The URL can be used to link to this page

83-10-18MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, Ootober 18, 1983 CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota A_GENDA 1. Approve Minutes of O~tober 4, 1983, Regular Meeting PUBLIC~.ARING - On Proposed Amendment to the General provisions of_~_Q~Ordinance ~422 to Establish a Planned Commercial/Industrial Development Area. Be PUBLIC HEARING - On Proposed Amendment of the Z_~ MaD i C~ Use P__e~Approval for the Construction of Mini-Storage Facilities. Case ~83-242 - Fritz Widmer, Part of Lot 26, Lafayette Park, PID #13-117-24 22 0016 ~UBLIC HEARING - On Issuance of "On and Off Sale Beer Licenses" - Roger D. Rage and Gall J. Rager DBA Three Points Tavern, 5098 Three Points Blvd. ¸7. On Street Parking Variances (to be handed out at meeting). Appointment of Linda Panetta to the Mound Park Commission to fill vacancy created by Phyllis Jessen's appointment to the City Council. Application for Bingo Permit - Mound Fire Dept. Auxiliary PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS (6-9) 10. Case ~83-256 - Robert L. Olson, 4424 Denbigh Road, Lot 91, Phelps Island Park 1st Addition ~eguest ~Varia~c¢ to Recognize E_~Noncon- forming_ Setback i Lot Case #83-255- Adrian Yackley, 5109 Drummond Road, Lots 3 & 4, Block 14, Whipple Request - 4 Foot Rear Yard~ PUBLIC HEARING - Case #83-25~ Ronald T. Burns - 3245 Dexter Lane - Lots 13 & 14, Block 20, Devon Reques~ ~~ to Vacate the North Z 1/~ Feet oflk~[%E~.Q~Windsor Road Page 2409-2417 Page 2418-2425 Page 2426-2442 Page 2443 Page 2444-2449 Page 2450-2456 Page 2457-2464 Page 2407 11. Case #83-252 - Douglas Thelen, 3103 Devon Lane - Lots 1,2,3,4 & 7, Block ~, Arden ~ Request = 12.4 foot ~ ]6.35 Foot Front Yard 12. Comments & Suggestions from Citizen Present (please limit to 5 minutes) 13. Sketch Plan Review of a Housing Proposal Submitted by Kraus-Anderson 14. Refund Request - Jon Scherven - For Withdrawn Alley Vacation 15. Request to Set Public Hearing Date to Consider Reallocating $1,250 of CDBG Funds for the Construction of a Handicapped Access Ramp at the Pond Arena - Suggested Date ~ November 1, ]983 16. Request to Reconvey Tax Forfeit Lots for Private Sale - a. Lot 21, Block 12, Pembroke b. Lot 5, Block 9, Woodland Point 17. Proposed Electric Load Studyon City Water Pumps - Triangle Engineering, Inc. 18. Set Date for Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Zoning Changes Amending Restaurant Classifications, Applicable to B-l, B-2 and B-3 Zoning Districts Suggested Date ~ November 15, 1983 19. Update on Lagoon P~rk Vacation & Land Trade Situation' Direction from Council Desired 20. Payment of Bills 21. INFORMATION/M ISC~L LANEOUS A. Letter from A.M.M. re PCA & Lost Lake B. Metro Council Bulletin - September 23, 1983 C. Recommendation for Dealing with Adverse Impacts of Solid Waste Facilities D. Copies of LMCD Ordinance Changes 1. De-Icing Equipment 2. Fees for Special Events E. Public Services Redesign Project Page 2465-2471 Page 2472-2478 Page 2479-2480 Page 2481 Page 2482-2483 Page 2484-2485 Page 2486-2491 Page 2492-2494 Page 2495-2507 Page 2508 Page 2509-2510 Page 2511-2512 Page 2513 Page 2514 Page 2515 Page 2516-2525 Page 2408 2 F. LMCD.- Changes in Special Density Permits ~Be 25D6-DS~5 G. Westonka Chamber of Commerce "Chamber Waves Page 2536-2537 H. American Legion Post #398 G~mbling Report Page 2538 I. Hennepin County Transportation Program Bulletin Page 2539-2540 J. State Water Resources Board Announcement Page 2541 K. Housing R~habilitation Grant Program Report Page 2542-2543 L. Park Commission Minutes - September 8, 1983 Page 2544-2545 October ~, 1983 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY ~OUN~IL 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 5341 Maywood Road in said City on October 4, 1983, at 7:30 P.M. Those present were: Mayor Robert Polston, Councilmembers Pinky Charon, Phyllis Jessen, Gary Paulsen and Russ Peterson. Also present were: City Manager Jun Elam, qity Attorney Curt Pearson, City Clerk Fran Clarkand the following interested citizens: Larry Connolly, Mr. & Mrs. Willard, Hillier, Linda Johnson, Bernie Benz. The Mayo~ opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. MINUTES The Minutes from the September 27, ~983, Regular Meeting were presented for consideration. Paulsen moved and Charon seconded a motion to approve the Minutes of the September 27, 1983, Regular Meeting as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS -.SPECIAL. ASSESSMENTS CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT PARKING MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT The City Manager explained that the total assessment for the Central Business District Parking Maintenance for 1982-83 is $22,586.20. The Mayor opened the public hearing. WILLARD HILLIER - owner of the Ben Franklin stated that he is again asking for credit for the 10 parking spaces next to his store because he does all the snow plowing · . and maintenence and people use that lot for parking and shopping in the other stores. The City Manager explained that he would have to get the railroad to agree to sublease this lot to the City before the City can take the lot over and'incorporate it into the CBD. He suggested that Mr. Hillier get in touch with Peter Johnson because he just worked this lease arrangement out with the railroad. ~ Mr. Hillier then questioned the increase in the total assessment. City Manager explained that all the snow removal charges and maintenance on the parking lots is included in this amount. The The City Manager informed the Council that he has received an letter objecting to the proposed assessment of $906.03 on PID #13-117- 24 33 027. The Mayor closed the public hearing. October 4, 1983 Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~83-178 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,533.11 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AND SPREAD OVER 1 YEAR AT 8% - LEVY #9145 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. DELINQUENT. WATER AND .SEWER BILLS - ASSESSMENTS The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked for any comments or objections to the proposed assessments. The City Manager stated that one letter of objection has been received from the owner of property identified as PI/) #23-117-24 42 0063, Jeff Erickson. He purchased a home with a delinquent utility bill anld evidently did not have a proper search done before to uncover this bill. The City policy has been that the bills stay with the property. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~83-179 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE DELINQUENT UTILITY ASSESS- MENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,214.40 TO BE CERTI- FIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR AND SPREAD OVER 1 YEAR AT 8% - LEVY #9146 The voted was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MISCELLanEOUS ASSESSMENTS (UNPAID TREE ,R~OVAL & G,~RBAGE REMOVAL CHARGES) TREE REMOVAL The Mayor opened the public hearing on the un~aid tree removal charges and asked for any eo~nents of objections from the people present. There were none. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~83-180 RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE UNPAID TREE REMOVAL ASSESSMENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $390.00 TO BE CERTIFIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR & SPREAD OVER 5 YEARS AT 8% INTEREST - LEVY #9157 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. GARBAGE REMOVAL The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked for any comments or objections from the people in attendance. There were none. The Mayor closed the public hearing. October' ~, 1983 Peterson moved an~ Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #83-181 RESOLUTION ADOPTING UNFAID GARBAGE REMOVAL ASSESS- MENT ROLL IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,071.00 TO BE CERTI- FIED TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR & SPREAD OVER 1 YEAR AT 8% INTEREST - LEVY ~91~4 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CQMMENT$ & SUGGESTIONS FRoM CITIZENS PRESENT The Mayor stated that two people have indicated they would like to address the Council at this time. - LINDA JOHNSON - 1709 Canary Lane - stated that she is objecting to a ticket that was issued to a friend for his truck being parking in front of their home for a weekend when they all went camping and then while they were still away having the truck towed away. The police never even trying to contact the owner who was the father of the friend. The City Attorney explained that when a vehicle is parked illegally the Police Department has the right to ticket and tow the-vehicle away without any notification. The City Manager explained that the vehicle was ticketed because it was parked for a period in excess of 24 consecutive hours. The police officer who issued the ticket did so after chalking the tires to determine if the Yehicle was moved and it was not. This whole incident ocurred because of a complaint from a neighbor about the vehicle parking partially on his property and partially in the City street. The vehicle was towed because it was still there two days after the original ticket was written and was impounded as an abandoned vehicle. The City Manager stated this is a problem that the courts will have to deal with not the City Council. Mrs. johnson then complained that she cannot obtain a "On Street Parking Variance" this year according to the Public Works Superintendent. She stated she only has room for one car in her driveway, her garage is not adequate for leave a'ear in and there- fore she should be allowed a variance. The Mayor explained that variances were granted in the past to allow people time to solve their parking problems by making other arrange- ments, but that she has had the time to solve this problem and we cannot issue another for this year. The City Manager stated that the City has offered to move a tree that it pIanted during the street project in order to allow her an area to park another vehicle· The City Manager explained that the reason for the parking restrictions is to allow snow plows, emergency vehicles, etc. access. October 4, 1983 Mr. Bernie Benz, Bluffs Lane, was also present to complain that he will not be issued an "On Street Parking Variance" this year. He stated that because his driveway goes down to his garage he is forced to park one car at the top of the driveway and if he is not allowed to park the other car on the-edge of the street he cannot get out of his driveway so both cars can be used for traveling to work by he and his wife. He stated he has had a permit for 3 years previously and could not understand why another will not be issued. He objected to 3 other permits being granted and his was not. The Council explained that these permits were only allowed so that alternative arrangements could be made in the future and being that he has already had 3 years to correct his problem they felt that was sufficient time. Mr. Benz also complained that he was threatened over the phone by Geno Hoff stating that Mr. Hoff said he would punch him in 'the nose. 'The Council.stated that they would not deal with this problem, that it is and administrative problem to be handled by the City Manager. Mr. Benz stated that he still felt he should be allowed a variance. The City Attorney pointed out to the Council that they should be the body authorizing issuance or denial'of these parking variances according to the ordinance. The City Council then instructed the CitY Manager to have any parking variance requests put on an Agenda for a future meeting. ASSESSMENTS BY WA.!VER TO BE LEVIE~ Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #83-182 RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESS- MENTSUPON WAIVER OF~FORMALITIES: DIRECTING' PRE- PARATION OF ABSTRACT; & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR - LEVY #9147 - $279.30 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Charon moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: Fr~ESOLUTION ~83-183 RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESS- MENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES: DIRECTING PRE- PARATION OF ABSTRACT; & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTRY AUDITOR - LEVY #9148 - $350.40 The voted was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Peterson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #83-184 RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESS- MENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES: DIRECTING PRE- October 4, 1983 TH5 COUNTY AUDITOR - LEVY 9149 - $522.64 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Jessen moved and Charon seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #83-185 RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESS- MENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES: DIRECTING PRE- PARATION OF ABSTRACT; & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR - LEVY ~9150 - $77.92 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Polston moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION'#S3-186 RESOLUTION CERTIFYING ASSESSMENTTO THE COUNTY AUDITOR FOR REMOVAL OF A.HAZARDOUS DWELLING ON LOTS 14, 15, 16, & 17, BLOCK 15, WHIPPLE - PID 25-117-2412 0118 IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,615.00 - LEVY #9151 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Paulsen moved and Charon seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #83-187 RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESS- MENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES: DIRECTING PRE- PARATION OF ABSTRACT; & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR - LEVY #'S 9153 & 9154 - EACH IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,828.15 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Jessen moved and Pe~erson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #83-188 RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESS- MENTS UPON WA_TVER OF FORMALITIES: DIRECTING PRE- PARATION OF ABSTRACT; & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR - LEVY #9155 - $1,756.35 The vote was unanimously.in favor. Motion carried. Peterson moved and Polston seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #83-189 RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESS- MENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES: DIRECTING PRE- PARATION OF ABSTRACT; & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR - LEVY #9156 - $4,421.13 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Charon moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: October 4, 1983 RESOLUTION ~83-190 RESOLUTION ADOPTING UNPAID TREE REMOVAL ASSESSMENT TOLL UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES: DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT; & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE.COUNTY AUDITOR - LEVY #9157 - $295.00 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS TO CITY WATER ORDINANCE The City Manager suggested that this be postp~oned to a later meeting. PUBLIC HEARING; PROPOSED USE OF REVENUE SHARING FUNDS The City Manager explained that this Public Hearing is to solicit input from citizens on the use of Revenue Sharing Funds. The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked for ideas or suggestions if rom 'the citizens present on the use of Revenue Sharing Funds. There were none from the publfc. The Mayor closed the Public Hearing. Councilmember Jessen suggested that since Hennepin County is no longer going to do a survey of the wetlands because of budget restrictions, that the City consider using some of its Revenue Sharing Funds to do the survey so that the wetlands are more defined. She would like to see the City get a cost estimate for the survey. The City Manager took note of this. The City Manager also Suggested that $10,000 be used to upgrade and improYe The Depot. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING: THREE POINTS TAVERN ,. 3,2 BEER LICENSE Peter~on moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to set October 118, 1983, at 7:30 P.M. for a public hearing on a 3.2 Beer License for the Three Points Tavern. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. GARDEN. LEASE - LEO & BEVERLY WALLI$ The City Manager explained that the Wallis' had a garden lease last year on lots that are tax forfeit and the City is unable to sell because they abut the lake. It is at the end of Canary Lane. He suggested leasing the lots for a 5 year period of time. The Council asked if the City Manager would cheek and see is Mrs. Johnson would like to park her extra vehicle on one of these lots in the winter. Jessen moved and Paulsen seconded a motion authorizing the renewal of the lease with Leo & Beverly Wallis for a garden spot on Lots 1, 2, 3, & 22, Block 5, Dreamwood for 5 years as long as they continue to live at 1668 Canary Lane. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PAYMEN]~_ OF BILLS Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to approve the bills as presented on the pre-list, in the amount of $53,708.71, when funds are October 4 ~ 1983 PARATION OF ABSTRACT; & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE ODUR/Y AUDITOR - LE~ ~9149 - The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Jessen moved and Charon seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~;83-185 RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESS- MENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES: DIRECTING PRE- PARATION OF ABSTRACT; & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR - LEVY ~9150 - $77.92 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Polston moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~#83-186 RESOLUTION CERTIFYING ASSESSMENT TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR FOR REMOVAL OF A. HAZARDOUS DWELLING ON LOTS 14, 15,' 16, & 17, BLOCK 15, WHIPPLE - PID 25-117-2412 0118 IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,615.00 - LEVY #9151 'The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Paulsen moved and Charon seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #83-187 RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPFLEMENTAL ASSESS- MENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES: DIRECTING PRE- PARATION OF ABSTRACT; & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR - LEVY #'S 9153 & 9154 - EACH IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,828.15 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Jessen moved and Pe.terson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #83-188 RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESS- MENTS UPON WA/VER OF FORMALITIES: DIRECTING PRE- PARATION OF ABSTRACT; & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR- LEVY #9155- $1,756.35 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Peterson moved and Polston seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #83-189 RESOLUTION LEVYING DEFERRED & SUPPLEMENTAL ASSESS- MENTS UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES: DIRECTING PRE- PARATION OF ABSTRACT; & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR - LEVY #9156 - $4,421.13 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion Carried. Charon moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: October 4, 1983 RESOLUTION ~83-190 RESOLUTION ADOFTING UNPAID TREE REMOVAL ASSESSMENT TOLL UPON WAIVER OF FORMALITIES: DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ABSTRACT; & DIRECTING CERTIFICATION TO THE.COUNTY AUDITOR - LEVY #9157 - $295.00 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS TO CITY WATER ORDINANCE The City Manager suggested that this be post~oned to a later meeting. PUBLIC HEARING; PROPOSED USE O~ .REVENUE SHARING FUNDS The City Manager explained that this Public Hearing is to solicit input from citizens on the use of Revenue Sharing Funds. The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked for ideas or suggestionslfrom 'the citizens present on the use of Revenue Sharing Funds. There were none from the publih. The Mayor closed the Public Hearing. Councilmember Jessen suggested that since Hennepin County is no longer going to do a survey of the wetlands because of budget restrictions, that the City consider using some of its Revenue Sharing Funds to do the survey so that the wetlands are more defined. She would like to see the City get a cost estimate for the survey. The City Manager took note of this. The City Manager also suggested that $10,000 be used to upgrade and improve The Depot. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING: THREE POINTS TAVERN - 3.2 BEER LICENSE Peter~on moved and Paulsen seconded a motion to set October .18, 1983, at 7:30 P.M. for a public hearing on a 3.2 Beer License for the Three Points Tavern. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. GARDEN LEASE - LEO & BEVERLY WALLIS The City Manager explained that the Wallis' had a garden lease last year on lots that are tax forfeit and the City is unable to sell because they abut the lake. It is at the end of Canary Lane. He suggested leasing the lots for a 5 year period of time. The Council asked if the City Manager would check and see is Mrs. Johnson would like to park her extra vehicle on one of these lots in the winter. Jessen moved and Paulsen seconded a motion authorizing the renewal of the lease with Leo & Beverly Wallis for a garden spot on Lots 1, 2, 3, & 22, Block 5, Dreamwood for 5 years as long as they continue to live at 1668 Canary Lane. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PAYMENT OF BILLS Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to approve the bills as presented on the pre-list, in the amount of $53,708.71, when funds are October ~, 1983 available. A. roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. SET DATE FOR. PUBLIC.HEARING - YACATI6N Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to set October 18, 1983, at 8:00 P.M. for a public hearing to consider the vacation of the NOrth 7 1/2 feet of Windsor Road abutting Lots 13 and 14, Block 20, Devon. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. BURNING OF LEAVES The City Manager stated that the City will probably be getting alot of complaints because we can not afford to fund a Fall Clean Up and people will are already calling asking what they can do with their leaves. He suggested issuing Burning Permits for the burning of leaves only. He has developed some guidelines and presented them to the Council along with a Permit Form for people who want to burn their leaves. Permit fee would be $2.00. The Council discussed the PCA rules and regulations. The City Manager stated that some of these have been integrated into the rules the City would be using. He further explained that people would only be allowed to do this for a short period of time this Fall to see it it works. Peterson moved and Jessen seconded a motion to approve the issuing of Burning Permit fbr leaves only for the Fall of 1983. The vote was unani- mously in favor. Motion carried. PAYmeNT REQUEST - WEBCO TANK CO Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded a motion to approve the payment request · of Webco Tank Co., in the amount of $37,042.11 for the 1983 Water System Improvements. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A Management APticles: 1. "Participative Management" from Issues & Observations by the Center for Creative Leadership. 2. "What Effective General Managers Really Do" from the Harvard Business Review. Be Thank you note from the American Legion Auxilliary for putting up the flags on Commerce Blvd. and a donation check for $50.00 for City flags. C. Article on Suburban Office Space. D. Springsted, Inc. newsletter for October, 1983. E. Article, "Better City Streets Within the Budget". West Hennepin Human Services letter regarding the Minnesota Energy Agency. 7 October 4, 1983 G. October calendar. H. List of the top ten taxpayers in Mound. I. Action Alert from the League of Minnesota Cities on General Revenue Sharing. The Peterson moved and Polston seconded a motion to adjourn at 9:50 P.M. vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Jon Elam, City Manager Fran Clark, Cify Clerk 8 BILLS ...... OCTOBER 4, 1983 American Flag Pole Acme Ta~ Co. Acro-Minnesota Holly Bostrom James Broucksou Daniel Duerr Dependable Services Jon Elam Feed-Rite Controls Fire Control Extinguisher Griggs, Cooper Henn Co. Treas. Eugene Hickok & Assbc Henn Co-op Seed Exchange Henn Co. Sheriffs Dept Jones Chemical Robert E. Johnson Johnson Bros. Liquor Darlyne Kotila Leonard Kopp' Long Lake Ford Tractor Mpls. Health Dept MacQueen Equip Mtka Portable Dredge Metro Fone Communications Metro Waste Control Old Peoria Co. Ed Phillips & Sons .Brad Roy Greg Skinner Smith Heating & Air · SheRherds Rental Rugs Timber Products Western Tree Service Water Products Widmer Bros. Bruce Wold Youngblood Lumber R.L. Youngdahl & Assoc Ziegler, Inc. 160.00' 156.80 Z45.00 3,000.00 18o.oo 53.00 30.13 111.29 48.15 3,796.59 768.75 77.00 79.89 9.00 158.40 46.2O 2,100.34 50.O0 200..00 52.58 38.00 88.99 1,400.00 23.60 26,126.47 1,648.81. 5,451.76 11.62 137.74 182.50 37.70 578.18 447.5o 21.37 '130.00 19.88" 138.36 5,723.oo 72.48 TOTAL BILLS 53,708.71 CITY OF MOUND Mcund, Minnesota NOTICE OF HEARING ON THE PROPOSED AMSINI/ZSI~T OF THE G~ERAL PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORIDINANCE, NO. 422, T~ ESTABLISH A PLANNED CCMMERCIAL/INDUSTR3_AL DEVELOPMENT AREA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, October %8 , 1983, at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, a hearing will be held on the Amendment of the General Provisions Section of the Mound Zonir~ Ordinance, 0rdinance No. 422, to establish a Planned Ca~mercial/Industrial Deveio~ment Area. The purpose of this .amendment is to provide a method by which parcels of land in the C~,u~rcial and/or Industrial Districts having unusual building characteristics due to subsoil conditions, topographic conditions, elevation of water table, unique environmental considerations, or because of the parcels unUsual shape or location in relationship to lakes, trees or other natural resourses requires more Unique and controlled platting and development techniques to protect ar~ prcmote the quality of life in the City. All person at said hearing will be given an opportunity, to be heard. Fra~ceh~--C. Clark, City Clerk Publish in the Laker October 4, 1983.- 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 Planning Co~t~ission and Staff Mark K°egler, City Planner ~ September 21, 1983 Zoning Amendment On August 29, 19~3, the Planning Ccr~nission approved the Widmer mini-storage request contingent upon the establishment of a new Planned Development Area for commercial and .industrial uses. Attached for your review is a copy of a proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance intended to accomplish this purpose. This amendment is similar to the language currently found in the section governin~ residential Planned Development Areas. 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55~41 612/553-1950 P~N~]G REt:OR3~ TO: City Council and Staff 'FRfM: Mark Kmeg. ler, City Planner D~TE: October 12, 1983 SUBJ: Proposed Ordinance Amendment and Conditional Use .Permit Approval APPLTCANT: Fritz Widmer CASE NO=. 