86-04-29 CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 1986
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
4
5.
¸7.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Approve Minutes of April 15, 1986, Regular Meeting
~UBLIC ~ Delinquent Utility Bills
Set Date for Public Hearing: Amendment to Year XI
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds
(Suggested Date: May 13, 1986)
City of Minnetrista - Request for Utilities
Resolution to.Approve the Subdivision of Parcel 2
Needed for 'the Lynwood Blvd. Improvement Project
Resolution Requesting Conveyance of Certain
Easements On Tax Forfeit Property
Final Plat Approval, Anderson One, Case #85-503
Richard T. Anderson
Front Yard Variance, Case #86-506, Lot I and Part
of Lot 2, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores -
Steve Coddon
Sign Variance, Case #86-511, Town Square Area
Kraus Anderson
Lot Size Variance, Case #86-512, Lot 4, Block 9
The Highlands - Gerald R. Bartow
Comments and Suggestions from Citizens Present
DISCUSSION: Water Shutoff Policy
License Renewals:
Payment of Bills
Bowling, Games of Skill,'Juke Box,
Pool Table, Restaurant
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A. March 1986 Financial Report as prepared by John
Norman, Finance Director
Pg. 761-768
Pg. 769-770
Pg. 771
Pg. 772-775
Pg. 776-778
Pg. 77 9-7 81
Pg. 782-788
Pg. 7 89-802
Pg. 803-809
Pg. 810-816
Pg. 817-821
Pg. 822
Pg. 823-837
Pg. 838-840
Page 759
B. Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 1986.
c. 1985 Annual Rpeort of the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District
C. REMINDER: Annual League of Minnesota Cities
(LMC) Conference, June 17-20, 1986, Duluth.
Please advise if you are interested in attending
pg. 841-845
pg. 846-857
Page 760
April 15, 1986
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 15, 1986
The City Council of Mound, Hennepln County, Minnesota, met in
regular session on Tuesday, April 15, 1986, at ?:30 P.M. in the
Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Phyllis
Jessen, Gary Paulsen, Russ Peterson and Steve Smith. Also
present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney
Curt Pearson, City Engineer John Cameron, City Clerk Fran Clark
and the following interested citizens:. Larry Connolly, Cheryl
Grand, Morris Splettstaszer, Rolland Flugum and Donald Willis.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in
attendance.
The Minutes from the March 17, 1986, Special Meeting were
presented for Qansideration.
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Smith to approve the
Minutes of the March 17, 1986, Special Meeting as presented.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
The Minutes from the March 25, 1986, Regular Meeting were
presented for consideration.
MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Smith to approve the
Minutes of the March 25, 1986, Regular Meeting as presented.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
The Minutes from the April 9, 1986, CanVassing Board Meeting were
presented for consideration.
MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Jessen to approve the
Minutes of the April 9, 1986, Canvassing Board Meeting as
presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
AGENDA ADDITION
The City Attorney asked to have the following item added to the
Agenda: Purchase Agreement - Randy Bickmann Property. The
Council agreed to add the item.
PUBLIC HEARING: BEACHWOOD POND IMPROVEMENT
The Mayor explained the background of this item. The City
Engineer stated that there was a meeting with the neighbors and
51
April 15, 1986
seem to all be satisfied with the proposed plan to lower the
outlet pipe another 6 inches. The Watershed District will be
acting on the permit application on Thursday evening and they
have stated they can see no reason why it would not be approved.
He then stated the next move would be to approve the plans and
bid the project out. He also stated there would be several
easements needed. The engineer's estimate of cost is $18,200.
It would be paid for from the 1978 Street Project funds because
it is a problem that should have been taken care of when
streets were installed.
The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked for questions or
comments from the people present.
DONALD WILLIS, 60~8 Beachwood Road, asked the following
questions:
1. Since he would be one of the easements needed, does
the estimate a'hd work to be done include repair of
his lawn and sprinkler system to what it is before
the project? The Engineer stated, yes.
2. ~w long would the property be under construction?.
The Engineer stated, approximately 2 weeks·
If the bids come in higher than the estimate, would
the residents be assessed? The City Attorney
explained the assessment procedure and that if the
this happened and the Council was considering
assessing the residents, they would be notified and
another public hearing would be held.
ROLLAND FLUGUH, 610~ Beachwood Road, stated that he and his
· neighbors are quite satisfied with the solution that has been
proposed. He also stated-he thought there would be no
problem obtaining the easements that are required for the
project,
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
The City Engineer stated that if the Council accepts the plans
and orders the project that they should also set a date to open
bids. Suggested date is May 9, 1986.
MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Peterson to accept the
Engineer's recommendations for the Beachwood Pond Improvement
Project, authorize him to prepare plans and specifications,
and authorize the advertisement for bids to be. opened on May
9, 1986, at 10:00 A.M. The vote was unanimously in favor·
Motion carried.
BID AWARD: lq86 SEAL COAT PROGRAM
The City Manager explained that 3 bids were received for the 1986
52
April 15, 1986
Seal Coat Program. They were as follows:
Allied Blacktop Co.
Buffalo Bituminous
Hi-Way Surfacing, Inc.
$35,919.00
$36,328.50
$39,7 80.00
The Engineer's estimate for this project was $41, 925.00.
recommends the bid from Allied Blacktop Co.
Staff
Jessen moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~86-41 RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BID FOR THE 1986
SEAL COAT PROGRAM TO ALLIED BLACXTOP CO.,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,919.00
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
BID-AWARD: BARTLETT BLVD. REPAIR PROJECT
There were 7 bids received for the Bartlett Blvd. Repair Project.
They were as fql.lows:
Buffalo Bituminous
Preferred Paving', Inc.
Valley Paving, Inc.
Midwest Asphalt
Bury & Carlson
Hardrives, Inc.
Barber'Construction
$~12,800.00
$~,5,712.00
$51,838.00
$51 ,~!92.50
$56,2~1.00
$58,z112.50
$59,939.oo
The Engineer's estimate of costs for this project' was $~6,590.00.
The Staff recommendation is to'award Buffalo Bituminous the
contract for the Bartlett Blvd. Project.
Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~86-42
RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BID FOR THE
BARTLETT BLVD. REPAIR PROJECT TO BUFFALO
BITUMINOUS IN THE AMOUNT OF $42,800.00
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Councilmember Jessen asked that the City Engineer check with the
neighbors in the area of this project because they think that
drainage was blocked off when the street was originally installed
which may have caused the problem.
POLICY ON BUDGETING APPROACH/PROCESS
The City Manager explained the background of this resolution and
stated that he and Councilmember Smith have revised it according
to what was discussed previously.
April 15, 1986 "
After considerable discussion Jessen moved and Peterson seconded
the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~86-~3 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICY ON
BUDGETING APPROACH/PROCESS
MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Peterson to amend the
above by deleting item #4 of the proposed resolution which
reads as follows: WThe review process: To ignore the budget
after making the tax levy is to miss an important advantage
of budgeting, i.e., to enable the Council to track and
control City operations,w The vote was 4 in favor with
Councilmember Smith voting nay. Motion carrried.
MOTION made by Peterson, seconded by Jessen to insert ~two
years· in number 6 where it says espending historye. The
vote was 4 in favor with Councllmember Smith voting nay.
Motion carried.
MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Jessen to change the
numbering of each paragraph, after deleting paragraph ~4, so
that ther~ are 6 instead of 5. The vote was unanimously in
favor. Motion carried.
Couneilmember Paulsen asked~that the question be called on
the above Resolution as amended.
'.The' vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
GARDEN LEASES
The City Manager stated that the following persons would like to,
again this year, lease certain city owned lots for garden plots:
Herman Schrupp, Ray Xramer & Leo Wallis.
MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Smith to authorize the
Mayor and the. City Manager to enter into a lease with Herman
Schrupp, Ray Eramer and Leo Wallis to lease certain lots for
garden plots. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
COMMENTS '& SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
The Mayor asked if there was anyone present who wished to make a
comment or suggestion.
LARRY CONNOLLY, asked what the City was going to do about a
Public Works Facility now that the referendum was voted down.
Mayor Polston stated that the City had nothing waiting in the
wings as an alternative and if anyone has suggestions, the
Council would be happy to consider them.
SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Am
APPROVAL OF VARIANCE, CONDITIONAL USE AND A PRELIMINARY
PLAT FOR SETON PLACE
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Paulsen to set May 13,
"1986, 7:30 P.M. for a public hearing to consider
approval of variances, conditional use and a preliminary
plat for Seton Place. The vote was unanimously in
favor. Motion carried.
ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ESTABLISHIN6 A
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND APPROVAL FOR A PRELIMINARY
PLAT FOR COOKS BAY ESTATES, LOCATED IN THE 2900 BLOCK OF
HIGHLAND BLVD. '~.
NOTION made by Peterson, seconded by Jessen to set May
13,.1986, 7:30 P.M.'for a public hearing to consider the
issuance of a conditional use permit establishing a
Planned Development Area and approve for a preliminary
plat for Cooks Bay Estates, located in the 2900 block of
Highland Blvd.
BICKMANN - PURCHASE AGREEMENT
The City Attorney stated that he has now negotiated a 10 foot
'permanent easement over 6 lots and temporary easements to replace
a retaining wall owned by Mr. Bickmann which are in the Lynwood
Blvd. Realignment Project. The cost would be $8,800. Other
costs involved would be abstract updating, his reasonable
attorney's fees and replacing the retaining wall and the City
would pay any special assessments that would be a result of this
project. The City Engineer stated that on the plan we show
stubbing in sewer and water to Mr. Bickman's three vacant lots
and charging this against the property. The City Attorney stated
that this was not discussed in the negotiations, but we should
discuss this with Mr. Bickmann because it would be to his
advantage to have the work done now and not have to dig up the
new street later and pay. for repair of the street.
Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~86-~
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE
MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PURCHASE AGREEMENT
WITH MR. BICKMANN FOR A TEN FOOT PARCEL
(THE SOUTH TEN FEET OF LOTS 6, 7, 8,
10, AND 11, KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO.MOUND)
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
April 15, 1986
PAYMENT OF BILLS
The bills were presented'for consideration.
NOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Paulsen to approve the
payment of bills as presented on the pre-list, in the amount
of $86,368.05, when funds are available. A roll call vote
was unanimously in favor. Notion carried.
LOST LAKE PIIOPERT~
Counctlmember Peterson asked that this item be put on the Agenda
because he was not present at the last two meetings.
The Council discussed the 'Joint Planning Commission/City Council
Meeting that had been held on Monday March 24, when Mr. Buzz
Sycks and a representative of Balboa had been requested to appear
and give a presentation of what their plans were for the site.
Councilmember Peterson sta~ed that both developers stated that
they would wait and see what the City wants to see developed on
the site before making any formal presentations.
The City Manager stated that the R.F.P. for the marketing study
was sent out to three firms on Friday, March 28, 1986, and the
firms were given until May 9, 1986, to submit their proposals to
him for review.
': ............ .NOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Peterson directing the
City Nanager to present the R.F.P.'s submitted to the City
Council for their review before entering into any contract
with any firm. The vote was unanimously in favor. Notion
carried.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
A. March 1986 Department Head monthly reports.
B. Ind. School DiSt. ~277 Minutes of March 10, 1986.
Preliminary program schedule and other information on the
League of Minnesota Cities Annual Conference June 17-20, 1986
in Duluth. (Please advise if you are interested in
attending.)
Article from April 1986 LMC magazine on the League of
Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust.
Memo from Association of Metropolitan Municipalities (AMM)
summarizing the 1986 Legislative Session. (Please note:
Budget balancing bill preserves Local Government Aid and
Homestead Credit Payments for 1986 and provides an increase
in Local Government Aid of 4% in 1987.) Also note on Page 8,
that the bill proposed to change the MWCC rate structure to a
April 15, 1986
single, uniform rate structure did not pass.
