear deck may extend within 2 feet of the lot line, but the structure
is 6.6 feet to the side lot line and the required distance is lO feet pursuant
to 23.604.5(2). The lakeshore and front yard setbacks on Lot 5 comply with the
required 50 feet and 30 feet ~espectively.~
Recommend:
I would concur with the owner that the sidewalk be removed. The
utilities should be located and separate water lines to each lot
be provided. If the driveway is onto Lot 6, a new access must be
provided or relocate the existing. Due to the original platting of
the subdivision known as Whipple Shores and the location of Tuxedo
Boulevard as well as the excessive lot depth and narrowness of the
lot, I would recommend approval of the lot width and sideyard set-
back variance.
Jan Bertrand
Building Official
JB/ms
Case No."83-102 Variance of Lot Width - 5042 Tuxedo Boulevard
Lots 5 and 6, Whipple Shores
Robert Veilleux, applicant, was present.
The Building Inspector explained that the variance needed is determined by the
width of the'lot at the street front setback line or about.13 feet. The deck
walkway is not higher than the main floor so cad extend to within 2 feet from
the lot line by our present ordinance (exiAting house on Lot 5), but structure
is 6.6 feet from east side yard and needs a variance. Applicant plans to turn
garage door and put in new driveway for Lot 5,-so there will be no encroachment
for Lot 6. There is a sewer stub for 6 and the water line is in right between
the ldt lines of 5 and 6. He would be willing to stub in another water llne.
The owner of Lot 7, Whipple Shores, Marie George, was present and had questions
re: the applicant building a new house on Lot 6. She feels her view will be
"shot". The Planning Commission discussed that all setbacks would have to be
met for a structure on Lot 6.
Mierzejewski moved and Vargo seconded a motion to recommend approval of the .i
variance of lot width providing he maintain all sideyard and setbacks, provide
separate sewer and water lines and driveways; recognizing the nonconforming
3.4 feet into existing sideyard of the present structure oh Lot 5.
The vote on'the.motion was.Jensen opposed and all others in favor. Motion
carried. Jensen opposed the action because it created another nonconformancy.
Ms. George wanted to go on record.as being opposed to the variance being granted'
Proposed Resolution
Case No. 83-102
RESOLUTION NO. 83-
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE LOT WIDTH VARIANCE AS
REQUESTED FOR LOT 6, WHIPPLE SHORES (5048 TUXEDO
BOULEVARD)
WHEREAS, the owner, Robert J. Veilleux, of the property described as Lots 5
and 6, Whipple Shores, PID 24-117-24 43 0054, has applied for an
approximately 11 to 13 foot lot width variance pursuant to the
Zoning Ordinance Section 23.403 which would disallow the lot to be
defined as a lot of record, and
WHEREAS, the City Code requires the existing principal structure to be 10 feet
from the side lot line on Lot 5, and
WHEREAS, the property owner has requested Lot 6, Whipple Shores, be a separate
parcel thereby creating a future building site with the lot area,
building setbacks, bulk and height to meet all City Code requirements,
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of this variance due to
the original platting excessive lot depth and lot narrowness,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNE-
SOTA:
That the City Council does hereby concur with the Planning Commission
recommendation to approve the lot width variance of 11 feet for Lot 5
and 13 feet for Lot 6, Whipple Shores.
The City Council concurs with the Planning and Zoning Commission re-
commendation agreed upon with the owner to relocate the present drive-
way from Lot 6 or provide a new driveway location to Lot 5; relocate
the existing garage door; remove the sidewalk which is encroaching
onto Lot 6; supply all utility connections to the newly created build-
ing site; recognize the 6.6 foot existing building side yard setback
as non-conforming.
CITY OF MOUND
b..;~'~..~ ......... '" APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
1. Street Address of Property
2. Legal DesCrlptl.on of Property: Lot
Addition b3 I+[
3. Owner's Name /~(~/~~
Fee P a
Date Filed
Address
Block
.Day Phone No. fiT~-~'z/Z./
4. Applicant (if other than owner):
Name
Day Phone No.
-Address
5. Type. of Request:
Ye
(~>~ Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit
( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review
( ) Uetland Permit ( ) P.U.D.
\
) Amendment
] Sign Permit
)*Other
*If other, specify:
Present Zoning Distr.ict
Existing Use(s) of Property
-- /
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? ~)~ If so, list date(s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s)
Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request.
I certify that all'of the above statements and the statements contained in any required
papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate, i consent to the e~try in
or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City
of Mound for the' purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such
notices as may be requlre~-~l~i~ ~
Signature of Applicant .... ~ x.~--, ~, : Date I
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Date
1 Action:
Re~olution No.
Date
~ques~ for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) Case # 83-102
D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
£. Indicate North compass direction
F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
III..Request for a Zoning Variance
A. All i~formation below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general
application must be provided before a hearing..will be scheduled.
B. Does the present use of. the property'conform to a~l use regqlations for
the zone district in .which it is located? Yes (~(,) ~~x~)'v
If "no", specify each n~n-conforming use:
C. Do the existlng'st[uctures ~omply with all area height and bul.ktregulations
for the zone distr~ct in'which i't is located? 'Y~ No (~)
if "no", specify each non-conforming use:
D. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its
reasonable use for anY. of the.uses.permitted in that zoning district?
~) .Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil
( ) Too. small · ( )' Drainage ( ) Sub-surface
( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify:
Was-the hardship described above 'created by the action of anyone having
property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted?
Yes ( ) No (~) If yes, explain:
F. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (~) If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar
only to the property described in this petition? Yes (~") ~o (.)
If no, how many other properties are similarly affected?
H. What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations
that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using
maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional
sheets, if necessary.)
I. Will granting of th~'variance be materially detrimental to property in the
same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
., ' Certificate of 2m'v(:y
' for Robert J. Vejl[,'m×
.,! df Lots 5 and 6, Whipple Shor~a
;~°~l"~O"m~ Hennepin Com-~ty, bti~musotu
CASE 8~-102
,oOO
I hereby m:.:ri.:if'y 'tl~t, i ;, ~,:: ',~
~ld f'Ol'l'E'k~'~ I'C;ml'~:~,(':.r,' ~ , . '
OZ' the
all e xi'.;t in~'
anU sidewalk
or encroaehment~.
Land 'Surveyor and Planner
Long Lak~, Minnesota
NO'L. HDI~.t~
I! 'ON
E'~ll
Case No. 83-102
N
em
imm
CASE 83-103
January 25, 1983
CITY of
MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO:
FROM:
PLANNING COMMISSION
JON ELAM, CITY MANAGER
Enclosed is an application to subdivide off a parcel of land 210 feet x
210 feet from Lot 59, Auditor's Subdivision #168.
The rema'ining parts of Lot 59 have been given to the City of Mound under
Warranty Deed.
This all came about as a result of a settlement of a legal matter filed by
the owner of the property as a part of the 1980 Street Improvement Project.
I won't go into all the details of that in this Memo because they aren't
relevant to this application, although I'll be happy to explain them at
the meeting.
The benefits to the City are that one of the best preserved wetlands area
is now retained in City ownership and it means public access for the use
of it as a natural wildlife area.
The subdivision covers the land that presently has a house and existing
yard at 5938 Idlewood Road.
This is the last step in clearing this action up and I would urge your
concurrence.
Case No. 83-103 Subdivision Of Land - 5938 Idlewood Road
Lot 59, Auditor's Subdivision No. 168
The City Manager explained that this' is an application to subdivide'off a
parcel of land 210 feet by'210 feet from Lot 59, Auditor's Subdivision 168
and that this'parcel is not.owned by the City, but all the rest. of Lot'59
was given to the City under a Warranty Deed. This was part of the settle-
ment against the City for a storm sewer and outfall pipe that was put.in
without permission. The City now has ownership of one of the best preserved
wetlands area with the express understanding that these lands wi-il be used
for park, wetlands and drainage purposes until December 20, 1997.
Reese moved and Jensen seconded a motion to recommend approval of the sub-
division of the land the City is requesting. The vote was unanimously in
favor.
Proposed Resolution
Case No. 83-103
RESOLUTION NO. 83-
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE FINAL SUBDIVISION FOR
LOT 59, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION 168, PID 23-117-24 42
0008 AND PART OF PID 23-117-24 42 0007
WHEREAS, the final subdivision of the south 210 feet of the east 210 feet of
the west 460 feet of Lot 59, Auditor's Subdivision 168. Lot 59 (S.E.
corner of the property only) has been submitted in the manner required
for platting of land under the City of Mound Ordinance Code, Section
22.00 and under Minnesota State Statute Chapter 462 and all proceedings
have been duly conducted thereunder, and
WHEREAS, the remaining undivided lands are being conveyed to the City of Mound
with the express understanding that these lands will be used only for
park, wetlands and drainage purposes until December 20, 1997. These
land restrictions on the use of the above described lands shall termi-
nate on December 20, 1997, and from that date forward the grantee, or
its successors or assigns shall have complete and unrestricted fee
title to said lands, and
WHEREAS, said subdivision is consistent with the City Plan and the regulations
and requirements of the laws of the State of Minnesota and the Ordi-
nances of the City of Mound,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNE-
SOTA:
A. That the City Council concurs with the Plannlng Commission recom-
mendation to approve the final subdivision request for the City of
Mound to divide the south 210 feet of the east 210 feet of the west
460 feet of Lot 59, Auditor's Subdivision 168.
B. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy
of this Resolution to the above named owner(s) and subdivider(s)
after completion of requirements, for their use as required by
M.S.A. 462.358.
C. This final subdivision shall be filed and recorded within 180 days
of the date of the adoption of this resolution in the Office of the
Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to
show compliance with the subdivision regulation of the City of
Mound.
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION
Sec. 22.03-a
VILLAGE OF MOUND
OF LAND
FEE S
N/A
FEE OWNER
CITY OF MOUND
PLAT
AUDITOR'S SUBD, #168
~ARCEL
Lot 59
Location and complete' legal description of property to be divided:
ZONING R-.I'
To bedividedasfollows: The South 210 feet of the East 210 feet of the West 460 feet
of Lot 59, Audi'tor's Subdivision #168,.Lot 59 (Southeast corner of the propert'/
only)
The remaining undivided lands are being conveyed to the City'of Mound with
the express understanding that these land~ will be used.only for park, wetlands
and drainage purposes until December 20, 1997. This restriction on the use of
the above described lands shall terminate on D6cember 20, 1997, and Trom that
date forward the grantee or its successors or assigns shall have a complete and
unrestricted fee title to said lands.
{attach survey or scale drawing showing a~acent streets, dimension~proposed
building sites, square foot area of each new parcel designated by number)
A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR:
New Lot No. From
Square feet TO Squar~ feet
Reason:
~y of Mo'Gnd
APPLICANT ~' ~ '
/~A Elam tsignatureiC'ity Manag'er
ADDRESS [~1Maywood Road
Mound, MN. 55364
Applicant's interest in the property:
Fee owner
TEL. NO.
DATE
This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of the property, or an explan-
ation given why this is not the case.
472-1155
1-23-83
PLANNING COMMISSIbN RECOMMENDATION:
I
Case No. 83-103
21 I' zo
A' I[~I D
I I
I
I 'I
S I
l
J
CASE 83-103
,oS
aA'Il{
~. i'i; .... !! .L, CITY OF HOUND
2 8 t983
· ~,~X ~5"~'A~I~LICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
., type
Street Address of Property Ba~oo~ ~a~e
Paid
L~gal Des~rlptipn of Property: Lot 4
Date Filed
Addition Replat of Harrison Shores
Owner's Name Walter F and Joan E. Helland
Addres~
1701 Baywood Lane, .Mound, MAT
.Block 4 ·
PID No. 13-117-24-21-0049
472-2767. (h)
Phone No. 559-5003 (0) ·
55364
Applicant '(if other than owner):
Name
-Address
Day .Phone No.
Type. of Request:
(X)'.Vari'ance ( ) Conditibnal Use Permit
( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review :
( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D.
( ) Amendment
( ] Sign Permit
( )*Other
*If other, specify:
{~,. Present Zoning Distr.!ct
7. Existing Use(s) of Property,
VACANT ' .-
Has an applicatlon ever been made for zoning,N~ariance, or conditional use permit or
other zoning proCedure for .this property? If so, .list date(s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s)
Co~.ies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request.
I certify that all'of the above statements and the statements contained In any required
papers or plans to be submitted' herewith are true and accurate. ! consent to the e~try in
or upon the premises described in .this app]ica~ion by any authorized official of the'City
or of posting, maintaining and removing such
of M. ound for the' purpos, e of inspect'inSJ,
notices-as may. be requiiq~d by~
Si gnatur~ of App]icant_~U~~~~
Planning Co~ission Reco~endatlon:
Da te
Date
Council Action:
Regolution No.
Date
I~equest for Zoni.ng Variance Procedure (2) Case #
D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
E. Indicate North compass direction
F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
III. Request for a Zonin9 Variance
A. All information below, a site plan,.as described in Part II, and general
application must be provided before a hearlng.will be scheduled.
B. Does.the present'use of. the property'conform to.~}.! use regulations for
the zone district in which it is located? Yes ~ No ( )'
If ,'no". specify each nbn-conforming use: .
7°'
C. Do .the existing-structures comply, with all area heighl~ and bulk.regulations
for the zone district in'which i't is.located? Yes '(~()'No--~) -~ ..
If ."no", specify each non-conforming use:
D. · Which unique physical chnracteristics of the subject property prevent its
reasonable use for any of the uses .permitted in that zoning district?
( ) .Too narrow (.) Topography ( ) Soil
( ) Too small .- ( ) Drainage. ( ) Sub-surface
( ) Too shallow ~ Shape ( ) Other: Specify:
Was the hardship described abOve 'created by the action of anyone having
property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance.was adopted?
Yes ( ) No (~/) ..... If-yes, explain:
F. Was the hardship created by any'other man-made change, such as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (~ If yes, explain:.
G. Are the conditions of hardship for'which:you r~quest a va,fiance peculiar
only to the property described in this petition? Yes(~ No ( )
If no, how many other properties are similarly affected?
H. What is 'minimum ~diflcation (variance) ~egulati~ns
that will permit you to make reasonable use of your 1ar, d? (Specify, using
maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
Case No. 83-104
RESOLUTION NO. 83-
RESOLUTION TO.CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A 10 FOOT STREET SETBACK
VARIANCE AS REQUESTED FOR LOT 4, BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF
HARRISON SHORES (NEWLY ASSIGNED ADDRESS, 1701 BAY-
WOOD LANE)
WHEREAS, the owner, Mr. and Mrs. Walter F. Helland, of the property described
as Lots 3 and 4, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores, PID 13-117-24
21 0049 has applied for a building setback variance of lO feet from
the required 30 foot street front off from Three Points Boulevard on
Lot 4.pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance Section 23.403 which would
disallow the lot to be defined as a lot of record, and
WHEREAS, the City Code requires the existing principal structure to be lO
feet from the side lot lines and it is 8.9 feet at its closest point,
50 feet from the shoreline (Mean High Water elevation), 30 feet from
the street front on Lot 3 and it is 23.33 feet at its closest point,
and
WHEREAS, the property owner has requested that Lot 4, Block 4, Replat of
Harrison Shores be a separate parcel thereby creating a future
building site with the lot width and area, building bulk and height,
and, except for a building setback variance of lO feet to Three
Points Boulevard, all other setbacks to be conforming, a proposed
driveway easement to be obtained from Lot 3 for garage access, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of this variance, due
to the unusual shape of the original platted lo.t as to provide maxi-
mum utilization of lake shoreland to property owners,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNE-
SOTA:
That the City Council does hereby concur with the Planning Commission
recommendation to approve a 10 foot street front variance for Lot 4.,
Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores. Also the City Council recognizes
the existing Lot 3 non-conforming building setbacks. The City Council
concurs with the Planning Commission and property owner that a survey
be submitted and reviewed by the Building Inspector and/or City Engi-
neer to assure compliance with this resolution before a building per-
mit is issued to construct on Lot 4, Block 4, Replat of Harrison
Shores.
e
Case No..83-104 Variance Request.- 1701Baywood Lane
Lot 4j Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores
Mr. and Mrs. Walter F. Helland were present.
The Building Inspector explained that the applicants a~e asking for a front
yard setback off of Three Points Boulevard. They do.not have a survey yet,
but they are getting one. They wish to build a 1200 square foot house.'and
a 2 car garage on'site which they have owned for some time.' Setbacks'are 30
feet from.'streets and..50 feet. from the'Lagoon. Applicant won't kn°w exactly
the amount of variance required to meet' the 30 feet side yard setback abutting
the street for a lot of'record until survey is compl.eted. Has present house
sold on contingency. His property ilne is 16 feet from back of curb;-if a
variance is granted so.a house can be 20.feet from property line, it would
give 36 feet to back of curb. Planning Commission discussed that'he will also
need a Watershed Permit and.encouraged him to get dock and eas~ment'approval
from the L.M.C.D.
Vargo.moved and Reese.seconded-a motion to r~commend to the'City Council a
ten'(lO) foot variance allowing a twenty (20).foot setback from the'lot
line o~ Three Points BOulevard. The vote was.unanimously in favor.
We purchased this property in 1970
from Bermel-Smaby Realty as an approved
buildable lot and as a part of their
development known as Harrison Shores,Inc.
We have owned and resided at the adjoining
property for 17 years (Lot 3, Block 4).
We presently plan to sell our present home
and wish to build a new home on Lot 4,
Block 4.
WALTER-F. HE,LAND ~
JOAN E. HELLAND
o f 'i'$~ .....
KESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION DENYING AN AMENDMENT
TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITED
GRANTED BY RESOLUTION 82-85 AND
AMENDED BY RESOLIJTION 82-277~ AND
DENYING AN EXPANSION OF THE FACILITY
AND FURTHER DENYING EXPANDING THE
ACTIVITIES AND USES AUTHORIZED ON THE
PREMISES
WHEREAS, Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes authorizes the City Council,
with the aid and assistance of the City Planning Commission, to carry out municipal
planning activities which guide future development and improvement of our community,
and
WHEREAS, Section 23.625.3 of the City's Zoning Ordinance allows by conditional
use permit commercial recreational facilities in the B1 Zoning District, and Section
23.505 establishes the criteria, conditions and procedures in issuing a conditional use
permit or amending a conditional use permit, and
WHEREAS, Mr. Tom Watson applied in'/1981 for a conditional use permit for a
youth center/arcade and this Council approved such permit on a temporary basis, and
WHEREAS, by Resolution 82-16 (January 12, 1982) this Council approved a
conditional use permit with certain stipulations and by Resolution 82-58 on March 2,
1982 this Council directed a temporary suspension and ordered a due process hearing
to consider permanently revoking the special use permit, and
WHEREAS, on April 6, 1982 the Council adopted Resolution 82-85 approving a
conditional use permit for the Arcade at 5558 Auditor's Road with the stipulations
contained in Resolution 81-338, and
WHEREAS, on October 8, 1982 Tom Watson wrote to the City Council and asked
them to amend the conditional use permit by expanding the hours which he could be
open, he also stated in his letter:
'~'m also at this time requesting the City Council members
to permit me to expand the youth center. A rough plan is
attached with this letter."
A rough sketch showed about a 50% expansion, and
WHEREAS, this Council adopted Resolution 82-277 (October 12, 1982) amending
Resolution 82-85 "Extending the Hours as Requested", in the Whereas provisions of the
resolution it was mentioned that the applicant was proposing to extend his operation
into an adjoining area, no permission for such expansion was contained in the Council's
resolution which is on file in the City offices, and
WI-II~.i~I~.A~, Watson states that he assumed he had been given permission to
expand, his operation and he went to tl~e l~uilding Inspector and obtained a building
permit stating that $~D,.0.0~ would be spent, in late November, 1982 city staff members
learned that a major 'e~pansion was taking place and Watson was ordered to cease
construction, and
WHEREAS, Watson then produced a new set of plans and obtained a second
building permit stating that $25,000 of construction would take place, he was advised
by the City staff that he needed an amendment to his conditional use permit to expand
the operation, he also needed a public dance permit and a restaurant license to operate
what he was planning and he was proceeding at his own risk, and
WHEREAS, Watson executed three applications for
1) an amended conditional use permit
2) a dance permit
3) a restaurant license
on all three original license and permit applications Watson indicated that another
party had a financial interest in the business, and
WHEREAS, Section 36.15 "Arcade Licenses" establishes the procedures, standards
and regulations under which arcade licenses may be granted, and the City Code requires
that applications be referred to the Chief of Police for investigation and recom-
mendations and further indicates that if the applicant, manager or persons owning the
licensed activity is not a person of good moral character and repute they are ineligible
for a license, and
WHEREAS, the Chief of Police investigated the person listed on the application
as having a financial interest and he found and reported to this Council that the person
had been convicted of a felony, four misdemeanors relating to the use of drugs,
disorderly conduct and damage to property and 15 traffic violations and further had
current bench warrants outstanding for his arrest, and
WHEREAS, Watson filed amended applications for the licenses and these ap-
plications indicated that no one else has a financial interest in the operation of the
arcade but he does indicate that the person who was originally listed on the application
owns $50,000 of machines in the arcade and that the profits from the machines will
be split 50/50 between Watson and the owner of the machines, and
WHEREAS, this Council is very concerned that people who deal with and supervise
youth using the arcade (16 to 18 year olds) be persons of good moral repute and
responsible, and
WHEREAS, an arcade and a dance hall which cater to youth have a potential
for serious problems in the neighborhood and a number of neighboring business persons
and residents have testified before this Council that the area has been littered, the
youth who are attending the arcade have harassed and threatened persons in the
neighborhood and have caused other problems which have been and will be injurious
to the uses and enjoyment of other property in the area, and
WHEREAS, this Council has many serious reservations about locating an arcade
in this area because of traffic, noise, litter and is even more concerned by expanding
the use from 762 square feet to 4,072 square feet, and
WHEREAS, this Council wants to provide an activity for the youth of this City
which will provide good clean fun and provide a place of recreation without drugs,
alcohol and other social vices which create police and social problems~and
WHEREAS, Mr. Watson is currently in violation of the requirement that each
of'his machines must have a City license, because only 10 of 24 machines are licensed,
and
WHEREAS, it is believed that the potential benefits to Mound teenagers are
outweighed by the potential for the facility's activities to be used by other individuals
from Mound and from outside of Mound to facilitate the wider distribution and use of
controlled substances by teenagers in spite of intentions and rules to attempt to prevent
it, and
WHEREAS, testimony and evidence have been given to this Council which
indicates that the current arcade consisting of approximately 762 square feet is causing
trouble in the neighborhood, that the entrance and parking areas are located to the
rear of other commercial businesses, and the location is similar to an alley, and
WHEREAS, testimony from other property owners has called the Council's
attention to the lack of lighting, alley entrances, vandalism, and the negative effect
that a large assembly of young people have on the willingness of citizens to use
municipal parking facilities in the area, and
WHEREAS, the 762 square feet of space being used has created problems, an
expansion to over 4000 square feet would increase the intensity of the use by over
500%, the request for a public dance permit would intensify the utilization of the
property for uses which would cause concentrations of persons in an area which has
difficulty with the current uses which are not concentrated as to times,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the City Council of the City of
Mound:
1. The application of Thomas Watson for an amended conditional use permit
which would expand the area and intensity of use and the types of commercial
recreational uses allowed is denied for the following reasons:
ae
The expansion of the conditional use will be injurious to the use and
enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes
already permitted and will substantially diminish and impair property
values within the immediate vicinity as testified to by abutting property
owners.
be
The expansion of the conditional use will impede the normal and orderly
development and improvement of surrounding vacant property for uses
ee
re
ge
ho
ke
needed in the central business district. The goal of the comprehensive
plan, the zoning ordinance, and other civic projects is to expand and
improve commercial ventures to provide services to all people in the
community.
Adequate access roads, parking, drainage, lighting, and other necessary
facilities are not provided in the area.
Adequate measures have not been shown to exist to provide sufficient
off-street parking to serve the proposed uses.
Adequate measures have not been shown by the applicant to prevent or
control offensive noise and vibration, and that these problems may con-
stitute a nuisance to the area and there has been no showing regarding
lighting for the area to protect the health, safety, and general welfare
of the neighboring properties.
The proposed expanded uses, in the opinion of the City Council, are not
reasonably related to the overall needs of the City or to the existing
land uses in the area.
The expanded uses are not consistent with the purposes of the zoning
code and the purposes of the zoning district in which the applicant intends
to locate the proposed new uses or larger structure.
The dance use in particular will cause traffic hazard or congestion for
the neighborhood.
Existing land uses of business and residential properties adjacent to the
applicant' property will be adversely affected because of curtailment of
customer trade brought about by intrusion of noise, glare or general
unsightliness and will impair their right to use their properties for resi-
dential social activities.
The applicant proceeded to construct an expanded facility after being
advised by City staff that "he was proceeding at his own risk." He
commenced construction of the expanded facility far beyond the terms
of his original building permit or his conditional use permit.
The applicant's request to amend his existing conditional use permit by
expanding the size from 762 square feet to in excess of 4000 square feet
to permit public dancing would create a concentration of youth estimated
at 240 to 300 which is beyond the capacity of the area and neighborhood.
The location is similar to an alley; the area is poorly lighted for this
type of concentration of people at limited times. Lighting, traffic, noise
and other problems will have an adverse affect on neighboring businesses
and residents.
The applicant originally filed three applications for 1) an expanded con-
ditional use permit for both area and types of use; 2) a public dance
303
permit; 3) a restaurant license. At the time these applications were filed
another party was stated to have a financial interest in the premises and
the business. Pursuant to Chapter 36 the Chief of Police conducted an
investigation to establish the moral character and repute of the applicant
and those having a financial interest in the facility. The investigation
revealed that one of the persons alleged to have a financial interest was
a young man who had been convicted of burglary (a felony), possession
of marijuana on two occasions, disorderly conduct, damage to property,
and 15 moving traffic violations (all misdemeanors) and in addition there
was an outstanding bench warrant for his arrest for speeding. The applicant
now indicates that this person has withdrawn from a corporation organized
to own and operate this venture but that the person would own the
machines located in the business and would share the profits on a 50/50
basis. This Council finds that the record does not indicate the person
to be of good moral character and repute. The claim that he is removed
from the venture cannot be disproved without a complete check on where
the funds to build and operate this activity have come from and such
information has not been provided. This Council is extremely concerned
that the youth of this City be supervised in their recreational activities
by people who are responsible and of good character; that finding cannot
be made in this case.