83-242 I/]CATION: County Road 110 South of Minnetrista Border EXISTING ZONING: B-2 Attached, is a copy of a proposed ordinance establishing a planned development area provison to acccr~nodate mini-storage, warehouse facilities within the B-2 Zone. The preparation of this ordinance .was i .nstigated by a request from Mr. Widm~r to amend the B-2 ordinance to permit mini-storage facilities as conditional uses in B-2 Zones. Mr. Widmer also concurrently submitted a plan and' conditional use permit application for such a facility on Ccn~nerce Boulevard, north of the existing PDQ. At the tim~ of the initial review, Staff recQ~u;ended denial of both the ordinance amendment request and the conditional use permit. The Staff report noted that if the Ccmmission decided to approve the land use, it would be preferrable to set up a CQ,a,ercial/Industrial Planned Development Area rather than amending the ordinance to include mini-storage in the B-2. The theory behind the recommendation was that a PDA potentially permits tighter control of such uses ccmpared to simply amending the B-2 conditional uses. Plannir~ C~,u~,ission and Staff Page Two October 12, 1983 Staff prepared a draft of an ordinance, the intent of which was to permit planned developments within all of the B districts as well as in the I-1 Zone. Under the ordinance, any permitted or conditional use-now allowed within the B-l, B-2, B-3, or I-1 zones could be proposed asplanned developments within any one of these zones. For example, a use now permitted in the B-2 could be proposed as a planned ca,,~ercial use in the B-1. Such uses, however, could be processed as planned oa,,,,ercial areas only if they met the purpose of the ordinance which required unique development techniques or unusual building characteristics. After discussing this ordinance draft, the Planning Ccmmission decided to reccmmend that such an ordinance only be valid for the B-2 zone. Additionally, discussion seemed to· indicate that uses should be restricted only to those now applicable to the B-2 zone with the addition of mini-storage facilities. The enclose~ draft is designed to acccmplish this purpose. The proposed planned ccmmercial area ordinance has undergone significant changes since it was originated by Mr. Widmer's request. Staff has serious reservations about its final form. From a planning perspective, I view the ordinance in its present form as a lor~ and ccmplicated proceedure to accomplish Mr. Widmers original request; that mini-storage be added as a conditional use in the B-2 zone. Therefore, if the City Council w~nts to allow mini-storage in the B-2, it seems appropriate to- simply amend .the provisions of the existin] ordinance and not adopt a planned oa~,ercial ordinance. On the otherhand, if the council sees.' merit to permittin~3 planned c~ercial facilities, similar to the way in which residential PIl~'s occur, then consideration should be given to expansion of the ordinance to include a variety of land uses within a variety of c~tercial and industrial zones. %he public hearir~3 on the proposed ordinance amehdment and the Widmer request are separate agenda items, however, from a practical standpoint they are hard to separate. If there is no support for the Widmer proposal, there is no reason to amend the ordinance. Therefore, this report will also address the merits of the proposal. Specific project details are included in previous Staff reports (attached). In previous reports, denial of the proposal was recou,,ended. This denial recc~,,endation was based on the premise that mini-storage facilities are not the be_st use of B-2 land and that the lor~ term interests of the City could be better served by the construction of a permitted B-2 use such as a clinic, service shop or small office building. PlanninG Ccmmission and Staff Page Three October 12, 1983' Admittedly, the site contains a number of restrictions affecting development, the most notably of which are its narrow useable area and probable soil deficencies. Soil problems, however, do not preclude construction utilizing pilings. Regardin~ the buildable area of the property, the parcel immediately west of the proposed mini-storage facility contains a metal storage buildinG. Such structures typically have relatively low assessed values creating the possibility that the stora~3e building could be cleared from the site and the additional land utilized for a permitted use. REOC~9~TION: Planning Staff continues to reccm~end denial of the mini-storage use on the Widmer property, hence, denial of the proposed ordinance amendment is also reoa~u,~nded. Should the City Council decide that the mini-storage proposal is an appropriate use of the property,, the followi~ suggestions are offered: 1. The Council should amend the provisions of the B-2 ordinance (Sec. 23.630.3) to add mini-storage warehouse facilities to the list of conditional uses. 2. The Council should direct Staff to prepare a conditional use permit and development contract for the project. Buildir~ and/or grading permits for construction on the site should not be issued prior to the full execution of such documents. 3. -Final approval should be subject to the review and approval of all final plans by the City Engineer and watershed district. 23.412.5 PLANNED COMMERC~ AREA (PCA) .5.1 ~Purpose The purpose of this section of the Zoning Code is to provide a method by which parcels of land in the B-2 Zoned, General Business District having unusual building characteristics due to subsoil conditions, topographic conditions, elevation of water table, unique enviror~nentai considerations, or because of the parcel's unusual shape or location in relationship to lakes, trees or other natural resources requires more unique and controlled platting and development techniques to protect and prcr~ote the quality of life in the .City. 23.412.5.2 Standards and Regulations for Planned Ccn~nercial Area The owner Or owners of any tract or tracts of land in the B-2 Zoned, General Business District may submit to the City Council for approval a plan for the use and development of such a tract of land as a PCA by making application for a Conditional Use Permit authorizing completion of the project according to the plan. The plan for the proposed project shall conform to the requirements of the use district within which the land is located except as hereinafter modified. (1) The tract of land for which a project is proposed and a permit requested shall not be less than two (2) acres. (2) The application for the Conditional Use Permit shall be submitted in ccmplete conformance with the City's subdivision regulations or with all variances detailed and explained. In addition to the requirements of the Mound Subdivision Ordinance, the application shall include narratives and drawings containing the following information: Ownership - Identify all owners legal and equ~itable of and all encumbrances' and easements upon the land within the proposed PCA. ' B. Developer - Identify all parties involved in the development. Development Method - Describe what will be done with the project, if approved, and who will do it. Will the property be marketed undeveloped, rough graded, or will the developer carry the project through actual construction of structures? Will structures be retained, sold or leased? De Development Timing - Specify timing of each stage of development from initial site development through building construction. E. PCA Boundaries - A plan clearly denoting overall project boundaries. Existing Land Use and Occupancy Existing Zoning - A map which shows the existing zoning and zoning of a.d j acent parcels. Je ne Me Comprehensive Plan - A map which shows the Comprehensive Plan designation of the project and surroundir~ uses. Two foot contour top~raphic map depicting existing and proposed contours should be sukmitted at a scale of not less than 1" = 100'. Ail water, stream, lakes, marsh, ponds, drainage and floodplains should be denoted on the site plan. A utility plan which illustrates easements, sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer° A site plan including proposed building size and footprint, parking areas, ingress and egress points, setback lines, signage, and lighting. A landscaping plan including existing trees, proposed plantings by size, ~pecies and mode, berms, seeded and sodded areas and, if applicable, the underground sprinkler system. Photographs of the site sufficient to convey its general visual qualities and relationship to the surroundin~3 area. O. Include any other information necessary to explain details or unique characteristics of the project. (2) Within a PCA, not more than 30 percent of the lot area shall be occupied by buildin(3s and hard surface coverage shall not exceed 50 percent. (3) Ail land uses included as permitted and conditional'uses in the B-2 district and mini-storage, warehousir~ facilities may be included in n~ " (4) The concept of cluster platti or zero lot line development will be reflected by the PCA and must be shown on the plan and subject to all conditions imposed by the Conditional Use Permit. (5) No conveyance of property within the PCAshall take place until the property is platted in conformance with the City's subdivision regulations and M.S.A. 462.358 or unless specifically waived by variance. All bylaws, Association Articles of Incorporation, and Protective Covenants must be approved by the City Attorney and filed with the record plat. (6) Approval of a PCA Conditional Use Permit shall be. by the City Council after recommendation by the City Planning Commission, and all improvements required by Section 22 of the City Code shall be constructed by the developer at its sole cost. The applicant must provide the City with a surety bond or other financial guarantee to guarantee the construction of all improvements required in accordance with City specifications. Additionally, the applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City which shall outline but not be limited to approval criteria, performance standards and penalties. (7) (8) The land utilized by public utilities, such as easements for major facilities, (electrical transmission lines, sewer lines, drainage easement and water mains), where such land is not available to the owner or developer for development because of such elements, shall not be considered as part of the gross acreage in computing the maximum lot and buildin~ coverage that may be created under this Ordinance. After approual of the Conditional Use Permit, the applicant~ owner or developer before ca,..'~ncin~ any work or obtainin~ any buildi~ permits shall make a minimum cash deposit of $100 per acre or any portion of · an acre thereof. The Council shall establish the amount required for deposit at the time the PCA is approved and this deposit shall be held in a special Developer's Escrow Account and shall be credited to the said applicant, owner, or developer. Engineering and legal expenses incurred by the City of Mound in plan approval, office and field checking, checking and setting grade and drainage requirements, general supervisions, staking, inspection, draftin~ as-built drawings, and all other engineering services performed in the processing said development, and all administrative and legal expenses in examining title to the property and in reviewing all documents described in Paragraph.6 for the land being developed shall be charged to the aforementioned account and shall be credited to the City of Mound for the payment of these expenses. If at any time it appears that a deficit will occur in any Developer's Escrow Account as determined by the City Manager, said officials shall recommend to the Council that an additional deposit is required and the Council may require that the applicant, owner, or developer shall deposit additional funds in the Developer ' s Escrow Account. The City Manager or Clerk shall itemize all services and materials billed to any Developer's Escrow Account. The applicant, owner, or developer making the deposit(s) in the Developer's Escrow Account shall be furnished a copy of said itemized charges and any balance remaining in the account upon c~mpleting the project shall be returned to the depositor by the Clerk after all claims and charges thereto have been paid. C~T%.~'t~ ~.~.~..~.~6_.f Property, 2. Legal'Descripti.on .of Property: Addition CITY OF MOU~D ..... APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Piease type the following information) Lafayette Park County Road No. 110 Lot Part of Lot 26 Fee Paid $200.o0 Date Filed 7-13-83 Block PID No. 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 Owner's Name Fritz Widmer ; Address P.O. Box 218~ Spring Par~, MN 55384 .Day Phone No. 471-8593" Applicant '(if other than owner): Name SAFE -Address Day Phone No. 5- Type. of Request: ( -*If other, s~pecify: ( ) Variance (x) Conditi&nal Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review )i Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. (×) Amendment ( ~ Sign Permit ( ) *Other ~, Present Zoning District B'-2 7- Existing Use(s). of PropertyI Storage ..- 8. Has an applicat;on .ever beJn made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit other zoning procedure for this propertyl 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 eh. try in or upon the premises described in .this applica%ion by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the' purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required~w. - , .-m Signatur~ of AppIicant~//f~/. Date 7-13-83 ~ ~'/"' ~ - ._ ~ - . P~ann~ng Co~iss~on Reco~endat;on: - Date CoJncil Action: Re§olutlon No. Procedure for Zoning Amendments (2') Case # 83-242 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 23.630.3 of the Zoning Ordinance be amended as follows: Allow'by conditional use, storage buildings in B-2 zoning Reason for Amendment: Storage not presently specified in City Ordinance Amendment to Map: It is 'requested that the Property described below and shown on the attached site plan be rezoned'from to . Address of Property: '' [ega]'description of property (lot, block, Subdivision or metes'and bounds) Attach additional sheets, if necessary) .. Present Use of Property: Reason for Amendment: Note: 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 Commission within one year period following a ~enial of such request. CASE NO. 83-242 R. BASTYR & ASSDCIATES, INC. Twelve Oaks Center 15500 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 738 Wayzata, MN 55391 July 20, 1983 Planning Commission Members and City Staff City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Subject: Proposed Mini Storage Proponent - Fritz Widmer Members and Staff: We s~bmit for your consideration supporting data for a proposed mini storage project submitted by Fritz Widmer. The proposal is for a zoning amendment change to allow mini-storage in a B-2 district as a conditional use. The applicant requests approval of the zoning amendment, conditional use permit, and preliminary site plan. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, R. Bastyr & Associates, Inc. Ronald Bastyr RB/sh CITY OF MOUND Mcund, Minnesota CASE NO. 83-242 NOTICE OF HFAR/RgG ON THE PROPOSED ~ OF THE ZONING MAP AND CCNDITI~ USE PERMIT APPRO~ FOR THE CONSTRUCTION. OF M/}~I-STORAGE FACILITIES NOTICE.' IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, October ]8, 1983, at 7:45 P.M. at the City Hall, .5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, a hearing will be held on' the proposal to 'amend the Zoning Map,~ Mound Code of Ordinances, by removing frcm the General Businss, B-2, and adding to the Planned Co,,,','ercial/Industrial '. Development Area; and approval of a conditional use permit for the 6onstruction of two mini-storage buildings totaling 10,700 square feet on the following described' property:. : Part of lot 26, [~fayette. Park ~D Numbers ]3-]]?-24 22 00]6/00]8/ 0019/0020/0021 All persons at said hearing will be given an opportunity to be heard. Francene C. Clar~, City Clerk Publish in the Laker October 4, 1983. Case No. 83-242 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 TO: Planning Co~mission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: August 24, 1983 SUBJ: Widmer Rezonin~ Request, 83-242 The review of the Widmer proposal has been ccmplicated by inconsistencies in the location of the wetland on the property. A new survey is beir~ conducted as this report is being written. The results of this survey should clarify the wetland issue. In response to the new survey data, the applicant will be revising the site plan. Although new plans have not been received, it has been indicated that the new site plan will be a scaled down version of the previous one. Since the use remains unchanged, the staff feels that the review can continue and should be considered by the Planning C~t~,ission. A verbal critique of the new site plan will be presented at Mondays meeting. Since the last review, staff has received literature from the applicant (enclosed) which indicates that they may propose metal buildings rather than the previously proposed wooden structures. In looking at the material, staff has serious concerns about the long-term durabililty, security and attractiveness of such structures. The brochure material emphasizes the advantages of these structures frcm an investment standpoint (low initial cost). Tne City's concerns, however, should be longer range. Despite recent and pendir~ changes to the site plan, staff opinion of the land use remains unchanged. Denial of the subject request is still reccrm~-=nded for the reasons outlined in the staff report of July 18, 1983. Should the Planning Commission find the land use acceptable and wish to approve the Widm~r proposal, approval should be contingent upon the followir~: 1. Approval of the revised grading, drainage and utility plans by the City Engineer. 2. Approval of the revised landscaping and lighting plans by the City Planner. Planning C~,',~ission and Staff Page Two ...... August 24, 1983~ Case No. 83-242 Final approval should be subject to the review ~nd approval of the watershed district. .~ 0 Structures should consist of wood frame construction with wood or wood product siding. All buildings should meet or exceed all applicable building codes. . Se The City should establish an appropriate Planned Development Area Zoning category to cover commercial and industrial uses. Upon establishment, the subject property could be rezoned, thereby avoiding the prolem of r~re than one principal structure per lot. 6. The project' should conform to the ~ound Wetland Ordinance. Additional conditions may be verbally added to this list on Monday evening. CASE NO. 83-242 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minne.=polis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission FRDM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: July 18, 1983 SUBJ: Zoning Amendment Request APPLICANT: Fritz Widmer CASE NO: 83-242 LOCATION: County Road 110 south of Minnetrista Border EXISTING ZONING: B-2 PROPOSAL: The applicant is seeking an amendment to the existing provisions of the B-2 ordinance to permit the construction of mini-storage facilities as a conditional use. Concurrently, an. application for approval of the Conditional Use Permit has also been filed. Under the proposal, storage areas would be located in four new buildings all lying south of the existing metal storage building. A dead-end road with a "T" turnaround is proposed to provide vehicular access to the site. All new structures are one-story, wood frame construction and have a total floor area of 16,500 sq. ft. The existing storage building contains approximately 3,200 sq. ft. SITE CHARACTERISTICS: The site contains 7.7+acres, most of which are within a wetland area. County Road 110, which bord~s the west side of the parcel, is elevated approximately 20 to 30 feet above the edge of the wetlands in the central and southern sections of the site. Therefore, the proposed structures on the west-side of the bitumin6us access drive would be tucked.into the hillside and would, in all likelihood, be barely visible from County Road 110. With the exception of the marsh vegetation in the wetland, the site consists of turf and weed cover. GRADING/DRAINAGE/UTILITIES: This office has not received copies of the grading, drainage, and utility plans. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject parcel as wet 1 a nd. Pl arming Commission Page Two July 18, 1983 COMMENTS: This proposal raises two issues: 1) are mini-storage facilities appropriate as conditional uses in B-2 zones and 2) is the proposed mini-storage facility acceptable to the City of Mound? In addressing the first question, the Planning Commission should consider the appropriateness of mini storage in the P,-2 zones throughout the City. If the applicants request to amend the ordinance is approved, mini-storage facilities could be proposed for any B-2 site, not just the one under present considerat.ion. One could argue that the Conditional Use Permit process allows a separate site-by-site review of acceptable uses. While this may be true to some degree, this office and the City Attorney feel that when a use is conditionally permissible in a given zone, the burden of proof as to the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the project shifts from the applicant to the City. In essence, if the City wishes not to permit a land use that is .among the listing of conditional uses, it must have well documented reasons to support the denial. This may require the development of detailed standards which could be used in such cases. In reviewing this request, ! contacted the cities of Minnetonka.,' Eden Prairie, and Chanhassen to check on performance standards for mini-storage facilities. None of the cities contacted permit mini-storage facilities outside industrial zones. Historically, such uses have been excluded from commercial/business areas with the intent of attracting businesses with higher assessed values than those held by warehousing type facilities. The second aspect of the subject request is consider, ation of the site plan submitted for the Widmer parcel. In reviewing the land use issues of this request, the Planning Commission should consider that the Widmer property is' located at one of the primary entrances to the City of Mound. Therefore, it is appropriate to determine whether mini storage is an acceptable land use or whether, ultimately, some other type of commercial development may be more advantag'eous. In looking at the Widmer property, there appears to be some discrepancy between the wetland line shown on the site plan and the existing wetland vegetation. This discrepancy is reinforced by the City's wetland map (attached) which shows the wetland encroaching much closer to County Road 110 than the line indicated on the applicant's site plan. Both a field review and the official wetland map indicate that the central building and possibly the southern most storage building may be on unbuildable areas. The proposal contains a total ~f five buildings on presumably one parcel of land. Under City ordinances, all zoning categories limit developments to one principal structure per lot. The exception to this is the Planned Development Area which permits more than one~principal structure, however, it applies only to residential districts. P1 anni~g Commis~f6n Page Three July 18, 1983 CASE NO. 83-242 RECOMMENDATION: The Widmer proposal poses somewhat of a dilemma. The site plan is generally well prepared and responsive to the site (assuming the applicant's wetland line is correct). Approval of the Widmer proposal, however, may be short sighted in determining what type of development on the property is in the best long-term interests of the City. This factor combined with the concern of identifying mini-storage as a conditional use in any B-2 zone throughout the City leads staff to conclude that the subject request should be denied. Should the Planning Commission find that the mini-storage use is appropriate on the property, the following items should be considered: Action on the item and further review of the project should be suspended pending clarification of t.he wetland line. Should this become appropriate, staff suggests that Mr. Joel Settles of the. Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District be asked to review all data and present an opinion to the City. Mr. Settles provided the technical input for the preparation of the existing official wetland map. ® The applicant should submit grading, drainage, and utility plans to the City Engineer for review and comment. 3. The applicant should submit landscaping and lighting plans. The project should conform to the criteria as specified in the Mound Wetland Ordinance. Se Final approval should be subject to the review and approval of the plans by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District." 6. .The'development should be required to meet all B-2 setbacks. e In order to solve the problem of more than one principal structure on a lot, the City could amend its zoning ordinance to create a new category of a planned development area for commercial/industrial uses. The creation of such a category would require the development of appropriate standards and performance criteria. tVtlNNETRI,.~A 1{ --' '"i[ PROPOSED 83-242. Site.s, I I ! ! ~ g~rt of LOt ! [' ! iq.": mn,. ! ! : ~"" ;I.- ~'.- J POt.' of 1 I MINUTES ~F THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING August ~9, 1983 Present were: Chairman Frank Weiland; Commissioners Robert. Byrnes, Liz Jensen, Geoff · Michael, Thomas Reese and Michael Va~go; CounCil Representative Pinky Charon; City Manager Jon Elam; Building Official Jan Bertrand; City Planner Mark. Koegler and Secre- tary Marjorie Stutsman. Commissioners Stan Mierzejewski and Joanne Fillbrandt were absent. Mrs. Fillbrandt was excused. Chairman Weiland opened the meeting and welcomed the people present. MINUTES The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of August 8, 1983 were presented for consideration. Byrnes moved and Michael seconded a motion to approve the minutes as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. BOARD OF APPEALS 1. Case No. 83~'242 Zoning Amendment request to allow by conditional use, stOrage buildings - 16XX Commerce Boulevard (County Road llON.) Part of Lot 26, Lafayette Park (PID 13-117-24 22 0016/OO18/OO19/0020/OO21) Fritz Widmer and Ronald Bastyr were present. Ron Bastyr made a presentation asking for consideration of a plan for mini- Warehouse storage on a 7.7 acre site which lies on County Roa~ 110 just north of Three Points Boulevard and the PDQ Store. Site is perhaps 70% wetlands. Off of County Road 110, there is a sidewalk existing and site drops off approximately 10 feet ko 25 feet to a plateau. Soils were major consideration when we came to ~ design something on site. Soils do range anywhere on the plateau from O foot of organic down to 25 feet of organic--so it' is a very cumbersome problem to design any other use, in his opinion. The proposal is to add 2 additional new buildings (there is one existing metal storage building) and a blacktopped drive that would come in with a cul-de-sac. The two buildings combined would be approximately 10,7OO square feet of storage. These bull. dings are designed with a spread floating footing which allows them to sit on top of existing soil and float. Any other use--office building or perhaps a commercial use would probably require taking out soil and filling/compacting.or putting in piling design. Unfeasible alternative to what we're proposing here.· We are proposing landscaping. We did submit a plan, but found wetlands line to be farther west. Proposing to plant the slope from IlO quite heavily so if someone is driving by on 110, they really would not.see these buildings as they would be down below the road--would be aesthetically pleasing street view. Our feeling is that this would be a good alterna'tive use for the City and the Developer for the following reasons: 1. Soils are prohibitive for another type of use 2. Site is somewhat awkward in shape; a lot of wetlands, steep slope and propo- sed use does fit site well. 3. Use is something that is needed in the City; something that will sell and something that would be utilized by the residents. Discussion followed. Vargo asked about fencing, lighting.and security. ~Reese ques~ tioned .how.many B-2 areas in town. Planning Commission Minutes August 29, 1983 - Page 2 City Planner Mark Koegler offered comments: The proposal raises two basic issues~ first one is critical - the issue of mini-storage in the B-2 Zone. He stated that in talking with Curt Pearson, City Attorney, they had some real doubts about per- mitting that to occur with a conditional use; puts real burden on City to prove why it should not be there, rather than why it should. If Commission elects to find this proposal feasible, it would be more advisable to come up with a new PDA which would cover commercial and industrial (should be in Ordinance anyway). Second issue is whether this use is appropriate to this site? Jensen questioned what happens to trash people using units would generate and how do you control what people store. Also how was need for these units determined. Byrnes questioned type of construction. Reese stated he was in favor of proposal, asking about the various staff recommendations--like to see elevations, etc. Reese moved and Byrnes seconded a motion for approval of the Widmer mini-storage request subject to the establishment of an appropriate Planned Development Area for industrial-and or commercial uses and subsequent rezoning of the parcel into the new category. Approval is also subject to the staff recommendations contained in the planning report of August 24, 1983 and that no outside storage be permitted on the site and that trash be removed so premises do not become Unsightly. Discussion followed. Vargo feels this is marginal land and mini-storage on this land will deter higher value building in area. It was questioned whether the Water- shed District would have to approve. Bastyr stated they are proposing a siltation pond behind the buildings and they have Watershed approval of concept on the basin and water storage. The'question was called. The vote was Byrnes, Michael and Reese in favor; Jensen, Vargo and Weiland against with Charon abstaining. This made a tie vote. Weiland asked if wetlands could be filled and if expansion of use would necessitate review by the Planning Commission?