1985 LMCD Financial Statement.
MOTION made by Peterson, seconded by Jessen to adjourn at
8:50 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
Edward J. Shukle, Jr. City Manager
Francene C. Clark, CMC, City Clerk
BILLS
APRIL 15, 1986
Batch 86/4033
Batch 86/403/4
Computer run dated 4/3/86
Computer run dated 4/10/86
25,284.31
' 61.083.74
Total Bills
86,368. O5
r
Dellnquent Water and Sewer
4-23-86
42 343 2631 41
42 404 5000 91
42 404 5o14 Ol
42 404 5028 O1
33 406 2620 31
33 424 4759 O1
33 427 2653 O1
33434 2623 92
33 439 2431 61
33 439 4400 91
33 439 4510 51
33 439 4920 61
33 439 5017 O1
33 439 5021 21
33 439 5023 81
33 442 4574 52
33 445 2764 71
33 463 4626 91
33 463 4718 43
33 463 4740 81
33 472 4548 61
33 472 4560 11
33 475 4519 O1
33 475 4679 21
33 484 3113 51
33 484 3331 35
33 484 4905 32
33 484 5013 51
33 487 4764 71
33 487 4873 61
33 500 4455 21
33 507 4524 O1
33 515 3073 21
33 515 3118 51
33 515 3155 71
33 518 4660 92
$335.6O
2544.34
2751.37
1933.91
100.71
73J84
89.53
114.03
172.35
63.00
88.18
~ 87.12
182.59
67:98
60.94
202.25
114.29
60.06
~98.97
158.19
94.04
178.85
-402.48
133.25
74.28
137.74
151.52
6o.5o
46.75
lO3.16
114.38
121.15
149.49
88.64
92.32
166.Ol
33 518 4684 92
33 518 4717 72
33 530 3137.44
33 53o 4823 81
33 539 4838 71
33 548 3107 91
33554 3058 22
33 563 3013 81
33 569 4876 41'
33 572 4872 71
33 575 4853 02
33 575 4869 62
33 575 4879 51
33 575 4900 91
33 578 2871 81
33 581 2893 62
33 587 30Ol 21
33 587 3061 61
33 587 4951 71
33 593 4925 91
33 593 4933 32
33 593 5218 82
33 593 5226 13
33 596 4724 91
33 596 4814 81
33 596 5137.31
33 620 3105 O1
33620 3154 81
33 620 4556 32
33 620 4828 61
33 620 4921 91
33 620 4925 Ol
33 623 5313 22
33 638 33Ol 72
33 647 5211 71
33 647 5223 21
33 650 461o 51
33 650 4766 51
$1o7.55
129.19
1i8~95':
240.03
239.26
120.68
8O. ll
78.10
82.60
182.89
57.63
118.09
105.88
123.40
121.62
86.13
.85.21
148.17
50.56
120.13'
235.68
247.52
67.98
98.91
96.87
275.80
166.84
117.59
86.88
286.47
80.12
157.93
171'.16
177.80
233.83
82.22
79.06
105.70
$$6~/6.~b
Delinquent Water and Sewer
4-23-86
42 343 2631 41S~eve Hesse
42 404 5000 91 Terrace Park Apts. $2210.34
42 404 5014 01 Terrace Park Apts. ~241~.37
42 404 5028 O1 Terrace Park Apts. $16OO.91
33 406 2620 31K. Nelson $ 50.71
33 424 4759 O1 Carol Grande $ ~,~84
$ o,~ oo
33 427 2653 01 Mike Sherman
33 434 2623 92 Mazier Miar
33 439 2431 61 James Lassek $ O0.00
33 439 4400 91 Morgan & Ward "'~"
33 439 4510 51 Carol Stodola **'
33 439 4920 61 Dean La Forest
33 439 5017 01 James Christianson
33 439 5021 21J. Hill
33 439 5023 81 J. Hill
33 442 4574 52 Mike Kurpierz
33 445 2764 71 Richard Breuateadt $ 00.00
33 463 4626 91 Community Credit
33 463 4718 43 Brad Nelson
33 463 4740 81 Edna Enstad $ 58.19
33 472 4548 61R.W.Johnson
33 472 4560 11F. Germain
33 475 4519 O1M.J.Phillippi C B Bent
33 475 4679 21Ronald Goodman
33 484 3113 51 Robert Wa§trom $ OO.O0
33 484 3331 35 Chester Dawson
33 484 4905 32 Joe Fiedler
33 484 5013 51 Resident
33 487 4764 71Rinold Nelson
33 487 4873 61 Jerry Olsen
33 500 4455 21 Donna Luguar
33 507 4524 O1Leanard Lindblom * *
33 515 3073 21 Mike Jacobs
33 515 3118 51 James Otto
33 515 3155 71 Edward Howard Sr.
33 518 4660 92 Daniel Lindgren
· * made arrangements
$335.60
2544.34
2751.37
1933.91
100.71 2620 Tyrone Ln
73.84 4758 Galway Rd.
89.53 2653 Shannon Ln.
114.03 2623 Kerry Ln.
172.35
63.00
88.18
87.12
182.59
67;98
60.94
202.25
114.29
60.06
[98.97 · 4718 Bedford Rd.
158.19
94.04
178.85
4O2.48
133.25
74.28
137.74
151 ~2
60 50
46 75
103 16
,114.38
121 15
149.49
88.64
92.32
166.'01
2631 Commerce Blvd.
5000 Shoreline Blvd. Pd$334.OO
5014 .Shoreline Blvd. Pd$333.00
5028 Shoreline Blvd. Pd$333.OO
Pd$ 50.00
Pd$ 40.00
Pd$ 89.53
2431Wilshire Blvd Pd$172.35
4400 Wilshire Blvd.
4510 Wilshire Blvd.
4920 Wilshire Blvd.
5017 Wilshire Blvd.
5021Wilshire Blvd.
5023 Wilshire Blvd.-
4574 Denbigh Rd.
2764 Cardigan Ln.
4626 Bedford Rd.
4740 Bedford Rd.
4548 Dorchester Rd.
4560 Dorchester Rd.
4519 Manchester Rd.
4679 Manchester Rd.
3113 Tuxedo Blvd.
3331 Tuxedo Blvd.
4905 Tuxedo Blvd.
5013 Tuxedo Blvd.
4764 Cumberland Rd.
4873 Cumberland Rd';~
4455 Radnor Rd.
4524 Stirling Rd.
3073 Inverness Rd.
3118 Inverness Rd.
3155 InveEness Rd.
4660 Hampton Rd.
Pd$114.29
Pd$1OO.OO
Pd$ 74.28
33 518 4684 92 Tyrone Levesque
33 518 4717 72 Charle§ Ham
33 530 3137 44Tim Shannon
33 530 4823 81 Joseph Fink
33 539 4838 71 Rand Sarles
33 548 3107 91 John Leu
33 554 3058 22 Bruce Johnston
33 563 3013 81Sandra Munsil
33 569 4876 41 Gary Snyder
33 572 4872 71 Deanna Mohn
33 575 4853 02 Michael Maas
33 575 4869 62 Robert Armstrong
33 575 4879 51 Todd Engle
33 575 4900 91 Jim Gentese
33 578 2871 81 Joan Conkey
33 581 2893 62 Occupant
33 587 3001 21 Richard Carlson
33 587 3061 61Patricia Barthel
33 587 4951 71 Gary Schleif
33 593 4925 91M. Quigley
33 593 4933 32 Susan Arne
33 593 5218 82 D & J Mgt
33 593 5226 13 D & J Mgt
33 596 4724 91D. Christianson
33 596 4814 81 Bruce Bernlahler
~3 396 5137 31Melissa Heinzen
33 620 3105 O1 James Brown
33 620 3154 81 Steve Opheim
33 620 4556 32 Scott Berglund
~33 620 4828 61 Douglas Nelson
~3 520 4921 91 Joe Andrews
33 620 4925 O1 Holmes Empson
33 623 5313 22 Fred Denn
33 638 3301 72 Dav'id Welch
33 647 5211 71Duane Nelson
33 647 5223 21G. Longley
33 650 4610 51 Gordon Wolf
33 650 4766 51 Tom Madonna
$ OO.00
$ 60.00
$ OO.OO
$ 101.62
$ O0.O0
Paid
** Sold
Paid
5107.55
129.19
118.95
240.O3
239.26
120.68
80.11
78.10
82.60
182.89
57.63
118.09
105.88
123.40
121.62
86.13
~85.'21
148,17
50.56
120.13
235.68
247.52
67,98
98.91
96.87
275.80
t66.84
117.59
86.88
286.47
80.12
157.93
171'.16
177.80
233.83
82.22
79.06
105.70
4684.Hampton Rd.
4717 HamptOn Rd'
3137 Donald Dr.
4823 Donald Dr.
4838 Glasgow Rd.
3107 Argyle Ln.
3058 Dundee Ln.
3013 Devon Ln.
4876 Leslie Rd ' '
4872 Monmouth Rd.
4853 Plymouth Rd.
4869 Plymouth Rd.
4879 Plymouth Rd.
4900 Plymouth Rd.
2871 Marlboro Rd.
2893 Cambridge Ln.
3001 Brighton Blvd.
3061 Brighton Blvd.
4951 Brighton Blvd.
4925 Drummond Rd.
4933 Drummond Rd.
5218 Drummond Rd.
5226 Drummond Rd.
4724 Hanover Rd.
4814 Hanover Rd.
5137 Hanover Rd.
3105 Island View Dr.
3154 Island View Dr.
4556 Island View Dr'.
4828 Island View D,r"
4921 Island View Dr
4925 Island View Dr.
5313 Piper Rd.
3301 Warner Ln.
5211 Phelps Rd,
5223 Phelps Rd,
4610 Kildare Rd,
4766 Kildare Rd.
Pd$107.55
Pd$ 69.19
Pd$ 57.63
Pd$ 20.00
Pd$ 50.56
$14,2i~.61
NOTICE OF HEARING
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MN.
"Notice is hereby given that Henneptn County and the City of
MOUND
will hold a public hearing to consider a p~oposed amendment to PROJECTS
XI
funded in Program Years-x & under Title ! of the Housingand Community
Development Act of 1974 as amended.
A Citizen participation Plan is available at City Hall to assist in your
participation in the hearing.
The hearing is to be held on M,a¥ 13, 1986 at 7:3o
p.m. in the Mound
City Hall located at 5341Maywood Road
This public hearing is be(.ng held pursuant to. a joint cooperation agreement
between Hennepin County and Mound. M.S. 471.59."
· Francene C. Clark, CMC, City 'Clerk
Publish in The Laker April 29, 1986
?7/
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS ! PLANNERS
April 22, 1986
Reply To:
12800 Industrial Park Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
(612) 559-3700
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
, City of Mound
5~4i Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
S~3E~:
Minnetrtsta Request for Utilities
Maple Hill Estates
F~<A Fiie #7699
Dear Honorabl~Mayor and Council Members:
Last Fall, the City of Mound was approached by the City of Mtnnetrista
about aiiowing a connection to Mound's sanitary sewer and watermain, to provide
City uttIities for' %he p~oposed piat, Mapie Htii Estates. The Councii gave
conceptuai approvai, and we were instructed not to do any. additionai work untii
the approvaI process for the proposed piat was further aIong. Since that time,
the deveiopers have received preitminary approvai from Minnetrista and wouId
now iike to finalize their p~ojected development costs and gain approvai for
extending Mound's uttitties.
Ore question raised by the Mound p~operty owners in the area is the lack of
sufficient water presstme in the Dutch Lake a~ea. We had Mound Pubitc Works
take pressure readings at three Iocations various times of the day, with the
following results The average main pres~J~a_t~_,U!..e~h~a~z~s~_.~ the end of
Wainut Road and a~ the iast hydrant on~T-~t~dg~B~'I~v'~-s-bO~,~'of County Road
No. i5 was 40 P.S.I. The pressure on the hydrant Iocated at the intersection
of County Road No. I5 with West Edge Bouievard and at the hydrant on the end of
Mapie Road was 50 P.S.I. The difference in pressure is due mostiy to the
difference in eIevation between these hydrants. The probiem that we foresee in
extending the watermain in Maple Road and iooping it through the proposed
subdivision to the main in County Road No. i5 wiii be the p~essure drop within
the new pIat. Our caicuIations show the pressure wouid be approximateiy~5
P.S.I. at the end of the proposed cui-de-sac. A desirabie City watermain
pressure wouid be approximateiy in the range of 50 to 60 P.S.I. We do not see
any disadvantage to the City of Mound in aiiowing this watermaln extension; in
fact, Mound wouid be eitminating 2 dead end watermatns. The extension of th~se
mains shouid not iower the water p~essure to any of the existing homes in
Mound.
We have reviewed the preliminary plat, including the proposed utilities,
that was approved by Minnetrista. The proposed sanitary sewer extension meets
with our approval since the flows do not end up in any of Mound's lift
stations. We do recommend that the City of Mound have the opportunity to
review and approve the final utility plans, because we see items missing, such
as hydrants, gate valves, etc. As was discussed previously, the nine
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
April 22, 1986
Page Two
Residential Equivalency Units (REV'S) will be charged to the City of
Minnetrtsta and not come from Mound's allotment. Also, the billing for both
water and sewer would come from the City of Mound, but Minnetrista would be
'responsible for the maintenance of both the sanitary sewer and watermain
extensions.
We have also arrived at a dollar amount which we feel is a fair figure that
the City of Mound shouid charge the deveioper as a fee to connect to the City's
utiiities. The amoun~ of $i2,979.89 was arrived at by charging the nine
proposed lots in Mlnnetrtsta the same as they would be charged if they were
Iocated in Mound and had never paid a sewer o~.water assessment. Enclosed is a
breakdown of these proposed charges.
We assume that the City Attorney will need to prepare an agreement which
includes our recommendations and any additlonai items that the Councii may wish
to include. If any Counciimembers should have questions or require additionai
information, I wiii be present at the meeting on the 29th of April.
Very truly yours,
McCOMSS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
~h~~nCameron~~
3C:jmj
Enclosures
cc: Bill Turnblad, City of Minnetrista
SANITARY SEWER
PROPOSED AVAILABILITY AND CONNECTION CHARGE
MAPLE HILLS ESTATES
Original Unit Assessment
Original Footage Assessment
(60' Minimum)
Mound's Sewer Availability
Charge
9 Units ~ $292.00/Unit
540 L.F. G $ D. O4/L.F.
Units 8 $125. O0/Unit
Proposed Total for Sanitary Sewer
$ 2,628.00
$ 4,881.60
$ 1~ 125.00
$ 8,634.00
WATERMAIN
Original Unit Assessment 9 Units ~ $ 65.61/Unit
Original Footage Assessment
.(60' Minimum) 540 L.F. ~ $ 4.87/L.F.
Mound's Water Availability
Charge ~ Units ~ $12~.O0/Unit
Proposed Total for Watermain
$ 590.49
$ 2,629.80
$ 1~ 125. O0
$ 4,345.29
Proposed Total Utility Charge
$12,979.89
PRELIMINARY PLAT
OF:
IAPLE HILL
E STATE S
OlNDICATES PROPOSED ELEVATION
DEVELOP[R:
M N S ASSOCIATES
M. L Syck:
~900 Beachw,':cJ ~cad
Mcu ,d, Mi--:~.ta 55.~64
Phor:c: 47~. - 48J~
SU,:V~O.-~: ~BAN. F;EL~ &r~OWAK, INC.
7 45 W:.y ut;, Bc, u!,wc:
Pho~ r: ~ - 58~7
The Wrr~ 14L 5 fed ~f th~ ~=t ~1~.~
6ov~:~e~t Lot 1, S~tio- 15, Toy:
J4-,tn, r.~%gc z4 Wc:t of thc 5th P ::.: '
Meridbn.
T .: ~t:t 17: feet of Government bt ~, ,:x:, t
t.'.e Scut2 47& 5 fcet nft:;,' East ~5 f',,t t~.r ~;f,
~f bhe 5th P. :nci~l Me:
nher~y ce:tify that this pla was ~re~r¢
der my dir~t su~vision and tha I am a duly
R~isterm Land Surv~r under the L~s Cf
Stae ~ Minnesot&
D~m this 4th d~ of F~b u~ y,
DUTCH
wa+er EI~.