2. The application for a public dance permit in this location is denied for the
same reasons and based on the findings set forth in paragraph i and in the Whereas
provisions of this resolution.
3. The application for a restaurant license is denied because it was to be
located in the expanded area of the building. Therefore, since the area for the use
and location of the proposed restaurant do not exist, no license can be granted.
4. This Council is concerned for the City's youth, business community, zoning
regulations and its comprehensive plan. It has struggled with these applications in an
effort to be fair to all concerned. To approve the expansion and the expanded uses
would be "to take a chance" that the youth and the central business district would
not be adversely affected - the evidence presented to the Council in the form of
testimony, staff reports and other information about the applicants and the area do
not suggest the Council should "take a chance." If the activities are approved and a
tragedy should result, this Council is concerned that it may be found negligent in
failing to provide proper control and police protection. The City is operating on a
limited budget and does not have sufficient police personnel to supervise 240 to 300
youths in an alley setting; it is believed that such youth dance activities can be better
supervised and controlled within the school system and in their facilities.
5. It is a further finding of this Council that the granting of an expanded
conditional use permit (area) and a dance permit would be detrimental to the health,
safety and general welfare of this City.
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING £NGINrc[RS I LANO SURVEYORS · PLANNERS
3anuary 27, 1983
Reply To:
12800 Industrial Park Boulevard
PIyrnouth, Minnesota 55441
{612) 559-3700
Mr. Oon Elam
City Manager
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Subject:
City of Mound
Peabody Road Storm Sewer
Payment Request No. 1
File #6510
Dear Oon:
Enclosed is Payment Request No. 1 in the amount of $10,971.55 from Widmer
Brothers, Inc. for the Peabody Road storm sewer. This project is substantially
complete except for the clean up and seeding of disturbed areas. Final payment
will be withheld until this work is completed this spring.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
OC:sj
Enclosure
prirtted on reeve!ed Dapper
~ 0.,-4
rnxo_
0
~ ..~
-~-~ · O.
000
000
000
000
0 000000
0 000000
~ 000 ~
~0 ~
0 000000
~~Z
0 000000
0 000~00
0~0
r_~ o
f,..4 "E~
- o c:
,--i 4-,~ o
· ,"q 0
:'~P~'TRACTOE '[:'AY ESTIMATE NO, 02:
6564
CITY OF MOUND MOUND ELqY PARK IMPP, OVEMENTS
PAGE O~
ENQINEER: MCCOMBS-ENUTS~N CONTRACTOR: PERKINS LANDSCAPE -- ·
18800 IND F'K. Bt. VD 5531 EDEN F'PAIR ED
PLYMOUTH, HN 55441 HINNETONKA, 55~3
5hTE: 08108/83
-- CONTPACTOP, PAY ESTIMATE SUMMARY --
I~QRK COMPLETED
HOL~;D 8AY PARK IMPEDVflENTS
HATERIALS ON SITE
HOUND BAY PA~K IMF:ROdENTS
ADJUSTED TOTAL
LESS"RETAINAGE - S% PREVIOUS,
THIS PERIOD TO DATE
1,818. O0 84,6G5.68
O. O0 -367.81
1,818.00 2.S, (Y38.8~
CURRENT BO.G0 1,851.G4
TOTAL .AMOUNT DLE FOR WOP, K COHPLETED TO DATE ~.,781.40 83,78!.84
LESS PREVIL/US PAYMENTS ' . ,... -0,00 88,059.84
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE .~ . . ... ' i~781.40 1,781.40
-- SUflHARY OF PREVIOUS F'AYtfENTS --
ESTIMATE NO. DATE TOTAL
1 11/30/88 11,101.41
8 01/10/~ . 88,059.84
ENGINEER: HCCOHBS-KNUTSON
AMOUNT
11,101.41
10,gS8.43
PERKINS LAND~AF'E
CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIMATE NO. 03
6SG4
CITY OF MOUND MOUND BAY PARK IMF'ROVEMENTS
MOUND BAY PARK IMPROVMENTS
PAGE
O2
ENGINEER: MCCOMBS-KNUTSON CONTRACTOR: PERKINS LANDSCAPE
18800 IND PK. 8LVO SS~i EDEN PRAIR RD
PLYMOUTH, MN 5~41 M!NNETONKA, 5S343
DATE: 08108183
-- PAYMENT SL~gMARY FOR .WORK COMPLETED TO DATE --
ITEM ITEM
NO. DESCRIPTION
1 TOT LOT
8, CRADING
3 BEACH SAND
4 TOPSOIL
S PERENNIAL 8~RDER
6 SEEDING ,
? WATER FOUNTAIN
8 AUTUMN PURPLE ASH
9 PAPER BIRCH (3 CLUSTER)
10 PAPER BIRCH
11 SILVER. MAPLE
18 NIOEE WEEPING WILLOW
1.3 ROYALTY CRAB
14 SERVICEBERRY
iq PAGODA DOGWOOD
16 DWARF AMUR MAPLE
17 DWARF EUONYMUS
CONTRACT UNIT
QUANTITY UNIT PRICE
1.0 EA 7,985.00
1.0 EA 1,985.00
1,350.0 TON G.70
880.0 C.Y S.IO
1.0 EA 1,875.00
8.0 ACE 900. O0
1.0 EA 1,150. O0
80.0 EA 183.00
3.0 EA 180.00
8.0 EA 98.00
1G. 0 EA 90. O0
4.0 EA 138.00
10.0. EA 181.00
9.0 EA 140. O0
6.0 EA - 130.00
-31.0 EA 81.00
23.0 EA 81.00
.... THIS PERIOD .....
QUANTITY
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
9.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
AMOUNT
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O. O0
0.00
0.00
o. do
0.00
0.00
0.00
~.00
0.00
1,860.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
...... TODATE
QUANTITY
0.9
· 0.5
1, Or--,~7.. 4
736.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
0.0
0.0
1G. 0
4.0'
0.0
9.0
0.0
0.0
AMOUNT
7,185.50
968.50
7,051.08
3,7S3.G0
0.00
0.00
0.00
8,460.00
0.00
0.00
1,440.00
558.00
0.00
1, GO.OO
0.00
0.00
0.00
TOTAL MOUND RqY PARK IMPROVHENTS
1,818. O0
84,665.68
CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIMATE NO. 03
6564
CITY OF MOUND MOUND BAY PARK IMPROVEMENTS
MOUNO BAY PARK IMPROVHENTS
PAGE 03
ENGINEER: MCCOMBS-KNUTSON CONTRACTOR: PERKINS LANDSCAPE
1~800 IND Pi<. Bt. VD ~31 EDEN PRAIR RD
PLYMOUTH, MN 55441- MINNETONKA, 55343
DATE: 02/02/83
-- PAYHENT SUHHARY FOR MATERIALS ON SITE --
THIS pERIOD
ITEH ITEM CONTRACT UNITS INVOICE UNITS
NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY .DELIVERED PRICE ON SITE
1 TOT LOT 1.0 1.0 3,67~.]2 0.0
EA
TD DATE
TOTAL INVOICE UNITS
ITEM UALUE PRICE ON SITE
0.00 3,6'~. IP 0.1
TOTAL.
Il*EM VALUE
.. ~7.~1
TOTAL MOUND BAY PARK IMPROVtiENTS
0.00
367.~1
ORIGINAL CONT~qCT PRICE
37,648.00 + CHANGE
0.00
= REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT
37,648.00
~B~-~:/..~/'"~l, 9
D~:J~SS NIAI 'ONnOIAi
OB'e'A:49190B O0=:mxrl.L Z.~I.S
SB]QV]J.S]IAiO
BILLS .... FEBRUARY 15, 1983
Ben Franklin
Brown Photo
Henn Co. Treasurer
Popham Haik Schnobrick
ReD Raj Kennels
Bradley Exterminating
Henn Co. Sheriffs Dept
Badger Meter
Blackowiak & Son
Holly Bostrom
Bryan Rock Prod.
Berry Auto
Bowman Ba Fries
Janet Bertrand
Commissioner of Revenue
Continental Tele
Cargill Salt
Coast to Coast ..
Fran Clark
Robert Cheney
Counterfitting Plus
Capitol Rubber Stamp
Dependable Services
Jon E1 am
Empire Crown Auto
Greyhound Travel
Govt Training Serv
G 1 enwood Ing 1 ewood
Gerry' s Plumbing
The Hozza Assoc
Internatl Conf Bldg Offic
Illies& Sons
Herman Kraft
Lowel 1 ' s'
The Laker
Long Lake Ford Tractor
· Sharon Legg
Lindstroms
Mound Postmaster
MacQueen Equip
Marina Auto Supply
Miller Davis
Mi nnegasco
Mound Fire Dept
Mound Super Valu
Wm Muel 1 er
Metro Fone Communications
MN UC Fund~
Medical Oxygen & Equip
Martins Navarre 66
Navarre Hdwe
N.S.P.