~ Koegler stated they had the option to fiil under Mound's Wetlands Ordinance and expansion of project would have to come back. Bastyr made a statement about the grade -- the sidewalk at th~s point is approximately 2 feet above the highest point of a building and they are proposing substantial plant- ings in the area so as you drive by, you'l'l see a bed of plantings and even driveway has like a 12% grade to accommodate access; will have minimum use. They believe one of the better uses for site. Weiland moved to reopen consideration of vote. Reese seconded the motion. Weiland changed his vote to Aye making the vote 4 in favor to 2 against. Motion carried. e Case No. 83-246 Lot-split final subdivision for 53XX Bartlett Boulevard Ely. 100 feet of the Wly. 160 feet of Lot 28, Auditor's Subdivision 170 Donald English was present, and also neighbors, Patricia.Tessmer and Dorothy Gray. The Building Inspector explained that the applicant is requesting to subdivide his vacant parcel of land into two parts; Parcel A is 75.03 feet by 172.07 feet or 13,905 square feet; Parcel B has 23,958.6 square, feet plus a 25.O1 foot wide drive- way access to Bartlett Boulevard. He is requesting a'variance of lot width from 60 feet to 25.01 feet at the improved public right-of-way for Parcel B. The site Hennepin Soil and Water Conservation District 250 North Central Avenue, Suite 16 - Wayzata, Minnesota 55391 - Telephone (612) 473-0249 July 26, 1983 Ms. Jan Bertrand Building Inspector City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Jan: This letter is in response to one of ~e questions raised during our meeting on July 26, 1983. The wetland in Section 13, Tll7N, R24W is not on the preliminary des- ignation of protected waters and wetlands within Hennepin County (12/4/81). Since the wetland is protected by local ordinance however, your concern regarding the proposed development adjacent to this wetland is justified. If a building permit is issued for this site I rec- ommend that adequate erosion and sediment control measures be used to protect the wetland from sediment damage during construction. If you require additional information or assistance regarding this matter don't hesitate to call me. Sincerely, · Settles District Limnologist JCS:iw CONSERVATION - DEVELOPMENT -SELF-GOVERNMENT CITY OF ~OU~ ~oun6, ~inne~ot~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ISSUANCE OF "ON AND OFF SALE BEER LICENSES" NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, October 18, 1983, at 7:30 p.m. at the City Hail, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, a public hearing will be held to consider the issuance of "On and Off Sale. Beer Licenses" to Roger D. Rager and Gail J. Rager DBA Three Points Tavern, 5098.Three Points Boulevard, Mound, Minnesota, described as: Lots 12, 13, 14 and 15, Block 2, Dreamwood PID Numbers 13-117-24 12 O020,'13-117-24 12 O021 and 13-117-24 12 0022. All persons appearing at said hearing will be given an opportunity to be heard. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk Publish in the Laker October 4, 1983. ~__~nua! Fee $200.00 ON SALE $25.00 OFF SALE CITY OF MOUND 5341Maywood Road · Mound, Minnesota 55364 Licens~ Period: May 1 through April 30 of the f011owing year. APPLICATION FOR LICENSE TO SELL - NON-INTOXICATING MALT LIQUOR Applicant Name: ~)O~~' ~;~i [ ~-~C[~- /~'~K'~. ~¢a~..I/'~ · (owner/M,n,ger) (First) , (Mi~dl~)k~o~[~t~ ~(L~s~ ~ Applicant Date.of Birth:~-3-W~ / V%~Drivers I} ~-~,~-~/-~0 Citizen: · ' ' Home Telephone NO.: gY -B 't/ soc,. Security ~o.:~ -~&- ?J/~ Company ~am~~.¢. ~0~ '~UQC~ 'Compan~ Telephone ~o.: ~?~-[[~ Company Address:~Oc~ ~~ 'Pe~&~' ~!(,J~ City: ~O~.g Zip:~ (Last)~J (First) (Middle) (First) (L~st~ .(6iddle) (Date of Birth) Type of Business References: (List three - name and address of each) ate o Birth) (Date of Birth) Indicate whether you sold $10,000 or moFe of non-intoxicating malt liquor or wine in ~r&- vious year: Yes: No:. ~< All applicants are to f[!e a copy of the proof of insurance ~ith fhe'Com~iSsi'oner of~Pub]ic S~fetY'(Minn[~Stat., Sec. 340.11, Subd. 21). 5ECTIO~ 32.03. Appl/cation for L~cens~. ~11 app14cations for anl license to sell ~on-into~catin§ malt liquor' shall be made on forms to be supplied by the Clt~ settin§ forth the name of the person aski~§ for such license, his cee~ representations as to his chara'ct~r ~th such references as maI be required~ his citi[an=hip, the location ~.%ere such bus,ness ~s to be married on~ whether such application is fo~ 'on sale" or "off sales"~ the busi~=ss ~n co~ection ~th ~ich the proposed ~nse ~ operete~ whet~r spplican~ is o~er s~d o~ra~o~ of such ~ the time. such applicant hss been ~ that business at that place, and such other i~o~ation as the ~ove~g body rosy regui~ from t~e to t~e. It sh~ ~ u~s%~ to maWe s fslse statement application. "~ ~'' Department Approval/Denial (Submit memo if denied) Ap F/r~o v e~ Denied Administrative~ Street Dept. Bldg. Dept. Fire Dept. Water & Sewer Dept. (a~2) 296~ag © STATE OF MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY PS-~O07-04 APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO ONLY ALLOW CONSUMPTION & DISPLAY OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR (This Application Shall Re Typewritten end Submitted Before June ls! of each Year) In answering the following Questions "APPLICANT" shall be governed as follows: For a Partnership, one of the partners shall execute this application for all members of the partnership· For a Corporation, on~ officer shell execute this application for ell officers, directors, and stockholders. For a Club. one of the club officers shall execute this application for all the members. If additional space is required, use a separate sheet of paper, indicating by number the question answered. (FEE FOR PERMIT -$151.50) EVERY QUESTION MUST BE ANSWERED ,. ,as , (Nimeof pl~on mlkln0 I~licltion) ~ (l~dtvidu,I aKIn, ~ner, officer, ~ ofnc~r) for and in ~halfof (~C~L ~ ~O~ ~o,e~ ~ ~/~ (Myself, nlm~ o'~ln~m, nlme of C~fp~fltion. or nl~ of club) hereby apply for a permit eUowi~g consumption and display of intoxicating liquor to be I~ated at ~ ~e~ ~:n~ ~t;~ , , Municipati~of ~t,~ , ~ (Town,hip and Sta~e of Mifl~ota, i~ accordance with the provisions of M.a. 340.119. Tel. 2. Will business be opera,ed as a.'~rivote club or public '~ace . ~//~ ~/~ ~ ~ 3. Staze type o~ busings ~,~ ~0~ ~ ~~0~ 4. FO~'~ P~SklC ~81~[S$: If a partnership, ~t~te name and ~ddre~ of each mem~r of pa~nership; a corporation, ~tate name and addres~ of offieem and director. (Name). (Name) . (Nlma) 5. FOR A PRIVATE CLUB: Date club was organized (Addrlls) , is club incorporated __ number of members __ , length of time in present location __ , is club building owned or · rented , what is the membership dues , what are the requirements for membership Does club maintain lockers to be used by members for storing intoxicating liquor ~ . Names of ali officers and/or directors of the club: Name) (.Add riss) (Nlme) (Address) INlme) (Address) (Neme) (Add~asl) ; Enclose with this application a copy of the Constitution and By-Laws of the club and current list of bona fide members. 6. If applicant or any partner, corporation officer or director, club officer or director, is not a citizen of the United States, list such non-citizens 7. State name of person who will operate or manage business: Name) ~1 (Address} ...... 8. On what floor is the establishment located, or to be located 9. How are the premises classified under the zoning ordinance Approved for Violations by: Inspection Section DO NOT USE Check Cash Rec'd. Rec'd. by Cashier 10. State p~me and address of. owner or owners of building wherein the business will be Iocate~: I N',i re.P,.2 (~m,.) U ' ' 11. Has applicant; i~ pa~ne~h~p, ~ny partner; i~ corporation, any o~cer or ~rector; ~ c~ub, ~n~ c~ub officer or direc[or, ever had a license under the Minnesota Liquor Control Act revoked or suspended or convicted for any violation of State ~ or I~al ordinances; if so, give date and details 12. IS applicant; if partnership, any partner; if corporation, any officer or director; if club, any club officer or director, a member of the governing body of the municipality or county in which this permit is to be issued; if so, in what capacity 13. Has applicant; if partnership, any partner; if corporation, any officer or director; if club, any club officer or director, any interest whatsoever, directly or indirectly, in any liquor establishment in the State of Minnesota . Give name and address of such establishment 14. Furnish the name and address of at least three business references, including one bank reference: (Name) (N~*) (Namel 15. 1;VIII intoxicating liquor'be sold on the premises 16. (a) State whether application is: 1. Original X (b) Former licensee's name (Addrw) IF · / f (Addr~s) ' ' 2. ~enewal ~ 3. Transfer , trade name 17. Are the premises now occupied, ,o; ^to be occupied, entirely separate and exclusive fro.m any other business establishment L)~'~ c~.~,.~n~__.,[I . ~ 18. State trade name to be used .'~Y2op ~./r~ "~U~)r' Kx. 19. State whether an "On-Sale" or "Off-Sale" Non-Intoxicating Malt Beverage License has or will be granted in conjunction to this business and for the same prer~ises ~ ~_ 20. Has there been issued, or will there be issued, a $54.00 Federal Retail Liquor Dealer's Special Tax Stamp for the sale of liquor on these premises LI ~) 21. Has your local government an ordinance regulating the consumption and display of intoxicating.liquor 22. If operating under zoning ordinance how is location of bu!lding classified immidiall revocation of this parmit. IT IS FURTHER UNDERSTOOD THAT ANY PERMIT ISSUED HEREUNDER DOES NOT ALLOW THE SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUOR, Enclosed ii plyment o~ $151.50 payable to the Liquor Control Director Ii provided by M~. 1967, Section 3;I0.119. NO CONSIDERATION WILL BE GIVEN TO If applicant is located in the County, the Chairman ' / of the Board of County Commissioners or his Representative shall approve this application. Subscribed and sworn to before me this (. ~ day of ~F,.Z-,.-Y~___~ , 19 ,,,~,~ . If applicant is located in a Municipality, the President of the Council or his Representative 'shall approve this application. (Notify PuBlic) My Commission expires ., I -.:,..,. . -. ,: ~.~ ~ l?.- Each app~Loar~t ]~ M,~ th~ h~ lz ~o~ now th~ hol~r of, nor h~ h~ rno~ appl~atio~ ]or~ ~or ~ L~t~nd to rno~ ~pp~ic~tto~ for a' ~e~era~ ~ei~a~ De~l~r'~ gp~cla~ ~ ~to. mp for ~h~ ~a~ of ~toxic~t~n~ ILquor. ~tate of 5ttlinn~ota, COUWTIr O~ .............................................. for wh~ t~ Z~n~ w~ bA ~ ¢f t~ ~ppZ~n ~ ~ra~. .. they are · -. L.'.' ' C~unt~ oL ' __ ' t~, it appearin~ to th~ best of our ~wl~. tl~ ~a~ app~n~ hal: ~, wlth~ ~ p~ri~ of fiu~ ~r~ Cou~ ~tior~F. ... - ." s~. Daf~ ,19 ...... T~E TO~'~ BO~D 0~' ~HE ffOVF,Y OF ~t~t. . ' ' ' CITY OF MOUND 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 License Period; May 1 through April 30 of the following year LICENSE APPLICATION Billiards, Pool and Bowling Lanes Date of Application 9--~(~--g=~ Original:__ Renewal: (Owner/Manager) (Fi rs (Midd'le~ ~ - ~L, (L~as~) .~J Applicant Date of Birth: ~--~-~'~-~--~rivers Lic. ~1'.~.~ ~~ Home Address:, /~ ~'~ ¢~/ City:~~ J Zip~~ Home Telephone No: ,~7~--~ ~ /f Social Security No.:.~O~ -~ Company Name:~e~ ~~fl~ Company Telephone No.: Company Address:~~~_~ ~~ ~r.~ City: ~O~ Zip~/~. (Date of Birth) (First) I (D Bi (First) (Mi~dle~-- (Last) ( of Birth~' Does anyone other than above have a financial interest in the business? (If the answer is "Yes", please list others having a financial interest on~q~ack of thi~ application, giving full name, addreSs, te.lephon~ number and date of birth.) Application is hereby requested for: Number Item Pool Tables Billiard Tables P~eon Hole Tables Pagatelle Tables Bowling Alleys Ten Pin Alley Fee $10.OO Each $10.OO Each $10.OO Each $10.OO Each $10.00 Each(Bowling Lane, not $10.OO Each game) DePartment ApproVal/Deni'al (Submit memo if denied~'~ 'App/7ov~d Police Dept. Street Dept. Bldg. lnsp0 Fire Dept. Administrative Water & Sewer Dept. Deni. e" CITY OF HOUND 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 553~4 License p~riod: May 1 through April 30 of the. following, year. GAMES OF SKILL LICENSE APPLICATION Date of Application ¢-2~ . ,~._'~. Original:. Renewal: .... r~ .,~J,, ./.,ODrivers Li:~°~ ;~0 7~ -JgJ--& Applicant Da~e of ~irtn: 'I-2'~/~-~/V~ . ,.~- - ~ - Home Company Company Company Telephone No.,: ..... 77J -3 Socia Sec.rit¥ Name: T)~.~ '~'~, ~ k[ ~( ~ Company Telephone .Address:,SO~ ~r~ ~t~. O ~VJ', City,, ~q~J (Fi rst) (MiddleJ (La,t) ~ ' (~i rst) (Xiddle) .... Does (~f appl ication, Zip: ,~,~"3 ~ C/ (Date of Birth) (Date of Birth) Birth) ...... anyone other than above have a financial interest in the business? t2~ the answer if "Yes", please list others having a 'financial interest onb~ck-of this giving full name, address, telephone number and date of birth.) Desfription of Games Of Skill for which license is required: Number Desc r i p t i on Fee $25.00 Each S'i~n~tu"re of AppliE~nt/ Department (Submit memo Police Dept. Street Dept. Bldg. Dept. Fire Dept. Administration Water/Sewer Dept. Approval/Denial if denied)"' ;c/v~d Denied CITY OF MOUND 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 License Period; May 1 through Ap?~l.30' of the following year Date of Applicant Name: (Owper/Manager) Applicant Date of Company Company Company LICENSE APPLICATION - AMUSEMENT DEVICES Application 9--~ --~ ~ - ~./(First) (Middle) Birth: ?-]-C/~:~/~--/-~-(~j'~rivers Lic. Home Address:/~ ~ ~ ~1~ Home-Telephone No.:~--~ ~/ ~ Social Security Address: ~a~ ~r~ ~'~,-~)~ ~, Officials: (Fl-~st) (Middl (First (Middle) Does (if application, giving full Company Telephone No. City: (Las tt~ (Last~.X · ' rst.) (Middle) st ' anyone other than above have a financial interest in the business? ~_~ the answer is "Yes", please list others having a' financial interest on ~Pack of this name, address, telephone number and date of birth.) . (Date of Birth) (Date of Birth) (Date of Birth) ' Application is hereby requested for: (Hours o¢ operation: 10:OO a.m. to 12:OO.midnight) Number Item Fee Juke Box Other (Describe) $10.00 Each Department Approval/Denial ~Submit memo if denied) (~~~k~~~ Police Dept. Street. Dept. Bldg. Insp. Fire Dept. Signature of AppliCant Administrative Water & Sewer Dept. Ap~ov~d Denied Fee ~$0.00 Annual Fee CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota APPLICATION FOR ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT (1) (2) Name Street ~ity Phone No .~7~--3 V// State Zip (3) Does anyone other than above have financial interest in the business? (4) Type of Entertainment (5) License to be applicable: From To If answer to Item 3 is "Yes", please list others having a financial interest in the business on this application, giving name, address and telephone number. CITY OF MOUND 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Annual Fee: $5.00 License Period: May 1 through April 30 of the following year RESTAURANT LICENSE APPLICATION Date of Application_~-' o(23 Original: Renewal: ~,' (Owner/Manager) ~J (First) (Middlle) /~n '~ i(Cast~ ~/~..~/~2 ~_~d'-?~-~-~ o- '7 ~- ,%~- ~ ~ Applicant Date of Birth:g-3-~ . _ ~rivers Lic. No.~,I)~.~GO-ZVI-Y%t-ZTD Home Address:'/~'/~ ~// ~~, Cit~: MOM~ 4 Zip:~~/ Home Telephone No'.: Company Officials: (Fq~rst) (Middle) . (,First) (.Middle] ' "[Fi rst) (.Mi"ddlel / Social Security No..:~"-O~ -6~A, -qll 0 Company Telephone No .':q 7 A-P g of Birth) " (Date of Birt~j -- · )- k (]Date of Birth).' Does anyone other than above have f~nanci'al ~nterest in the Busi'nesg-'q" ~ ' (If the answer i's '!Yes", please li'st others havi"ng a fi'nanc~al ~nteresto~back of this application, gj'vi'ng full name, address,' telephone number and date of birth Cif possible), Section 37.10. License Required That all Restaurants, Cafes and Public. Eating Houses shall secure a license to operate, from the City, which license shall, run for. one year, and be signed by the City Clerk, The. license fee shall be $5.OO and sai'd license shall expire.annual- ly on April 30. (Revised - Ordinance 397 2-27-79) ' · 'Department Approval/Denial '(Submit memo if denied) ~,~; o~/e d D.eni Police Dept, /~/~/f~' Street Dept. Bldg, Insp. Water/Sewer Dept, Fire Dept, Administrative CITY OF MOUND Annual Fee: $12.OO License ~eriod: 3-1-83 to 2-28-84 CIGARETTE LICENSE APPLICATION (Print or type only) Date of application: Applicant Name :.~0 q~_.~ Applicant Date of air~h: Home Address=/~, ~'f ~ City: C~ Zip~~ Home Phone Number; ComPany Officials: Kind of Business: (Ml~ldl~) ~Fi rst) (Mi~i~) ro--s c.o ur-- City: of Ordinances, City of Mound, Minnesota August, 1960 Chapter 37 - Licensing and Regulation of Certain Sales Birth) (Oate of Birth) 3ffice Use Only Department Approval/Denial (Submit memo if denied) ~nial Part A Cigarettes, Cigarette Wrappers, Cigars, Pipe Tobacco, Cigarette Tobacco, Snuff, Chewing Tobacco Section 37.04 Restrictions No such license shal'l be issued except to a person of good moral character. No llcense shall be issued to any applicant at any place other,than his established place of business. No license shall be issued for a vending machine for the vending'of cigarettes, cigarette wrappers, cigar; pipe or cigarette tobacco, snuff or chewing tobacco, except that such vending machine be located'in such place where' persons under the age of 18 years, a~e prohibited from entering. No person, except a bona fide and duly 1Jcensed and registered pharmacist or physician shall .keep for sale, sell or dispose of in any form any opium, morphine, jimson weed, bella donna, strychnla, cocoa;ne, marijuana, or any deleterious or poisonous drug except nicotine. Signatu4:e of Applic/ant >olice Dept. . ~dministrative Street Dept.- Bldg. Insp. Park Dept. ~ewer/Water Dept. Fire Dept. To From Jon Date 10/18/83 Geno 4738 Galway Rd. Neither Gary Paulsen or Terri Dahl will be able to attend the council meeting on October 18, 1983. This address has rock walls the full length of the property. Variance request stated in 1984 plans for excavation ifor driveway. Peter Blank will be at the meeting tonight Oct. 18, 83 from 6382 Maple Rd. He parks his car at the end of Maple Ln. His vehicle is not in the way of the snow plow and no one lives beyond him. CITY of MOUND ~5341 M,\5'VV( X )1 ) MOUND, ,MINNES()q~\ 333C,~4 612,/472-1155 NOI~V(IN~}~OO~ IDN~NIG~O O~TiN. k'-VJ. 1,22~Z$ lROH - G~RaOR lO LII3 NOI.T.V(Lk~;$(OD,~E lMfliYNOI S S ~NYDI'I~RW G,X. GOK &O AilO CITY OF MOUND · 5¸ APPLICATION FOR BINGO PER~4IT Date ~. .-~.~ ,.~ ~ :~ / f ~.5' (~'f~an o~ganizati'on~ give organization name) ~aaress ,~/.~ e..~.,~ Phone No. ~7~- 3 Bingo Manager (Name) .~ ~ Dates and Hours Bingo will be played_.. ~~. 7.' o (Attach separate sheet if more room necessary) Is License Fee attached? Yes Amount Fidelity Bond: (a) Amount * (Minimum $10,000.) '(b) Name of Bonding Company (c) Expiration Date of Bond *Note: Fraternal., religious, veteran and other non-profit organizat'ions may .request the Bond t~ be waive'd. Please. indicate below if you are making such a request. Signature of person making applicati. CASE NO. 83-256 CITY. OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota Planning Commission Agenda of September 26, 1983: Board of Appeals Case No. 83-256' Location: 4424 Denbigh Road Legal Disc.: Lot 91 Phelps Island Park 1st Addition. Request: Variance to recognize existing non-conform'ing setback and lot Zoning District: R-2 Applicant: Robert L. 01son 4424 Denbigh Road Mound, MN. 55364 Phone: 831-5002/472-3119 The applicant, Mr. Olson, is requesting to construct a 19 foot by 22 foot bedroom addition to the west side of his property. The survey was submitted prior to his building permit for a detached garage; a variance was previously granted at the August 23, 1983 City Council meeting. Pursuant to the Zoning Code for lots of record in the R-2 zone, a setback of 6 ~and 6 feet to the side-yards are required. The survey shows the existing house at 1.6 feet to the east lot line. Also, the Zoning Code Section 23.403 requires frontage on an improved public right-of-way. Mr. Olson has a private driveway easement to provide access to his property. Comments: The sewer is run on an easement at the.north (lakeside) and the water- main is run on a utility easement to the south of the property. I believe the city, in granting any construction permits to exPand on these non-conforming lots of record, should obtain street easements. In the future, with the necessary easements obtained, we could improve the access to meet city standards. Recommendation: Staff recommends approving-the variance request conditioned upon granting the city a 15 to 20 foot easement fOr future roa.d purposes as per city Engineer's recommendation. Recognize the existing non-conforming setback of the structure with the stipulation that the expansion conform to the 6 foot setback,. as proposed. Abutting neighbors have been notified. Building Official JB/as ,qTY OF MOUND 2.' Legal 'Description of Property: Lot CITY OF MOUND /[dd~tlon Plat - 37930 ApPlicant (if other than owner): Fee Paid J j-. ~ ~ Date Filed APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) P~rcel - 5925 PlO No. 19~117-23 ,2,4 0026 Day. Phone No. Name. Day Phone N~'. Address Type'of Request: ~ Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( )"Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. (. ) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit .( )*Other e *If other, specify' ,resent Zoning District 'Existing-Use(s) of Property..' q~..Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or. conditional use permit or · other zoning procedure for this property? ~f~___~ If So, list date(si-of list date.(s) of application, action taken aAd prov. ide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous r~so%ut~j/on5 s~[ll 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 Orm upon the premises described in this application by gny authorized official of the City ~? itound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, main~aining and re~ving such ?>rices es may be required~aw. ~ " S~9n']ture of Applican .. . Da~e~ , 6. Case No. 83-256 Variance to recognize existing nonconforming setback and lot Plant at ~h2q Denbigh goad - Lot 91 Phelps Island Park 1st Division Fir. O1son was not present. The City Manager stated that a few weeks ago the Planning Commission approved the variances for a garage and the addition would be conforming. geese thinks this is an intense use of the property; he has only 1 6 feet side · yard to the neighbor and that he is opposed to further construction. He stated!~ it is a basement block house with a gable roof that has been sheathed, looks terrible, roof sagging, walls 6 foot high and back of house is grade level. He! . · can't believe house would support it. The request was discussed. Dyrnes moved and Reese seconded a motion to recommend denial of the.request. Request for Zoni.n9 Variance Procedure [2) Case # 83'-256 D. Loca'tion 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 O.rdinance. III. Request for a Zoning Variance A. Alll.i~formation below, a site plan, as descr'ibed in Part Il, and general application must be provided before a hearing.will be scheduled. B. Does.the present use 'of. the property'conform to all use regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (~>¢~) No ( )' If "no", specify each non-conforming use: Do .the existing.structures comply, with all area height and bulk.~egulations for the Zone district-in'which i't'is'.located?' Yes ~>~) No ' ( ) If."no", specify each'non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use.for any of the.uses.permitted in that zoning.district? ( ) .Too narrow (.) Topography (') Soil ( ) Too. small' '. .( )' Drainage.. (.) Sub-surface ( .) Too shal'low. ( ) Shape ( ) Other: 'Specify: E. .Was .the' hardship.described ab~e 'create~ by the a~tion of anyone having pcoperty interests in the land afte~ 'the Zohing Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No ~ If yes, .explain: F. Was' the hardship created by"any'o~her man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No ~z) If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for'Which:you request a variance 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, i'f necessary.) I. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? · 0 0 0 0 0 '1 'ON 3S¥3 ~111[ t ~ ~,' 5 I, I:.:~.., ~ o, .:;:.,i.~)i! !?.; i'1~ / ,.,.:-.. PROPOSED RESOLUTION Case No. 83-256 RESOLUTION NO. 83- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING SETBACK AND NON-CONFORMING LOT FOR LOT 91, PHELPS ISLAND PARK 1ST DIVISION (4424 DENBIGH ROAD) WHEREAS, the owner, Robert L. Olson, of the property described as Lot 91, Phelps Island Park First Division; Also a tract of land lying between the easterly and westerly boundaries of said Lot 91, extended northerly to the shore of Black Lake, and the shoreline of said Black Lake, PID # 19-117-23 24 0026 has applied for a variance to allow the construction of a 19 by 22 foot'addition to the dwelling with conforming setback to the west lot line, and WHEREAS, the existing structure has a non-conforming 1.6 foot to 4.3 foot Set- back to the east property line and the property does not front on a public right-of-way, and WHEREAS, the City Code requires two 6 foot side yards in the R-2 Zoning District and a lot requires frontage on an improved public right-of-way and a minimum building size of 840 square feet. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNE- SOTA: That the City Council.does hereby approve the variance as requested upon the condition that Mr. Olson grant an easement for road purposes over the south 15 feet of Lot 91, Phelps Island Park First Division; also a tract of land lying between the easterly and westerly boundaries of said Lot 91, extended northerly to the shore of Black Lake, and the shoreline of said Black Lake; as the existing non-conforming setback will not be affected by the addition to the structure and that by granting the variance, the structure will conform with the 840 square feet minimum floor area for dwellings. CASE NO. 83-'256 CASE NO. 83-255 CITY.OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota Planning Commission Agenda of September 26, 1983: Board of Appeals Case No. 83-255 Location: 5109 Drummond Road. Legal Desc.: Lots 3 & 4, Block 14, Whipple Request: 4 Foot Rear Yard Variance Zoning District: R-2 Applicant: Adrian Yackley 5109 Drummond Road Mound, MN. 55364 Phone: 827-2547/472-5231 The applicant, Mr. Yackley, iS requesting to construct an unenclosed deck within 6 feet of his rear lot line and an attached 24 by 24 foot garage to his structure. The survey submitted was done before the h~use was constructed and indicated the- proposed location of the house. The site has a drop in grade of.approximately 6 to 8 feet to the southeast corner of the lot from the east wall of the house. The land to the south has a block garage on the property and to the east has vacant lots. The Zoning Code Section 23.408(3)c allows decks, balconies, and the like, attached to the principal building within 10 feet of the rear lot line. The present struc- ture .is 16 feet to the rear lot line. The proposed garage will meet the required setbacks. The owner feels that he can utilize a better portion of his yard without filling the property, if he is.allowed a 4 foot variance to place a deck within 6 feet of the rear property line. The St~ff .recommends denial of the request as the deck can be redesigned to allow a 6 foot walkway to a deck behind the proposed attached garage. The abutting neighbors have been notified. Jan Bertrand Building Official JB/ms Planning Commission Minutes ..... ~e.ptember 26, 1983 Case No. 83-255 4 Foot R~ar Yard Variance - 5109 Drummond Road Lots 3 and 4, Block 14, Whipple Adrian Yackley was present. The Planner explained that Mr. Yackley is requesting a 4 foot rear yard vari- ance to construct an unenclosed deck 6 feet from the property line (ordinance requires l0 feet from the property llne and he alsd wants to construct an attached 24 by 24 foot garage to his structure and this is not part of variance. He has a fair amount of grade differential -- drops 6 to 8 feet as it goes over toward the southeast corner of lot. Intent'was to have door out of southern portion of the house, then to provide a deck connection that would then go around to rear yard portion of the house and that's the deck that ii presently proposed at 10 feet. The Building Inspector felt 6 feet was a reasonable deck connection in that area and the variance was unwarranted and hence recommended denial. A 6 foot deck can be constructed 'in accordance with ordinance. Yackley stated because of the hill, it ii virtually unusable - can't see a prob- lem with getting variance for deck; he believes property next door unbuildable as a road runs through the lots. Request was discussed and Chairman explained a variance would make his property nonconforming. It was suggested Yackley-mighi try to acquire more land. Byrnes moved and Jensen seconded a motion to recommend to City Council that request be denied. All were in favor of the denial except Reese who voted against the denial. 