LAKE
J0~.6 104,5 10~,5
t4,1~
-/
I05 -
LLJ
~Q
~o~o
Scale: ":50'
72.5-
April 29, 1986
RESOLUTION NO. 86-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 2 NEEDED
FOR THE LYN~OOD BLVD. IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of Mound is involved in an M.S.A.
Improvement Project entitled the Realignment of Lynwood Blvd.;
and
WHEREAS, and application to waive the subdivision
requirements contained in Section 22.00 of the City Code has been
filed with by the City of Mound to acquire certain right-of-ways
for the above mentioned project; and
WHEREAS, said request for waiver has been reviewed by
the City Council; and
WHEREAS, it is hereby determined that this property is
needed for right-of-way in the Lynwood Blvd. Improvement Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota:
A. Does hereby approve the request for a waiver from
the provisions of Section 22.00 of the City Code
and approves the request to subdivide property of
less that 5 acres, described as follows:
PARCEL 2-A. That part of the north. 20.00 .feet of Lots
~l, 42 and 43, [(OEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND, according to
the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
which lies southerly of the following described line:
Commencing at the northeast corner of Lot ~0, said
XOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND: thence on a bearing
'of South along the east line of said Lot ~0 a
distance of 10.00 feet to the beginning of said
line: thence South 89 degrees 28 minutes
seconds West 55.08 feet; thence southwesterly
287.22 feet along a tangential curve, concave to
t'he southeast, having a radius of 1056.~8 feet and
a central angle of 15 degrees 36 minutes 35 seconds
and said line there terminating.
PARCEL 2-B.
That part of the north 20.00 feet of Lots ~0,
~1, ~2 and ~3, KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND, according t6
the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
which lies northerly of the following described line:
Commencing at the northeast corner of Lot ~0, said
KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND: thence on a bearing
of South along the east line of said Lot ~0 a
distance of 10.00 feet to the beginning of said
llne: thence South 89 degrees 28 minutes 45
April 29, 1986
seconds West 55.08 feet; thence southwesterly
287.22 feet .along a tangential curve, concave to
the southeast, having a radius of 1056.48 feet and
a central angle of 15 degrees 34 minutes 35 seconds
and said line there terminating.
Reserving to the City of MOund a 20 foot
permanent easement for storm sewer purposes
over, under and across the north 40 feet of said
Lot ~0.
Said permanment easement being 10.00 feet on
each side of a line described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the north line of said
Lot ~0, distant 25 feet east of the northwest
corner thereof; thence southwesterly to a
point on the south line of the north 40 feet
of said Lot ~0, distant 10 feet east of the
southwest corner of said north 40 feet.
Reserving to the City of Mound a temporary
-easement over all of Parcels 1 and 2 for
construction purposes. Said temporary easement
shall expire on December 31, 1986.
1. It is determined that the foregoing subdivision
will constitute a desirable and stable community
development and it is in harmony with the
adjacent properties. . "
2. The City Clerk is authorized, to deliver a
certified copy of this resolution for filing in
the office of the Register of Deeds or the
Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show
compliance with the subdivision regulations of
the City.
The foregoing resolution was moved by CounCilmember
and seconded by Councilmember .
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
| II
,- .I
011 'H'V'S
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I
April 29, 1986
RESOLUTION NO. 86-
RESOLUTION REQUESTING CONVEYANCE OF CERTAIN
EASEMENTS ON TAX FORFEIT PROPERTY
WHEREAS, there are certain lots in the City of Mound
which are tax forfeit; and
WHEREAS, the County has requested that the City Council
either release these lots for public auction; release for private
sale to adjacent owners if the parcels cannot be improved beconase
of non-compliance with local ordinances; or request conveyance;
and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has advised the City Clerk
that there are easements that need to be placed on certain
parcels before disposition can be made.,in an orderly fashion.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Mound, Minnnesota, hereby authorizes the Mayor and
the City Clerk.to make application to the Stat~ of Minnesota for
conveyance of the following easements on the lots listed below.
P~RCEL
19-117-23 ~ 0196
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lots 21 & 22, Block 11, Wychwood
EASEMENT ON ABOVE TO BE CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF MOUND
A perpetual easement for street and utility purposes
over, under and across the west 5.00 feet of said Lot
19-117-23 32 0192
Lots 23 & 24, Block 11, Wychwood
EASEMENT ON ABOVE TO BE CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF MOUND
A perpetual easement for street and utility purposes
over, under and across the south 10.00 feet of the east
5.00 feet of said Lot 24.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Counci~member
and seconded by Councilmember .
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Attest: City Clerk
MaYor
APPLICATION BY GOVERNMEN~.~ SUBDIV/SION FOP,. CONVEYANCE OF
' , T~-FOR~ED ~S
· . ~?b) Resolutlon NO. 86- (Copy attached hereto)
c~rta£n to~.~'orf~tt~& l~n~ d~criT~e~ a~ ]o~Zow,: - · ' --.
PlO #19-117-23 32 0192 - LoSs 23 and 24, Block 11, ~ychwood :
__Henn~pln__
EASEMENT ON' ABOVE'TO BE CONVEYED ~0 THE CITY OF MOUND:'--A perpetual easement
for street and utility purposes over, under and across the south
lO,O0 feet of the east 5.00 feet of said Lot 24.
5.. ~ha~.~pp~ca~ d~ea ~ obtain Sa~ Z~ ~or t~ ~oZ~ow~n~ p~r~s~: (~)__~n place a p~tual
eas~ent on part of the property described above. -.
ao~j o! ...... ~.e...n...n...e..p.[..n.. .......... ~._.:. ...... _)
CITY OF MOUND
Zt, ..........C../T~ C L E R K
r, vorn, depos~ anG say, e~c.h for hlzr~tZf, tI~t tl~y art r~sp~tLwtp th~ ...... ~ayoe. ........ ~
~ ~hat ~y ~ve r~d the for~oi~ appl~ an~ k now th~ co~t~t~ thereof; a~ ~ th~ m~tt~r~ ~tatec~'
~r~ are ~. .'
$~bsorib~v~ an~ zworr~ to befor~ rn~ th£s
d~ay of ............................................... ~9
~V'otar3t .PubZio ...... Eenl'te. Rt.n ........................ Oo,mty, 3I£nn.
3fy ~mmbslo~ expLr*a ......................................................
{a) Slate fact~ relat;,e to legal organization.
APPLICA//ON BY GOVERNMENT. AL SUBDIVISION F. OR. CONVEYANCE OF
: , TAX-FORFEITED LANDS
t~ Oou~rr~rne~a,Z Sz~b&LfiLztoz~, /or & Cor~ve!to, r~ o)' O~r~£~
;. fh~'(~) Resolut;on No. 86- (Copy attached hereto}
- H&nneo;n
P.ID #1~-117-23 32 01~6 - Lo(s 21 and 22, Blcok 11, WychwOod
· EASEMENT ON ABOVE TO BE CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF MOU'ND: A/perpetu.al easement
for' street and.utility.purposes Drier, under an¢ across .the west
5.00 feet of said Lbt 21. "
5. ~ha~.c~PpZ£can~ de~Lres to obt~l.n *a~d lanc~ fo~ th~ folIowLn~ p-.rpose~: (5)__T_o_.p_J_ace ~a pgr_p_.e, tda]
easement on part of th~ property describedabove..
6. ~Aa~ ther~ ts ne~v~ for suah la. ntis for th~ follow~n~ r~asons: _~.(r.f~t_~,_~J~j.J.J~lv_P_O_r. Eo~es "'""
CITY OF MOUND
Stzbscribr~ an~ ~worr~ to befor~ rr~ this ...................
ga~l of ........................................................... , 19 ....
~Votary Public ...... liennep. Ln ........................ Co~ty,
Jf ~j commtsstor~ gxptr~s ....................................................
?S'/
~oril 18, 1986
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS m PLANNERS
Reply To:
12800 Industrial Park Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
(612) 559-3700
Ms. Dan Bez~crand
~Olanning and Zoning
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 5.5364
S~3E~:
Dear Oan:
Final Plat Approval
Anderson One, Case
MKA File ~g294
We have reviewed the final plat submitted to our office by Hr. Anderson,
and find that it h~ets our request for drainage and utility easements. We
would also like to clarify our interpretation of item ¢f4 of the resolution
approving the preliminary plat. A final grading and drainage plan submitted at
this time we feel would not serve any useful purpose. Due tO the size and
slope of these lots, the perspective buyers will probably design homes to
'. specifically suit each lot. At such time building permits are applied for, the
final grading and drainage for that particular lot can be reviewed and approved
by the Building Official and City Engineer.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact
US.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Oohn Cameron
OC:jmj
Location and complete legal description of property to be divided:
PLAT
PARCEL
ZONING R- 1
To be divided as follows:
(attach survey or scale drawing showing adjacent streets, dimension of proposed
building sites, square foot area of each new parcel designated by number)
A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR:
New Lot No. From
Square feet TO Square feet
Reason:
APPLICANT L. NO.C/__,.'.'.'~-7~{5c.~--~
This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of ~e prope~y, or an explan-
'ation given why this is not the case.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Staff's recommendations.
To approve the prellminary plat with the
DATE 2-10-86
Public Hearing date set
COUNCIL ACTION
Resolution No.
for 3-17-8G at the 2-18-86 Council Meeting'.
DATE 3-17L86
APPROVAL OF THIS DIVISION IS DEPENDENT ON THE LEVYING OF ANY
DEFICIENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS BY WAIVER, THE FILING OF THE DIVISION
AS APPROVED AND THE NECESSARY PAYMENTOF TAXESBY THE FEE OWNER
WITHIN 1 YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE RESOLUTION OR IT BECOMES
NULL AND VOID.
March 17, 1986
RESOLUTION NO: 86-~2
RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT
FOR A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 11,
MOUND TERRACE, LOTS, 5, 6, AND THE WEST
~NE-HALF OF LOT ~ FOR RICHARD T. ANDERSON,
AS AMENDED BI THE CITY COUNCIL
PID #14-117-2~ 33 0013/001~
WHEREAS, the City CounCil on March 17, 1986', held a
public hearing pursuant to Section 2200, Chapter 22, Mound Code
of Ordinances, to consider the approval of a preliminary plat for
the establishment of four residential lots located on property
described as Block 11, Mound Terrace, Lots 5, 6, and the west
one-half of Lot 4; and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with
the Mound Comprehensive Plan and the regulations and requirements
of the laws of the State of Minnesota and Ordinances of the City
of Mound, Subdivision Code of the City.
NOW, THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Mound, Minnesota, that the preliminary Plat, Case ~86-
503, is approved upon .compliance with the following requirements:
1. Per plat on file at'Mound City Hall, dated January 29,
1'986. -'
2. P~sting of a subdividers escrow in the amount of $1,000.
3. Payment of park dedication in the amount of the fee
which is applicable at the t.ime of building permit
issuance.
A grading and drainage plan must be approved by the City
Engineer Prior to thq recording of the final plat.
Drainage and utility easements shall be shown in
conformance with the City Engineer's recommendations.
Addition of 10 ft. 'drainage and utility easements on
front lot line and 6 ft. drainage and utility
easements all other lot lines·
Restriction be placed of record that no variances will
be granted as part of any future subdivisions.
Site plan (survey) with proposed grades, which is
required submittal with the building permit application,
will be approved by both the City Engineer and Building
Official.
March 17, 1986
That the applicant refer the current abstract of title
or registered property report to the City Attorney for
his examination and report. The City Attorney's written
report shall be submitted to the Building OFficial
within fifteen (15) days of its receipt by the Attorney..
8. All future subdivisions of the newly created lots shall
comply with the ~rovlslon~ of the Subdtvtmion Code of
the City of Mound.
9. Before the Certificate of Occupancy for any homes
built in this subdivision is issued, a certificate
signed by a registered engineer must be provided. This
certificate will state that all property irons are at
proper grade and that final lot and building grades are
in conformance with the drainage plan approved by the
City Engineer.
10. That ~ailure on the part of the applicant to submit a
final plat per Section 22.13 within one year from the
date of this approval shall deem the preliminary
approvat~to'be null and void.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
Jessen and seconded by Councilmember Smith.
....... The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Jessen, Polston and Smith.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
none..
The following Councilmembers were absent and excused:
Paulsen and Peterson.
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 86-503
RESOLUTION NO,
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMHISSION
TO APPROVE A FINAL PLAT FOR "ANDERSON ONE" SUB-
DIVISION
WHEREAS, the final plat of "Anderson One" has been submitted in the
manner required for platting of land under the City of Mound Ordinance Code,
Section 22.00 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota Statutes and a11 pro-
ceedings have been duly conducted thereunder; and
WHEREAS, said plat is in all respects consistent with the City plan
and the regulations and requirements of the laws of the 'State of Minnesota and
Ordinances of the City of Mound; andI
WHEREAS, the City Council, on March 17,~1986, held a public hearing
pursuant to Section 22.00, Chapter.22, of Mound City Code of Ordinances, to
consider the approval of the preliminary plat for the establ.ishment of four (4)
residential lots located on property described as:
Block )), Mound Terrace, Lots 5, 6 and the West l/2 of Lot 4.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota:
A. That the final plat, Case Numbe~ 86-5'03, is approved upon com-
pliance with the following requirements:
l. Per plat as shown on the attached Exhibit "A" dated April 22,
1986.
2. Per requirements set out in Resolution 86-32, or as subsequently
amended by motion, approving the preliminary plat of Richard T.
Anderson.
3. Escrow fund has been paid in the amount of $1,O00.
payment of Park Dedication in the amount of the fee which is
applicab)e at the time of building permit issuance, but in no
case less than $300 fo'r each lot.
5. City Attorney's title opinion approval.
Bo
That the City Clerk is hereby directed to supply a certified copy
of this Resolution to the above named owner and subdivider after
completion of the requirements for their use as required by M.S.A.
462.358.
Ce
That the Mayor'and City Manager are hereby authorized to execute
the certificate of approval on behal~f of the City Council upon
compliance with the foregoing provlsions.~
This final plat shall be filed and recorded within 60 days of the
date of the signing of the hardshells by the Mayor and City Manager
in accordance'with Section 22.00 of the City Code and shall be
recorded within 180 days of the adoption date of this Resolution
with one copy being filed with the City of Mound.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that such execution of the certificate upon said plat
by the Mayor and City Manager shall be conclusive showing of proper
compliance therewith bY the subdivider and City Officials and shall
entitle such plat to be placed on record forthwith without further
formality, ali in compl'iance with M.S.A. 462 and the Ordinances of
the City.