42.39
69.75
817.50
1,689.94
3o2.~o
19.00
95.00
298.37
98.42
106.30
91.97
42.60
3,906.00
1,117.7o
1,081.74
267.09
12.43
334.00
126.60
11.50
33.oo
26.18
3.28
396.00
35.00
62.45
125.85
75.OO
37.OO
3,386.75
3.68
53.95
116.87
29.50
18.87
5o9.5o
3oo.oo
221.00
5o4.o3
18.50
3,023.29
3,242.80
51.31
1,325.64
11.8o
631.53
4.OO
10.00
130.79
5,991.49
No Henn Cummunity College
Daniel Nelson
Natl League of Cities
II II II
P~ they Bowes
Perkins Landscape
Rustique Decorating
Nels Schernau
Shepherds Rental Rug
Spring Park Car Wash
Suburban Ti re
Greg Skinner
Ted Stal lman
Duane Smith
John Scherven
T & T Maintenance
Thrifty Snyder Drug
.Thurk Bros. Chev
Title Ins.
Univ of MN
Unitog Rental
Village Chev
Wid~er Bros
Bruce Wold
Westonka Firestone
Ziegler, Inc.
Total Bills
LIQUOR BILLS
Butch's Bar Supply
Coca Cola'Bottling
Day Distributing
East Side Beverage
Gold Medal Beverage
Twin City Home Juice
City Club Distrib
Midwest Wine
A.J. Ogle
Peps i Cola
Regal Window Clean
Thorpe Distrib
Pogreba Distrib
Knights of Columbus
Real One Acquisition
Griggs, Cooper
Johnson. Bros. Liq
Old Peoria
Ed Phill ips & Sons
Total Liquor Bills
GRAND TOTAL--ALL BILLS
18.25
580.31
380.00
38o. oo
158.OO
1,721~40
38.79
.30.OO
66.25
75.4O
457.36
10.OO
12.72
50.DO
75o.oo
25.75
11.27
31.52
46.00
6O.OO'
317.16
14.64
2,148.75
6.OD
46..71
28.53
38,543.28
242.95
156.8o
2,117.O4
2,429.21
91.35
28.80
2,269.00
645.15
1,480.20
191.25
10.75
3,291.65
2,586.75
5.OO
731.85
2,631.47
5,239.55
1,133.24
2,737;61
28,O19.62
66,562.90
3//
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC.
529 South Seventh Street Suite 535 Minneapolis, MN 55415 612-332.4166
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
TO: '~Mound City Council and Planning Commission
Rob Chelseth, City Planner
February 4, 1983
Suggested Planning Activities for Discussion on the Development
of a Planning Work Program.
The work of a Planning Commission all too often becomes fixed on handlin9
the steady stream of on-goin§ administrative requests and procedures.
This is understandably so, as there always seem to be several sticky
variances to be considered, a subdivision or two to review, and a con-
ditional use permit request for some heretofore unconsidered use.
Consequently, Mound must be applauded for attempting to step back, catch
its breath, and take stock of the planning needs at hand.
Over the last four years, Mound has completed several major planning
projects. Among these are the drafting of a new comprehensive plan, the
adoption of a new zoning ordinance, completion of a special wetlands pro-
tection zoning district, and most recently, the adoption of a revitalization
plan for the downtown. These accomplishments provide an excellent base
from which consideration can be given for making continuing progress on
Moundls planning program.
The following suggestions have been developed and assembled for your
consideration.
Development of new subdivision regulations. Normally done in con-
junction with the redrafting of the zoning code, Mound's subdivision
regulations were not examined during the planning and zoning work
done over the last four years. The current subdivision code is many
years old, outdated in its content, and contains several organizational
errors. A complete redrafting of this code to bring it up to date
is highly recommended.
Minor revisions to "fine-tune" the zoning ordinance. During the past
year of its application, the staff and Planning Commission have
spotted minor problems in the zoning code. While not necessarily
critical to its effectiveness, these changes should be made to make
the ordinance as clear and consistent as possible. One small example
is the difference between provisions in the milti-family standards
calling for at least one indoor parking space (23.620.7 (4a)), and
parking performance standards calling for one space under cover
(23.716.5 (2)), which would allow carports. Other questions concern
the definitions of terms, and particular uses allowed in districts.
In short, a brief review of the zoning ordinance could lead to the
quick elimination of many of these minor problems.
Mound City Council and Planning Commission
P age Two
February 4, 1983
e
Sign Ordinance. Currently Mound has a short and a very general sign
ordinance. In their efforts to encourage attractive displays within
their cities, many communities have gone to more sophisticated codes
governing the size, location and lighting used for ~igns. The objectives
are normally to reduce large, roadside signs lined up along the
city's mainstreets, in favor of a more standardized format of signs
designed to add to rather than detract from the communities appearance.
Work on a sign code could be initiated by the City in conjunction
with representatives of the local business community.
Plannin9 to support local economic growth. Probably the most ambitious,
and therefore most difficult area to address. The Planning Commis-
sion's work in this area may range from assisting the City in its
exploration of programs and opportunities to redevelop the Tonka
Toy plant, to consideration of activities to promote commercial
growth in Mound's central business district.
There are, of course, many other old and new issues which may arise during
the next year (e.g. plans for access/use of Lake Minnetonka). The City
Council and Planning Commission may consider these to be more urgent needs
than those issue identified above. In all cases, I look forward to the
opportunity to continue working with Mound, and am interested in dis-
cussing these and all other planning activities at your request.
klw
A1 Kehr
Consultants, Inc.
988 W. County Road D
Roseville, Minnesota 55112
February 3, 1983
To the Honorable Rock Lindlan, Mayor of the City of Mound;
Leonard L. Kopp, Manager; and Members of the Mound City
Council
The Minnesota Legislature has directed the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) to close its Metro Region Office, located on Warner
Road in St. Paul, and transfer the functions of that office to an
outstate DNR facility.
I feel that this move would seriously affect the quality of service
that DNR provides to local units of government and community residents.
The DNR Metro Region Office is scheduled to close by the end of the
month unless action is taken immediately. This issue is presently
being considered by the Minnesota Legislature.
Please consider the attached resolution regarding this matter at your
next meeting. The enclosed newspaper articles provide background
material on this issue.
Please adopt the resolution and send a signed copy to me at the
following address:
A1 Kehr
988 W. County Road D
Roseville, Minnesota 55112
This resolution will be hand delivered to the Minnesota Legislature.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
A1 Kehr
RESOLUTION REGARDING DNR METRO REGION OFFICE
Whereas the City of Mound works closely with the DNR Metro Region Office
to plan and implement proper management of the natural resources that are located
within this city, and this cooperative effort could not be continued effectively
from an outstate DNR facility; and
Whereas the City of Mound has many fishing/hunting related businesses
that contribute to our economy as well as a large number of anglers, hunters, and
other outdoor sports enthusiasts who regularly utilize the services of the DNR
Metro Region Office and who could not be served effectively from an outstate DNR
facility; and
Whereas it now appears that closing the DNR Metro Region Office and transferring
its functions to an outstate DNR facility will not in any event accomplish the
cost reduction that was the legislative intent of HF 2190 (Laws of Minnesota for
1982, Ch. 641, Art. 1, Sec. 2, Subd. 1. item f) but would instead diminish the
services available to the City of Mound and its residents;
Be it therefore resolved that the City Council of the City of Mound
is opposed to closing the DNR Metro Region Office and requests that the Minnesota
Legislature adopt legislation enabling the continuation of the present regional
structure of the Department of Natural Resources.
Rock Lindlan, Mayor
date
Leonard L. Kopp, Manager
date
VOL. 16, NO. 4 Outdoor News, P.O. Box 27145, Golden Valley, Minn. 55427 Phone 546-4251 copv,{sh, it,s FRIDAY. JANUARY 28. 1983
If Metro DNR Headquarters Is Closed
By LEN LIBBEY statewide regions to three, and access site, and appraise the.
If cost-conscious members of this specific mandate wasinclud- Parcel. The hydrologist and
the Minnesota legislature force ,ed. inthe,,b,u, dget-reductionbillasa engineer would help design the
the Department of Natural Re- rider: this reduction shall in- physical layout -- ramp, parking
sources to close down or transfer clude closing the metropolitan area and access road. Karen
its Metro Region Headquarters, region office." Loechler, the regio, na! a.d. min-
Twin Cities area sPOrtsmen will IF THE LEGISLATURE does istrator, would coordinate me ac-
notice more than just the loss of not change its instructions to the tivities of the headquarters s, taff
metro-oriented fisheries manage- DNR, it will, in fact, destroy what so as to avoid waste and duplica-
meat. seems to be a compact, serf-con- tiaa, and she also chairs the
Aloss of emphasis on metropol-
itan area fishing would be bad
enough.
FRANK SCHNEIDER, Jr.,
Minnesota SPOrt. fishing Congress
president, recently praised Metro
Region Fisheries Supervisor Du-
ane Shodeen for inovative and
forward-looking programs that
benefit the hundreds of thousands
of iisbermen in the seven-county
metroPOlitan area.