01TY OF MOUND,, CITY OF HOUND APPLICATION'TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) Street Address of Property ~'iO~ ~)~lX, ~ ~ff.a,? nj. /~d m/ ~egal Descripti.on of Property: Lot 3 ~.~ ~ Applicant (if other than owner): PID No, // 7- Day.Phone No. Name Day Phone No. Address .' .' Type of Request: Variance ( ) Conditibnal use Permit Zoning Interpretation & Review Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ()'Amendment ( ) Sign Permit ( )*Othea *If other, specify: Present Zoning District ',,~ ~ Ex[sting.U~e(s) of Property. '/~-~A.~ 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, actidn taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. ! certify that all ot~ the above statements .and the statements contained in any required papers or pJans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Signature of Applicant ,~ ,~. ~ Date f /~/~7 Planning Commission Reco~endation: Date Council Action: Resolution No. Date Case # 83~255 D. Loca'tion of: Signs, easements~ und6rground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction' Any additional information ~s may. reasonably he requlred by the C~ty Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning O.rdinance. Ill. Request for a Zon!n~ Variance A. All.information below, a site plan, as descr'ibed in Part Il, and general application must be provided before a hearing.will be scheduled. B. Does.the present use of. the property'conform to all use regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (~") No ( )' If "no", specify each non-conforming use: Do .the existing-structures comply, with all area height and bulk.regulations for the zone district in'which i't'is.located? Yes (~Z) No ' ( ) ..... If "no" · , specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use. for any of the uses.permitted i.n 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 havi.ng pcoperty interests in the land after 'the Zohing Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No (~ If yes, explain:. F. Was the hardship created by"any'o{her 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 ( ) No If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-~u~K regu~a[~ons/~Ao~ that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional sheets, i'f necessary.) Will granting of the variance be mater ally detrimental to property in the s~me.zgne, or to the enforcement of th s ordinance? CASE NO. 83-255 Adrian Yackley 5109 Drummond Road ~3 APPLICATION FOR STHEET VACATIO,~: CITY OF I.%OUt~D LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY APPLICANT: STR.DET TO BI~- VACATED.../~J- 7,/~! P]annlng Commission Minutes'of 9-26-83: Tel. No. 4. Case No. 83-254 Proposed Vacation of North 7½ Feet of Windsor Road abutting' Lots 13 & 14, Block 20, Devon Ron and Cheryl Burns were present. The Planner.explained that presently there is a 30 foot right-of-way for Win4sor Road; the prOposed vacation would take 7½ feet off the north side and there would be 7½ feet on the opposite §ide of street for possible vacation leaving 15 feet for an access road through there. This. could be considered a secondary access and the setbacks for a proposed garage on Lots 13 and 14 would be differ- ent than they are now with Windsor being.a paper street. The Planner didn't think there is a technical problem with the vacation. The Planning C~mmission discussed whether it would landlock'Lots 9 through 12; how would 15 foot access be maintained. The main access to parcels is off of' Drummond. L~nd not swampy, but there is a terrain problem. After vacation would be 22½ foot easement and there are no utilities in Windsor. Applicant can b%ild a conforming garage. Reese moved and Jensen seconded a motion to recommend request acceptance for the vacation. Wei]and asked that the min'utes .show that the garage to be constructed not be placed on the vacated roadway. The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor. ~57 Recommended by Utilities: NSP v/; Minnegasco ~'/; Continental Tel. Case No. 83-254 COMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS ! LAND SURVEYORS ~ PLANNERS Reply To: 700 Cedar Street Alexandria, Minnesota 56308 (612) 762-2157 To: From: Date: Subject: Planning Commission & Staff Oohn Cameron - HKA City Engineer September 20, 1983 Windsor Road Vacation 83-254 #2113 We have reviewed the request for vacating the north 7-1/2 feet of Windsor Road, As far as we know this sectlon of Windsor does not have any utilities located in it, therefore we would see no reason to deny the request. Unless the remaining property owners in this block agree we do not recommend vacating the entire width of Windsor. Because of the topography and ownership lines Windsor Road is the only access to the rear of these 40 foot wide parcels. If you need any additional information or have any questions, please contact this office. P.S. After field verification of the fire hydrant location (west of Dexter), a utilities easement wi)) be necessary on a portion of the proposed vacation of Windsor Road. '. n Bertrand Building Official CASE NO. 83-254 Windsor Romd ~treet Vmcmtion CASE NO. 83-254 LAND SURVEYORS licensed, Insured & Bonclccl bsacripttont Lot.s 13 and 14, Block 20, Devon. / I z. I .. ~ I 8 E~B-2084 ~ thlI'28th d%v of July, 1971. · ~e nero by certify that this ia · true and correct ropresentation of a surwey of ~'":( '' th.reon, md ~1 vi=ible encroac~,n~s, tf any, from or on a~id l~md, . CASE NO. 83-254 LEGAL DESCR]PT]0N Lot /~ ~/~/ ~lk. 7,-e ~dit~o. INSTRUCT]O.S TO APPLICANT This form need not be used when plot plans drawn to scale of not less than 1"=2o' are filed with permit application. (Each building site must have a separate plot plan.) For new buildings provide the following infor.~tion: Elevation of existing & adjoining yard grades, location of proposed consturction and existing improve- ~nts; show building, site, and setback dimensions. Show easements, ~inish ...... contours or drainage, first floor elevation, street elevation and sewer ' service elevation. Show location of water, sewer, gas and electrical service lines. Show location of survey pins with elevations. Specify the use of' each buildng and ~jor portion thereof, lo be c~pleted by. a registered land surveyor. INDICATE NORTH IN CIRCLE GRAPH SQUARES ARE 5' X 5' OR ~ 3~ ~ " I~_- .... \ \, .x ......... ~ ~,', "~' X .. ~",. ~ ~ ~ ~ . i - ' ,,, I~ ,',. le cenity e roused conslru~ion will conform 10 the dimensions end us~'shown above a~ that no changes will be mede wl u OF' OWN£RI$) OF SITE · STRUCTUR£IS) |PRINT! RESOLUTION NO. 83- CASE #83-254 EREAS, Minnesota Statutes, Section 4!2.851 p[ovides that the City Council may by resolution vacate any street, alley, public grounds, or public way, or any part thereof, when it appears in the interest of the public to do so, and WHEREAS, the City of Mound has claimed a street and utility easement over the following described land: Windsor Place as dedi'cated in the recorded plat of Devon, Hennepin County, MinnesOta and, WHEREAS, a public hear'lng was held on October~18, 1983 @7:30, as-required by law, and WHEREAS, it has been determined that good area planning reqgires that this easement be vacated being the north 7.5 feet of Windsor Place which lies between the extension southerly, of ~h~-~-~"'l"i-n-e-'~'f-[bt 14 and-the west line of Lot 13, Block 20, DEVON. ' NOW,'THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND: ./ Hereby vacated the street easement over the above described property except that portion retained as set forth in paragraph 2 of this resolution. 2. It is not in the public interest to vacate the utility portion of the easement over the area described as follows: Reservtng'an easemen~ for utility'purposes over the. easterly t0 feet of the above described part of Windsor Place. and it shall be retained by the City. A certified copy of this-resolution shall be prepared by the City Clerk and shall be a notice of completion of the proceedings and shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder and/or the Registrar of Titles as set forth in M.S.A. 412.851. 0G I I I CITY OF ~OUND Mound, Minnesota ~lanning Commission Agenda of September. 26, 1983: Board of Appeals Case No. 83-252 Location: 3103 Devon Lane Legal Desc.: Lots 1,2,3,4 & 7, Block 3 Arden Request: 12.4 and 16.35 foot front yard variances Zoning District: Applicant: Douglas Thelen 3103 Devon Lane Mound, MN. 55364 Phone: 835-5350 CASE NO. 83-252 The applicant, Mr. Thelen, is requesting a 12.4 foot and 16.35 foot variance to allow' structural, alterations to an existing non-conforming structure. The house is presently 13.65 feet from Glasgow and 17.6 feet to Devon Lane property lines. He intends to remove an existing one story 12 foot by approximately 24 foot port'ion of the house and replace it with a new' 12 foot by 30.3 addition (Znd story). ~e Zoning Code requires(Section 23.408.5) that lots abutting on more than one street shall provide the required front yards along every street. The R-1 District requires a 30 foot setback from Devon andGlasglow. The setback to the curb at Glasgow'is 18.6 feet. Due to the sha~e of the lot, the Staff recommends approval of the request. The'abutting property owners have been'.notified. J.a.n Bertrand '" Buildin. 9 Official JB/ms Plannlng 'Commission Minutes September 26, 1983 - Page 2 Case No. 83-252 Front Yard Variances of 12.4 and 16.35 Feet for 3103 Devon Lane Lots 1,2,3,4 and 7, Block 3, Arden Douglas Thelen was present. The Planner'explained Mr. Thelen is requesting a. 12.4 and 16.35 foot variance - in essence wants to remove existing one story 12 foot by approximately 24 foot; replace with a new two story 12 foo~ by 30.3 foot addition, On photo, basi- cally it is right side he is altering. R~l requires a 30 foot setback on both Devon and Glasgow. Staff recommends approval due to the shape of the land. Weiland questioned answers on '~8" and "G" and survey. Request was discussed. Thelen stated he wants to conform to rest of house, in height and the addition is going the extra 6 feet to the back of house, not toward Devon or Glasgow. densen moved and Reese seconded a motion'to recommend approval of the vari- ance .requested. The vote was unanimously in favor. CITY OF MOUNEt Add~ess of Property ~/'0,~~. Legal Description of Property: Lot Addition CITY OF MOUND Fee Pa i d Date Fi led ' . - ICATIO~ TO PLANNING G ZONING COMMISSlO~ lease type the following information) Day Phone No. 'o~'~c-- ~-~-9 Applicant (if other than owner): Name Day Phone No. Address ' · Type of Request: (1/~variance ( ) Conditibnal Use Permit Zoning Interpretation & Review Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. *if other, specify: )'Amendment ) Sign Permit )*Other '- · esent Zoning District ./~-/ Existing.U~e(s) of Property ./j~,,~_E.,, j.~.~/~.!j.. Has an app'l'ication ever been trade for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or -other zoning procedure for this property? ~ If 'so, )ist date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and p.ro~ide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. ! 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, ~aintaining and removing such notices as may bp required b./~w. Signature of Applicant .~__~/~ Planning Commission Recommendation: Date 1 Action: Resolution No. Date CASE NO. 83-252 D. Loca't]on of: Signs, easements, un~er~roun~ utilities, etc. £. Indlc~te North compas.s direction .~.. Any addit'ional' information as may reasonably be required'by the City St~ff and applicable Sections of the Zoning O.rdinance. Ill..R~q~es~ for a Zon!~.~ Varla. nce A. All..i~formation below, a sit~ plan, as described in Part II, and general applicatlon must be provided before a hearing.will be scheduled. B. Does .the present use of.the property'conform to all use regulations for ~he.zone district in ~hich it.is located? Yes (~) No ( )' If ~'no", specify each non-conforming use: Do .the existi'ng.structures comply, with all area height and bulk regulations for the zone district in'which i't'is'.located?' Yes (\~) 'No ' ( ) ..... iT "no", specify ~ach non-conforming use: O. Which unique physical chara'cteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonBble use for any of the.uses .permitted in that zoning.district? ( ) .Too narro~ (.) Topography ( ) Soll : ( ) Too. small ' '. · ( )' Drainage.. ( ) Sub-surface E.'-.k'es-th~ ~scr[b~d eb~e create~ by the action of anyone hevi,ng p~op~rty interests ~n the l~nd afte~ 'the Zohi..ng Ordinance was e6opted? Yes ( ) No If yes, explain: F. Was"th~ hardship created by"any"o~her man-made change, such as the reloc~- tlon of a'~oad? Yes ( ) No ( ~ If y~s, explain: . G. Are the conditions of hardship for'wh~ch"you request a variance peculiar only to the proper,fy described:in this petit[on?" Yes (¥~/' ~e.~.~.~. 'k~° ( ) ' If no, .how m~ny otnec pro2~*tie¢ ar~ ~~ ,~ ~ ~ .. 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 p]ans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional .. sheets, if necessary.) Will grantin.o of the wriance be materially detrimental, to property in the same zone, or ,to the enforcement of thl.s ordlnance? :- · 4....'.':..' ..'::., .' '., -, .-. ":.-,' -J -. :.:. ~ -'..,: :.. . :'~ ." -.:' . .' ' ' . -. · t' I' . - · -.-...,.-.:-.- ..... ~-~-." ..· . . , ,9~... .- . ... .. '. ".-'. ".:~!.". '" ~,b.~ '~':' · ' "..-" :; ' ," '" '. :-' - · ' · '""~'::~ ..... ," ....~", "' '-' -'. .. · ' '~, II ' .' - ''~'~ "': '- '". " -'. " ..... .':.:".~'". ,cf. -~ '.,': · " .'.-' .. ·' '. .."', '.'".: . ~. . ' . . , ' ,. , .... :. :': ..v.. :..:...,'.;':.'..: . -'.' · . T,. /\. / '.Y', · ',f.::, '-!l"'..'; '.::.'.-' .2~ .... .,'.-?, ~' ,,.-.., .... · · -...., - rl%l~ · / \. ~ j ./ ..... '-,'~ ' - .' .':' "'.:':: :.:' '.." .... . ;.'t ' I .... "'~;"~ ' ' ' ::.-.'.:,...:,:.:,-... , , t-. : . ..! ........ · ..: -.-- .-.'..., ..-.:.:':'.....,.....'.:~,-,c'x ....:, t... '..:' .t'.. ..... ~ ':.'!~ . '. ,, _.~, .'~ ..~/.. ~,~F-.'.,;z: '- '.' . .. '.';;....: .:' |: ~ .... ~.'. · :", "- ~, ''-'' J " ' . .~, "1 '. '~ ' ' -' ' '1 · " ' ""' ,'" ''':'"' '' : .... . ..... "t>, ','' v,' · .'., '. ,~ ....... ,: '~":', .... ..... ~'* · .* - x ' "· .... o " $~' '' · ' ' ' , .... ' , t -'. "~ ,'. :' ,~'~--? .......... " · ' . I' . -,.',;4,., , .' ............... · " :_, ' '.', ~ . ,.... '.. 1 ' "~li ~1;. :,."1, · 4'.~' , ' ,,~.-"~T'.)"' ..z., . - · . · · 'J,~ .... - ..*-~"'*' , "'.;"." ~"2 ..... " '. ~-. ' ' ' ~ "-".~,~ ................. ','~,-'".'; . '-' .... .'' ' '* ---~"'. ......... - ..... ,'.:-.. :.:.'I .-.:~-.:,..'..':.':.-../ · ,~,. ,.(,;,,,:,,,,,-,:,.-x .a · ...I..: /~;~ ........... · ..:. ~.,: ..... ,,: ..... . !' .' . .... :.'.'. l~. .... ' 1. /,7..,~ ~, ...... ,.,, ............ /,.:.~ .. ,:.. .: ~.,,~:, .. ~. ' . . .. .'.' .... . "",:'""'"'" t'"':'" :. '.::""' ~" ' :,' · .'-'.- '.'.,?':" ..'_ " · ....... : .' .. i',:-.:::;~!:.'..::'~ ~-I -...: .... ' ......... t--. ~ .... _z..: .. ~,~~. ',..-.~:.~ ..:'v .' . :.. ', . .: '-' '.. Ii ' ' / ' ~ · I ,.',' -~,/-' ; : ~:' · .. · ' -'.- ' i'- ' :.'".'.:"i ..... "" / ~:~ ' 'l 9~.,,~-' ' ' ' · ' '" "'": ..... "Iv''':j '"'"J '~:~ ' ~".'./ "' ' ............ '~".i'' : '": ., ......-..... :-- . - .%,/ ., , . . . ...... . .. . ..'. .'.':" ". Ii : "' "..% ] ' ' ' ; ,,<~" 'n;4 "_ " i ,' ' '.. ". ,. '. .x', ' / ' /.-'~' ".,'i>. .'" ' ' .. : :- .,.'. ~ · . · J .. .,., · . . . . . .. . ~ "< "' ':' ;~c' ~ ,;'/"~>"'-' ', '" ' -',' N S I NN3~ qqq IA~0 i-:.:-'~'.2.. '.: . ' · . ~.~0-1 A3A~iI' . : i".':' ."",.'1 -. ' · '. ' -'. ,~"~, ~'~ . - ', I~" :"'.-"" "I-.'~ ' · ·... ~,!-~ MIDDLESEX .Li. ~ k~O. It50' CASE N(~. 83-252 8 R/G ~TON CASE NO. 83-252 PROPOSED RESOLUTION RESOLUTION 83- RESOLUTION TO CONCURWITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE FRONT YARD VARIANCES AS REQUESTED FOR LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4 AND 7, BLOCK 3, ARDEN (3103 DEVON LANE) WHEREAS, the owner, Mr. Douglas Thelen, of the property described as Lots l, 2, 3, 4 and 7, Block 3, Arden, PID # 24-117-24 44 0029, has applied for a building setback variance of 12.4 and 16.35 feet to the street fronts to allow for the removal of an existing portion of the home and to reconstruct, at the same location, a two story 12 foot by 30.3 foot addition, and WHEREAS, the City Code requires the existing principal structure to be 30 feet to both street front property lines in the R-1 Zoning District, and WHEREAS, the planning Commission recommended approval of the variances, due to topo- graphy and unusual shape of the lot of record. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA: That the City Council does hereby concur with the Planning Commission recommendation to approve a 12.4 foot variance to the Devon Lane (east) property line and a 16.35 variance to the Glasgow Road (north) property line as requested. MINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMM!SSlON MEETING October I0, 1983 Present were: Chairman. Frank Weiland; .Commissioners Liz Jensen, Geoff Michael and Thomas Reese; Council Representative Pinky Charon; City Manager Jon Elam; City Plan- ner Mark Koegler; Building Official Jan Bertrand and Secretary Marjorie Stutsman. Also present were Vincent Coughlln, Project Manager for Kraus-Anderson and David Wagner, Architect with BWBR. MINUTES The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of September 26, 1983 were presented for consideration. Reese. asked that. his reasoning on Case 83-256 (Page 4 of the minutes) be better spelled out; i.e. "it's true that he didn't require a variance, but only be- cause he is benefitt.ing from the 1.6 foot on other side--if house were centered, he couldnlt hage put house on lotI'. Also he stated that on Page 5 of minutes, he hadn't made the comment on fines. Chairman asked that comment be struck from the minutes. Jensen moved and'Reese seconded a motion to accept the minutes as amended. The vote was unanimously in favor. DISCUSSION ITEMS T. Sketch Plan Review of Trolley Boat Housing Site Proposal The Planner explained that a lot of cities have a provision in their ordinance for a sketch plan.revieW so applicant can get an idea what the City.thinks without spend- ing a large sum of money on design fees and he thought it appropriate this.housing proposal be reviewed in that vein. This is a general review to discuss how the pro- ject fits with the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance and the concerns you might have. The Planner gave a little background on the site--a common visible site in Mound. The proposal itself presently comprises about lO.8. acres which includes land owned by City, the present site of the Metro.500 Station and a site to the east which is owned .by Tonka although there is a development group that have an oPtion'to purchase it. We have a bit of a power struggle -'service station against service station. The Metro Station has been purchased by'Ashland 0il and they are in the process of having plans developed for conversion to a new Super America Station; on the other hand, the proposal before you calls for removal of that facility and the developers of the east portion 'of property apparently have had some negotiations with Holiday and they are looking at a service station on that corner. The proposal before the Commission would represent a gas station on extreme east with housing taking 90% of site itself. Approval of housing would preclude the Super America installation. The Chairman asked if Metro 500 met all criteria of the zoning ordinance if it changes. Planner stated present use is non-conforming; it is grandfathered in. Planner noted another complication is that site itself was used as a dump site and Tonka had deposited waste material on the property with the result that property has been listed.as a possible hazardous waste disposal site. Water tests have not in- dicated hazardous materials. Planner felt all factors on the site itself should be brought out. City has little to do di'rectly with this other than be instigating force to monitor and lobby for final resolution of this issue with local PCA groups. Planner stated that basically the issues are to look at the big picture which con~ cerns land use, public access, transportation and things of that nature. Proposal is 2 parts: one a gas station and one a housing si.te. Housing is a conditional use under the B-l; service station is not presently a use listed in B-1. Planning Commission Minutes 0¢tober 10, 1983 - Page 2 Major issues are: l) Do you feel multi-family 8welllngs are appropriate use o~ s~te~ 2) Secondary is the 5 or 6 story format when at present time, the zoning ordinance limits structures to 3 story - so you should provide some direction how you feel about that height and mass of building on site and 3) a major point, has been some 'discussion of City. land to the south of the housing (wetlands); there have been pro- posals on and off for some park facilities., floating trails, etc. from a public access point off of Shoreline -- thinks it would be wise for Commission to review what their thoughts are on public access to the wetland area. At this point, Vin Coughlin of Kraus Anderson introduced himself and Dave Wagner who is with the architectural firm of BWBR. He then reviewed briefly how they were originally asked to look at the site for retail. They did feel the site has more potential f6r a housing site. Fundamentally the whole issue is the question of whether the City would entertain the notion of 5 or 6 story buildings on the site; the economics of'site would require that kind of development. They would try to create an environment within the site which basically takes advantage of the close- ness to the water and turns its back on Tonka. They are prepared to stay with the issues because they think it does have potential. Dave Wagner gave an overview of the proposal; they are looking at Placing 2 buildings on this site; 5 to 6 story high that would contain housing units; all units will orient toward the view--windows in units would be slanted so everybody gets a view over the marsh and long view and turns the back of building to the industrial develop- ment on Shoreline Boulevard. He stated another thing.we are fighting is the soil conditions that are less than adequate; don~t know what all .conditions are, but have heard there is strip where piling would go down forever; much will depend on soil tests. They are looking primarily at elderly housing - empty nesters - housing for aging people starting at maybe 55 or 58. Looking at having a one story community center ~pace that would link buildings (two 5 or 6 story buildings) and have all amenities to serve site--dining, sauna, exercise ann all-things appropriate to this kind of development. Also looking at enclosed parking above grade (one story struc- ture) as we anticipate water table will be ve?y high. Believe it very appropriate · . tO have everything connected. Also there will be unenclosed parking for residents and visitors. They would like to open up Some oF marsh to increase the desirability of units as the open water and marsh are major amenities of the site. Feel it is important to empty nesters to keep some segregation between the general public and the people living on the sit~. The Chairman asked 'if the public access area was part o~ property they want to acquire. It was stated property line is outside line shown. It was questioned if the DNR wants this as public access. It was discussed using same as a walking access; not neces- sarily a boat access. Wagner suggested using end of Maywood Road as walking access to park/wetlands. The City Manager offered:, that this has been a nice corner cut for persons walking to town. Coughlin commented that this is very preliminary; they want to walk through the process to see if this makes sense. .Feel older population want to remain in communi- ty; but want scaled down version of'housing; that this is a growth area and would open up a market here to starter families that want the bigger house. They are not sure that all elements may well be here--will find out with the market study and this is premise we are proceeding on. They feel this site not greatest housing site b,.It think it can be made to work. Believe there is whole series of hurdles that haye to be cleared and issues to be resolved. The grit issue is whether it makes sense to this Commission and City to modify the zoning to put in higher density and higher elevations on this site. Planning Commission Minutes October 10, 1983 - 'Page 3 'Reese had made a list of his concerns: 1) we're at the end of a long umbilical cord--have real concern of dumping 114 more families onto Highway 15, 2) much opposed to any dredging or power boats in that marsh---any 'storm or anything dis- turbing.the wetlands cuts down the quality of Cook's Bay, 3) six st.ories may be bizarre, doesn't fit in--like to see what six stories looks like, 4') possible con- dominiums for part of the Tonka building and 5) what impact might there be on any park development? Coughlin stated that ~is experience has been that only half or less of the older people in this would drive. He thought there could be trade offs - like visually having marsh and have no docks. Stated the 5 or 6 stories is strictly economic.and that City ~ay well find this as a TIF District may not be feasible; They are here to work with us and appreciate the comments. Jensen stated sh~ can see a real problem with the 3 accesses onto a very busy roa~ cOupled with a service station. She feels there's going to be driving as they won't carry purchases home. She is violently opposed to dredging channel. She is also concerned about the 5 or 6 stories not fitting in. Likes look of it from ~wamp, but most of the City would see the Highway 15 side -- big gray wall type of thing and how does it fit in with Tonka and the other buildings? Michael doesn't think there is going to be that much more of a p~oblem. Feels that if there is an opportunity to take what he feels is real eyesore'right now and work something with it that we should take a look at it. Discussed that tenant trips are not at rush hour; there will be pedestrian traffic'an a way people can move from that area safely should be looked at; stop lights, etc. Including a convenience store in complex itself was suggested. Wagner stated one drive could be eliminated; have just an ingress and egress. Charon thinks multi-family appropriate use for site; real interested in access to trail and having walking continuity .. up to s'~ores; leave as natural as possible. Discussed docks, lake access, making it'quiet waters. The City Manager thought at most, there could be 5 or 6 docks; suggested keeping the housing and dock issues seperate; remove docks and instead put in a lookout station which oversees the wetlands. He thinks the issues are: l) 6 stories 2) whether there is a market-- to be determined by study and 3) whether this is an appropriate use. Coughlin recognizes this is unusually complicated site; a very little piece of land that is developable--but thinks Mound has potential. City Manager feels question of Highway 15 will resolve 'itself and also that PCA has no evidence of hazardous material on this site; channel could be dredged but very expensive. Mentioned