III '
" Il II Jj:,.il .~. IJ! ~ ~ll , ~: .-,.:~ I
· ~ I I'll i.. iii J il , ., :-:."- ~ I~!I ,. i i ., '1
,,,,,. I i ,-i. =
,,j , :__.,.. ,j .j ,/ , Ii..,_, ,, l, ,,,:.
~-.'."i-.~ i .'. ' ! ' ii:,, ! ,: ; i: t
--'! ill] z:: i I J': 'il] '1I
I i J 1,
,.,, ,,,,,t, :J.'. ,t ~.t:il---.' ~t I ,:-.
I.- ~:~ i: : · . i.'"~l-- : ii t ".-'.
. ,.:,-,.,.-.' I :. -, I: I · ..
J
I II. ['ll'l~:[ '" '~-[ ' . ·
JI j .
"'' [----T
x - ¢, .'ill ,1:
L.U \ ~\ I ' .~,-.-~"-~ ..~\,, \ ""\'~ , ~ ~/i . / Ill ,"
,,,,... .., ~ . \\ , ,,. I . /~1
\ ~. · '. Il:! ,,,, ,:~ I'
\. ,-,, . ,.- - .~ ~'-~)"~ 1'- ~..- ~ I'-- -- ~ -
?~ -
CASE NO. 86-506
TO: Planning Commission, Applicant, and Staff~
FROM: Jan Bertrand, Buildlng Officlal
Planning Commission Agenda of April 14, 1986
CASE NO.: 8~-506
LOCATI'ON: 53XX Baywood Shores Drive
LEGAL: Lot 1 and'Part of Lot 2, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores
SUBJECT: Front Yard Variance
EXISTING ZONING: Single Family (R-l)
APPLICANT: Steven Coddon
ADDRESS: 4629 Aberdeen Road
M6und, MN. 55364
PHONE NO.: 472-4246
The applicant, Mr. Coddon, is requesting a front yard setback variance to place
a hdme on Lot 1 and part of Lot 2'.in Block 4 of Replat of Harrison Shores. The
City Engineer will forward a review'of the subdivision request. The applicant
is requesting'that the variance be granted to allow a setback in the front yard
location of 20 feet'instead of the required 30 feet for the single family (R-l)
zoning district. The request would place the structure within 33 feet ~ to the
curb line of Baywood Shores Drive.
The proposed detached accessory building indicates an 8 foot front yard setback
from the building..The City Zoning Ordinance. 5&ctlon 23.407 states, "if the
garage door faces the side property line, the front yard setback may be 8 feet".
I am assuming that Mr. Coddon's proposal indicates the garage.doors to.be facing
to the west property line. The door location, however, is not marked on the
site plan. The proposed grades of this yard are not indicated on the site plan/
survey. The g~ades on the lot are a11' below the minimum flood plaln elevatlon
for the building site. The minimum floor elevation for the accessory buildlng
and the structure for Lake Minnetonka'is '933.5. The high point of Lot 1 and
part of Lot 2 is 932+. In order loc this property to be developed, there are
several °ptionsin construction available to the owner. One would 6e for the .
house to be placed on stilts; two would .be to fill 1½ feet to 3½ feet above the
existing grade. A Watershed Oistrict ~ermit'would be required for any filling
on Lot 1 and part of Lot 2. ~he site also consistg of a heavily wooded area
with many dead or dying'trees on the site. The site would be improved by some
development or clearing vegetation. ..
The staff recommends the approval of the request setback variance upon the
following conditions:
1. Proposed grades be approved to assure the minimum floor elevation of the
accessory building and the principal structure at 933.5 feet N.G.V.D.
2. Minnehaha Creek Wa,tershed District permit be approved prior to the issuance
of the building permit.
3. The dead or diseased trees be removed from the building site.
4. The building line on Lot 2 should be in llne with house located at 1709 Bay-
wood Lane and not project in front of it. 7~)7
I~ ~V .... : ....... CASE NUMBERS 86-505
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
~ ~ CONSULTING ENGINEERS m LAND SUFIV£YOR$'i PLANNERS '86-506
April 4, 1~86
Reply To:
12800 Industrial Park Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
(612) 559-3700
Oan Bertrand
Planning and Zoning
City of Mound
5341. Maywood Road
Hound, MN 5~64
Subject:
Land Division and Variance Request
Lots 1 and 2, Block 4, Replat of
Harrison Shores Case #86-506
MKA File #2113 .
Dear Jan:
As requested,'we h'ave reviewed the applications and supporting material
forwarded to us on the above subject and have the following recommendations and
comments:
We do not believe approval should be gra~ted for this land division until
additi~nal information is provided, such as, a more complete site plan ~hich
indicates a possible building location for Parcel B and proposed elevations for
both Parcel A and B. Existing sanitary sewer and water services should also be
shown. The minimum floor elevation allowed by ordinance is 93~.5, whereas all'
of Parcel A and most of Parcel B is below elevation 93~. tt appea~s a
substantial amount of fill wouldbe required to obtain this minimum floor
elevation. We consider these very marginal building sites, and for this
reason, we believe the applicant should demonstrate that they are buildable
lots. The Minnehaha C~eek Watershed District regulations also prohibit any
filling, below 931.5, unless an area of equal volume is provided to compensate
for the potential floor Plain lost. Any approval granted by the City should be
contingent upon the applicant obtaining approval from other agencies such as
M.C.W.D. and the D.N.R.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact
me.
OC:cah
Very truly yours,
McCOHBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
'P1ann|ng Con~n~ss~on. J~nutes
Apri! lb, 1986
BOARD OF APPEALS'
1. Cases No..8~'-50~'!&.'86~505...'Subdivlsi°n'°fl Land and Street Front Setback Vari-
ances.on.Lots.'l..-&i2:: Block t~,.Replat of Harrison Shores (536q Bay~ood shore
Drive ~; !7'"i7 Bay~ood Lan~) . Applicant· Steven'Coddon Was present. .. .'.
The' Bui 1ding 0'ffic:lal:.revte~ed the revi sed. Plan which' Hr. Cc~ddon subml'tted. -
· The "~ ayout' I s changed· _and: ,the .:e'levat ions a re Sho~n ~.:~ She .stated th'at '.the
subdi'v'i ~'ioh'.. ~ee~:s,,the -~ot.~i dth. and area re~ui.rements; .the mi nimum f.lood
elevation ':is to'be 933..5:" Some'~pot elevations are 931 and.932 at. the con.-.
todr.' · She. thought"."fi 11.wouid be necessary and a.i~innehaha Creek ~/atershed
· Permit. 'The Zoning· i.n.R'1' requires 30 foot Street front ~etback and 10 foot
on-the slde yard.' Tl~e .requ.est:.on Parcel '~ is to .reduce the s. treet' front set-
back to 20 fee. t'.:anct'.0n Parcel .B (in order to line' up with house on abutting
proper.t~/), approximately 21½ feet.
Coddon stated~d~eliin'gs, would look more eye appealing if llned up; also he
mentioned"t~hat When'..these' lots were developed in 1962, the covenant excluded
lot shown as Parce1'A. Because' of erosion, more room )s needed to make viable.
Proposed dwelling-w!11 st.i11 be 33 feet fr°m street rlght,of-~aY'.
Ken Patz voiced objectionS,' he~ stated the. Association members are concerned
about the' 'setback and' stated there' has been some substandard dwellings in
this developmen.t~ Coddon. wlll be. submitting plans to the ArChitectural
Control Committee'..foK this Association.' Greg.Eckert is against.variances
as is .Pam Call Inan. '
The Ccimmission questioned.'am°unt' of. fill. requi red for buildabie, slte; Cool'don
stated 'he' has'had soi.1 tests; he does:not plan on fi111ng and ~ilI be putting
in footings for alt foot Crawl space. The Commission discussed the request
· at length including that dead/diseased trees be removed from the lots.
Thal moved-and Byrnes seconded' a motion to recommend approval of the sub-
div:Islon prov'islon as proposed. The vote was Heyer opposedl a11' others in
favor. 'Rotlon carrled." .
Thal moved and :B~rnes Seconded a- motion to recommend appro
TM of-street
· front variances'-.Parcel'A.at 10 feet .and Parcel B at 8~ feet or whatever
· wi 11 llne uP.with .house -to" the' North -conditioned that staff recommendations
2, 3 and /~ be Included.and also that'. '~DNR and any necessary permits''~ be
added:to staff· recommendatton'# '2.. .The. vote was Byrnes, Ken.Sm.tthi That
and densen in' favor; Heyer;' Hichael,. Reese, ~/elland and Steve 5mith'against;
moti'on fai led.' '
'~hls ~I'11 go ~:o the City Counc:il on'April 2Dth. The consensus of those
voting against .was that there ~as-not enough information and that if house
would'not'lit'on'the 10~000 square foot lot, shoul..d use 2' lots for the
house.. '.
PPLICATION 'FOR SUBDIVISION
Sec. 22.03-a
VILLAGE OF MOUND
OF
LAND
FEE OWNER
PLAT
· PID Numbers
PARCEL .
13-1.17-24 21 00q7/00~8
Location and complete legal description of property to be divided:'
To be divided as follows:
AI.]'..su or_ting documents "siJch. as sketch olans, 'surve,,s',-attac~Hment:s, etc. must be
A WAIVER IN. LOT SIZE I$ REQUESTED FOR=
New Lot. No. ' From
Square feet TO
Square feet
Reason:
Applicant's interest in the property: ~1 ~ ' 6"d~3d ~/
This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of the property, or an explan-
'ation given why this is not the case.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION=
DATE
'CITY OF MOUND
Fee paid ~--o. o ~
APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ' '
se t e the following in. for_marl.on_)
Lega1 Oescriptlon of Property: Lo~ / + ~ Block.
Applicant (if other than owner):
PlO No. 13-117-24 21 0047/00q8
Day Phone .o. 77 F -
Name
Day Phone No.
e
Address
Type of Request:
(X~ Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit
( ')-Zoning interpretation S Review
( ) Wetland Permit (.) P.U.D.
( ~ Amendment
(') Sign Permit
( )*Other
*If other, specifY:
Present Zoning District ,
7- Existing Use(s) of Property '
8. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? ~'~ I~ so, list date(s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(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 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, malntaining and removing such
notices as may be req6ired b~l~.~t
. Signature of Appllcant---~~
Planning Commission Recommendatlon:
Date_..____._-----
Council Action:
Resolution No.
Date_~
Request for Zoning Variance Proced;Jre (2)
D.
E.
F.
Case ~ ~_~.~
Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
Indicate North compass direction
Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City.Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance·
III. R~equest for a Zoning Variance
A. A11 information below, a site p]an, as describe? .in Part II, and general
app]l.cation must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled.
B. Does the present use of the property conform to a11 use regulations for
the zone district In which it Is located? Yes ~ No ( )'
.. If S~no~, specify each non-conforming use:
Do the existing structures comply wlth all area height and bulk regulations
for the zone district in which It is 'located? .Yes ( ) No ( )
If "no~, specify each non-conforming use: '
Which uniqu&'phYsica] characteristics of the subject property prevent its
reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) -TOo narrow (.) Tqpography' ( ) Soll
( ) ~o. small ( ) Drainage.. ( ) Sub-surface
.( ). ~o shallmv C~ Shape ( ) Other: Specify:
Was the hardship described 'above created by the action of anyone having.
property .Interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted2..
Yes '( ) No (/~ if'yes, explain:
~as the hardship created by any other man-made change,.such as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes ( ) No ~ If yes, explain:
G. Are the conditions of hardship for'which you request a variance'peculiar
only to the property described in this petition? Yes (') No (~)
If no/~ how many other, propertie,s are ~imilarly affected?
H What is the "minimum" modif'
· ~caclon [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
I. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the
same zone, or to the enforcement of this .ordinance?
PROPOSED
LAND
DIVISION
£XI. STING LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, according to the
recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. General Notes
Areas (above 929.4 contour l'ine):
0 Denotes iron monument
tot 1 10,170 Sq, Ft. XO00.O0 Denotes existing elevation
tot 2 11,16~ Sq. Ft. - Denotes existing contour line
Sewer. and water information obtained
from City of Mound records.
Benchmark
Top of sanitary sewer manhole at the
PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION ~ntersection of Baywood Lane and Bay-
wood S~ore Drive.
PARCEL A Elevation = 935.14 (N.G.V.D.)
Lot 1, Block 4, REPLAI OF HARRISOn; SHORES, according to the recordeO
plat thereof; Also
That part of Lot 2, Block 4 <aid REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, describeo
as follows: Beginning at the most southerly corner of said Lot -,
thence North 7 degrees 40 minutes 08 seconds West, assumed hearing,
long the southwesterly line of said Lot 2 a distance of /9.81 feet;
~hence South 55 degrees 18 minutes 51 seconds East a distance of 26.44
~ feet; thence South 9 degrees 49 minutes 52 seconds West a Cistance of
65.00 f~et to the point of beginning.
Area (above 9?9.4 contour line):
10,949 Sq. Ft.
PARCEL B
Lot 2, Block 4, REPLAT OF HARR~SUN SHORES, according to the recorded
plat thereof; EXCEPT that part of sa~ Lot 2 described as ~o~lows:
Beginning at the most southerly corner of said Lo% 2, thence North 7
degrees 40 minutes 08 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the
southwesterly line of said Lot 2 a distance of 79.81 feet; thence
South 55 degrees 18 minutes 51 seconds East a distance of 26.~4 feet;
thence South 9 degrees 49 minutes 52 seconds West a distance of 65.00
feet to the point of beginning.
Area (above 929.4 contour line):
lO,3el Sq. Ft.
OEMARS ' GABRIEL
~ ID SURVEYORS, INC'
3030 H~rbor Line NO.
Plymouth MN 55441
PhOne'. (el
I hereby certify thet this ii a true Ind correc~ representation of a survey of
the bounUerie$ of the above described land and ol the location of all buildings.
if iny. thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on sa,d land.