Fish management in the metro-
POlitan area must confront pro-
blems that don't exist in any other
part of the state, "because the
pressure is there," Schneider
said. "Prior to 1974 (when the
Metro office opened with Shodeen
as fisheries supervisor),"
Schneider added, "the DNR prac-
tically ignored the game fish
potential of metropolitan area
lakes."
THE DNR METRO Region
Headquarters is in danger of clos-
ing because in March, 1982, the
state legislature found itself look-
ing at another huge budget deficit.
Lawmakers "solved" the deficit
problem by cutting more than $30
mill Jan from state agency oper-
ating expenses through the fiscal
year ending on June 30, 1983.
A total of $450,000 was cut from
the DNR's budget. The Depart-
ment was ordered to reduce its
tained adrnirdstrative and opera-
tional "team" that works well
together and has cooperated with
numerous local government bo-
dies on projects that have worked
to the advantage, not only of
sportsmen, but anyone who en-
joys contact with wildlife and the
outdoors as part of the unique
"quality of life" in the Twin Cities
metroPOlitan area.
The "core" of the Metro Head-
quarters, on Warner Road, in St.
Paul, is comprised of Fisheries,
Wildlife and Enforcement super-
visors. Complementing them are
State Parks and Forest super-
visors, a Trails and Waterways
coordinator and one for the Lower
St. Croix.
A headquarters administrator,
field service coordinator, land
specialist, hydrologist, engineer,
naturalist and business manager
round out the "team."
IF SHODEEN were trying to
Public Water Access SubcommR-
tee of a task force studying access
needs on the huge suburban lake.
ROGER JOHNSON is regional
wildlife supervisor. He commutes
between an office at the Carlos
Avery Game Farm, north of the
Twin Cities, and the Warner Road
iacRity.
Johnson oversees the work of
two area game managers and the
resident manager at Carlos
Avery. He is also responsible for
all of the smaUer wildlife manage-
ment areas around the seven
counties, and other wildlife-
enhancement programs, such as
cooperative habitat projects with
private landowners.
THE ENFORCEMENT super-
visor, Mike Gruppa, sees all the
problems DNR conservation of-
ricers face in the larger regions,
but in Metro they are compounded
by the tremendous population
density. Then there are problems
get a new public access on Lake peculiar to the urban Twin Cities
Minnetonka, for example -- -- like over-fishing by Laotian
which lake, he says, could easily and Hmong immigrants -- which
supPOrt two.to-three times more
fishing than it now gets -- other
members of the headquarters
"team" would handle specinlized
parts of the task.
The land specialist would try to
locate property that could be ac-
quired from a willing seller for the
Gruppa and a St. Paul neigh-
borhood justice center are trying
to reduce with a tri-lingual hand-
book for Southeast Asian fish-
ermen.
Gruppa supervises 11 conserva-
tion officers. Ten have parts of the
metropolitan area assigned to
DNR REGIONS--At 2,968 sq~
miles, "Metro" is the smallest of
six administrative and operational
regions, but it has nearly one.half the
fishing population in Minnesota.
Because of its high-density popula-
tion, and sharply increased demand
for outdoor recreation, the Metro
Region Headquarters faces problems
unlike those in other parts of the
state.
them. The other, Pat MeGulre,
specializes in snowmobile and
firearms safety training -- and
routinely oversees the training of
one-third of Minnesota's youth
each year.
TYPICAL enforcement pro*
blems range from deer shining
and investigation of illegal
walleye sales in south Min-
neapolis (summer of 1982), to
complaints about people snaring
tame ducks and geese on their
lawns or luring them into garages
where they are killed.
"Metro" also handles Game
and Fish Code enforcement on
metropolitan area lakes and
rivers, hundreds of "an'
nuisance" calls, and 75 to ll~
quests each day for information
during the fall hunting seasons,
some 1,400 highway deer kills an-
nually and other DNR enforce-
ment functions.
Plan to close DNR office
in St, Paul is criticized
By ~ob Schranck I - :~-o_
Staff Writer
A legislative order made during the
waning hours of last year's session --
to close the Metro Region headquar-
ters of the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) --came
under fire this week from the Minne-
sota Sportfishing Congress.
The organized opposition to the clos-
ing of the office at 1200.Warner Rd.,
St. Paul, came just as the DNR pre-
pared to submit a study ordered by
the legislative conference commit-
tee, a pla~ to close as many as two
more regional offices.
'"Since there was no date certain
when the Metro office had to be
closed," DNR Commissioner Joe Al-
exander said Wednesday, "we have
kept it open while completing our
study that goes all the way from
closing that one to closing three. This
Study will be distributed in the Legis-
lature T. hursday (today).
"We felt we had some time to get our
act together. We don't doubt the or-
der to close it (Metro office) before
(July 1), but we do want the Legisla-
ture to understand what closing this
office will mean in service to the
public and comparative costs to
maintain the service elsewhere.
"We haven't cost anybody any mon-
ey by not closing it before this."
· The issue arose when it was decided
that the DNR had to trim $450,000
from its 1983-1985 budget.
"It costs $,150,000 annually to run
that region, including the hatchery,"
Alexander said. "I don't think we
could get rid of the real estate. I
don't believe anyone has looked at
what would happen if we closed it."
Ti~e Metro office in St. Paul opened
in',19'~5. All DNR functions -- en-
forcement, fisheries, forestry, parks
argl recreation, waters, wildlife and
find services -- are handled from
si~, regional of flees. The others are
in;Grand Rapids, Bemidji, Brainerd,
N~w Uim and Rochester.
Frank Schneider Jr., president of the
sportfishing congress, said his group
will urge the Legislature "to rescind
this short-sighted decision."
would deprive 'hundreds of thou-
sands of sportsmen in the seven-
county area of vital DNR services
and effectiv.ely cancel many innova-
tive fish management programs now
being conducted by the Metro of-
fice,'' he said.
Schneider noted that 40 percent of
the state's 1.5 million fishermen live
in the metro area, which has about
300 fishing lakes in addition to por-
tions of the Mississippi, Minnesota
'and St. Croix rivers.
"It's really a valuable tool for us,"
Alexander said. "There's no way the
central office could handle what a
regional office does in the same lev-
el of service. We could not absorb
the activities of the office and an-
swer the complaints the way they
are done through the Metro office.
And there is a hatchery and repair
shop there, so closing the office
wouldn't shut down the facility.
"The onlY/ reason we're having any
trouble is that it's in St. Paul. The
feeling is: 'Why can't you do it in the
Centennial Building' (central of-
fice)?'
"The Metro office was organized be-
cause of a definite need; we were
getting so many of these field-type
things in and didn't have the person-
nel in the office to handle them.
Those pressures on the resources are
greater now than they were in '75."
Schneider said the Metro office was
"in the forefront of developing inno-
vative fish management programs,
including maskle, walleye and pan-
fish stocking and hybrid breeding;
public access purchases and mainte-
nance; development of parking facil-
ities and children's fishing ponds,
and aeration of winter-threatened
shallow lakes.'
He said closing the Metro office and
relocating its services in Rochester
could cost up to $800.000. but doubt-
ed that many of the 10,000 yearly
inquiries would be made with Iong-
dis~nce calls.
"The raw savings of closing the Met-
ro office would be about $150,000
per year," Alexander said. "Out we
don't know what relocation expenses
will be, with bumps and unemploy-
ment.
"Elimination of the Metro office
317
J/?
FEBHUARY EV~TS
Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs
909 Social Sciences
267 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 5~455
Contact Person:
Jayns Marecek
Special Programs Adminiatrator
(612) 576-9781
February' 2 ~:00-5:00 p.m.
February 3 12:15
5:30-5:00 p.m.
February 4 7:30 p.m.
February 6 12:OO noon
February 7
February 8
February 9
February 10
February 11
February 15
February 14
February 16
February 17
12:~0 p.m.
11:00 a.m.
6:00 l~m.
8:50-9:30 p.m.
11:~0 a.m. -
1:30 p.m.
7:30-9:30 p.m.
3:30-5:00 p.m.
4:00-9:00 p.m.
7:50 p.m.
12:00 noon
12: IK) p.m.
11:00 a.m.
9:00-11:00 a.m.
4:00-6:00 l~m.
3:30-5:00 l~m.
4:00-9:00 p.m.
Facult[ Meetin$. Conference Room, 909 Social Sciences.
Calvin Bradford and Mike Temali will present the
findings on the "Politics of Public Private Partnership:
The Case of City Venture Corporation' at West Bamk Union
Auditorium (basement of Willey Hall, east and~ Free
and open to the public.
Minnesota Development PolicT~ork~o~ 230 Classroom
Office ~uilding, St. Paul Campus. Open, no cost. Con-
tact: Margi Dewar, 373-4621.
Weekend. Editor: Ted Koldsrie. KTCA TV.
Minnesota Issues. Host: Arthur Naftalin. k'TCA
w'~Israeli Peace. Movement: Does it Offer a Realistic
Alternative?' Cuesta: Meir Pa'il. Israeli educator and
former member of Knesaet; Cad Ben-Ari, Israeli Twin.-
Weekend. Repeat. KTCA TV. ~';~"
Minnesota Iasue8. Repeat. (also KUOM A~-, :00 p;m.)