that park dedication may be'way to get park access trail if development goes in. Stated that everyone wants something done with this site. Discussed tax increment financing. Reese moved and Michael seconded a motion (1) the Planning Commission agrees that multi-family is an appropriate use for the property and (2) encourage O · Kraus Anderson}proceed w~th'the study. After more discussion on heights and taking the Fire Ladder Truck out to see the height-(aesthetics are big thing--has to look right)-the vote was taken and all were unanimously in favor. Planning Commission Mi'nutes October 10, 1983 -.Page 4 Restaurant Definitions The Planner reviewed the definitions from his letter of October 3', 1983 briefly and noted that in response to the Planning Commission's directions had come back with Class IV covering 3.2 beer and set-ups to be allowed in all commercial districts and also changes which would permit residential in B-3. The Planner's recommendations were discussed briefly. Reese moved and Charon seconded a motion to approve the Ordinance changes as presented by the Staff. The vote was unanimously, in favor. Informational Item The City Manager ekplained the 1980 Decennial census. He also stated that the next step for the City is to fund the market study for the housing site proposal for about $6,000. Adjournment .Reese moved and Jensen. seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at.9:15 p.m. vote was all in favor, so meeting was adjourned. The Frank Weiland, Chairman Attest: 3030 Harbor Lane Nonth, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 Planning Commission and Staff Mark Koe~ler, City Planner October 3, 1983 'SUBJ: Sketch Plan Review APPLICANT: Kraus-Anderson Realty Company LGC_A~ION: South side of Shoreline Boulevard west of Cypress Lane and east of the existin~ channel--area co~u~only referred to as Lcst Lake. EXISTING ZONING: Central Business (B-i) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Northern portion -commercial; southern portion - open space. PROPOSAL: The Trolley Boat Housing site..proposal has been placed on the .discussion agenda for an informal sketch plan review. Although not a part of Mound's existing ordinance, most cities provide developers the chance to have a sketch plan review of a project so they may solicit comments frcm the City without the expenditure of significant design fees. In a sketch plan review, the Planning Commission may informally advise the applicant of the extent to which the plan conforms to the ccmprehensive plan, zoning ordinance and other rules and regulations, and may discuss possible modifications necessary to implement approval of the plan. It is important to highlight that, at this point, the plan is preliminary in nature and is subject to further refinement and modification. Therefore, the Planning CQ,~,ission should focus its attention on major issues such as land use, building height and type, access, etc. The Trolley Boat Housing proposal calls for the construction of approximately 114 condominium units within a five or six story, twin towered structure. The units are intended to be owner occupied and will be designed to appeal to .. elderly individuals. Sale prices of the units are not expected to exceed $100,000. Surface ~nd garage parking account for a total of 132 spaces or 1.16 spaces per unit. Parking lots are connected by a system of driveways and three access points onto Shoreline Boulevard are proposed. Amenities include a dock area adjacent to the existing channel which will require dredging the wetland area. Plannin~ C~,,'L',ission and Staff Page Two October 3, 1983 Kraus-Anderson is involved in the development of the proposal and has indicated interest in establishin~ the area as a tax increment project. Staff has not yet evaluated the possibilities of tax increment financing but will do so after cc~npletion of the sketch plan review, pending a decision by the' applicant to proceed. Preliminarily, it seems that the project will require tax increment financing or other nm3nicipal assistance since it calls for the acquisition and removal of the existing Metro 500 Service Station. SITE C~iARA~~I~: The Trolley Boat Housing site, commonly known as Lost Lake, consists of approximately 10.8 acres of vacant land with the exception of the parcel occupied by the Metro 500 Service Station. The western half of the site is owned by the City of Mound. The Metro Square Service Station has been purchased by Ashland Oil for conversion to a -Super America Station, and the eastern portion of the property is being purchased frcm Tonka Corporation by a group of local investors. The local group has plans to sell the eastern portion' of the site to. Holiday for the construction of a service station as indicated on the site plan. From this description, you will note that there are two competing grc~:ps trying · to place service stations on the site. These stations present an either-or situation. If the Trolley Boat Housing proposal is unsuccessful, it seems reasonable to conclude that the ~etro 500 facility may be remodeled into a Super America Station. If the Trolley Boat proposal is successful, the existing Metro 500 Station will be demolished and the land will become part of the housing development. This creates the possibility of having a service station (presumably Holiday) on the eastern edge of the site as shown on the site plan. .The Trolley Boat site has another complication which involves the Tonka Corporation and the Pollution Control A~ency (PCA!. ks you are probably aware, the Lost Lake area was used as a dump site for a number of years. In 1981, the Tonka Corporation, in compliance with federal law, informed the EPA that it had .deposited waste materials on the property. Tonka indicated that the disposed materials were in' all likelihood non-hazardous. Since Tonka could not substantiate this claim, the site was added to the list of possible hazardous waste disposal sites. Samples to date have not indicated the presence of any hazardous materials. PCA either has or will be requesting that Tonka Corporation conduct thorough soil and ground water tests on the site. If Tonka does not cc~ply, the PCA can institute legal action to force testin~ or it can list the site under what is known as the "non-responsible party classification." If placed in.this category, the site investigation and cleanup could proceed under the State Superfund Program which presently has very little funding available. A time frame for the resolution of the possible hazardous waste issue is difficult to predict. Until such occurs,' it is virtually impossible for development to take place on the site. While it is important that the City monitor and lobby for the resolution of this issue, the ultimate solution lies with the Tonka Corporation and the state and federal governments. Planning C~,,,~ission and Staff Page Three October 3, 1983 'COMMENTS: As indicated previously, the major thrust of this review should be focused on issues such as land use, building type, transI~Jrtation, etc. /he subject proposal includes two types of land uses: (1) multi-family housing and (2) the c~,,,,ercial service station. In looking at the project frcm a zoning standpoint, the B-1 zoning permits multiple dwellings as a conditional use but excludes motor fuel stations. Presumably, the Holiday gas station would not be permissible under present zoning, and the conversion of the Metro 500 Station into a Super America Station may or may not be permissible, depending upon interpretation of the non-conforming use provisions of the zoning ordinance. Since the service station is a minor part of the Droposal, additional staff cc~wnents will only address the housing portion of the project. In reviewing the site plan, it .is pointless to look at parking setbacks, lot usage, and lot area per dwelling unit given the preliminary nature of the proposal. These detailed: items will be addressed when the appl'icant further refines the plans. The proposal does, however, conflict with two general provisions of Section '23. 620.7 of the zoning ordinance which outlines the general requirements for multi-family structures. The ordinance limits the height of multi-family structures to three stories or 35 feet. The Trolley Boat proposal may contain six stories at an 'estimated height of 60 feet. Parking in the proposed plan is provided at a rate of 1.16 stalls per unit. The zoning ordinance requires 2-1/2 spaces per unit. It is very probable that the final site plan will require variances to these provisions as well as others. Another general issue that the Planning C<~,,,,ission may want to address is the public usage of the Lost Lake area. There has been considerable discussion on the development of the Lost Lake site as a passive, wetland park facility. This type of development seems consistent with the proposed housing providing that the applicant provides access to public trails and vehicle parking off Shoreline .Boulevard. If the City is interested in pursuing this 'concept, this is the appropriate time to'inform the applicant of such to allow for integration into a revised site plan. RECOMMENDATION: At this point, the applicant simply needs a concensus recommendation from the Planning Commission on the acceptability of the proposal. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission ask itself the following questions: 1. Is multi-family housing an appropriate land use on the Lost Lake site? 2. Is a five or six story structure appropriate for the site and surrounding community? 3. Should public use of the remainder of the Lost Lake site be acco,,,odated in the development of the housing project? The responses to these questions should provide the basis for a recommendation on the Trolley Boat Housir~3 proposal. CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Jon Elam, City Manager Jan Bertrand, Building Official October 6, 1983 12 Foot Alley Vacation Request from Jon Scherven I have attached a copy of Jon Scherven's request for a refund of the unused portion of his alley vacation filing fee. He is requesting a withdrawal at this time. The City Engineer's review was $41.O0 from the $100.OO fee leaving a balance of $59.00. There were several staff meetings with him to discuss alternatives; There was no advertising or public hearing of the matter. JB/ms ITEH #1~ Set date for Public Hearing to reallocate $1,250 of 1983 CDBG Funds for the purpose of installing a handicapped ramp at the Ice Arena. The remaining 50% of the cost will be paid by the Pond Arena. Proposed Hearing Date - November 1, 1983. t August 9, 1983 Mr. Ken Weber 2559 Ridge Lane Mounds View, MN 475-7436 (Work) 55112 City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 AttentiQn: Mr. John Elam Dear Mr. Elam: As per our phone conversation, I am inquiring on the possible purchase of Lot(s) 5 and/(or) 6, Block 9, Woodland Point, City of Mound, Minnesota. I am presently considering purchasing Lots 3, 4, 19, 20, 21 & 22 as a building site for my new home. I wish to. purchase Lot #5 to better locate my house and driveway on the site and to be able to maintain the site,as it is presently weeds and undergrowth. Thank you for your time and assistance. Sincerely, Ken Weber KW:akw CITY of MOUND October 13, 1983 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER Enclosed is a proposal to conduct an Electric Load Study on the city's water pumps, etc. This was discussed during our budget process last month. The $3,900 cost would come out of the Water Fund. JE:fc ATRIANGLE ENGINEERING, INC. ENGINEERING ENERGY EFFIC, IENC, Y '1067 EDGERTON · ST. PAUl., MN 55'10'1 October 7, 1983 Mr. Greg Skinner Water and Sewer Superintendent City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Load Management Study for Mound Water Utility Dear Mr. Skinner: Thank you for the opportunity to review your preliminary data and to meet with you to discuss some ideas regarding Load Management. The preliminary figures indicate that the City of Mound could reduce its electrical cost by approximately $10,500 per year with little or no capital expenditure. The operational study will take us about six weeks to complete. Per our discussion we have enclosed two copies of our Profes- sional Service Agreement. Upon receipt of one signed copy, we will proceed with the study. Sincerely, Verne E. Jacobsen, P.E. Pres ident VE J: wj i ENCLOSURE TRIANGLE ENGINEERING, INC. ENGINEERING ENERGY EFFICIENCY 1067 EDGERTON · ST. PAUL, MN 55101 October 7, 1983 Mr. Greg Skihner Water and Sewer Superintendent City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Load Management Study for Mound Water Utility INTRODUCTION~ Triangle Engineering, Inc. proposes to provide professional consulting engineering services for the design and implementa- tion of electrical load management techniques to reduce current electrical operating expenses. QUALIFICATIONS: Triangle Engineering's staff includes professional engineers with many years of experience in water system operations and electrical load management. Our staff is familiar with the new electrical rate structure and has experience in making operational adjustments necessary to reduce electrical costs. THE PROJECT: Changes in price structuring for electrical power have re- sulted in the addition of a demand charge. The demand charge is intended to reduce peak loads and improve the load factor for your utility. These changes have resulted in substantial increases in electrical costs for major users of electrical power, such as your utility. Our preliminary estimates indicate that the 1983 electrical cost for your water utility will be $36,000 and that an ap- proximate savings of $10,500 annually could be realized with little or no capital expenditure. TRIANGLE ENGINEERING, INC. Objective: We will provide recommendations for operational changes which will reduce your energy costs while maintaining your system reliability and integrity. In addition to our operational recommendations, we will also provide recommendations for specific studies, which may require equipment changes, to further reduce your electrical costs. Activities: Review existing data, reports and current operating procedures of the potable water delivery system including hourly, daily, weekly and monthly consumption. Review the water system's physical and operational characteristics to determine the flexibility of the system. Review current pump effectiveness and individual operating costs and summarize current electrical usage. Determine and qualify any particular operating constraints in your system through consultations with your operating personnel. Determine availability of various electrical rates available for your system. t Prepare an operational plan to reduce electrical costs consistent with system requirements. The operational plan will be in monthly segments. 7. The proposed operational plan will be reviewed by the State of Minnesota Department of Health. As a result of these studies we will also provide recommendations for future capital expenditures that would provide you with additional electrical cost savings. We will indicate estimated costs and projected payback periods for such improvements. Provide follow-up assistance to help implement the proposed recommendations. 10. The study will include new additions which are near completion. If new tanks and booster pumps are not operational prior to submission of our report, we will review and update our operating plan after these additions are completed. -2- TRIANGLE ENGINEERING, INC. Future Services: Triangle Engineering, Inc. will be available for con- sultation, enhancements, training or other services as may be required by the City in the areas of system opera- tion and system optimization on an hourly basis. Rates available.upon request. The operational plan, upon request, will be revised annually for five years. Updates will specifically address, but shall not be limited to, any changes in electrical rates and changes or additions to the water system which may affect electrical costs. Be The update will be done on a sequential basis, beginning the year following the report and continuing for a five year period. A request by the City for the update must be included as part of the original contract. There- after, the annual update may be cancelled by the City with written notice of its intent to Triangle Engineering, Inc. 60 days prior to the anniversary date of the contract. COST PROPOSAL: Triangle Engineering, Inc. is prepared to undertake this project, as outlined in Items 1-10, including costs for travel, printing, and other incidentals, for the sum of $3,900.00. This cost proposal is subject to the following conditions: The City will provide, at its own expense, all maps, drawings, records and other pertinent data available in the files of the City. Triangle Engineering, Inc. will only bill the City if the savings indicated in the report are greater than the above fee. The City will be billed upon completion of the report and the fee shall be due and payable within 30 days of receipt. -3- TRIANGLE ENGINEERING, INC. Updates of the operational plan, as indicated by Item 2, under Future Services, will be provided for an annual fee of $780.00. This fee shall be due and payable within 60 days of submission of the new report. Triangle Engineering, Inc. is pleased to be able to provide our services to your community. Sincerely~ ~ ~ _~_/ Pres ident ACCEPTED: For the City of Mound CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on November 15, 1983 at 7:30 P.M. at the Mound City Hall, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, the City Council will hear proposed zoning change amending restaurant classifications, application to B-I, B-2, and B-3 Zoning Districts and permitting residential uses within the B-3 Zoning District. The amendments are as follows: a. Amend Section 23.302, restaurant definitions to include new classifications I-IV b. Amend Section 23.625.3 to add Class Ill and Class IV restaurants as conditional uses in the B-1 zone. c. Amend Section 23.630.3 to add Class I'l, Ill and IV restaurants as conditional uses under B~2. d. Amend Section 23.635.3 to add Class IV restaurants to the list of conditiona! uses in the B-3 zone. e. Amend Section 23.635.2 to allow R-l, R-2, R-3, and R-4 uses as permitted uses in the B-3 zone. 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 TO:~ Planning.Cc~mission and Staff FRCM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: October 3, 1983 SUBJ: Restaurant Definitions At last months discussion meetir~, considerable tim~ was spent r~viewin~ several options on restaurant classifications. From the discussion, Staff was asked to draft a definition for a Class IV restaurant and examine amending the B-3 zoning category to permit residential uses. If amended in this fashion, the zoning ordinance would contain the following definitions: Restaurants (Class I). Traditional Restaurant'- food served andconsumedby custcmers while seated at a counter or table. Cafeteria - food selected by customers while going through, a servi'ng line and taken to a table for consumption. Pestaurants (Class II). Fast Food, Convenience and Drive-In - restaurants where a majority of customers order and are served their food at a counter in packages prepared to leave the premises; or able to be taken to a table, counter, automobile; or off the premises to be consumed; or a drive-in where most customers consume their food in an automobile regardless of how it is served. Restaurants (Class III). Liquor Service Restaurants - restaurants where food and intoxicatin~ liquors are served and consumed by cust~ners while seated at a counter or table and/or restaurants which contain entertainment, either live or prerecorded. Food sales in such facilities shall account for a minimum of 50 percent of a restaurants gross receipts 'on an annual basis. Restaurants (Class IV). Non-intoxicating Liquor Service Restaurants - restaurants where food, non-intoxicatiDg liquors (i.e., 3.2 beer) and set-ups are served and consumed by custcmers while seated at a counter or table. Plannin~ Co~iss ion Page Two October 3, 1983 Based upon these definitions, restaurants could apply.to the existin~ zoning categories in the following manner: B-1 Class I (Traditional Restaurant) - Permitted Use Class III (Liquor Service) - Conditional Use Class IV (Non-intoxicating Liquor Service) - Conditional Use B-2 Class I (Traditional Restaurant) - Permitted Use Class II (Fast Food, Convenience) -Conditional Use Class III (Liquor Service) - Conditional Use Class IV (Non-Intoxicating Liquor Service) -Conditional Use B-3 Class IV (Non-intoxicating Liquor Service) - Conditional Use RECOMMENDATION: In order to incorporate these definitions and uses into the existing ordinance, the following will have to .occur: '-1. Substitute the new definitions (Classes I - IV) for the existing restaurant definitions in Section 23.302. 2. Amend Section 23.625.3 to add Class III and Class IV .restaurants as conditional uses in the B-1 zone. 3. Amend Section 23.630.3 to add Class II, III and IV restaurants as conditional uses under B-2. 4. Amend Section 23.635.3 to add Class IV restaurants to the list of conditional uses in the B-3 zone. Additionally, the Planning Commission directed Staff to prepare language modifying the B-3 zoning to permit cohversions frc~ commercial uses to 'residential uses. .This could be accomplished by: 5. Amend Section 23.635.2 to allow R-I, R-2, R-3 and R-4 uses as permitted uses in the B-3 zone. If the proposed changes in this report are acceptable, the Planning Commission should recommend that the City Council amend the zoning ordinance by incorporating Items 1 through 5. October 13, 1983 CITY of MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER RE: LAGOON PARK Since coming to work for the City in 1981.1 have been involved in trying to work out a land exchange so the City could get access to a fine park parcel we have called Lagoon Park. The proposal is basically a land exchange between the City and the adjacent property owner Mr. Ned Podany. A copy of the survey is enclosed as are letters from both Roger Reed and Curt. This has been a project waiting to happen for a long time only to be stymied time after time by unknown legal questions. I feel that Roger Reed's suggestions make good sense. Bacially they .require: .1. We conduct a vacation proceeding on the specific land to be vacated which separates off the the section of City Park land. Once approved, this could revert back to Mr. Podany the only adjoining property owner. 2. He would provide the City with a Quit Claim Deed for the parcel of his land, free of all encumberances, etc. 3. He then could apply for the variance necessary to build his garage. 4. We could make our access path to our park so it is fully accessible for public use. This land exchange proposal has been approved by both the Park Commission (1981 & 1983) and in concept by the City Council in 1981. This is before you to approve in concept. If you do that we can urge Mr. Podany to file the necessary vacation request, etc. A. THOMAS WURST, CURTIS A. PEARSON, JOSEPH E. HAMILTON, JANES D. /ARSON, THOh4AS F. UNDERWOOD, F~OGER J. FELLOWS LAW OFFICES WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LARSON ~ UNDERWOOD I100 FIRST BANK PLACE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 September 27, 1983 Mr. Jon Elam, Cit~ Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Podany Dear Jori: You have a copy of Roger Reed's letter to me of September 23, i983. I reviewed that letter and talked to Mr. Reed on the telephone. I think our prior opinions relating to this problem have covered the subject in great detail. Mr. Reed and his client Mr. Podany ~obviously feel that they have worked out a way to accomplish a goal, i.e., a trade of dedicated park land for a parcel owned by Mr. Podany. I indicated to Roger today that I really don't see that I have any additional comments to make on the proposal. I have further indicated to him that I do have great concern over the question and propriety of the City vacating or giving up park land. It is his position that if you have willing parties,~that should be the governing determination. Procedurally, any lands to be conveyed by Podany to the City of Mound would have to be subdivided off either through a subdivision or by waiver. If the City holds a vacation proceeding, it is impossible to determine what questions may be raised by members of the Council or the general public. I feel t have raised as many questions as I can in the prior opinions. I really don't know what additional information I can provide to you or the Council on this matter, and Mr. Reed is fully aware that if the procedure is followed, the City would not be in a position of making any guarantees or warranties relating to any title which Mr. Podany might receive. Ve~ truly yo~, City Attorney CAP: Ih September 23, 1983 REED & POND ATTORN~'Y~ AT L,~VV MOUND, MINNESOTA 553B4 PAU/ /. POND Mr. Curtis A. Pearson Attorney at Law 1100 First Bank Place West Minneapolis, MN 55402 Dear Curt: On behalf' of Ned Podany, I nave reviewed your legal opinions to the City dated March 20, 1974 and June 21, 1982 in regard to the land exchange which the City has been considering for many years. I have conferred with Richard W. Edblom, the Hennepin County Examiner of Titles. He feels it is feasible to first have the City vacate the park area and then for us to bring a Torrens action naming the plattors as defendants. I appreciate the problems the City might have in obtaining marketable title ~o the piece that Mr. Podany desires, but under this plan the City would make no guarantee to Mr. Podany as to the marketability of the title but let Mr. Podany take that risk. We suggest that a deed to the City for the part that it desires together with releases of any mortgages be delivered in escrow until the City completes.at its expense vacation of the property which Mr. Podany desires. At this point the City would have gained all it wants from the trade. 