At surveyedl2~ me tn$_ , ,f -- ,
L I
File No.
Book - Page
l -Zl
Scale
/ 7
0
0
Z
~o;
.S
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NUMBERS 86-505 & 86-506
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
APPROVE SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 4, REPLAT
OF HARRISON SHORES AND TO DENY ANY VARIANCE IN STRUC-
-TURE SETBACKS PID NUMBERS 13-117-24 21 0047/0048
WHEREAS,.the applicant has applied For a subdivision to re-align the
property lines for Lots 1 and 2, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied to vary the structure setbacks from
the required 30 feet in the R-1 single family zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the applicant requests a waiver from the subdivision require-
ments contained in Section 22.00 of the City Code; and
WHEREAS, said request for a waiver, subdivision of land, and variance
has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council; and
WHEREAS, it is hereby determined that there are special circumstances
affecting said property such that the strict application of the ordinance would
deprive the applicant of the~reasonable use of his land; and that the waiver is
necessary for the'~reservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right;
and that granting the waiver from Section. 22.00 will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious'to the other property owners.
NOW, THEREFORE', BE IT. RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota:
That the property be allowed to be subdivided upon the following condi-
tions:
The proposed legal description: Parcel A: Lot l, Block 4, Replat of Harrison
Shores, according to the recorded plat thereof; Als° that part of Lot 2,
Block 4, said Replat of Harrison Shores, described as follows: Beginning at
the most southerly corner of said Lot 2, thence North 7 degrees 40 minutes
08 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the southwesterly line of said Lot 2
a distance of 79.81 feet; thence south 55 degrees 18 minutes 51 seconds East
a distance of 26.44 feet; thence South 9 degrees 49 minutes 52 seconds West a
distance of 65.00 feet to the point of the beginning; lot area above 929.4
contoUr line = 10,949 Square Feet.
Parcel B: Lot 2, Block 4, Replat~ of Harrison Shores, according to the re-
corded plat thereof; except that part of said Lot 2 described as follows:
Beginning at the most southerly corner of said Lot 2, thence North 7 degrees
40 minutes 08 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the southwesterly line of
said Lot 2 a distance of 79.81 fee; thence South 55 degrees 18 minutes 51
seconds East a distance of 26.44 feet; thence South 9 degrees 49 minutes 52
seconds West a distance of 65.00 feet to the point of beginning. Lot area
above 929.4 contour line: 10,381 Square Feet.
2. No unit charge will be assessed or paid against the newly created subdivision
line'
3. A waiver is granted from the Subdivision Section 22.00 of the Mound City
Ordinances including any Park Dedication fee provision.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION (CONT.)
CASE NUHBERS 86-$05 & 86-506
All structures on the newly created ,lots shal! conform to the zoning ordinance
provisions for setback from property llnes.
Other State Agency approvals such as Hinnehaha Creek Watershed District shall
be obtained prior to. Buildlng Permit issuance.
Diseased and/or dead trees shall be removed from the building site within
180 days.
7. It is determined.that the'foregoing division will.constitute a desirable and
stable community development and it is in harmony with adjacent property owners.
8. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution
to the applicant for filing in the office of the Register of Deeds or the
Registrar:Of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision
reguJations of this City.
This lot subdivision is to. be filed and recorded within 180 days of the adoption
.date of this resolution.
TO: Plannin~i Commission, Applicant and Staff
FROM: ~Jan Bertrand, Building Official
Planning Commission Agenda of April 14, 198
CASE NO. 86-511
CASE NO. 86-511
APPLICANT: Kraus Anderson of St. Paul
LOCATION: 2200 Commerce Boulevard
LEGAL DESC.: Various - PID Numbers 13-117-24 32 0125/0129/0161; 13-117-24 33 O001/
0027/0058/0059/0060/0061/0062/0063
SUBJECT: Sign Variance
EXISTING ZONING: Central Business (B-l)
City Code Section 55.38 Subsection 1.05 require~ an applicant to file for a
zoning variance process from the provisions of the sign ordinance. A variance
may be granted if the variance does not adversely affect the spirit or intent
of the ordinance. Subsection 3.09(4) states the maximum construction sign shall
not exceed 32 squa~d feet to identify the project.
The applicant is requesting an8 by 8 foot .(64 square fOot) temporary identifi-
cation sign to be placed in the north parking lot by .the present Medical Clinic.
The height is 12 feet.
Recommendation: If the Planning Commission feels the scope of the project
warrants the requested 64 square foot sign, staff would condition that approval
upon no banners or pennants being placed for the retail shops until the construc-
tion identification sign is removed.. The ordinance does not restrict the size & number
of temporary bannersfor grand openings or special events.
No abutting property owners have been notified.-
Copy of Section 55.38 pertaining to the above is attached.
JB/ms
o.9
Planning Commission. Ftlnutes
· April 1.~., 1~86
Case No..'85~511. Slgn'Var.iance'.:request by Kraus-Anderson for temporary
Identification sign'.for Town Square Project, 2200 Commerce'Boulevard
No one was present for the' project.
The'Bulldlng.0~flciai reviewed her report on the request stating that the
slgn'had'b~en made at..6q square feet. The Con~isslon questioned the dis-
tance sign to' be.Placed f·rom the' curb lines on Church ahd Commerce.
~/ei land moved and BYrnes. Seconded`· a' motion to recommend ~P'~>~'l"of the
sign as requested ~vith the staff recommendations and conditioned that
sign be placed so'lt ~:an be seen: from both the North and South. The
vote.~vas .unanj. mous. ly In favor. Hotlon carried.
This will be on ;the City CoUncil agenda of'April 29, 1986.
C TY OF
Street Address of Property
CITY OF HOUND
TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
)e the following information)
Legal Description of Property: Lot
Add i t i on
Owner's Name
- Address ~'~ _~~'.
Appllcant (if other than owner)
Name
Address
Block
PID No.
Type of Request: (~) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit
( ')' Zoning Interpretation & Review
( ) Wetland Permit (-) P.U.D.
Day Phone No.~/-
( .) Amendment
(~/ Sign Permit
( )*Other
*If other, specify:
Present Zoning District
7. Existing Use(s) of Property.
8. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? A~o I? so, list date(s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s)
Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany ·present request.
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required
papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in
or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City
of Mound for the purpose of inspecting,.or of posting, maintaining and removing such
notices as may be reqoired by law.
· Signature of Applicant . _~ (---- ~ -
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Date
Council Action:
Resolution No.
Date
4/82
APPLICATION FOR SIGN PERMIT
CITY OF MOUND
NAME OF APPLICANT . .K~ ~
Street Number City
BUILOlNG OWNER ~-~7(~
(If other than applicant) ~am~
CONTRACTOR /~'/~c?
· Name
LOT BLOCK'
PHONE NO. c>~ ~ / _'~ ~ 98
Zip
Address
AddreSs
ADDITION
ALLOV/ABLE SIGNAGE @ ~; ~ ...... Square Footage
~/ALL AREA.' ....... BY' .Ft. ~ TOTAL ZONING DISTRICT
EXISTING SIGNAGE.' .... NUHBER OF SIGNS' SQL FOOTAGE OF SIGNS
HEIGHT OF SIGN /~ ' '
' - " I LLUHI NATED= YES NO
SIGN SiZE BEING REQUESTED ~ BY-.-
, -- ~ ...... )TYPE OF SIGN:
~ SQ. FT. ' ~ALL HOUNT;
LENGTH OF TIHE SEASONAL S~.GN TO BE ERECTED~ FREE STANDING
PORTABLE
OTHER
PLEASE DESCRIBE. REQUEST AND REASON-FOR REQUEST:.
d w, '
Is sign for a' communit~ organization and does it meet all the standards of Section
!'f additional information is attached., please submit 8½'~ X 11'" maximum sized drawings.
Recommendat i on ~ ' ~ ~]~~
168 R 9185
APPROVED:
Building Official
;0
'~ 0
"0
0
(J)
iment
elevation
contour line
[on obtained
~hole at the
Lane and Bay-
V.D. )
EXI. STING LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, according to the
recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota.
Areas (ahoy9 929.4 contour l'ine): ·
Lot 1 10,170 Sq. Ft.
Lot 2 11,160 Sq. Ft.
PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PARCEL A
Lot 1, Block 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, accorcing to tl~e recorded
plat thereof; Also
That part of Lot 2, Block 4, said REPLAT OF HARRISON SIJORES, describec
as follows: Beginning at the most southerly corner of saia Lot 2,
thence North 7 degrees 40 minutes 08 seconds West, assumed bearing,
along the southwesterly Ti.ne of sa~d Lot ~ a'distance of 79.81 feet;
(hence South 55 degrees 18 minutes 51 seconds East a distance of 26.44
feet; thence South 9 degrees 49 minutes 52.seconds West a distance of
65.00 feet-to the point of b~ginning.
Ar'ea-(abOve 929.4 contour line):
10,949 Sq, Ft,
PARCEL B
Lot 2,.Block 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, according to th~ 'recorded
plat thereofi EXCEPT that part of said LOt 2 described as follows:
Beginning at the most southerly corner of said Lot 2, thence North 7
degrees 40 minutes 08 seconds West, assumed bearing, along the
southwesterly line of said Lot 2.a distance of 79.81 feet; thence
So'uth 55 degrees 18 minutes 51 seconds East a distance of 26.44 feet;
thence South 9 degrees 4~ minutes 52 seconds West a distance of 65.00
feet to the point of beginning.
Area (above 929.4 contour line):
10,381 Sq. Ft.
PREPARED FOR:.
DIVISION
STEVE
CODDON
?
/
--I il'In,'
O~
I
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NUMBER 86-511
RESOLUTION NO. 86-
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A SIGN VARIANCE FOR
KRAUS-ANDERSON OF ST. PAUL AT 2200 COMMERCE BOULE-
VARD PID NUMBERS 13-117-24 32 O125/O129/O161 AND
13-117-24 33 0001/0027/0058/0059/0060/0061/0062/0063
WHEREAS, the applicant, Kraus-Anderson of St. Paul, Contractor for
Town Square, has requested an 8 by 8 foot free standing sign at the location
shown on Exhibit "A"; and
WHEREAS, said sign would be erected as a free standing sign that
would be located Sou~h of Church Road and East of Commerce Boulevard and the
request is for a 64 square foot sign as shown on Exhibit "B"; and
WHEREAS, said sign would identify the construction site of Town Square
located at 220~ Commerce Boulevard; and ~ ·
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request for the 64
square foot sign and does recommend the sign be approved as requested.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, does hereby approve the sign variance for a free standing 64 square foot
size with a height of 12 feet to be located as shown on Exhibit "A".and as des-
cribed on Exhibit "B" upon the condition that no grand opening banners' or pennants
will be placed at the office/retail shops until the construction identification
sign is removed.
TO: Planning Commission, Applicent and Staff
FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official
Planning Commission Agenda of April 14, 1986
CASE NO. 86-512
APPLICANT: Gerald R. Barrow
LOCATION: 6032 Cherrywood Road
LEGAL DESC.: Lot 4, Block 9, The Highlands
SUBJECT: Lot Size Variance
EXISTING ZONING: Single Family (R-l)
The applicant is requesting a lot size variance to allow Lot 4 to be used as
a building site, The platted w!dth~!s 50 feet with the east side measurement
of 173,2 and West side of 189.2 equalling a total area of 9,060 sqUare feet.
The grade of the lot indicates a topography of 8 to 10 percent.
Recommendation: The staff recommends approval of the lot size variance upon
the following conditions:
]. The variance, is valid for one year after approval unless renewed by the
City Council,
2. The lot size is within I0% of the required lO,O00 square feet.
3. The topography is limited to 8 per cent slope.
The abutting neighbors have been notified.
CASE NO. 86-512
JB/ms
(COUNTY STATE ,AID HWY. NO. I10~ PLAT 4?)
I
--~O"E 339.88 --
CASE NO. 86-511
EXHIBIT "AI'
IE~ ~ ~ ° ~ _" ~~. 2 ~ · Ulnne.po~l.. Mlnne$ot. 55403 · (~12) 33~ 1401
Planning Commission. Minutes
· April 14., I~86 .
· Lot 9', Block ~ The Highlands
Mr. & Mrs;: Bart°w Were present,
The.Building Official ~an'Bertrand'reviewed'her report. Request is for a
1or'size Variance t~'allow lot to be used as a bulldable site. She stated
1'or size Is'within 10~ of the'required 10',000 square feet; there ls no other
avallable~:land; she ls recommending'slope'be limited to 8 percent.
W~iland moved and.Ken Smith. geconded a'motion to ~ecommend approval ~ith
'the staff re~ommendat'lons'. The vote on the motion was .unanimously in favor.
Motion carried,
.This will.be o~'~he, clty Council,agenda. of Aprl'l 2~, I~86. '
CITY OF MOUND
APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
(Please type the following information)
Street Address of Property ~.O~q. C.~~CI~
Legal Description of Property: Lot
Addition / ~
Owner's Name ~4K~ ~.
Add .ss'
Case No~
Fee Paid ~-~
Date Filed
Block
PID No.
Day Phone No.. c~..~,.~""~"GOI/~'~.-"
4. Applicant (if other than owner):
Name Day Phone No.
Address
Type of Request:
(~/~'~Variance ( ) Conditional'Use Permit ( ) Amendment
(') Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Sign Permit
( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( ),Other
*If other, specify:
~'' 6,' eresent. Zoni'ng District
7. Existing Use(s) of Property
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance,, or conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this pro'perty?/~ If so, list date(s) of
llst date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolutlon No.(s)
Copies of .previous resolutions shall accompany present request.
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required
papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in
or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City
of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such
notices as may be required by~. ~ ·
Signature of Applicant~; ~/~/~~.~. ~"/--~' ~/~_~t~C4~~ '
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Date
Council Action:
Resolution No.
Date
P, equest for Zoning Variance Procedure (2}
De
Case
Locatlon of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
Indicate North compass direction
Any addltlonal information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
II!. Request for a Zoning Variance
A. Al1 information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general
application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled.