Hum~hre~ Inatitute Women's Caucus. Potluck Dinner.
Cueot~
Special -"~ine~h,~ut~¥e Director of
Minneapolis Indian Health Board Clinic. Rm. ~09,
Coffman Union. Sig~ up in Student Lounge. Contact:
Ellis Webster, 721-6116.
Calvin Bradford and Mike Temalai will present the first
of a series of community workshops for organizing and
action: Doin6 Research at the Communit7 Level: "Quick
and Dirty--But~o--~-~"--.2--~l~ Conference Room. Contact:
Calvin Bradford or ~arlene ~ertken, 376-9798.
Modernization Seminar. Cuest: AleJendro Rottini.
"~ripla Collia[-6~ in Argentina.' Campus Club, Dale
Shepard Room. Contact: Reba Carruth, 376-98~.
Calvin Bradford will participate in a panel discussion
hosted by the Twin Cities ~ray Panther~ "Rousing: Band
Aids or Cures?.' Hudson House, ]2~ First Avenue South.
Free and open to the public.
Minnesota Development Policy ~ 230 Claanrooe
Office Building, St. Paul Campus. Open, no cost.
Contact: ~argi Dewar, 373-4621.
Elected Officials Seminar. 'Leadership: Changes, Trends
and Dira~Discussants: Bob Terry, Dave Jennings,
Harry SieBen, Rom Sieloff and Roger Moe. 2610 Living
Room. Contact: Sharon Anderson, 376-985~.
Weekend. Editor: Ted Kolderie. KTCA TV.
Minnesota Issues. Host: Arthur Naftalin. KTCA TV.
~-~e We Heading ~or Moral Decadence?# ~uest: Nat
Hentoff, author and social critic, columnist for the
Village Voice.
Weekend. Repeat. KTCA TV.
St, Yalentine'aDay
Minnesota Issues. Repeat (also k'UOM A~-I:O0 p.m.)
Reflective Leadership P.ro~ram Consultation Series. Raul
Hanglapus, former Philippine official, now in self-exile,
will discuss his views of how democratic countries should
respond to those ruled by martial law. Manglapua is presi-
dent of the Movement for a Free Philippines. 2610 Living
Room. (Advance reservations required. Cost, $5, includes
breakfast.) Contact: Betty Radcliffe, 376-9801.
Leadershi~ ~eminar Alumni Catherin6. "Information aa a
Resource discussion with Don Geesaman.
Minnesota Development Polic~ ¥orkeho~ 250 Classroom
~uilding, ~t. P~ul Campus. Open, no cost. Con-
tact: Margi Dewar, 575-4621.
Elected Officials Seminar. #Leadership: Changes, Trends
and Dire~ Discussants: Bob Terry, Dave
Jennings, Harry Sieben, Rom Sieloff and Roger Mos. 26~O
Living Room. Contact: Sharon Anderson,
February 17 5:00-6:30 p.m.
(cont.)
February 18 7:50 p.m.
February 19 9:00-11:50 a.m. &
1:50-4:OO
February 20 12:00 noon
February 21
February 22
February
February
February 24
12:30 p.m.
11:00 a.mo
11:3/) a.m. -
1:~0 p.m.
2:00-5:00 p.m.
8:30 a.m -
5:30 p.m.. .
2:30-5:00 p.m.
5:00
February 25 7:45 a.m.
February
?:~0 p.m.
12:00 noon
12:30 p.m.
February 28 11:00 a.m.
8:00 p.m.
Even~upcomin~ ~n earl~March:
March 1 11:20 a.m. -
2:00 p.m.
March 2
12:00 noon -
1:30 p.m.
March 5 12:15 p.m.
March 5 3:00 p.m~
MN ASP~ 'Job Training and Retraining: Are We Getting
the Job Done?' Metro Council Chambers, 3~)O Metro Square
Building, 7th and Robert Streets, St. Paul. Open to the ·
Public. No reservations or fee. Contact: Roger Israel
(61z) zgi-6~oz.
Weekend. Editor: Ted Xolderie. ETCA TV.
"Symposium on Polish $oliaarity." Health Sciences Unit
A. Contact Jayne Mare(ak, 376-9704. (Humphrey Institute
is a co-sponsor.)
Minnesota Issues. Host: Arthur Haftalin. XTCA TV.
"The Governor and His Budget." Guest: Governor Rudy
Perpich. (This will ~bstitute for the program "Can
Minnesota Business Guide the State's Future" with E.
Peter Gillette and Harold Chucker.)
Weekend. Repeat. KTCA TV.
~niversit[ Holiday. Presidents' Day.
Minnesota Issues. Repeat. (Also EUOH A~-i:OO p.m.) -
Modernization Seminar. Guest~ Jag Santos Lucaa.
'Triple Collision in Portugal.' Campus Club, Dale
Shepard Room. Contact: Reba Carruth, 3/6-9855.
Faculty Mee{ln~[' Conference Room, 9~9 S;cial Sciences.
Calvin Bradford and Mike Temali will'present the second
in the aeries of community vorkahope for organiaing and
action: "Communities and Tax Policies. 2610 Conference
Room. Contact: Calvin Rradford or Marlane Certken,
376-979~.
Minnesota Development Policy~ 230 Classroom
Office Building, St. Paul Campus. Open, no cost.
Contact: ~argi Dewar, 373-4621.
Alumni ~orum. Presentor: John Brandi. "Realth Care
Cost Containment: Ro~ to Balance the Budget and Remain
Humane. 2610 Living Room. Contact: Fram Sontag, 376-
9130.
Rumphre~ Institute_Women's Caucu~ Valli West ' '
Restaurant. Special Guest: Mary~eRochea, Comptroller-
Treasurer, City of Minneapolis. Sign up in Student
Lounge. Contact Ellis Webster, 721-6116,
Weekend. Ed~tor~ Ted Kolderie. ETCA TV.
Minnesota Issues. Host: Arthur' Naftalin.
~ Can We Do With Our Hazardous Waste?' Guests:
Robert ~ Dunn, Chairman, Hinnesota Waste Management
Board, and Representative Dee Long of Minneapolis, Vice
Chairperson, ~egislative Commission on Waste Mnnagenen~.
Weekend. Repeat. XTCA TV.
Minnesota Issues. Repeat. (also E'USM AM-I:OO p.m.)
M*AeS*H. WCCO TV, Channel 4~ Final Episode ....
Reflective Leadership Consultation Series. Resource
Person: Prof. Vern Ruttan (Agriculture and Applied
Engineering). 'World Hunger: What Institutions Need to
be Built, and What Should be America's Role?'
Living Room. Contact: Sharon Anderson,
Carlson Lecture Series. Jeanne Xirkpatrick, U.S.
Ambassador to the United Nations. Coffman Memorial
Union. Free and Open to the Public. Contact: Jayne
Marecek, ~76-9784.
Public Lecture. Prof. Martin Sherwin, diplomatic
historian ffrom Tufts University. '~he Legacy of
Riroohima: From Roosevelt to Reagan.' West Bank Union
Program Hall Auditorium (east end, lover level, Willey
Hall).
Public Lecture. Prof. Hartin Sherwin, diplomatic
historian from Tufts University. 'The Legacy of
Hiroshima: From Roosevelt to Reagan." Jean D'Arc
Auditorium, College of St. Catherine. Contact: Elaine
Tyler Hay, Program in American Studies, 376-~704.
(Humphrey Institute is a co-sponsor of these two
lectures.)
353 Senate Office Buildin9
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-3244
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FEB. 2, 1983
Durenberger
Suite 550 East
Butler Square Buildin§
100 N. Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55403
(612) 725-6111
CONTACT: KAREN DOYNE
(202) 2~4-7837
NEW REVENUE SHARING PLAN
WOULD RESTORE STATE FUNDING
(Washington) -- State governments would receive General Revenue
Sharing (GRS) funds for the first time in four years, under revisions
in the GRS program proposed today by Senator Dave Durenberger (R-Minn.).
Speaking ~o a meeting of the Municipal Finance Officers Association
in Washington, Durenberger said the proposal answers the need "to build
on the GRS program; to use General Revenue Sharing as a creative vehicle
for federalism reforms that have been long sought and recommended by
officials from all levels of government."
Durenberger said he would introduce the revised 5-year GRS
reauthorization in mid-February. The program's current authorization
runs out on Sept. ~.0, 1983.
"I think we made a major error when we dropped the states (from
the GRS program) in 1980," Durenbe~ger said. "The Congress had a
deficit and the states had a surplus, so we booted them out. Now we
are in a scramble looking for new programs to get money back out to
the states. As Senator Dole said recently, 'The best jobs program I
know of is General Revenue Sharing.'"
Under Durenberger's plan, states initially would receive $6 billion
per year. Like local government recipients, the states could use the
funding at their own discretion to answer their own particular needs.