7hen Mr. Podany would begin a Torrens proceeding claiming title to that property through adverse possession over the past 15 years. The Minnesota Supreme Court said in Rupley vs. Fraser, 156 N.W. 350, "possession may be actual, open, continuous, hostile and exclusive even though part of the Iand be a public street. . . we see no reason why the rights of the fee owner may not be acquired by adverse possession though the rights of the public may not be." It is on this basis that I think that we will prevail in a Torrens action against the plattors even though ~we would be barred from claiming adverse possession against the municipality. At any rat~, the risk of failure in this Torrens action would rest~ solely on Mr. ?odany and not on the City. The City would of course agree to make no claim in the Torrens action. Mr. Curtis A. Pearson September 23, 1983 Page Two I assume that. vacation proceedings would be under M.S.A. 412.851 under which the Council would have to make a finding that "it appears in the interest of the public" to vacate a parcel in question. If the City doesn't want one piece and does Want another it would certainly seem to be in the public interes~ for it to vacate the parcel it doesn't want. If you have any questions about this procedure, I would appreciate a call. Sincerely yours, REED & POND Roger W. Reed RWR:jh cc: ~Oon Elam Ned Podany P.S. The Podany property was Torrensed March 30, 1944. is not subject to any easement. It September 8, 1983 ~ED & POND A'T"TO~NEYG AT L_A.W ~424 ~::HORELINE BLVD. P. O. BOX 157 PHONE (5~2) 472-2222 ROGER W, REED PAUL Lo POND City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 ATTN: Jon Elam, Manager Dear Jon: On behalf of Ned Podany, I am writing you this letter to set forth what I propose as a solution to the desired swap of parkland which Podany and the City have been discussing for some years. Referring to Gordon Coffin's survey dated June 29, 1982, we propose to deliver to the City of Mound a quit claim deed and a partial release of any mortgages involved covering that portion of Lot 1, Block 17, The Highlands, lying East of the heavy line on the survey. This deed would contain a restriction that the City of Moond would use said property only for access to one boat dock with no more than three 8' sections at its present.location (approximately 50' East of Lot 1), with no more than two small boats docked there. Then the City of Mound would proceed at its expense to vacate that portion of the park lagoon lying westerly of the heavy line shown on the survey, and the Podanys will be granted a building permit to erect a garage as shown in the survey. When the vacation is completed, the deed would be filed. The proposed addition shown between the proposed garage and existing house would not be built at that time but would be left for a future time when the property would be divided with a zero lot line. Then Mr. Podany would bring a District Court action at his expense claiming adverse possession or practical location as against the plattors and their heirs for the same land which will have then been vacated for park purposes. Very truly yours, REED & POND Roger ~/~ ~eed RWR :_ih A.THoMAs WURST GERALD T. CARROLL CURTIS A, PEARSON THONAS F. UNDERWOOD ALBERT tAU LCON ER JANES D. LARSON LAW OFFICES WURST, CARROLL & Pearson I100 FIRST BANK PlaCE WEST MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55402 June 21, 1982 TELEPHONE (61~} 33B-8~11 Mr. Jori Elam, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: Lagoon Park Dear Jon: Pursuant to our conversations about Lagoon Park, I asked Tom Underwood to take a fresh look at the problem. I am enclosing herewith his memorandum to me under date of June 17, 1982. I went back and checked some of our old opinions, and I find that the same question and the same answers were given in 1974 and in 1975. I am enclosing copies of those two opinions. Jon, I have written a number of other opinions on park problems, commons, and other similar items and I am not sure if Leonard kept a separate file for those opinions or what he did. I think you can see from the March 20, 1974, letter and Mr. Underwood's letter to me of June 17 that the proposed land exchange is impos- sible without court action, and we are not sure what the result would be if the City and the property owner tried to go to court. I hope this is helpful to you in yonr handling of this parcel. Sincerely, /~ gurtis A. Pearson, City Attorney CAP:Ih Enclosures June 17, 1982 Inquiry has been n~de whether the City of Found may enter into a land exghange whereby it ~uld deed to tbs owner of Lots 1 and 2, Block 17, 'Th~ Highlands" a portion of the adjoining '~park" in exchange for a deed to part of Lot 1. An examination of the official plat recorded with the County Racorder confirms that the park in question was dedicated as a part of the plat of Highlands. Title to the park ~uld therefore be determined in accordance with Chapter 501 of Minnasota Statutes Annotated and cases constzzting the provisions of this chapter. It .is well settled in Minnesota that where land has been dedicated to a specific public use, 'that public use rm~t be terminated through appropriate vacation proceedings before any other disposition of the land may be had. Ass~ that all or a portion of the park in q~stion is formally vacated, the question presented to us is ~aethar the City ~uld have standing to convey title thereto. UDder M.S.A §501.01, the legal effect' of a plat dedication is a conveyance in trust to the municipality of a te~,,,;nmhle easement only, in any area designated in the plat for public use, and the fee title thereto r~m~ns in the dedicator subject to the easement. Etzler v. ~bndale, (Minn. 1963) 123 N.W. 2d 603. Until the park is vacated, the city is bound by tha rule stated in ~adley vs. City of Northfield (1949), 35 N.W. 2d 606, that the city, being a trustee for the benefit of the public of the public square, will be treated as one by holding it to the duties and accountability of a trustee. Its duty is to devote said public sq~mre to the uses intended by the dedicator. Its accountability is for the discharge of that duty. Any use thereof by tim City inconsistent with the uses intended by the dedicator constitutes a breach of trust and a violation of the statute imposing the trust in such cases. Therefore, as stated above, the city must first institute vacation proceedings to relieve itself of its public trust. A~cording to ..Etzler, upon vacation of the area for park purposes, the title of tha dedicator no longer r~ns subject to the easement which has thereby terminated, and the nunicipality is left without title of any kind whatever. A~cordingly, nothing ~uld r~in for the municipality to sell or otherw~e dispose of. It is apparent from the foregoing cases that the proposed ] ~nd exchange is doommd unless the city can somehow establish title to the park. The ideal solution would be to obtm~n a quit clm~m deed from the underlying fee owner. Due to the age of the plat, however, it is unlikely that the dedicators are now living. If the dedicators are deceased, the law of descent of real property in Minnesota provides that title would be now vested in the dedicator's heLrs or devisees, as the case may be. In such event, the likal~d of obtaining m~rkatable title by deed is practicm]ly hopeless. The alternative to a deed would be an adjudication by the District Court that the city has fee title to the Park. There is no assurance that such an adjudication could be obtained. ~3vobl NA*O.,Lti'a.LYA~ '~ gN iN NY-l,,a 'gNI&]A~t'IS '~r,41 "O'~ NI..-IdOD '~ NO~O~ ~SB; 8 nh? / )c ~. ~ [~u,7 ,~o7 p a r o / o.to, Cou?ol ?. July 8, 1981 FROM: SUBJECT: of. D City M~,na ger Parks Coordinator Lagoon. Park Mr. Ned Podany owner of the property at 6165 & 6167 Sinclair Road ,contacted me in reguards to a piece of ar~E~_pr_o~t of his lot. B~ Would like to work out some sort of property e~x~kange in order to straighten out his east line and allow him room to add another garage for his duplex. Mis proposal is shove as a dotted line drava on his survey. During 1973 the City had plans to develop the shoreline area at Lagoon Park as a beach. A survey was done and it was discovered ~that the property/~re%~ east of the park had several~ encroachments on park property (fence amd utility shed). The City ended up in court over the matter and the encroachments were ordered r~ emoved. The beach development never took place mainly beaause there is no usuable access to the shore area. Most of Park Lagoon is ma'rsh. Since 1974 nothing has been ~one by the City to improve the Park proper, ry. One. solution to Mr. Podanys problem might be to sell him all or a portion of Park Lagoon. Chris Bollis Parks Coordinator ./ · # /;,5,,5 e ~5 'F CITY OF MOUR~ MOUND , I-IINNE$0TA CONTRACTED SNOW R~OVAL SPECIFICATIONS 19 83 Remove snow from desio~nated parking lots and other specified area as soon as possible after snow fall. Deposit snow as directed by Public Works. Any plowin~ to be done after March 1 call Public Works Street Superintendent at 472-1251. Central Business District street and sidewalks as follows: a. West side of Co. Rd/-#110, from Telephone Co. office driveway north to Lynwood Blvd. b. East side of'Co. Rd. #110, from southside of V & S Jewelry north to old school parking lot. c. Northside of Co. Rd. #15, from Co. Rd. #110 east to Belmont Lane. d. Southside of Co. Rd. #15, from Co, Rd. #110 to'eastside of Post Office 3. Parking Lots and alleys a. Mound City Office, lot and driveways. h. Telephone Co. building south and rear lots. c. Colonial Shoe Store(old Nelson Shoes) rear of store. d. Rustique Decorating, fear lot. e. Netka Furniture Store, rear lot. f. Eberhardt Realty, rear and north lots. g. Parking lot south of railroad tracks, north of Co. Rd. #15, from Minnesota Federal east to Belmont Lane. h. South side of Dr. Borgs office. i. Auditors Road, all. j. Both lots, east and west of Post Office. k. Parking lot behind Dr. Laurs and Longpres. 1. 24 hour lot south of Auditors Road. m. Super Valu loc, ali. n. South side of Tom Thumb Store. o. Parking lot north of Medical Clinic, allo p. Mound State Bank lot, all. q. Road and parking area west of Telephone Co. north to railroad tracks. r. Masonic driveway (first time see them) A Bid Bond or Certified Check Bid. The successful bidder will be required to post a Performance Bond or Certified Check in the amount of $500.00. The successful bidder must furnish liability of not less than $t00,000 for each individual, $300,000 for each occurrence, and against liability~for property damage of not less than $50,000 for each occurrence. The City rased-yes the right to rejact any and ~1! Bidz, and' wsivc any The successful bldder will send the bill for obove scrvicc to the City on a monthly b~siz. bids are to be firm for th8 19~3-1S84 ~jnter snow removal season. · EQUIIM/~-N. T & OPERATOR Hourly Rate C. L{st all other e~[~ent %o be used for. park~nU lot'snow r~oval, hourly rate ~ith operator. ...' ..;.,.?:':-.-., -- Iht City rcs¢~-vcs thc right to rejact an3 and ~11 Bids, and wa'tve any on s mon%hly bids are to be firm for %he 19 ~3-1984 wlnter snow removal season. EOUIPM~N. T & OPERATOR Hourly R~te ~, .~ Front End Loaders: Trucks: Single §xle, ~ yd' bo~. T~ndem axle, 10 yd box. C. L{st ~11' other equipment to be used for parking lot'snow r~movsl, rate with operator. hourly BILLS ...... OCTOBER 18, 1983 A-1 Minnetonka Rental American Water Works Assn Blackowiak & Son Bury & Carlson Butch'~s Bar Supply Ron Bostrom Bowman Distribution Jan Bertrand Bill Clark Standard Coast to Coast Coca Cola City Club Distributing Davies Water Equip Duane's 66 Service Day Distributing Dictaphone Corp East Side Beverage Eul 1 ' s Mfg G 1 enwood I n g 1 ewood Hach Co. Henn Co. Sheriff Heiman Fire Equip Hayden Murphy Equip Robert E. Johnson Island Park Skelly Tom Jacobs Kool Kube Ice Lowe I ] s LOG I S The Laker League of MN Cities Lyman. Lumber Leef Bros. Inc. Marina Auto Parts M i nnega sco Wm Mueller & Sons Minn Comm Mp!s. Oxygen Navarre Hdwe N.S.P. NW Bell Telephone A.J. Ogle, Inc. .Pepsi Cola/7 Up P.D.Q. Food Stores Pog reba Distributing Royal Crown Beverage Regal Window Clean Real One Acquisition Satellite Industries Nels Schernau Spring Park Car Wash Don Streicher Guns Sterling Electric Co. Howard Simar Ziegler, Inc. 3.00 48.00 107.00 ll2.00 434.30 17.85 100.43 306.19 1,587.94 154.65 209.20 2,817.60 20.23 86.OO 2,O87.91 430.00 3,289.84 78. oo 84.10 772.64 85.81 938.OO 936.30 10.78 8. OO 135.OO 386.4O 18.75 1,516.28 2]9.]6' 3,]67.00 88.32 85.O5 7OO. 10 155.57 3,729.89 28.75 38.68 277.36 5,5O7.72 96.40 1,884.17 238.50 140.54 4,363.20 140.55 10.75 120.26 4800 9 24 105 40 33O O0 134 74 467 50 94 94 Holly Bostrom 156.60 Cromer Management 245.00 State Bank of Mound 12.00 Twin City Nome Juice 48.00 Terry~s Plumbing 620.50 Thurk Bros. Chev 196.86~ Tri State Drilling 877.77 Thorpe Distributing 4,542.75 Thompson Lumber 32.76 James G. Thompson 998.75 Unitog 258.22 UARCO, Inc. 353.35 Water Products, Inc. 156.50 Bruce Wold 8.00 Xerox 1,035.16 Air Comm 94.00 Robert Cheney 334.00 Robert Cheney 241.00 Patsy D'Avia 60.00 B. Dalton 11.95 John Farness 241.OO Griggs, Cooper 1,885.14 Johnson Bros. Liq 5,084.94 Robert Lauer 500.00 M.F.O.A. 75.00 City of Mound 94.36 M.A.D. House 2.00 Metro Waste Control 2,103.75 Mound Fire Dept 2,509.50 Richard Meyer 500.00 Old Peoria Co. 507.68 Ed Phillips 1,106.04 Radisson Arrowwood 78.00. Uniforms Unlimited 290.00 Chemlawn 1,664.OO Deerland Distributors 430.00 Fire Control Extinguisher 20.00 Gerry's Plumbing 147.50 Eugene Hickok 1,945.20 Tim Johnson 15.00 Inland Associates 191.66 Kromer Co. 4.40 Lake Mtka Conserv. Dist 1,998.50 Doris Lepsch 15.OO N.S.P. 3,759.47 Precision Striping 321.O0 R.K. Automotive 54.00 Tom Rockvam 132.OO Real One Acquisition 675.00 Title Insurance 236.50 Timber Products 82.00 Uniforms Unlimited 28.40 Westonka Community Services 204.76 Western Tree Service 345.00 Zacks Inc 138.82 'TOTAL BILLS $76,632.18 Board of Directors President' John T. Irving Crystal Vice President Ronald Backes St. Louis Park Past President Mary Anderson Golden Valley Directors Michael Baldwin Champlin William Barnhart Minneapolis Gary Bastian Mapli~wood Bea BIomquist Ea§an Jerry Dulgar Anoka Laura Fraser Lake Elmo James Miller Minnetonka Hannah Mullan St. Paul Park Neil W. Peterson Bloomington E!don Reinke Shakopee james Scheibel St. Paul Mary Schweiger St. Paul Jackie Slater Minneapolis ] ames Spore Burnsville Robert Sundland St. Anthony Robert Thistle Coon Rapids association of metr. opo[[t, gn munlclpalll'le$ October 3, 1983 Mr. Michael Robertson .Assistant Executive Director Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 1935 West County Road B2 Roseville, Minnesota 55113 Dear Mike~ This letter is a little "tardy" but I do want to thank you for your time and courtesy with respect to the Lost Lake Dump Site in Mound...The information that you and other members of your staff provided to me was very helpful. I did share this information with Mr. John Elam, Mound City Manager and he was appreciative as well. I am pleased that with the passage of the states' Superfund Act, which the Association of'Metropolitan Municipalities strongly supported, a lot of progress is being made to get clean-up activities underway on a number of sites on the MPCA list. We are hopefull that the provisions of this law will enable the MPCA to get work started on all the sites on your list. As we discussed in your office, I am concerned with sites, such as the Lost Lake Dump, that are on your list but where no "proof" actually exists that there is hazardous material involved. It seems reasonable to me that that determination should be made as quickly as possible. If a problem exists, then clean-up activities could be undertaken and if no problem exists, then it could be removed from your list and the site would be developable. As you may know, Mound is a relatively old city with a limited tax base and apparently t~s site has real development potential if the "hazardous waste cloud" could be lifted. Even if, as you say the F~PCA is not attempting to discourage development, no developer in his or her right mind will risk investment as long as the site remains on the MPCA list. Executive Director Vern Peterson 1P.'~ ,,niver~itv avenue east. st. paul. minnesota 55101 (612) 227-5600 -2- October 3, 1983 Mr. Michael Robertson Just as in the Criminal Justice System, the "accused" should'have a right to a speedy trial and the "accused" is innOcent until proven quilty! thought that analogy appropriate being you are an attorney!). Again, thank you and if we can be of any assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerel y, Vern Peterson Executive Director vP/cw 'cc: ,Mr. John Elam file 300 Metro Square Bldg., St. P~ul, MN 55101 ~" General Office Telephone (612) 291~359 ~ ~ For more reformation on items in this publicotion,,.~all ~he P~blic !nfo~otion Office ~t 291~464. September 23, 1983 ~.~ r,,:..;' ~.?Agi'ng~e~ounci] wi I be awardi~ $55,19 .... ~; ~ ,Foundation fu~ in each of the next three year RECENT COUNCIL ACTIONS (Sept 12-23) ~.~ fir~ ?ea~& gran~Yto senior ~nter prolog. Applicztions for --~,. funds should~eceived by O~. 17, 1983, for funding on Solid Wasa-The Council decided to drop four Hennepin~-:. Jan. 1, 1984%~ Counw sites from ~nsiaeration as possible future sanita~ ~'~ ~.~ A H.gm~r~ Conse~ation-~e Council decided to apply landfill sites, The Council said the sites, Io~t~ in Baker ~t~neso~ Housing Finan~ Agen~ to allow ~e Met- Park Reserve, Crow Hassan Park Reserve, Plymouth and Maple Grove, do not merit further in'quiry. The aCtion leaves three Hennepin County sites under con- sideration, one in Maple Grove and two in 'Eden Prairie (see Public Meeting section below). The Council is looking for sites to submit to the Metropolitan Pollution Control Agency to deterr6ine their "environmental suitability." Council Budget-The Council cut the property tax portion of its 1984 budget by $175,000. The action lowers the pro- /acted increase in Council revenue .from property tax sources from 8.3 percent to 5.2 percent. The overall 1984 Council budget totals $10.9 million. This compares with the amended 1983 budget of $9.7 million. The Council is authorized to levy up to .267 (8/3Oths) of one mill. Local sources will account for 66 percent of the Council's 1984 revenues. The federal share of the budget will be 30 per- cent and the state share will be less than four percent. Sewage, Transit Budgets-The Metropolitan Council approved multi-~ear capital expenditure plans of the Metropoli- tan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) and the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC). The Council approved a $103 million MTC budget, of which $37.6 million is earmarked for bus replacement and rehabilitation. ,~bout 76 percent of the budget is expected to be funded by federal revenues and the remainder by MTC bond sales. The Council a/so approved S40.5 million in new capital projeCts proposed by the MWCC as part of a five-year, $148 million improvement program. Of that amount, $36 million will go toward building Part of an interceptor sewer in Minne- apolis. About ~5 million of the MWCC budget is expected to come from state and federal grants. Local funds and a $17 million local bond sale would finance the remainder. Water Quality-The Council approved a plan by the MWCC to use sulphur dioxide to dechlorinate sewage effluent at the big Metro treatment plant. The permit requires neutralizing the chlorine before the effluent enters the Missi~ippi River. The plan calls for suspending the procedure when river flows are high. The project is estimated to ccst from S2 to S3 million. The Council recommended to the Car~er County Board of Commissioners that a proposed drainage project affecting Bevens Creek in Carver and S~bJey Counties not be under-' taken until a watershed plan has been prepared and the project is feund to be an integral part of the creek management plan. Areas of concern are the potential elimination of floodwater storage and the impact on water quality. Transportation-The Council approved reconstruction of a section of Hwy. 100 from approximately Excelsior Blvd. to a railroad bridge south of Hwy. 7 in St. Louis Park. The project includes building a grade-separated interchange at Hwy. 100 and W. 36th St. to replace a signalized intersection. The cost is estimated at $11 million, part of which will be paid by federal Interstate Substitution funds. ropolitan Housing Redevelopment Authority to administer $80,000 in funds for home energy conservation deferred loans to homeowners in Ramsay Countv cities excluding. St. Paul. The program would run from Oct. 1, 1983 to Aug. 31, 1984. Cable TV-The Council postponed ~Ction on recommenda- tions of the Task Force on Metropolitan Area Cable Com- munications Interconnect/on. The recommendations deal with creating a uniform regional cable channel and the task force's 1984 work program. They'll be up for Council action Oct. 13, PUBLIC HEARINGS, PUBLIC MEET1NGS Forest Lake Ambulance Service--The Metropolitan Health Planning Board will hold a public hearing Oct. 5 at 7 p.m. on certificate-~f-need reque~ by DistriCt Memorial Hospital of Forest Lake, 246 11th Av. SE., Forest Lake. The hospital seeks to change its ambulance service from "basic life support" to "advanced life support" at no capital expense. For mor~ information, contaCt the board at 291-8352. Metropolitan Housing Fund-The Metropolitan Council wilt hold a public meeting Oct. 6 at 2 p.m. in the Couhcil Chambers to receive comments on a proposal to establish · a fund t'o help produce affordable housing for suburban people with Iow and moc~erate incomes. The approximately $5 million fund would operate only in communities that want to participate. For a copy of the proposal, Metropolitan Housing Fund, publication no. 19-83-121, call the Communications Dept. at 291-6464. To soeak at the meeting, call Shiriee Smith, Communications, at 291-6421. For information about the proposed fund, call Sherri Buss, housing planner, at 291-6378. Regional Housing Needs-The Council wi{l hold a public meeting Oct. 6 at 7 p.m. (not 2 p.m., as earlier reported) in the Council Chambers to assess regional housing needs over the next decade. What type of housing, how much and for whom are questions to be considered. For a copy of a paper, Proposed Scope of Study: Twin C/ties Area Housing Needs in the Next Decade, publication no. 19-83-107, call the Communications Dept. at 291-6464. Solid Wast~ Incinerator-The Metropolitan Council will hold a public meeting Oct. 11 to hear comments about poten- tial environmental effects caused by a proposed solid waste incinerator in New Brighton. The meeting will be held at 7 p.m. in the library of the WHsh[re Park Elementary School, 3600 Highcrest Rd., St. Anthony. For a copy of Environmental A~essment Work. ~heer, Waste Energy Systems Incinerator, Midwest Asphalt Corp., New Brighton, Minn., publication no. 09-83-110, call the Communications Dept. at 291-6464. To speak at. the meet- ing, call Barbara Rafferty, Communications, at 291-6465. For informal, ion about the proposal, call Council planner Lynne BIy at 291-6412. ~ ~ [ / Protecting Proposed Highway Rights of Way--The Metro- politan Council has set a public hearing on proposed guidelines for distributing funds from a Metropolitan Area highway right- of-way reservation fund established by the Minnesota Legis- lature last year. The hearing is set for Oct. 12, 1:30 p.m., in the Council offices. .r a copy of-the document, Proposed Gu]de/laos to ~te Funds for Me. tropo/iTan Highway Rights of Way, =ation no. 26q~3-117, call the Communications Depart- ment at 291-6464. To speak at the hearing, call Shirlee smith, Communications, at 291-6421. For information about the guidelines, call Council planner Connie Kozlak at 291-6346. Careview Home, Inc.--The Metropolitan Healt.h Planning Board will hold a public hearing Oct. 12 at 5 p.m. in the Council Chambers on a certificate-of-need request by Care- view Home, Inc., 5517 Lyndale Ay. S., Minneapolis, to build a five-level structure adjacent to the existihg 150-bed nursing home at a capital cost of $1.7 million. For more information call the board at 291-6352. Hennepin County Solid-Waste Sites-The Council will hold two public meetings.to discuss three potential solid-waste landfill sites in Hennepin Count/. The meetings are as follows: - Maple Grove Candidate Site--Oct. 24.7 p.m.. Ossao High School, · 317 2nd Ay. NW.00sseo. -- Two Candldat~ Sites in Eden Prairie--Oct. 26.7 p.m., Eden Prairie High School auditorium, 17185 Valle.y View Rd., Eden Prairie. To speak at one of the meetings, call Shirlee Smith, Com- munications, at 291-6421. COUNCI ~. SEEKS APPOINTMENTS TO FOUR ADVISORY BODIES The Metropolitan Council is seeking candidates for appoint- ment to four of its nine advisory bodies. The Council has set earlier expiration dates for terms on all its advisory bodies to correct imbalances in representation caused by reapportion- : of Council districts by the Minnesota Legislature last application deadline is 'Oct. 21. The Council will make appointments in late Qctober or early November. To obtain application forms, call Sandi L[ndstrom at 291-6390. Com- mittees and vacancies are listed below. Arts Advisory Committee--The 25-member committee helps the Council develop programs to strengthen arts in the Region. Membership must include 13 citizens with interest in the arts, eight professional artists, one paid arts administrator and one volunteer arts administrator. Terms are for two years. The committee ma.ets on the third Tuesday of each month. Metropolitan Health Planning Board--With the Metropolitan Coun- cil, the 25-member board functions as the federally-designated "health systems agency" for the Region. The board develops plans to improve quality of health care and reduce health costs. The board must be com- posed of a majority of consumers and a minority of health care provid- ers including institutional, insurance and allied health professionals. Appointments will be for one-, two- and three-year terms. The board mee~s two Wednesdays each month. Metropolitan Waste Management Advisocy Committee--The 27- member committee helps the Council carry out its responsibilities under the State Waste Management Ac~ of 1980. Membership includes citizens, local government officials and representatives of haulers and other businesses concerned with waste removal and waste reduction. Terms are for two years. The committee meets on the first Wednesday of each month. Metropolitan Housing. and Redeveloprr~nt Authority Advisory COmmit'me--The nine-member committee helps the Council carry out its duties as a regional housing and reclevelopment authority. Eight members rel~resent ac!ual population districts and a chair serves at large. Terms are for Two years. The committee meets on the third Wednesday of eacJ', month. COUNCIL REVISES SCHEDULE FOR !SILVERING ECONOMIC POLICIES Metropolitan Council has revised [ts schedule for con- sidering interim economic policies proposed for the Region. Following two public meetings on the policies, the Council is rev[sing the policy draft. The Council expects to adopt interim econ!3mic policies in early 1984. The proposed policies call for Th-. Council to give increased consideration to regional economic development and business concerns. The policie~ ~.~ ~-- / ,~ describe: bringing economic factors to the Council review process; increasing regional coordina.tion of economic develop- ment; encouraging expanded use of economic develot~ment financing programs; and increasing access to job opportunities. The following is a schedule, revised from the one published last July, ~or reviewing and adopting the interlm economlc policies. Oct. :3: meeting comments and discusses policy revisions. Oct. 10: Committee approves public hearing draft. Oct; 13: Council sets public'hearin9 date. Nov. 16: Council holds public hearing. Dec. 1: Public hearing record closes. Dec. 19: Hearing record and final document available. Jan. 16: Committee reviews Oocument and makes recommendations. Jan. 19: Council adopts policies. COMING MEETINGS (Oct. 3-21) (Information be/ow i$ tentative. To verify, call 291~464,) Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission--Monday, Oct. 3, 3 p.m., Council Chambers. Special Committee on Economic Development-- Monday, Oct. 3, 3 p.m., Conference Room E. Program Development and Review Committee--Monday, Oct. 3, 5 p.m., Conference Room Management Committee--Tuesday, Oct. 4, 1 p.m., Conference Room E. University Av./Southwest Corridor Study Steering Committee-Tuesday, Oct. 4, 3 p.m., Council Chambers. Technical Advisory Committee of the Transportation Advisory Board-Wednesday, Oct. 5, 9 a.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan Waste Management Advisory Committee- .Wednesday, Oct. 5, 2 p.m., Council Chambers. Committee on Metropolitan Commissions.-Wednesday, Oct. 5, 3 p.m., Conference Room E. - Chair's Advisory Committee-Wednesday, Oct. 5, 7:30 p.m., Council Chambers. Criminal Justice Advisory Committee--Friday, Oct. 7, noon, Council Chambers. Technical Advisory Committee of the Transportation Advisory Board--Friday, Oct. 7, 1 p.m., Conference Room E. Special Committee on Economic Development-- Monday, Oct. 10, 3 p.m., Conference Room E. Program Development and Review Committee-Monday, Oct. 10, 5 p.m., Conference Room E. Air Quality Committee-Tuesday, Oct. 11,9:30 a.m., Conference Room B. Management Committee--Tuesday, Oct. 11, 1 p.m., Conference Room E. Special Committee on Resource Management--Tuesday, Oct. 11, 3 p.m., Conference Room E. Metropolitan Health Planning Board--Wednesday, Oct. 12, 4 p.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan and Community Development Committee-- Thursday, Oct. 13, 2 p.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan Council-Thursday, Oct. 13, 4 p.m., Council Chambers. Metropolitan Parks and Open Space Commission-Monday, Oct. 17, 3 p.m., Council Chambers. Task Force on Metropolitan Area Cable Communications Interconnection--Monday, Oct. 17, 4 p.m., Conference Room A. Spec;al Committee on Economic Development-Monday, Oct. 17, 3 p.m., Conference Room E. Program Development and Review Committee-Monday, Oct. 17, 5 p.m., Conference Room E. Management Committee--Tuesday, Oct. 18, 1 p.m., Conference Room E. Art~ Advisory Committee-Tuesday, Oct. 18, 5:15 p.m., Council Chambers. Transportation Advisory Board-Wednesday, Oct. 19, 2 p.m., Council Chambers. Committee on Metropolitan Commissions-Wednesday, Oct, 19, 3 p.m., Conference Room E. Metropolitan and Community Development Committee- Thursday, Oct. 20, 2 p.m., Council Chambers.' RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEALING WITH ADVERSE IMPACTS OF SOLID WASTE FACILITIES FINAL REPORT TO LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION ON WASTE MANAGEMENT Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Area 300 Metro Square Building, 7th and Robert Streets St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 Telephone: (612) 291-6359 October 1983 Publication No. 12-83-053 0P INANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO DE-ICING EQUIPMENT; ~ENDING LMCD CODE SECTION 3.12, SUBDIVISION 2 The Board of Directors of the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District ordains that the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Code of Ordinances Section 3.12, Subdivision 2 be and hereby is amended as follows: Subd. 2. Prohibition. It is unlawful for any person: a) to install, operate, maintain or use de-icing equip- ment on Lake Minnetonka without a special permit issued in accordance with this section; or b) to install, operate, maintain or use de-icing equip- ment on Lake Minnetonka, with or without a permit therefor, which constitutes a hazard to the safety of persons on the Lake. For purposes of this Section ' de-ihing'equipm~nt S~'all be deemed' to constitute such hazard whene~er any Of the following circUmstances .