B. Does the present use of the property conform to all use regulations for
the zone district in which it is located? Yes (V/) No ( )
If "no", specify each non-conforming use:
Ce
Ee
Do the existing structures comply with all area height and bulk regulations
for the zone district in which it is located? Yes ( ) No ( )
If "no", specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique'physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its
reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district?
() .Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil
(v~' Too. small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface
( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify:
'~o~ ~T~ ~'o' ~'~ ~ i 7~ o~ o~' ~ ~' I ~?, ~' ¢~ ~,~,*~ or~ TM.
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having
property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted?
Yes ( ) No (v~ If yes, explain:
F. Was the hardship created by any othe~r man-made change, such as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes ( ) No(~/) If yes, explain:
G. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance'peculiar
only to the property described in this petition? Yes ( ) No
(~I
If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? ~ Ol.OC.~j ¢.OT~
H. What is the "minimum" ~dification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations
that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using
maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional
sheets, if necessary.)
V~~c~ ~ ~;~0o ~, ~
I. ~ill granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the
same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance~
J rv_er., Bartow ~_.
6024 Cherrywood Road, Mound, Minnesota 55364 · (612) 472-6246 (residence) · (612) 935-8601 (work)
,4
117
,9, RE)GEWOOO ',~$
15
8. ', 2 9
~, 28
RD
$SINCLAIR
RD
,$
x
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 86-512
RESOLUTION NO. 86-
RESOLUTION"TO APPROVE A VARIANCE AND LOT WIDTH
AND AREA FOR LOT 4, BLOCK 9, THE HIGHLANDS,
PID NUMBER 23-117-24'34 0024 (6032 CHERRYWOOD
ROAD)
WHEREAS, Ger'ald R. Bartow, owner of a vacant parcel of land zoned as
Lot 4, Block 9, The Highlands, has applied for a variance in lot size and width
to allow construction of a single family home with conforming setbacks; and
WHEREAS, the City Code requires a 10,000 square foot m,J,mm in the R-1
Zoning District with a lot width of 60 feet; and
WHEREAS, the property descri, bed has a lot area of 9,060+ square feet
and a lot width of 50 feet; and --
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does
recommend a i.ot width and area variance to afford the property owner reasonable
use of his property.._ '
NOw, THEREFORE, BE IT. RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Mound,. Minnesota, does hereby approve the lot size and width variance as it is
within ten percent of the required lot area and the lot width of ten feet for
.Lot 4, Block 9, The Highlands (6032 Cherrywood Road) to allow the construction
of a single family home with conforming setbacks for lots of record. This
variance is granted upon the condition 1) the variance is valid for one year
after app'rovai unless renewed by the City Council; 2) the lot size is within
ten percent of the required lO,O00 square feet; 3) the topography is to be
limited to 8 pergent slope; 4).exceptional or extraordinary circumstances due
to the existing sites in close proximity to it ape fully developed; 5) the
variance requested is the minimum variance which would alleviate'the hardship.
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
ED SHUKLE
CITY MANAGER
JOHN NORMAN
FINANCE DIRECTOR
APRIL 25, 1986
DELINQUENT UTILITY B. ILL COLLECTION PROCESS
The March delinquent utility billing list was $8,000, while the
April list is ,starting out at $16,000. You expressed concern
over these large amounts and requested that I look into our
collection process.
EXISTING coLLECTION PROCESS
For illustration purposes,. I have taken an.imaginary household
which gets billed $100.00 per quarter and made no payments on
their bills.
Billing Cycle
Date Mailed Amount of Total
Bill Bill
1st Qtr.
1st Qtr. Penalty
Oct 15 -Jan 15
Jan 15 - Apr 15
2nd Qtr
2nd Qtr Penalty
Letter to Resident (see attached)
Council Action Authorizing Shut Off
Red Tags Hung (see attached)
Water Shut Off
Jan 24
Feb 21
Apr 25
May 23
June 2
jUne 24
June 25
July 2
$100.00 $100.00
10.00 10.00
100.00 210.00
10.00 220.00
An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicapped status
in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities,
Page 2
Ed Shukl e
April 25, 1986
PROBLEMS WITH PRESENT SYSTEM
Obviously, the large amounts of delinquent utility bills are hard on the
cash flow. This is more significant considering the current deficits we
are running~in the Water Fund. The net.losses for 1984 and 1985 were
($31,782) and ($77,890).respectively. During 1986, the'expenditures
have exceeded revenues by $45,835.00.
There are many steps, in'our collection process. Many people will wait
until they are certain we are going to.act. In our process, action
does.not come quickly. I have checked with other cities to compare
collection processes. We'have the longest process and the most lenient
collection policy.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE POLICY
Rewrite the letter sent out before the Council public hearing. The
major change is to make wording stronger and state that this is final
notice (see attached letter).
Increase connection fee from $15.OO to $35.00. The current $15.O0
connection fee does not cover our costs incurred to shutoff and turn
on the water service. Hopkins recently raised their fee from $15.00
to .$35.00. 'They say'it has increased their collection rate, i.e. it
is an incentive for residents to. pay their bill. and avoid the fee.
Eliminate the red tags. With all'the penalty notices and a more
strongly worded letter,.red tags are.unnecessary. Also, this would
save 2-4 hours of time that'the Water & Sewer Dept. spends hanging
the red tags.
The Water and Sewer~Funds are enterprise funds, which means that they
are accounted.for like a business. 'We should run the Water and Sewer
Funds like a business. You can,be certain that NSP, Minnegasco and
Contel have collection pollci, es that are much more strict than ours.
Even with the proposed changes, we are still being more than fair
with the residents.
JN:Is
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
Your Water and Sewer bill in'the amount of is now six months
old and is overdue. ' ~~,~
~-- ~
The Mound City Council will hold a public hearing, at which time yot~r ~ .~ .... ~L
~ V If you do not appear at the public'hearing, the~~-
City Council. will authorize the shutoff of water.service to your
property. To avoid the water servLce' shutoff, you must arrange to pay
your 'bill prior to.the public.hearing.
The hearing on your bill will be held on Tuesday evening,
.at'7:30 P.M., in the City Council Chambers at
5341Maywood Road.
If we shutoff ypurwater, there will be a-$35.00 connection fee, which
will be due prior to reconnection.
We no longer are hanging red tags.
THIS IS YOUR FINAL WATER SHUTOFF NOTICE.
Sincerely,
Edward J. Shukle, Jr.
City Manager
ES:Is
An equal opportumty Empt~yer that aoes not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicapped status
in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities.
CITY of MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA 5536.4
(612) 472-1!55
According to the City Ordinance that'applies to. City. Water and Sewer'.
service, any bill more than slxmonths overdue is considered delinquent.
Your blll In the amount of $.
overdue.
Is.now six months old. and Is now
'The Hound City Council, as a first step in collecting delinquen~water
and sewer bills, holds a public hearing at which'time your bill will be
'reviewed and you'wlll be asked to sho~ the City why it can't be either
paid or the City may be forced to'shut off water'service to your house.
If not possible.to pay. in full', arrangements can.b~made at the'City
Office for a payment plan..
'.The hearing on your bill will be held Tuesday evenl.ng,
at 7:30'.PH. Please try to.attend this meeting.
If we are forced to shut of~ your water, there will be a $15.00.
connection fa& which will be due prior to reconnection.
Needless to say, it Is the last thing We would Want to do to have to take.
such drastic action. Thus, won't.you please help us out by paying your
b111 by to avoid the public hearing, or give us a call to
set up a payment schedule.
If you have any questions, please let me know.
ncerely,
City Manager
An equal o!9portun~ty Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicapped status
in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities.
Information for April 29, 1986 Council Meeting
April 24, !986
LICENSE RENEWALS - Expiring April 30, 1986.
Bowling
8 Lanes--Mound Lanes
Games of Skill
I--A1 & Alma's
4--Captain Billy's
3--Donnies on the Lake
Juke Box
1--American Legion #398
1--Donnie~ bn the Lake
1--VFW #5113
New License Period 5-1-86 to 4-30-87
Pool Table
2~-Captain Billy's
1--VFW #5113
Restaurant
A1 & Alma's
American Legion #398
* Boat Rentals of Minnetonka, Inc. (formerly Blue Lagoon Marina)
Captain Billy's
Donnies on the Lake
The Fig Tree (formerly The Lighthouse-name change only)
*Happy Garden (formerly Pizza Factory)
Hardee's
House of Moy
Mound Lanes
VFW #5113
* New Business
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAY~,NOOD ROAD
MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO: Ed Shukle, City Manager
FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official
DATE: April 28, 1986
SUBJECT: House of Moy License Renewal
On April 14, 1984, Mrs. Moy received a Temporary Certificate
of Occupancy which required fire extinguisher placement through-
out the building'at 5555 Shoreline Boulevard. I have attached
a copy ~f the certificate. Jerry Babb, Fire Marshal, and myself
have talked to Mrs. Moy and the Contractor, Dave Willette, on
several occasions. To date, we still do not have fire extin-
guishers on the premises. I would suggest the City COuncil
· suspend, her restaurant li. cense until the extinguishers are
placed in accordance with National Fire Protection Association
Standard No. 10.
JB/ms
Attachment
cc: Gayle Burns '& Jerry Babb
An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race. color, national origin, or handicapped status
in the admission or access to. or treatment or employment in. its programs and achvities.
Temporary Certificate.of Occupancy
CITY of MOUND
BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
/
DATE APPROVED ~nrl~ 1/~
SITE ADDRESS $555
OWN E R Hou s e
MAILING ADDRESS_
Shoreline Boulevard P.I.D. 13-117-24 33 0005
of Moy BUILDER David W. Wlllette
q~5 Shoreline Boulevard BUILDING PERMIT:
~',nd. "~- cc~l' NO. 84-6506 ,DATE ISSUED
Feb. 28, 1984
THE FOLLOWING' ITEMS ARE NOTED AS' INCOMPLETE OR MISSING. THESE MUST BE CORRECTED
OR COMPLETED AND .EINSPECTED WITH!N.__';0AUSE 0~cAuFYASNOc: TVlHOILSACTIEoRZIcFiITOAATiTOENsWITtLBBEEisVsOuIEC:
FAILURE TO CORRECT THESE DEFICIENCIES WILL
" " i ed s r~nkler plans and test results.
~- ' S stem Corn an to submit .rev s p . , ,. . .
d 'l e at rear tenant space above-furnace room where
4. Extend sprinkler hca. p.P .......... ,'--~n nalnt:~: sca J/ I'~ :or snu,
1:o adj~cen[ pipes an~i clean inspector s [e~[ p~ ~-~ .... ye ~ ..
" down of mmke up air unit with flo~ of sprinkler heads.
Place flre extinguishers as per Fire Marshal, 'Jerry. Babb's requirements.
b
8,
10,
Il.
13.
14,
I
THE TIME ALLOWED:
· .. . ,
OWNER/CONTRACTOI~/4'~-~ ~'" ~.r~ ~/~"~' ' ~DATE - ·
,r. xJt sion to be m~de dlrectlon'al" tO r'lnht e'~rc,,~ on'lv at Room 1 .
Provide electrical final inspection.
· oT~ Hey.
Minnegesco to re~ve gas meter ahd line ~o Key Shop, as per Tom Kral, from ;.louse ~'~
!
In,tell' elate ewer conduit wi~h exoojed'wire at rmf ~e~s~ of the n~ Ku~ unit).
R~move scrap lumber and debris fr~ f~of area.
(See Pa~e 2)
HEREBY AGREE TO MAKE THE ABO~E coRREcTIONS AND TO CALL FOR REINSPECTION WITHIN
X CITY WATER
~,,T,~ BILLING FOR: (tie Change)
X . CITY SEWER
,]an
bet t r e.p.d,
BUILDING OFFICIAL
PINK: FILE
WHITE: OWNER/CONTRACTOR YELLOW: BILLING CLERK
- - ITEl4 ~ ).2
~,~k _ moved ~nd'" ~- ~,z~z<~.
seconded a motion
The (Roll Call) vote
ITEM ~ ~
was unanimoUSly/ in 'favor with nays.
moved and
seconded a motion
· c~-~i -
The (Roll Call) vote was unanimously/ n favor with nays.
ITEM #, .. '
moved and , P~~ . seconded a motion
The (Roll Call) vote was unanimously/
ITEM $
in favor with ,. nays.
moved and ~/b~A ~
seconded a motion
The (Roll Call) vote was unanimously/ in favor with nays.
ITEM
moved and ~~ '
seconded a motion
The (Roll Call) vote was unanimously/ ~n favor with
ITEM # ~ .
nays.
seconded a motion
The.,(Roll Call) Vote was unanimously/ Q~, in favor with
ITEM ~ ~ ,. -
nays.
moved and. .~'~-'j ~o,nm---
see.onded a motion
The (Roll Call)vote was unanimously~kin favor with'~ay~s.
.:C~~ moved and ,~2~*,.-~ seconded a motion
The (Roll Call) vote was unanimously/~in favor with
nays.
moved and,
seconded a motion
The (Roll Call) vote was.unanimously/ ~in_, favor with
ITEM ~ ~
nays.
_ second'id a motion
The..(Roll Call) Vote was unanimously/ J~O_in favor with
ITEM ~ ~ -
moved and
. nays.
seconded a motion
The (Roll Call) vote was unanimously/ _ in favor with
ITEM ~
nays.
moved and
seconded a motion
The (Roll Call) vote was unanimously/ in favor with nays.
ITEM
moved and'
seconded a motion
The (Roll Call) vote was
ITEM
unanimoUSly/ n favor with
nays·
mov ed and ~JP~--y~zk~7~.
seconded a motion
The (Roll Call) vote was unanimously/ .in
ITEM
favor with
nays.
moved and
seconded a motion
The (Roll Call)
ITEM ~' ~
vote was unanimously/f;~ in favor with nays.
moved and ~'~,~_~Ao ~ , seconded a
motion
The (Roll Call) vote was unanimouslM/~q~ in favor with nays.