The state funds would be distributed through a formula based
upon a state's fiscal capacity--its ability to raise its own revenues
to finance social services, maintain infrastructure, and meet the other
needs of its citizens. There are great disparities in this capacity
among the states, Durenberger said, fueled partly by the ability of
energy-rich states to export their tax burden to other states through
resource severance taxes. The allocation of the state GRS funding
would be aimed at easing such disparities.
Local governments initially would receive $5.5 billion per year
from the GRS program, $900 million above the current funding level.
The bill also would make what Durenberger termed "pratical adjustments"
in the mathematical formula used to allocate the local funds, in order
to achieve more equity. Durenberger said the changes "assure that
cities of equal size and need will be treated equally" and "that more
of the funds will go to local governments with greater need." However,
he added, "No government will get less funds under this legislation
than it would receive if the current program were simply reauthorized."
The bill would create a General Revenue Sharing Trust Fund from
which to draw GRS funding. It would consist of a permanently ear-
marked, fixed percentage of Federal income tax collections. Currently,
the program relies upon short-term authorizations and appropriations
from general revenues.
To help fill the trust fund, Durenberger's proposal would limit
the deductibility of state and local taxes frem the federal income
tax. For each taxpayer, the amount paid in state income tax, sales
tax and property tax would be "pooled" into one figure; only the amount
exceeding 1 percent of the taxpayer's adjusted gross income would be
deductible from federal income tax.
Durenberger said the "tax pooling" approach would sufficiently
broaden the tax base, while not affecting the ability of state and
local governments to raise revenues.
-30-
CITY of' MOUND
MEMO
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
February 11, 1983
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
RE: PUBLIC ACCESS SITE
The Lake Minnetonka Task Force has come up with a preliminary list of
three public access sites in the City of Mound.
They would like to have some feedback from the City as it relates to
our position on these.
Enclosed are maps of the three proposed sites. I have not placed this
item. formally, on the Agenda since it came in late, but if you want
to discuss them, I am sure the Task Force would be happy to receive
some direction from us.
JE:fc
enc.
:OF ~
¢OUND
trot
227~
I
1¢0~. ·
Port of Lot
¢o voo
HARR
see record
Wo~! sectlofl
are' thefoeffc~
.. dfo[|nI pu
T
,Il
15
Core, ongle s ore/o ~:"
/he lints - est. by ody.
pos ond div. line b~n.
6o~'l Lots
: .~
~ SHIR
19 °
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJ:
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
F. Mixa
February 11, 1983
Ta~k Force Interim~Report to
Legislative Committee February 9, 1983
Attached is the Task Force interim report to the
House subcommittee on DNR activities February 9,
1983.
Summary of Recommendations February 9, 1983
1. Existing boat accesses should be improved by adding make-ready docks,
redesigning and upgradin§ on-site parking, improving site appearance,
improving signing and providing and protecting off-site parking
opportunities.
a. Improvement of two sites are recommended: °
North Arm (Zone 1), Spring Park (Zone 4).
b. Agreements guaranteeing street parking are needed between the Lake
Minnetonka Conservation District and the appropriate municipalities at
these sites and possibly others
2. New boat access sites to the lake~are needed. The following areas are
recommended:'
a. A new boat access site is needed in Gideons Bay (Zone 3). The Task
Force has located three sites and is confident that one can be
developed (see map).
b. More access is needed in Zone $. The Task Force has recommended two
sites and is confident one or both sites can be developed (see map).
3. Expansion of some present access sites is desirable.
recommended for expansion:
a. Williams Street (Halstad's Bay, Zone 5).
b. Greys Bay Causeway (Zone 2, see attached resolution).
Two sites are
4. Expansion of shore fishing opportunities is needed by securing parking and
developing fishing piers. One site has been recommended in Brown's Bay
(Zone 2).
5. Acquire and develop Big Island as a regional park.
park. the veteran's camp (see map).
Include in the new
6. Marinas currently provide access and services to lake users. We recommend
that LMCD code be charged to require all existing and future marinas to
provide more public service facilities.
0498E
Charge to lask Force
The charge to the task force'members is to prepare a report that addresses the
recreational use of Lake Minnetonka and adjacent public land, including but
not limited to the following topics:
1. Evaluation of present recreational management programs, including law
enforcement and maintenance, with recommendations for improvements to
those programs if needed.
2. Adequacy of existing public access to the lake, including a comprehensive
inventory of public and private commercial lake access facilities and
lake-oriented recreational facilities such as beaches and parks.
Recommendations for improvement to existing facilities and proposals for
additional facilities should be made if necessary.
3. Evaluation of recreational water surface use patterns on the lake,
including identification of surface use conflicts and recommendations for
resolving those conflicts.
A draft report should be completed by mid-April.
~ C
rn ~
Lake Minnetonka Task Force
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING
CONCEPT DESIGN PLANS FOR
IMPROVEMENT TO THE GRAYS
BAY CAUSEWAY AREA
WHEREAS, The Lake Minnetonka Task Force was formed at the request of the
Governor to, among other charges, report on the adequacy of existing public
access to the Lake and to make recommendations for improvements to existing
~acilities; and
WHEREAS, The Lake Minnetonka Task Force is addressing those specific charges;
and
. ..WHEREAS, The Lake Minnetonka Task Force has agreed that there is a recognized
need for improved boat access sites on Lake Minnetonka; and
WHEREAS, The Grays Bay Causeway site has long served as a heavily used boat
access site on Lake Minnetonka even though it is hazardous, environmentally
unsound, and aesthetically unpleasing; and
WHEREAS, There have been numerous proposals over the last 15 years to improve
the area which have not proceeded due to lack of funding and unresolved
differences between local cities and various agencies; and
WHEREAS, The Lake is a resource that must be approached from a regional
persPective; and
WHEREAS, There is a need to provide increased accommodation of those
individuals who want to enjoy the Lake by swimmin§ on its b:ach~s and f~shing
on its shores; and
WHEREAS, Highway lO1 across the causeway is one of only a few areas where a
significant public road is located immediately adjacent to the Lake providing
aesthetic enjoyment of the Lake by vehicular traffic; and
~HEREAS, While placement of fill in the Lake is generally prohibited,
expanding the access site area by suitable and environmentally acceptable
means will have overall public benefit; and
WHEREAS, Highway lO1 and the associated causeway site are scheduled for
improvement in the near future by the Minnesota Department of Transportation;
and
WHEREAS, Concept design plans have been created which generally address and
include the desired features; and
WHEREAS, Early approval of the ..concept design plans is required by the
Minnesota Department of Transportation for the project to proceed with the
desired features;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED By the members of the Lake Minnetonka Task
Force that:
~mprovement and expansion of the Causeway access site is necessary and
~esirable and should be designed to meet the need of a re§ional
constituency.
2. Development and improvement of the Causeway site should provide for boat
launching facilities and related parking on the Grays Bay side of the
Causeway, preserving and enhancing the Wayzata Bay side for aesthetic and
general recreational use of the Lake; and
3. The City of Wayzata, the City of Minnetonka, the Department of Natural
Resources, the Hennepin County Park Reserve District~ the Lake Minnetonka
Conservation District, the Minnehaha Watershed District the Metropolitan
Parks and Open Space Commission and other needed agencies are urged to
expeditiously approve a concept design plan, incor'porating the
recommendations identified in this Resolution.
Adopted by the Public Access Committee of the Lake Minnetonka Task Force
this 8 day of February, 1983.
Chai rman
Staff Coordinator
..S. 1222
1' Prat of Los Z5
I
I .
I
I
(wEST
Z
, i
~mO?!N I1~ . .agum0
STATE OF
D PARTAAENT OF
NATURAL
Metro Region Headquarters, 1200 Warner Rc~.-.~, St. Paul,
296-8949
March 30, 1982
RESOURCES
~tinnesota 55106
FIL,E
Roy O' Donnell
3207 Charles Iane
~und, MN 55364
Dear t.~r. O ' Donne~ 1:
We %.;ish to thank you for considering selling your _T~]ce ~ZinnetoP2<a
property to the Depal~n~ent of Nab:_ral Resources. Ro~mver, at
this time, the Department will not pursue a purchase of the
property. Currently the emphasis of the access progr~n is to
develop accesses J/] areas of the lake which have no accesses
within a reasonable distance. Y~,_~ property is on a bay within
close proximity to existing accesses in Orono and Spring Park.
To better service the public's access needs to Lake b~innetonka,
a task force made up of persons frcm a variety of disciplines
an~ various units of government is in the process of being
formc<t. This task force will investigate and analyze the
Minn.:tonka access situation and ~.~ke reco~,w~ndati~s for
imp?=~c.~.~t. Should the task force decide to ~rsue
affJditional access to the nort/]west area of ~ ~inneto.~a, I 'm
confi¢]ent yuur property, if still available, %~uld ba
c~3nsidered due to .its high po'b~ntial for an access development.
If you are interested in the pro~.'ess and re~a~endations of
the task fOrce, feel free to contact F.~ later this year.
~l~¥'~.nJc you' again for offering the property to the Depar~_nt
of Na~u~l Resources.
Respectfully,
POrj~o
Paul Olson