~xist withOut being specifically authorized in a current and valid permit for the facility: l) The entire area of open water or weakened ice is not enclosed by an opaque fence which is at least fOur feet in height; 2) The fence and the entire area enclosed by the fence is not f~lly lighted from one-half hour before sunset to one-half 'hour after sunrise; 3) The fenced area is not marked by reflectorized warning signs at least every fifty feet around the perimeter of the fence. This enactment is in effect from and after its passage and publication in accordance with the enabling act of the District. It is enacted by a majority vote of all the members of the Board and has the effect of an ordinance. ATTEST: Robert Tipton Brown, Chairman Frank Mixa, Executive Director ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO FEES FOR SPECIAL EVENTS PERMITS; AMENDING LMCD CODE SECTION 4.151, SUBDIVISION 3 The Board of Directors of the Lake Minnetonka Conser- vation District ordains that the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Code of Ordinances Section 4.151, Subdivision 3 be and hereby is amended as follows: Subd. 3. Permits. No person shall carry on a special event on the lake without first securing a permit therfor from the District. Applications for such permits shall be submitted on forms prepared by the Executive Director no less than 60 days prior to the scheduled date of the special event. The Board may waive this deadline in appropriate cases. The application for a permit shall be accompanied by a fee of $50.00 for each event. A single application for multiple events of the same type shall be accompanied by a fee of $100.00. Applications submitted less than 60 days prior to the scheduled date of the special event shall be accompanied by a fee of $100.00 for each event and $200.00 in the case of a single application for multiple events of the same type. The Executive Director may require the submission of any information which is relevant to the considerations listed in Subdivision 4 of this section. The Board may grant or deny the permit or issue a permit with such restrictions or conditions as it may deem in the public interest. Nothing in this section is intended to permit the use of watercraft or other vehicles in violation of sections 4.03 or 4.04 or at a speed or in any manner which is not reasonable and prudent under the conditions and with regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. Motorboat races in violation of Section 4.14, Subdivisions l(a) and l(b) of this Code, or motor vehicle races, are not permitted. This enactment is in effect from and after its passage and publication in accordance with the enabling act of the District. It is enacted by a majority vote of all the members of the Board and has the effect of an ordinance. ATTEST: Chairman Executive Director PUBLIC SERVICES EDESIGN PROJECT Humphrey Institute University of Minnesota g0g Social Sciences 267 19th Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455 Ted Kolderie Project Director ~ CONTRACTING AS AN APPROACH TO MANAGEMENT Last February two executives from Metcalf & Eddy flew out to the Twin cities'area to listen to some of the thinking going on - hereabout the organization of the public sector. Jody Hauer Associate This is a long-established firm, based in Boston, known for years as a planner and. designer of waste-water treatment plants. The company has been increasingly interested also in operating treatment plants for cities, the executives said; and might be interested in building the plants, as well. PSRP undertook~to get together'some of the people here interested in these ideas, and involved in their 'implementation; in government and in the private sector. It proved to be a stimulating discussion. Among other things, it put even more sharply into focus the questions we have been examining in.this Public Services Redesign Project: .especi'ally, how a government can provide a service without having to produce it. Or, put a slightly different way: how you can manage.an enterprise (private or. public) without yourself having to own and to run all the pieces of it. Much of the discussion about 'contracting' has assumed, even if implicitly, that it is an all-or-nothing proposition: that ...you either'do all of the work in-house with your own employees, or turn over all.of the work to some other organization. The discussion'with the people from Metcalf & Eddy confirmed (what should probably have been obvious) that this is-really not the case~at all. Any enterprise, private o~ public, can be broken down into its elements: the work; the supervision of the work; the.management of the-work-and-its-supervision; the equipment with which the work is done; and the facilities within which it is done. .Some of these can be owned and run directly while some are contracted to others; and combined in various ways. We have been thinking further about the system of mixed in- house and contract production, and looking for examples. This memo is an attempt to report and to describe what we have learned about this concept of a mixed system and about the ways in which it affects the performance of an organization. As always, we would be interested in your comments. The Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs The Humphrey institute luses i:x~icy analysis, micicareer education for leadership, and training of younger students tor roles in the policy p;ocess. The Public Services Recles~gn Project is dediCeled lo creating diversity and choice, access and equity in the provision and proctuction o! public services, Variations on the 'Contract' Model · The 'base line' from which we begin, in thinking about the public sector,~ is the classic administrative bureau, in which the entire service is produced with people the governmental organization hires directly, and with equipment and in facilities Which it owns. There.may be no 'pure' case of this. The United States Postal Service (discussed in a recent PSRP memo) comes ~ fairly close. But even here some operations are contracted out:-~ to private parties (some rural delivery routes, and some postal stations); and of.course it buys space in the commercial airline system for its Express Mail since it does not own its own planes. But the concept of a consolidated organization' gives us a place to start, at least, in looking at the variations on it. 1. Buying the Entire Service At the other extreme, a governmental agency can sign a single contract with a single organization to produce the complete service required. In Denmark, for example, about half the cities contract with a nominally private but effectively non- profit organization for fire suppression and rescue services. In a case o~ this.sort the contractor becomes responsible for setting up the entire operation. The contractor may then . - hire all of the employees required, or may secure certain of the.- needed services, facilities and equipment through one or more sub-contracts. In either case, from the point of view of the government, the entire service is effectively 'bought'. For the duration of the contract such an arrangement is nonr competitive. The buyer will be able to protect its interest, in this potentially dangerous situation, .to the extent it can keep the contractor aware (a) that the term of the contract is limited and that (b) at the end of the term'the buyer has a real option ~- to get a different contractor or to take the work back to administer directly. Buying the Entire Service in Multiple Contracts -- The goVernmental body responsible for providing the service can also contract-out the entire service but to two or more competing producers. The Department of Transportation does not let the state's entire road-construction program as a single contract. Buying the Entire S~rvice; Owning the Capital -- At'times -- as a way of making it possible for. a wider variety of competing producers to bid -- the governmental body will itself own the facilities and/or equipment; contracting only for the personal service. The.city ~of-Minneapolis, for example, owns the impoundment lots for the vehicle-towing service, so that a company wanting to bid for the work need only supply its own tow- trucks. The Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission installed and owns the equipment at the concession stands; contracting only for their staffing. 2 Buying the Capital; Owning the Service -- A governmental body, like a private organization, can hire all of th~ required (both the administrators and the people in direct- servi~e-delivery) and contract for lease and rent . . .its equipment and buildings This is' q~i[e' · common, of course. Buying Through a Performance Contract -- Incentives can be built ~into contracts, often with 'interesting results. Anxious to get the road into service at the earliest possible date, the' Minnesota Department of Transportation built an incentive payment (so much per day) into the contract for the construction of 1-94 in North Minneapolis. The contractor got the work done a year ahead of schedule (and made an extra million dollars). 2. Buying a Part of the Service; Owning a Part Not infrequently, in a conscious effor't to maintain a more' competitive.arrangement, a local public body will handle a part of a service with its.own employees and, at the same time, buy~a 'part of the service from some other organization (a private firm or another government, as the case may be). There are-several variations, in turn, of this approach. A city may'organize a particular service in such a way that city'crews and the contractor operate side by side. Phoenix AZ does this with refuse collection:. Half the city is handled by public employees~and half by contract· Or'a city may organize the two different'elements (so to .... speak) end to end. If we think more broadly in terms of refuse ..' collection and disposal, this arrangement is visible in a city where city crews collect the refuse but where the transfer stations and the trucks to the landfills and the landfill~ disposal itself are secured ('as they are in Minneapolis) through contract. (Actually, Minneapolis also operates a part-city, part-contract collection system.) ~ 3. Buying the Support Services Only Commonly, an agency ~ill ~ ~' ~' '~ ~ '"~ -~ ~' ' own and run its main-line service -~ directly and contract for the various support services required: accounting, printing, transportation, legal services, public relations, etc. In most communities there is a considerable industry prepared to produce and sell these services on an out- of-house basis. Governments in the Twin Cities area do a fair amount of this kind of contracting. Central cities tend to have their own attorneys; suburbs, to retain theirs on contract. Many public schools produce their own school lunches, but state:universities contract for food service. About half the school districts own and run their own fleet of buses; about half contract for pupil transportation. - ...~ --- 3 The most curious case PSRP has encountered is surely in San Francisco, where the city has contracted for the service of budget preparation. This would seem a peculiar service for a city council to buy on contract; and in truth it was a very special situation. As we understand it, the city's budget director (then on a traditional employment arrangement) approached the city council, saying he would like to operate business . . . so that he could begin to build a group that could work for other cities as well as for San Francisco. The citY agreed. 4. Buying the Management Only Another variation in the contracting arrangement is for the public agency to buy not the whole service but simply the management of it. Locally, .the best-known example is almost certainly the Metropolitan Transit Commission, which from its inception has bought the management of bus operations from American Transit E~terprises, a company headquartered in Cincinnati OH which has similar contracts in more than 50 American cities and in Saudi Arabia. ATE Management and Service Company was founded in 1969. In addition to the operating management of transit systems. (involving about 10,000 vehicles) it sells consulting, data and other services to transit systems which hire their own management. In'the local arrangement the drivers are hired by the MTC, the buses are owned by the MTC and the garages belong to the MTC. It is simply the management that is bought in on contract. The MTC's use of contract management was broadened even further in the late 1970s when, after the retirement'of Camille · Andre, the ATE executive then managing the bus operations was given responsibility also for Andre's duties as executive director of the commission. Contract management is also coming into hospitals, here as elsewhere in the countrY. Mount Sinai Hospital in Minneapolis is now managed by Hospital Corporation of America,.which has supplied an executive and a financial control officer; the other employees remaining the employees of the hospital itself. At Divine Redeemer Hospital in South St. Paul, similarly, the building is owned by a Catholic order and the employees are, employees of the hospital, but the .management is supplied through a contract with American Healthcare Management Inc. of Dallas TX. 5. Buying the Management Only .of the Support Services Only One of the most intriguing variations in contracting is the model represented best by the activities of a company in Downers Grove IL, ServiceMaster Industries Inc. In contrast to ATE or to HCA, ServiceMaster says, in effect: "You concentrate on your ~main business (the bus service or the health careT. manage your support departments". Let us It has been a growing business, to say the least. It appeared early after World War II as an in-home carpet-cleaning business, as carpets began to replace the rugs traditionally sent out to the 'rug laundry'. This (franchise) operation remains today, and many people know the company only by the gold-and-blue panel.trucks used in this part of. its business. In the 1960s~ as executives tell the story, ServiceMaster was approached by Some Catholic sisters who pointed out that hospitals have a cleaning problem and inquired whether the company would consider that line of work. It decided it would enter that market, and began to grow rapidly with the growth of hospitals and of professional hospital administration. Over the 12 years 1971 to 1982 the volume of services under its management -.grew from $54 million to $594 million. In 1982 it also entered the hospital.field in Sweden, Canada and Japan. From hospitals,'- ServiceMaster is now broadening into education (both public school districts and colleges), into major industrial plants and, most recently, into home health care in the Chicago area. In hospitals it began by managing simply ~he cleaning operation; then-moved on to the management of the mechanical plant, to the management of inventories, to the management, of the maintenance of clinical equipment, to the management of the - ~ laundry and linen .service and to the management of~ h0~spital food¥'~!~/~ service (through the acquisition in 1981 of a company called "~'~'~" Service Direction Inc., based in Pentagon Park in Edina~ which manages the food service in, among other hospitals, Hennepin~ County Medical Center). Throughout, the object is to find ways '~ to improve both quality and cost-effectiveness in the operati0n~ of these support departments of an organization ...... I~s arrangement with a hospital (o.r other institution) ~. begins with a survey of the existing situation; which usually shows, one executive says, "a group of dedicated and frustrated employees along with some number of' incompetents and goof-offs" After a survey of the operation the company' gives the hospital~ ~'~ the cost at which it finds the service can be produced, and~ contracts to operate at that defined cost plus a management' fe'~.· The hospital sets the specifications fOr the'service; the' company installs the system it has develope9 for doing the and makes the decisions about the amount of materials and the hours of labor to be used. The cleaning staff remain employees of the hospital. Essentially, ServiceMaster sub-contracts the labor back from the hospital; working with whatever wage rates the hospital pays and with a union if one i~s .present. The resident manager is essentially a contract department head for the hospital administrator or school superintendent. The idea is to become an indistinguishable part of the-management group. This is in contrast to some of its competitors whose 5 managers wear distinguishing emblems or clothing. The company emphasizes the ethical and religious character reflected in its name: Service to the Master. It sees this set of values, which includes a strong orientation to the growth and development of the individual employee, as one of its major assets, setting it apart from its competitors. It has about 5,000 employees of its own; about 3,000 of whom~. are managers. About two-thirds of its new managers are referred by its existing people. In total, they now supervise almost 60,000 employees i.n the facilities that are under contract. PSRP talked with an official of the Lakeview sch'°ol district near Battle Creek MI, one of ServiceMaster's early contracts'in'.~. school maintenance. It has 3,565 students in six schools. Under.~ a $456,000 annual contract the company has taken on the ~_ · responsibility, for all custodial salaries, substitutes and overtime, and for all supplies and equipment'. Essentially, the approach has been to convert maintenance away from an individual-building basis. It has developed the employees into a district-wide maintenance team, able t° perform themselves many of the repairs which the district formerly had to buy, at considerable cost, from outside plumbing, electrical and other suppliers. ("Broken windows", the district official says, can eat you up" ) Candidly, he says there were some difficulties between the custodians and the first resident manager. ServiceMaster sent in another manager August 9. The two-year contract will probably be renewed by the school board, at a price estimated to be roughly $117,000 below what.the district would have been spending had it continued under its previous system. The district does not buy its ~food service from' ServiceMaster: It gets that from Service Systems, a company formerly based in Minneapolis,.now a subsidiary of Del Monte. InterestinglY, resistance to the co~tract arrangement came' not from the former manager (who retired as ServiceMaster came in) but from the principals of the district's' schools. Under the old arrangement they had been the immediate supervisors of the school custodians~. Now, the custodians work for the director of buildings and grounds in the district office, who is the ServiceMaster resident manager. The principals' are to supervise the teaching and learning. Augsburg College in Minneapolis went to contract management for housekeeping and physical-plant operation in 1982. Wayne Peterson, the vice president for finance and management, reports a considerable improvement in performance over the previous system as the maintenance jobs are upgraded (and as supervisors are now willing to "get their hands dirty", rather than taking the conventional view that a manager's job is to work only with · paper). The difference that makes the'difference, he says, is that retaining an organization brings to bear a much greater skill in working with people and a greater resource of technical Skills than does the' hiring of an individual buildings and grounds superintendent. Contracting, Management and Administration Even this brief a look at the variations in the contracting model, and the different combinatiOns that are possible, raises.. some interesting questions about the whole definition of management, especially in the public sector. What it suggests can best be described by saying that the object of the verb 'to manage' is not the word 'organization'. Clearly, the public officials involved in the examples of contracting cited above are simply not in charge of the organizations that are actually doing the work. What they are in charge of is the program. So the definition of 'management' that is appealing . . that helps explain what we see when we look at the way many ~f these services are actually coming to be ~' · ~ ianized_ . . i's one that has at its core the concept of reaching objectives. The program and its objectives may be~ contained within a single organization; but they may also extend beyond the organization, as we have seen, through contract arrangements. This definition illuminates in a useful way the key distinction between 'management' and 'administration'. It is not that 'management' somehow includes 'administration', or is found at higher levels in the organization. Rather, it is that 'management,~ is oriented toward objectives, given limited ..~._~? .~' resources; while 'administration' is not. (In this sense ..... "management by objectives" is a redundancy; the concept'of~.~_' reaching objectives being inherent in_ the concept of mangement.)~ This distinction (offered to us by a'local hospitaI executive) helps us see, too, that at the heart of what we have been emphasizing all through these memos about public service redesign the need to break away from the traditional idea that the ~eSe~ of service produced .is affected only by the volume of financial resources coming in; and the need to see that it is possible to do 'more' by doing things differently . is preCisely~this shift from administration in.the' public'sector to management in the public sector.~ "Up to now hospitals have.been_ administered," the hospital executive said to PSRP. "From here '- on, and especially with the coming limitations on Medicare reimbursement, they will'have to be managedi" Put another way: What is centrally involved is the shift from maximizing income to maximizing effectiveness. _ . Issues for discussion and research These other thoughts . . hypotheses, and questions . . . occur, about the relationship between contracting and management, and with policy-making, in the public sector. Additional variations -- There may be even more ways to arrange the use of the 'purchase' option than we have suggested, 7 above. One question, for example, ~is whether a public body might buy the management (only) of a service from two or more different suppliers. This is roughly what the boards responsible for .pension programs have done, for example, for the management of their investments. Structural changes and'appropriate incentives -- The contracting arrangement would seem to contain, inherently, a number of incentives that would encourage management (as we have been defining that term here). In the administrative arrangement typical of the public sector the board and its principal'executive do play double roles: as policy-maker, and as operator. On the one hand they are buyers who think about the interests of the taxpayers and consumers~ On the other they are sellers who think about the interests of their employees and about their own pride in the organization and the'facilities they have built and run. And this can'sometimes lead to problems. We have reported before in these memos the complaint of one'county commissioner that the rising expenditures for health care were'forcing the county board to reduce its program for general assistance during the recession; and what she said when it was pointed out to her that the board could secure medical and hospital care elsewhere in the area for significantly less than it was spending in the county medical center. '~She said: "But it's our hospital!" The 'purchase of service' arrangement does separate these functions and thereby reduce this conflict. By its nature, too, the contract arrangement would seem to force on the buyer the requirement to be clear about its objectives; and on the seller the requirement to be clear about its performance; and on both the requirement to establish a mechanism for accountability that addresses the question so often left hanging in'the traditional arrangement. This is the question: '%Or else, what?" If there is no answer to that question ~no sanction for'non- performance . . .'there is no ~f~e~tive accountability. The difficult question of 'control' -- Quite often the elected officials and top professionals in the public sector do not perceive the sense in which they are playing a double role as provider (buyer) and as producer; or, if they do perceive it, do not admit it as a conflict of interest. To the extent the dual role and the conflict are perceived and admitted they are usually vigorously defended (especially by elected officials) with the argument that "We can control the operation better if we own and run it directly". This assertion absolutely staggers contractors, who are so acutely conscious of the way they are always 'at risk'. They get their work a project at a time. They believe they live by .delivering the service the agency wants. If they do not perform they do not return. They contrast their own vulnerability with the permanence of the public agency and the job-security of its civil service employees;· and when~they hear elected officials talk about having better control over a public agency they literally cannot believe what they are hearing. Probably it is a mixed issue. On small things the elected official may well be right. If a piece of street work requires parking to be banned and traffic to be re-routed, and a merchant along the street calls a member of the city council and complains that "My bUsiness is down by 50~per cent!", the councilman in a city that hires its own work-crews may be able to call the'~ director of public works and to persuade him to tell the foreman'~ to-leave~a lane of traffic or parking open even if it does disrupt the progress of the repairi ~ A contractor in t~uth might The question is whether the administrative system will be equally responsive on the really;large questions, where the 'changes requested by-the elected officials would impact adversely on the employees themselves.