BILLS APRIL 29, 1986
Batch 864041
Batch.864042
Computer run dated 04-18-86
Computer run dated 04-23-86
Total Bills
79,102.10
47,931.38
127,033.48
s-'
O~
I I
I I
731"'3
I I
C3
I'
o
I
I
0
0
I
0
I
I I I
oC~C~
I I I
I I I
Z
,<
I
0
C3
0 Z
_J
bJ
I
Iai
bJ
Ld
U
bJ
L,J
Z~ZZZZ
I,d
I
,e-,il-
l I
I,
Z
U
0
0
0
Il I
I I
I I
Oo
ti. 0
h
t. lLI
lC
~,lLJ
000
Z
fJ
ZZ
~0
II
~J
W
w
ZZZZZZZZZZ
W
ZZZZ
0
I'
I
o
I
u
·
lg hi
WbJ
U '
L~
.J ,J
Ld Ld
-ii
I--
U
J
Ld
.J
~W~W Z
ZZZZ Z ~ <
0
NN
,= < !
I I' I
;;3
I
,4'
I ~ I t
~ C~
o
O
I
o
O
,Ir
I
'1 I ' I I
o O O o
o o (;3 O
I I I I
I I I I
I
O
N
U
bJ
,J
I,~
.J
Z~
O
-I
'3 O
0 0
0
I' I
0
I- I
I
0
!
I, I I
I I !
! !
!
W
kd
.J
U IJ
UU
6J
]C
W
.J
t.J
gSl
W
1,-
0
U
W
W
!
N
N
I I
o1~
I I
I I
~=~
U
.j
UU
ZZZZ
ZZZZ
~J
,s-
O
Z
LU
'0
bJ.
.0
:~J
41
dI
I I
I I
U
I
Z
u') U')
ii dB,
C_)
0
Z
W
O0
~'Z
· .r -r.
I~1
Z
W
L~
U~
~ZZZZZZZ~Z
IIIIIIIIIIII
0
h
.J
I--
i,i
U
Z
W
CITY of MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO:
FROM:
RE:
ED SHUKLE
CITY MANAGER
JOHN NORMAN ~-t'tJ
FINANCE DIRECTOR
MARCH 1986 FINANCIAL REPORT
REVENUES
We have received 3.8% of Budgeted General Fund revenue at the end of the
first quarter. This is not an alarming percentage, since we are dependent
upon tax and intergovernmental revenue for the majority of our income.
Our investments have decreased from $7,400,000 January 1, to $6,500,000
at the end of March to pay for expenses in the first quarter.
EXPENDITURES
During March we paid $7,000 for the Phase I consultant fee for Contel
issue.
The budget to actual expenses at the end of the first quarter are on
target excluding the water fund.
Water Fund
35.3% of Budget
The repair and maintenance contract (account 4380) was budgeted for
$25,000, at the end of March $24,991 was spent. In 1985 the Water Fund
at the end of March was 37% spent.
JN:ls
~3 ~ An Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicapped status
equal
opportunity
in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities.
GENERAL FUND
CITY OF MOUND
1986 BUDGET REPORT
REVENUES
MARCH. 1986
BUDGET
REVENUE
YTD
REVENUE
25~; Of the Year
PER CENT
VARIANCE RECEIVED
TAXES 931061 4668 926393 .50
INTERGOVERNMENTAL 719964 6875 713089 .95
BUSINESS LICENSES 1306 0 33 9 126 9 117 91 9.7 2
NON-BUSINESS LICENSES
AND PERMITS 11 ~O00 1167 9 40903 73097 35.88
GENERAL GOV ' T CHARGES 27750 1640 3523 24227 12.70
COURT FINES 82000 6460 6460 75540 7.88
CHARGES TO OTHER
DEPARTMENTS 23 000 2952. 8240 14760 35.83
OTHER REVENUE · 55300 1317 2565 29685 4.64
FEDERAL REVENUE SHARING
1966135
24387
74503
1868582 3.79
LIQUOR FUND
WATER FUND
SEWER FUND
45000 45000 .00
820000 55860 151229 668771 18.44
264000 23849 65241 198759 24.71
500000 50105 145640 354360 29.13
GENERAL FUND
COUNCIL
CITY/MANAGER/CLERK
ELECTIONS & REGISTRATION
ASSESSING
FINANCE
LEI]AL
CABLE TV
RECYCLING
POLICE PROTECTION
PLANNING & INSPECTION
CIVIL DEFENSE
STREETS , · '
SHOP & STORE
CITY PROPERTY
P.~KS
CONTINGENC'Y
TRANSFERS
GENEP~ FUND TOTAL
FEDERAL RESERVE SHARING
CDBG
AREA FIRE SERVICE
SEALCOAT PROGRAM
CBD ASSESSMENT
LIQUOR
WATER
SEWER
CEMETERY
BUDGET
36964
89~73
1O307
43369
141420
8O33O
20000
18585
567599
100333
3OOO
36995O
47oR6
83449
13OO93
50000
75741
1867509
52000
1428O2
153 450
315022
631084
3896
CITY OF MOUND
1986 BUDGET REPORT
EXPENDITURES
MARCH, 1986
MARCH
EXPENSE
1525
5395
159
441
10128
54?0
694
?000
9~
39234
6565
22577
2465
5495
4164
6312
118718
525
8223
895
11549
43686
55429
8~1
25% of
9799'
19016
256
2234
32020
11709
?4?
?000
.2996
128276
24107
289
98198
10420
11278
13795
1893 5
391075
3612
2461
30797
13169
7772
31110
111076
147251
913
the Year
UNEN-
CUMBERED
BALANCE
27165
70257
1O051
41135
109400
68621
-?4?
13000
15589
439323
76226
2711
271752
366?6
72171
116298
SO000
568O6
1476434
48388
-2461
112005
-13169
-7772
203946
483833
2983
PER CENT
EXPENDED
26.51
21.30
2.48
5.15
22.64
14.58
35.00
16.12
22.60
24.03
9.63
26.54
22.13
13.51
lO .6o
.00
25 .r
20.94
6.95
21.57
35.26
23.33
23.43
H!NUTES OF THE
HOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COHH!SSION HEETING
APRIL lq, 1986
Present were: Chair Elizabeth-Jensen; Commissioners Robert Byrnes, Villiam
Hayer, Geoff Hichae)., Thomas Reese, Kenneth Smith, Villiam. Thal and Frank Wei-
land; Council Representative.Steve Smith; City' Hanager Ed Shukle; City Engineer
John Cameron) City Planner Hark. Koegl. er= Bulidl.ngO~flclal Jan Bertrand and
Secretary Harjorle Stutsman.:. Also ,present were the following interested persons:
· John;Thoresen, Terrie-.Thoresen~'Linda andlDuane Barth, Orr Askeland, Greg Eckert,
Ken~ Patz, B,F. Llsteri Steven Coddon, GordOn Swans°n, Bruce. V.. Robinson, John
Heilers, Lou & LaDonna Lass,'.Stephen. Schmldt,.Pam Swihart, Don Abel, Jannette
Gellman,· Kristi. Cook, Lane Bryan,.Pam Caliinan,.Jerry $ Jan Bar'tow; Bill S Nancy
Herriam, Suzanne Schmidt, Dick Smith, Tom Bergqulst, Byron PeteKsen, Gary Bier-
baum, Nancy Kinzer, H. L..Sycks, Andrea Goland and Counciimember Gary Paulsen;
later in the meeting Councilmembers Phyllis Jessen,and Russ Paterson and City
Clerk Fran Clark arrived.
H I. NUTES
The minutes of the Planning Commission-meeting of Harch 2/4, 1986 were presented
fOr consideration. .Reese moved and ~/eiland seconded a motion to approve the minutes
as'presented. The vote was unanimously in favor.
BOARD OF APPEALS
1. Cases No. 86-505.':'S.86~506-. Subdivision-of' Land and Street Front Setback Vari-
ances On Lots 1 $ 2, Block /4, Replat of Harrison Shores (5364 Baywood Shore
Drive & '1717 Baywood Lane) Applicant. Steven'Coddon was present. .i
The Building Official .reviewed the revised plan which Hr. C0ddon submitted.
The layout is changed-.and, the:'e'levations are shown.::'I She stated that the
subdivision meets, the lot.width and area requJlrements; the minimum f.lood
elevation '..is to'be 933.5'. Some Spot elevations, are 931 and 932 at the conr
tour:. She thought' fill would be necessary and a Hinnehaha Creek ~/atershed
Permit. 'The Zoning in'R-I requires 30 foot street front setback and 10 foot
on the side yard.' The request on Parcel A is to reduce the street front set-
back to 20 feet and.on Parcel .B (In order to line up with house on abutting
proper, ty), approximately 21½ feet.
Coddon stated dwellings, would look more eye aPpealing if lined up; also'he
mentioned'~hat when.these'lots were developed in 1962, the covenant excluded
lot shown as ParcelA. Because of erosion, more room is needed to make viable.
Proposed dwelling.will still be 33 feet from street right-of-way
Ken Patz voiced objection; he stated the Association ~embers are concerned
about the 'setback and'stated there'has been some substandard dwellings in
this development. Coddon will be'submitting plans to the ArChitectural "
Contro) Committee'.for. this Association. Greg Eckert is against variances
as is Pam Callinan.
The Commission questioned amount'of fill required for buildable site; Coddon
stated ~e has had soi.) tests; he does not plan on filling and will be putting
in footings for a ~ foot crawl space. The Commission discussed the request
at length including that dead/diseased trees be removed from [he lots.
Thai moved and Byrnes secondeda motion to recommend approval of the sub-
div. lslon provision as proposed. The vote was Hayer opposed; all others in
Planning Commission .Minutes
April lb, 1986 - Page 2
favor..Motion carried.
Thal moved and.Byrnes Seconded a motion to recommend approval of street
front variances -Parcel' A at 10 feet.and Parcel B at 8½ feet or whatever
will line uP wi.th.house'to'the~North..conditioned that staff recommendations
2, 3 and h be'included and also'thai ~'DNR and any necessary permits'~be
added.to, staff recommendation'# 2. The-votewas Byrnes, Ken.Smit'h~ Tha.I
and ~ensen in'favor; Heyer~' Hichael,. Reese, Weiland and Steve Smith'against;
motion failed.
'This.Wi'Il go to the City Counc:i. 1 on,April 2~th. The consensus of those
voting against.was that there Was. not enough information and that if house
would'not'fit'on"the 10~000 square foot lot, shoul.d use 2 lots for the
house.."'.
Cases No. 86-5071 &.'86-508 Publ'icHearing on Conditional UsePermit for
Twinhomes-,' Subdlvisi'on.of .Land and Street Front and Side Yard Variances for
qSXX Wils~Ire Bou,levard,'Lots.7, 8.and 9, Block 29', Seton and LOt ~..Slock 18,
Seton. Dick Smithland Tom Bergquist were present regarding this'request~
The Plan'ner.Ha~ KOegler ?eviewed,'hiS' report. He stated a year Or two ago
a porti°n'of..thi~.]andi~as rezonedsoall was R-3 and the Commission had
;looked at~.a similar proposa'l,. He.stated .that Lots 3 and ~ required most of
the' Variances primarily becauSe'-of'.the H~CC l'ift station easement. He sug-
gested granting a'rear yard se~backi.in the.28 to 30 foot range. The City
Engineer.also Stated it. would be..more'desirable if the center unit were
shifted; he.reviewed'Other concerns with the utilities he had listed in his
report.
The.applicant,: Dick Sml'th, c°mmented"on~othe.r'pro~ec~ he has'done in ~ound
and .that'~e wants to-put.in"la~ge'r~spread out units;'~e doesn't like the-
tuckdnder'.garage..units/stacking house'on top of the garage and in order to
have more-~a'rmonious architecture is.willing to.have to go.for the various
agency permits.
The Chair opened~the public hearing. Bernard Lister of 2721 Tyrone Lane
questioned'how much of hill would be chopped off and if anything.would be
done with'.lagoon'on ~exford? 'Koegler stated there were no plans to en-
croach upon hil.1;'al1'units ~ere.to be~bui'lt on flat ground. Tom Bergquist
doubted'if there wou~d be:anY.change of lagoon;.doubt If it would be allowed
by the HC~D. There'were. no other comments or questions. Chair closed the
Public hearing.
The Commission discussed 19t size"and possibility of having less units on-
this.land.-. Bergqui.st statedaverage lot.was' 7,000 square feet and none were
less than.6,000. 'Olck~Smi'th stated units would be built on a slab, the
garage'would be a buffer.andlthat he would like to stay with six units.
ReeSe moved.and Ken Sm.ith seconded a motion to recommend approving the
Conditional Use Permit, Prel'iminary Plat and Variances with the recommenda-
tions of the City Engineer and Staff which include repositioning Units
and ~. The vote was Jensen opposed (to homes being only 7 feet apart) and
all others voted in favor. The motion carried.
The public hearing by the City Council will 'be set for May 13, 1986.
Planning Commission .Hlnutes
April 14, 1986' - Page 3
3. Cases No....86-509'&.86-510 Publlc 'Hea.ring. on'CondJtional Use Permit to
estab'llsh~.a.planned.Development Area and Approval of a Preliminary Plat
for 2~O0..H'ighland.Boulevard, Block 1, Hinnesota Baptist Summer Assembly
Llnda & Duane'Barth Of Creative Developers, Inc.~ were present.
The planner'Hark Koegler-.'reviewed' the 'Planned Development Area and'Pre-
'. .llm'l'narY P~at Approva'l..reque'st...Proposal.is to construct 8 single family
.detached"homes.:with'lots ranging'.'from 6,260 to 8,104 square feet and a
commoh.,ou~.'lot"totall.ng approximately. 32,000 square feet. This PDA would
replace"the block buliding p~esently used by the Daycare.
Duane.Barth represen.ted the project'exPlaining- unitswould sell at approxi-.
mately $1~0~000;.; they would'be wood construction of contemporary design 26
feet wide,~wlth offset garages. 'Plan' is to give more green area; each house
-' will be'~7".feet"from each property"line and garages 3 feet. Each home will
have Its'own'floor.plan and details.