~- "~ This~is not a particularly important question in a stable period when everyone is satisfied with the way things are working and where there is plenty of money to continue the operation ~n the traditional.ways. That is.: when programs can simply be administered. -' It becomes a very important question in a period like the present, when many people are not satisfied with the Way things are working and when there are not the resources to continue all the services in all the usual ways. When,-as we have said, programs need to be managed. The use of the contract model may, then~ be a far superior arrangement to secure the change that is The question of 'cost savings' -- Quite commonly the justification offered for switching to a contract arrangement is that. it "will be cheaper". The interesting questions are: When is it cheaper? When is a contract worth doing, when when it is not cheaper? And:-How can'a public body tell whether it is cheaper or.'not? ...... ' Presumably, the~cost of contracting will be compared with the cost of 'doing it yourself'. But what is that cost of doing it yourself? Are all the costs included? More basic: Are all the real.numbers known? If over the years a public agency has .been simply administered~ rather than managed, what reason is there to think that it will know its real costs? Is it possible that one of the by-products of a contracting arrangement is the management information it will produce (or force the agency to produce) about the real costs of delivering the service? Finally: How should a contract arrangement be valued if it ends up costing as much or more . . . but succeeds in accomplishing an' important management improvement in the operation of an agency which the administrative system had proved ~unable to accomplish at all? or if one of its effects is to leverage the 'alternative producers (whether the public agency itself or other, competing contractors) into improving their price and performance? Opportunities for new producers -- It is striking how often 'contracting' is studied and discussed primarily for its benefits to the buyer side. Our discussion in this PSRP memo has in fact been cons~derigg contracting from this point of view: as'-~ a strategy which those on the policy/buyer side can use to leverage some kind of program improvement they could not secure from their own administrative bureau. A second.and important benefit, however, runs (or can run). to the producer/seller side. The pressure which the contract ._... relationship will stimulate, for-better management, and for creative approaches, can become a major opportunity for innovative and creative persons now working in public agencies to Expand their roles (and to be rewarded, both professionally and financially) well beyond what would ever be possible were they to remain simply as employees of the organization. This requires more discussion. We will come back to the question of a private-practice option for public-sector professionals, in a'later memo in this series. Many persons contributed to what has gone into this memo; over a considerable period of time, in some cases. We thank them all. None, obviously, is responsible.for what appears here. Among those particularly helpful on'the specifics in this memo are Benjamin Rawls, senior vice president of Metcalf & Eddy; Louis B. Olsen, of ATE Management and Service Company, and of the Metropolitan Transit Commission; Wayne Peterson, vice president of Augsburg College for finance and management; Ronald Jagner, business manager of the Lakeview School District, Battle Creek MI; Andrew Van de Ven, of the School of Management of the University of Minnesota; Donald Van Hulzen, senior associate director of University of Minnesota Hospitals; Vernon Weckworth, of the program in hospital administration at the University of Minnesota; Alexander Balc, Jr., vice president/development, and Harold Eavey, vice president/marketing, of Servicemaster Industries Inc.; and, those at the dinner-discussion with Metcalf & Eddy: Stanley Cowle, formerly administrator of Hennepin County; Peter Brown, consultant; Thomas Varley, Control Data Corporation; Peter Hames, director of management for the City of Saint Paul; Verne Johnson, chief executive, Altcare; John Farrell, ATE; Richard Braun, commissioner of transportation for the State of Minnesota; and William Kreykes, with the Health Central hospital group. 10 LAKE MINN ETON KA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 'TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJ: LMCD BOARDMEMBE~ F. Mixa. September 23, 1983 Special Density Permit - 1:10 vsFishing Boat Access The Lake Minnetonka Task Force has recommended that additional fishing boat access be provided in Lake M/nnetonka (see pp 1 - 6 of attachments). The LMCD .Code provides - see pp 7 & 8 of attachments. The legal.opinion dated. 9-8-83 suggests four alternatives, related Code approaches, in part see p 9 of attachments. Recommendations 1. That the District consider the Task Force recommendations concerning fishing boat accesses. 2. Thatilhe District:.conside~lfishing-_boat_accessneeds on_the Lake,- particularly in Task Force Zone 1. 3. That the District-consider providing at least temporary fishing boat access through the Special Density Permit process. m That the District Consider Code changes, particularly to the density requirements, where it deems necessary to implement the fishing access program. Eno. cc: Charles L. LeFevere Excerpts from Report of the Lake Minnetonka Task Force, June 1983: The Task Force finds that providing additional boat launching facilities for fishing craft and small recreation boats would not significantly add to water surface overcrowding or unsafe conditions. D) NEW "FISHING CRAFT AND SMALL RECREATION BOAT" ACCESS SITES: To address the distribution of accesses for fishing craft and small recreation boats, the Task Force arrived at a system whereby the lake was divided into five major zones. (see Map 2, page ll). The zone lines are arbitrary and the Task Force recognized that all boats including fishing craft and small recreation boats move from bay to bay and do not necessarily stay in any one zone. However, the Task Force also realized that adequate distribution of free public boat launching ramps around the'lake for fishing craft and small recreation boats is an important goal. Dispersal of sites will cut down boat traffic to favorite recreation spots. Since large boats can more easily move about the lake, the zone approach proved particularly significant in determining access needs for fishing craft and small recreation boats. Present location of some ramps require anglers to make long and sometimes difficult water crossings to find desirable ar. eas to fish. · · · · · · · · · · · Following is an overview public access needs on Lake approach (see Map 2, page ll)' of the current status and perceived Minnetonka, based on the five-zone ZONE l' North Arm, Stubbs Bay, Maxwell Bay, Crystal Bay, West Arm, Forest Lake, Jennings Bay, Coffee Cove, Harrisons Bay EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS: North Arm/Hendrickson EXISTING COMMERCIAL ACCESS' Crystal Bay Service; Gayles Marina; Chaska Marine; North Shore Marina; Rockvam's Boat Yard, Martin and Son Boat Rental NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT TO EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS: Make-ready dock and secure long-term agreement for off-site parking NEED FOR EXPANSION OF EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS: None RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL ACCESS: See Paragraph 3, page 18 ZONE 2: Grays Bay, Wayzata Bay, Browns Bay, Robinsons Bay, portions of Lower Lake North, Tanager Lake, Libbs Lake EXISTING PUBLIC 'ACCESS: Grays Bay Causeway, Grays Bay Dam, Wayzata/Arlington EXISTING COMMERCIAL ACCESS: Windward Marine; Minnetonka Boat Works - Orono; Minnetonka Boat Works - Wayzata; Grays Bay Marine NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT TO EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESSES: Grays Bay Causeway (see Appendix B) NEED FOR EXPANSION OF EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS: Wayza ta/Arl i ngton RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL ACCESS: See paragraph 3, page 18 ZONE 3: Smiths Bay, Gideons Bay, Echo Bay, Excelsior Bay, St. Albans Bay~ Carsons Bay, St. Louis Bay, Lower Lake South, portions of Lower Lake North, Big Island Passage, Veterans Bay EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS: Carsons Bay EXISTING COMMERCIAL ACCESS: Sailors World Marina; Tonka Bay Marine Service; Curly's Marina; Shorewood Yacht Club Marina; Cochrane's Boat Yard; Greenwood Marina; Excelsior Boat and Motor Mart; Schmidtt Marina' NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT TO EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESSES' Add make-ready dock at Carsons Bay and secure off-site parking a§reement NEED FOR EXPANSION OF EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS: None RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL ACCESS: Yes ZONE 4: East Upper Lake, Old Channel Bay, Carman Bay, Spring Park Bay, Phelps Bay, Black Lake, Seton Lake,. Emerald_ Lake, Lafayette Bay EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS: Spring Park and Phelps Bay EXISTING COMMERCIAL ACCESS: None NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT TO EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESSES: Add make-ready docks, additional ramp space and secure on-street parking agreements NEED FOR EXPANSION OF EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS: None RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL ACCESS- See paragraph 3, page 18 53o ZONE 5: Smithtown Bay, South Upper Lake, West Upper Lake, Cooks Bay, Priests Bay, Hal steds Bay EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS: Williams Street IHalsteds Bay) and Mound Park EXISTING COMMERCIAL ACCESS: Howard's Point Marina NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT TO EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESSES: Secure long-term parking agreements and add make-ready docks NEED FOR EXPANSION OF EXISTING PUBLIC ACCESS: Williams Street RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL ACCESS: Yes ~) The that additional boat access Task F. orce has concluded exclusively for fishing, craft and small recreation boats at any location on the lll mile mainland shoreline of the lake should not significantly add to surface overcrowding or unsafe conditions. Therefore, any new access in Zones 1, 2 and 4, where the goal for reliable parking in that zone has not yet been met, should be considered by the implementing agencies if the site: - Satisfies the site selection criteria (see pages 16 and 17) - . Helps meet the long term reliable parking goal in lieu of unreliable parking within its zone (see Table l, page 12) Can be .designed and maintained as a site for fishing craft and small recreation boats Isee last paragraph, page 4 and criteria #9, page 17). H) COMMERCIAL ACCESS TO THE LAKE: There are two .principal forms of privately owned lake access 'facil ~ties: commercial marinas, and food/entertainment establ i shmen ts. Commercial marinas provide many important services required on any public lake. These services range from simple directions and general boating information, to gas, maintenance and boating accessories, to boat sales, storage and public'access. Many of these are provided free but others are necessarily provided at a charge. The LMCD should encourage the diversity of services provided by co~nercial marinas on Lake Minnetonka. 3.081 'SECTION 3. 081. SPECID_L DENSITY PEFLMITS. Subdivision 1. Purpose. The District has deter- mined that the intensity of use of Lake Minnetonka and the density of storage on the Lake has reached a level which necessitates the limitation on the construction of new docks and mooring facilities provided for herein. It is the purpose of this section to reduce environmental degradation of the Lake, avoid an increase in boat stor- age on the Lake without a corresponding increase in avail- able amenities and services for the boating public, and encourage facilities which enhance the use and enjoyment of the Lake by the general public. The District has recognized that the impact on the Lake of a given facility will. vary depending on such factors as the compatibility of nearby uses, the type of. boats or watercraft being stored, whether the boat storage is transient or perm- anent, the degree of boat storage and intensity of Lake use in a given area, and the level of services or amenities available to the public using the Lake. The District has determined through its various studies that a boat storage density of one boat stored per 50 feet of shoreline is generally appropriate for Lake Minnetonka and should be applied to the entire lakeshore while making provision for a special density permit pro- cedure in those instances where increased boat storage density may be clearly demonstrated to be a benefit to the Lake and to the most general public use of the Lake. Subd. 2. Special' Density Permit. No person shall be issued a multiple dock or mooring area or commercial.- dock license for a facility which provides fo~ a boat storage density greater than one boat stored per 50 feet of shoreline, unless a special density permit has been issued by 'the District. The permit may be granted, denied, or granted with modifications. In the granting of any pezmit, the Board may impose conditions on the permit. The failure to comply with any such condition is ground for revocation of the permit. In exercising its discretion, the Board shall consider the provisions of this Code and the extent to which the proposed facility subserves the purposes of this section. :;17 3 Subd. 5. Dpecial Requirements. a) Applications may be received for densities .greater than one boat per 50 feet b~t not greater than one boat per ten fee~ ~ ~h~rPl~. b) In exercising its discretion in granting or denying density use permits, the Board shall consider certain amenities deemed beneficial to the Lake and to the general public use of the Lake which offsets the effect of all or part of the increased density applied for. Such amenities may be from Group B, C and D below, but at least one must be from Group A. Group A - Public Access' 1) 2) 3) 4) s) 6) 7) 9) Public fishing dgck or area Public launching ramp Car top (canoe or fishing boat) launching Fishing boat rental Small boat rental Observation decks or auto look-outs Public swimming beach Winter access Other Group B - Environmental Protection 1) 2) 3) Runoff water quality improvement Green screening and other vegetative cover Shoreline riprap Other . Group C - Public Service 1) 2) 3) 4) s) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) Public toilet facilities Food service Emergency public towing service Other public emergency repair service on the Lake Weather service Public telephone Suitable parking Distribute boating safety information Sanitary pump-out facilities Other Group D - Other 1) Other - to be determined. Excerpts from 9-8-83 letter to Mixa from LeFevere: 1. The Code could be amended to omit the limitation contained in .Section 3.081, Subd. 5 of one boat per 10 feet of shore line .... 2 ..... amend the minimum requirement from one boat per 10 feet of shore line to, for example, one boat per four feet of shore line. .3. In the case of Rockvam Boat Yards, the' property was formerly licensed for a common dock together with the adjacent property for 20 tMansient slips. If the appli- cant were to be given credit for one-half of these slips, and four more slips were added under a special density permit, the .facility could be licensed. . The problem with recognizing the previously licensed dgc~ on this property is the prohibition in Code Section 3.02, Subd. 11 against converting transient facilities to any other use .... · 4. other possible Code amendments: . . . For example, the maximum of one boat per 10 feet of shore line could be left in place and additional watercraft availability units could be licensed to a new,theoretical maximum .... only on the_basis of-certain limited kinds of public amenities for-whichlthere~is the greatest~ need .... MOUND · SPRING PARK MINNETRIST,4 · NAVARRE westonka c rea chamber of commerce "CH~3~BER WAVES" PLEASE RETURN THE INCLOSED GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS SURVEY TO THIS ADDRESS AS SOON AS FOSSIBLE - W.A.C.C- b600 Lynwood Blvd Mound, Mn., 55364 ~a~Y-Yo~--J ~ns? CallDa~ Regan(559-0940) o~'Dave Anderson(474-8881) Oct. GENERAL MEETING - Oct. 1). - Minnetonka Mist - ll:.~9_S_og, ia.l.,' 12:00 Lunch Business Meeting - Election of the 1984 Board of Directors Review of the 1984 Dues Recommendations 1983 Membership Directory Program - A Report from the BUSIhrESS DEVELOPFS~NT COUNCIL SIDENT'S LETTER: It is that time of year again when we must consider who are the most likely candidates to lead our organization through the new year. I think that our Nominating Com~ittme has done an excellent job in putting together their recommendations. An interesting and heartening indication of the growingstrength of this Chamber is that eyeryone that the Committee con- tacted for nomination said that they would be honored to serve on the Board if-elected. A well-deserved Thank-you to the Nominating Committee:.Chair- person Jerry Longpre, Ron Norstrem, and John Burger. ~ .. Paul Fond, President NOMINATING COmmiTTEE'S Pd~COF£NDATIONS FOR THE 1984 BOARD OF DIRECTORS John Burger Helen Daum James Dickinson Roger Finnis Tec KoenecKe . Paul Fond Donna Oulgley Dan Regan Audrey ~chultz Goerge Stevens Diane Theis Steve minations I'rom the floor will be requested at the Oct. 19 General Mem- rship Meeting. Election of the 198h Board of Directors will then be voted on by the membership. Please contact Paul Pond (~72-2222) or Chic Rem~en ( h72-6780 ) with any questions. Oct. ~ Oct' 5 oct. li Oct'. 12 oct. 19 NOV. 16 ~ALENDAR OF UPCOMING 5VENTS - Mound Retail Council - Mound City Counczl Chambers, 7:30 A.M. Don ~nglzsh (472-1~1~) _ Navarre/Spring FarK Retail Counczl - FsrK Bench, ~:Uu A.M. Sharon Stephenson.(471-OIyW), Lynette McCullough (471-7265) - Board of Directors - Twin Birch Health Care, '[:uO A.M. Chic Remlen (4'[2-6780) - Governmental Affairs Council - Lafayette Club, 7:30 A.M., Dan Regan (SDW-OW4O), Dave Anderson (474-8881) - Business Development Council - Mound City Council Chambers, 7:30 A.M., Jon Elam (~72-11Db) - Navarre/~pring Far~ Retail Council - Park Bench, 7:50, See above - General Membership Meeting - Minneton~a Mist, 11:30 ~ocial, 12:~0 Lunch Reservatlonsare a b~g help! Chamber ol'fzce - &?2-6?So - General Membership Mee~.ng - Minnetonka Mist, 11:30 Social, 12:00 Lunch - Guest ~oeaKer: John Van Doom ~ Exec. V.~. for the Minnesota Retail M4~chants Assoc., Inc. WELCOFL~ NE~ CPIkMBER ¥~MBERS FI NGERhqJT CORP. NATION'WIDE CARRIEP~5 - B. R. Veach NAVARRE LANES - Don Scherven , REVI~g OF TPIE SEPT. GENERAL MEMBERSHIPMEETING: The Business Meeting incl approval of the new By-Laws Dy the membership, presentation by Jerry Eongpre of the Nominating Committee's 1984 proposed officers slate, an update on the Membership Directory and announcement that Diane Theis had agreed to Chai~ the Mid-Winter Ball again' in 1984 by Chic Remien, and an explanation of the Governmental Affairs Survey and its importance by Dan Regan. The Guest SpeaZ?r Hugh Strawn, was excellent. CONGP~.TULATIONS MEMBER OF THE MONTH ~a. rry_Connol!M .. The Mid-Winter Ball needs a Committee!! Call Diane Theis (472-11d~) to help. a Great Golf Outting! Super Fictures, Ruby! ILLUSION THEATER" No Easy Answers" Nov. lo, Donations, TicKets,Liz Meland CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD RD MOUND MN 55364 American 'LegiOn Post 398 DATE Semt. 30. !983 Gambling Report CURRENT MONTH YEAR TO DATE ~ o~:~= ~'21. 815. O0 GROSS: ¥ ,_ ,.~?...,. O0 E XP E NSES: Sale s ~'ax Suoolies .. ~152.54 237.~& PAYOUT AS PRIZES: PROFIT: DISTRIBUTION OF PROFITS: Leg. Eowtin$ Shirts Servicemen's Center Community Fla~s Alano .1~'50.00 12,O00.00 ~855.02 ~7165.96 ¢157.50 25o.oo 127.56 25.oo , ¢ 560. o6 Che cking ~Acc ount f725~.98 g!555.'!0 / EXPRESS I NOT _,t 11 cou ' TRANSPORTATION GX RDINATION OCTOBER 1983 ~J~j~ PROGRAM 36~ Bvont Ay. S Minn~lis. MN ~ 827-~72~ ~o ne~ ~e~be=s have been e~ec~e8 ~o ~he ~en~e~&n Cou~2 ~=ans~o=~a~&on ~=a~ C~=2s~o~e=., a =es~Sen~ o~ N&nnea~oZ2s a~8 also ac~&~e o~ ~n~ Da~e, a se~o= c&~2zen =es~Se~ o~ Noun8 a~8 aZso ~=a~s~o=~a- ~&on Coo=S&~a~o= o~ ~es~o~ka Cb=~s~&~ Se=~ces, a~ aZ~-voZu~ee= Co~g=atu~a~&o~s ~o ~be~ bo~b~ ~ presentations to senior citizen groups, community groups, planning groups, or others interested in transportation services and issues. Presentations, in addition to relaying information on existing transpor- tation services and current Transportation Coordination Program'activi- ties, will provide an opportunitY for asking questions and discussing concerns. To arrange a presentation, contact the' progra~ office, 827-1721. You can use "Express Notes!" If you'wish to submit transportation items for pUblication zn "Express Notes," please contact Kathy Farris, 827-172; by the 15th of the month previous to the issue in which the item will appear. We encourage you to utilize this vehicle to present information to our ouer 400 readers, who include transportation providers, senior citizen workers, public officials, planning groups., and others concerned with aging, human services, and transportation issues. WHAT IS COORDINATION???? Coordination IS: -Cooperation -Flexibility -Creativity -Utilization of existing resources. -Sharing resources -Efficiency -Knowledge of existing services -Communication Coordination IS NOT: -Turf restrictions -Inflexibility -Expansionism -Isolation -Inability to try new ideas ~..nior Cilizcn C,~n.'crs o~ Cr~,~t'~r N,tinne . in¢ TRANSPORTATION SPOTLIGHT - Edina Senior Center Edina Senior Center'provides routed transportation to persons 60 or over who reside .in Edina. ~n Mondays through Thursdays, a nine-passenger bus, equipped with a heelchair lift, transports seniors to the Edina Se~ior Center for congregate dining, blood pressure checks, physical fitness sessions, recreational activites, and so on. On Mondays, transportation is provided in the mornings to Edina medical facilities for medical appointments and in the afternoons to the Red Owl County S~ore and Byerly's for grocery shoppingo Riders are requested to call 835-2999 one day in advance for center activities, and before 2:00 p.m. on the previous Friday for medical appointments and shopping trips. There is no charge for the service. For more information on Edina S Center, contact Sue Wiegle, 7151~ York Avenue South, Edina, 55~35, 835-2999. The Hennepin County Transportation Coordination Program is made possible in part under the FEDERAL OLDER AMERICANS ACT through~a grant from the METROPOLITAN COUNCIL under an area plan approved by the MINNESOTA BOARD ON AGING. Hennepin County Transportation Coordination Program Senior Citizen Centers of Greater Minneapolis 3614 Bryant Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55409 Rock, Lindtan, Mayor. Jonat~hon R. Elam, Manager City of Mound 5354 Maywcod Road Mound, MN 55364 NON PROFIT OR(;. U. $. POSTAGE PAID Permit No. · ~'/~ , (612) 296-2B40 STATE OF MINNESOTA WATER RESOURCES BOARD 555 Wabasha Street Room 206 St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 October 7, 1985 NOTICE OF MEETING TO ~.O,~.o IDER AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF MANAGERS OF THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT The Minnesota Water Resources Board will hold a meeting on November 3, 1983, in Conference Room A of the Capitol Square Building at 550 Cedar Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, beginning at 1:30 p.m. [or the purpose of receiving recommendations on the issue of whether the number of managers of the MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT should be increased as authorized by Minnesota Statutes Section l12.f+2, Subd. 3a. 'State law governing m~tropolitan watershed district boards of managers was amended in 1982 to allow an increase in the number of managers from five up to a maximum o[ nine. The MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICI currently has five managers. Hennepin County appoints four managers and Carver County appoints one manager. Persons interested in this issue who do not wish to appear at the meeting are encouraged to send written recommendations to the Water Resources Board, 555 Wabasha Street, Room 206, St. Paul, Minnesota 55102, before November 3, 1983. Executive Director NEPIN TO: FROM: SUBJECT: October 7, 1983 ~-~--~o Planning Area 4 Pa_rticipant~ Con~nuni ti es &~~ Citizen Advisory Co. mmittee ~~_~ t~ z~~<~, Larw~ Blacks [/ / NE~ · HOUSING REHA~L~TATI~ G~NT PROGRAM/ OCTOBER 1, 1983 STA~S REPORT For your reference, accompanying please find the October 1, 1983, status report for housing rehabilitation grant programs in Planning Area 4. Should there be any questions, please contact me at 348-5859. ps Enclosure 0 0 ~ 0 MINUTES OF'THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK COMMISSION MEETING September 8, 1~83 ~esent were: Chairman Andy Gearhart; 'Commissioners Art Andersen, Cheryl Burns, Toni Case and Lowell Swanson; Council Representative Phyllis Jessen; City Manager Jon Elam; Park Director Chris Bollis and Secretary Marge Stutsman. Commissioner Delores Maas was absent and excused. Commissioners Cathy Bailey amd Pete Ward were also absent. Chairman Gearhart called meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Minutes '. The minutes of the Park Commission meeting of August Il, 1983 were presented for consideration.. Jessen moved and Swenson seconded a motion to approve the minutes as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Request for Land. Exchange - Informational Item The City of Mound has received a letter from Attorney Roger W. Reed on behalf of Ned Podany proposing a solution to a ~equest for an exchange of land (park) between Mr. Podany and the City. The Park Director explained that back ~n August of 1981, 'Podany approached the City with similar request; the Park Commission recommended the concept of the land exchange allowing Cit. y access to the beach and Mr. Podany land for construction of a double garage. Staff was to work out particulars and the ' Planning Commission was also to look at the item. The City AttQrney looked it over and said you can't sell park land as it is dedicated land. The~Park Director ex- plained that in 1910 t~e..d~ve!oper dedicated this park land with the City as custodian. He didn't think there was a title gi~en-~-'the City is holding it in trust. Mr. Reed has figured out a method which he believes would be the solution·~- we could c~aim we have no use of the land and vacate it; land would revert back to 'original he·irs and the chance of finding them is pretty remote; so Podany's Attorney proposes to g~ve us a quit claim deed and release of any m~"rtgages for the portion of property we would like to have for access route to the beach and the City would in turn.vacate that portion of park he wants to b~ild on. bnce it is vacated, he would go th' the Di'strict Court and c. laim°adverse possession of the property (that it has b~en used by himself for a number of years). It ~s possible that the Court would not allow the advers~ possession. .. As there has been a turn"over in membership of the Commission, the Park Director asked the Park Commission if they would like to go along with the same recommendation as before. The City Manager stated that the City would be gaining less but it would give us access to the beach; he thinks it is a positive thing to do. The proposal was discussed and questions of the Commissioners answered. None of the Park Commissioners present had any objection to the previous recommendation, so the Chairman stated that the Commission will let the former action ride as it was approved before. Reports ' Council Member Jessen reported City Manager is working on the tennis court in the Bluffs yet--has had 2 meeting with the residents. About 51% don't want it and the other 49% do want a tennis court. Jessen asked "how we're going to proceed on the brochure? how to get funding? and' can we go ahead and get quotations?" It was discussed that Committee should continue working on brochure and get quotations for the printing. Funding will have to be ~,,orked out. Park Commission Minbtes September 8, 1983 - Page 2 The City Manager reported that the Park. Director will go Over the budget figures for the next year. The Park Director's capitol outlay proposal is about $80,000 as he has about the oldest equipment in town. The Park Director distributed copies of his proposed budget for 1984 and reviewed what each fund covered. In 1984 he is proposing to have a part time dock inspec- tor and the other part of that salary would go to having a 3rd part t!me mainte- nance person. He needs the third person as can't keep up ~ith the mowing and beach clean up, etc. .The City keeps.adding areas to be mowed--all of area-by railroad from.Seton Channel'to Montclair Lane is being smoothed for mowing. The Park Director also discussed the poor condition of docks--would like to see com- mercially made swimming rafts instead. He wants to make a complete change .to something less vandal prone. Two other things'he has talked to the City Manager about'and are not included in. the proposed budget are a new mower and a new truck. This would probably come under revenue sharing and will depend on how the Council feels and what funds come · from the State. The Commission discussed various ~tems includ~.ng a picnic shelter for Highland Park; horse shoe courts in Highland Pa~rk and possibly Clover Circle. Also dis- cussed the brochure'briefly, The Park Director'has come up with~some prices as directed by the Commission. ~aj'ournment '. Burns moved and Andersen seconde8 a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:15 P.M. All in favor, so meet[.ng adjourned.