The Commlssion. questioned'.how .they'd.get fire units in; what were the plans
for the ou.tlot; how people ~ouid get to outlot stai'rway without crossing
other property,'etc.
The Chair'open~d~the~public hea~lng' and the-following persons had questions
and'comment~. Host were against-the density; they would like to see
homes at most. on this property;and were concerned with the parking.
~od La r~On, ~?~ ~ i gh I and. Bou'i eva rd
John Thoresen;~ 5845 Fairfield Road
Pam Swlhart, 28~6..Hi. ghland Boulevard
Byron Pet~rsen,.3100.Highland Boulevard.
Jannette Gellman,. 3056 Highland Boulevard
Gary Bierbaum,'.3105 Highland.Boulevard" '
Bill Herrlam, 3083 Highland Boulevard'
Sue Schmldt,'2986 Highland.Boulevard·
.Nancy Kinzer, 2848 Highland Boulevard ·
'Bruce.Robinsop, 2872 Highland Boulevard
As n° other persons Wanted to make comments, the. Chai~ closed the publi.c
hearing.
The Commission disCussed t'he'..s'lze of lots;that 66 feet was outlot and
non-traversible; that economics was' not a reason for a-variance, etc.
Heye'r moved and 'Smith seconded a. motion to recommend denial of the request.'
The vote was unanimOusly in favor of the denial.
The public hearing by the City Council will be set for May 13, 1986.
Case No. 86-511 Sign Variance request by Kraus-Anderson for temPorary
identification sign'.for Town Square. Project, 2200 Commerce~Bou]evard
No one was Present for the project,
The Building Official reviewed her report on the request stating that the
sign'had been made at.64 square feet. The Commission questioned the dis-
tance sign to be.placed from the curb lines on Church and Commerce.
Plannlng Commission Hinutes
April lq, 1986 - Page. q
~eiland moved and Byrnes seconded a motion to recommend approval of the
sign as requested with the staff recommendations and conditioned that
sign be placed so 'it ~an. be seen"from both'the North and South. The
vote.was.unanimously In favor· Hotion carried.
This wil. 1 be on the City Council agenda of April 29 1986
5. Case'No .86-5'12 Lot Size' Variance at 6032 Cherrywood Road
-Lot 9, Block 9; The Highlands
Mr. ~ Mrs,: Barrow were present,
The Building Official,Jan Bertrand'revlewed her rePort. Request is for a
lot size Variance to'allow lot to be used as a buildable site· She stated
lot size is within' 10:~ of the-requi'red 10,000 square feet; there is no other
available ~land; she is recommending'slope'be limited to 8 percent.
14eiland moved and..Ken Smith Seconded a'motion t° recommend approval With
the staff reCommendations. The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried~
This will.be on the. City Council.agenda·of April 29, 1986.
JOINT MEETING 'OF. THE ciTY COUNCI'L'AND THE:PLANNING COMMISSION ON LOST LAKE PROPERTY
· The City Manager advised.that"the. Planning Commission,s recommendation on. getting ~
professional group to do a market ana!ysis had.been accepted and request for proposal
has been sent-'out .to three firms. Aisc the.representatives of the two firms that
"had-express interest 'in developing the site were invited to this meeting. Andrea
Go]and is .here; from Balboa; 'She'thanked the'.City for the opportunity to express
their vi.ews on'the:development of Lost Lake. She stated that.they wiShed Lost Lake
to be developed to 'its fullest and'at the same time'accommodate all the different
· requests; they a.~e'not'submittinga, proposal; they would like opportunity to enter-
tain some Ideas.' Possible uses would be 'as a wetlands/nature center with trails;
mult'i'ple..famil¥/resjdentlal'lOcated adjacent to the nature center; an entertainment
related commercial bul.lding on.north Side along County Road--this could include a
multi-theatre, restaUrant, 'specialty shops.~ Also our Company was approached by
some cltlzens'of Mobnd.'-whowere anxi. ous to start a historical society.and.City,s
history could be.used 'as. theme; another.~use could be hotel potential. These ideas
would'.not compete~wlth Town Square and'.have the capabilitY.of bringing thousand
peop.te a day to City. Also thought that since Balboa owns the adjoining piece of
property,' l't ls'a.natural situation'that, they.be involved.~n the total develop'ment.
M. L. Sycks stated his group would prefer to defer making any commitmentat th'is
time; they want to wait until the study i.s done and you tell us what you want in
there.
The Council Members questioned how amenab'ie Balboa is in selection of one of these
uses? 'GO]and stated 100~; they will go ahead and develop if that is wanted,
Councllmember Peterson read an opinion he had written and' had been going to.have
run in the Laker, His' current opinion is in favor of giving Ba']boa a chance to
buy' Lost Lake'and go ahead with concept plan, Peterson stated he agrees with
Mayor Polston'that Ci'ty should not pay for a study,
Planning Commission Minutes
Aprli 14, 1~86 - Page 5
.The .P)anning Comm|ssion commented,they would l|ke to see two or three contractors
make proposals; .they. questioned perimeter of study proposed; they feel part of
study should i'nclude.a~nature center and that the study might ma.ke the land more
.valuable to.developers. ~TheY mentioned they .don't want generalltles; .they do want
..'~eeifi¢~.
CounCilmember Jessen..feels the market'analysis is. best thing we coUld do as this
area is the gateway to town;
It was mentioned, that the con~ission would like to see more joint meetings.
ADJOURNHENT ..
ByKnes moved and Ken:~sm)th. seconded'.a mot)on' to.adjourn the meet)ng at 10:20 P.H.
The vote was unanimously in favor~ so meeting was adjourned.
Attest:
Elizabeth Jensen, Chair
MINNEHAHA CREEK
WATERSHED DISTRICT
P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 5539].
BOARD OF MANASERS: David H. Cochran, Pres. · Albert L Lehman · John E. Thomas
Camille D. Andre · James B. McWethy · James R. Spensley · Richard R. Miller
WATERSHEDBOUNDARY~
/ l&
LAKE
MINN£TONKA
ul~E$OTA ~tVER /
April 18, 1986
To: Interested Citizens
Re: 1985 Annual Report
Dear Sir or Madam:
Enclosed is a copy of the Annual Report of Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District for 1985. Should you have any questions regarding
the District's activities, please feel free to contact any member of
the Board of Managers.
Very truly yours,
David H. Cochran, President
Board of Managers
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
2835n
Enclosure
WATERSHED BOUNDARY
/
~IiINNEHAHA CREEK
WATERSHED DISTRICT
P.O. Box 387, Wayzata, Minnesota 5539!
BOARD OF MA#AG[ll~: David H. Cochran, Pres, . Albert L. Lehman · John I:. Thomas
Camille D. Andre · James B. McWethy · James R, Spensley · Richard R. Miller
LAKE MINNETONKA
,OTA R%VER
~ .MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
ANNUAL REPORT FOR 1985
April, 1986
INDEX
Pa~e
Introduction ...........................................
The Managers and Meeting Information ...................
Appointments to Board of Managers ......................
Permit Applications ....................................
Hydrologic Data Collection .............................
Gray's Bay Control Structure/Lake Minnetonka ...........
Water Maintenance and Repair Fund ......................
Minnehaha Creek Channel Improvements/Cascade Lane
Area, Edina (Project CP-8) .............................
Upper Watershed Storage and Retention Project,
Painter Creek Subwatershed (Project CP-5) ..............
Watershed Management Planning Chapter 509/
Development of Revised District Rules ..................
Floodplain Regulation ..................................
Boundary Amendments ....................................
Cooperative Study with City of St. Louis Park ..........
Rule Providing for Recovery of Expenses ................
Lake Minnetonka Tour ...................................
City of Long Lake/Cooperative Study ....................
Budget/1985 ............................................
Financial Records ......................................
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
IN TRODU CT ION
This Annual Report of the Minnehaha Creek Wa~ershe~ District
provides a summary of the major activities of the Board of
Managers during 1985. Any person wishing additional detail is
encouraged to contact any individual manager.
THE MANAGERS AND MEETING INFORMATION
As of December 31, 1985, the names, addresses and terms of
the 'managers are as follows:
Camille D. Andre
10401 Cedar Lake Rd.
Apt. 419
Term Expires
March 8, 1986
David H. Cochran
Albert L. Lehman
4640 Linwood Circle
Excelsior, MN 55331
3604 West Sunrise Drive
Minnetonka, MN 55345
Term Expires
March 8, 1987
Term Expires
March 8, 1988
James B. McWethy
4380 Thielen Avenue
Edina, MN 55436
Term Expires
March 8, 1986
Richard R. Miller
5340 Hollywood Road
Edina, MN 55436
Term Expires
March 8, 1988
James R. Spensley
John E. Thomas
5117 Chicago Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55417
6326 smithtown Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
Term Expires
March 8, 1987
Term ExPires
March 8, 1986
The present officers are:
David H~ Cochran
Albert L. Lehman
John E. Thomas
Camille D. Andre
President
Vice President
Secretary
Treasurer
During 1985, twelve regular meetings were held by the
managers on the third Thursday of each month at 7:30 p.m. In
order to make the meetings of the managers more accessible to all
residents of the District, the managers meet in odd numbered
months in the St. Louis Park City Hall and in even numbered months
at the Wayzata City Hall.
--1--
The managers exchanged information with other governmental
units affected by the programs and policies of the watershed
district and honored requests to attend meetings of municipal,
county and state officials as well as meetings of interested
citizens. The managers received substantial support and
assistance from the Hennepin and Carver County Boards of
Commissioners through the year which greatly assisted the District
in carrying out its programs during 1985.
During 1985, the managers continued to serve in organizations
dealing with water resource issues. President Cochran was elected
a director of the Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts,
and was selected to participate on the Water Resources Board's
Chapter 509 Advisory Committee as well as the Metropolitan
Council's Task Force on Lake Minnetonka. The Board participated
in the activities of the Metropolitan Area section of the
Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts and in the
deliberations of the annual meeting of the Association, held
November 29-30, 1985.
The managers Supplied copies'of minutes of all meetings and
reports to interested citizens and to public officials throughout
the District. Copies of the 1984 Annual Report were filed in 1985
with the Minnesota Water Resources Board, the department of
Natural Resources, the Boards of County Commissioners of Hennepin
· and Carver Counties and with State Senators and Representatives
from the area within the watershed district.
APPOINTMENTS TO BOARD OF MANAGERS
The terms of Managers Albert L. Lehman and Michael R. Carroll
expired March 6, 1985. The Board of County Commissioners of
Hennepin County appointed Richard R. Miller of the City of Edina
to fill one of the two positions, and reappointed Albert L. Lehman
of the City of Minnetonka to fill the other. Manager Miller took
the oath of office April 2, 1985.
PERMIT APPLICATIONS
The watershed district received 183 permit applications
during 1985. In each instance, the proposed project was reviewed
in detail for compliance with the District's environmental
protection rules. Applications were received for projects such .as
dredging, filling, shoreline erosion protection, highway and
Utility crossings, preliminary plat review and drainage and
grading plans for site development. Prior to acting on the
applications, considerable effort was spent with city staffs
and/or applicants to bring some of the proposed projects into
compliance. A summary is attached to this report showing the
project location and type of application received.
-2-
As in previous years, a large majority of the applications
received were from the Lake Minnetonka portion of the watershed
district, reflecting the continuing urbanization of that area.
All permits granted by the watershed district specifically
require compliance with applicable municipal ordinances and, if
the permit involves Lake Minnetonka, the applicable ordinances of
the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. In addition, permits
issued by the watershed district require compliance with any
applicable rules of the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources. The Board of Managers also took action as necessary
regarding complaints, permit violations and activities which had
been undertaken prior to issuance of a permit from the District.
HYDROLOGIC DATA COLLECTION
The District's hydrologic data collection program was
continued during 1985. The data for 1984 is published in the
Annual Hydrologic Data Report dated October, 1985. This is a very
comprehensive program, which, along with data from other agencies
has formed a long-term data bank for use in managing the water
resources of thee' District, particularly Lake Minnetonka and the
city lakes. Copies of this report were submitted to the Minnesota
Water Resources Board, the Metropolitan Council, the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency, the Department of Natural Resources, the
Freshwater Biological Institute, and local government officials
and citizens' groups.
GRAY'S BAY CONTROL STRUCTURE/LAKE MINNETONKA
During 1985, the District operated the Gray's Bay Control
Structure under the existing Management Policy and Operational
Plan approved by the Department of Natural Resources on May.20,
1983.
The existing management policy and operating plan was
reviewed by the Board in the Fall of 1985 to determine whether any
modifications in that plan were warranted in order to reduce
flooding and control lake levels and stream flows. Following
review, the Board concluded that the plan did not warrant
modification and, pursuant to the terms of that plan and the DNR
permit, notified all municipalities within the District of its
intent to request renewal of the existing plan w~thout
modification. The District requested the DNR to renew the plan on
December 30, 1985.
The managers also investigated means to add public safety
measures at the dam. The District, in connection with a project
proposed by the City of Minnetonka; authorized the use of Water
-3-
Maintenance and Repair Funds to construct a fence around the
control structure. As of year end, the City informed the District
that it would not be proceeding promptly with its project. The
managers are evaluating the desirability of proceeding with the
public safety improvements independent of the City project.
A new operating agreement was signed during 1985 between the
District and the City of Minnetonka, providing for the City to
provide labor and other services as requested by the District for
the proper operation of the dam structure.
The control structure was closed for the winter season
December 10, 1985. Due to exceptionally high precipitation during
the latter part of the fall season, Lake Minnetonka elevation was
at 929.07 as of that date, compared with the desired lake level
under the management policy of 928.6.
The managers continued'to rely heavily upon participation of
each of the municipalities on Minnehaha Creek in recording creek
elevations and flows and reporting that data to the District. The
District prepared monthly summaries of this data and made these
summaries available to interested municipalities and citizens.
The assistance of each of the municipalities was invaluable to the
District in making the operational adjustments required during
1985 to accomplish the management objectives of the Headwaters
.Control.Structure.
WATER MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR FUND
The Board of Managers continued its practice of requesting
from the municipalities within the District suggestions for
maintenance projects to be paid in part from the District's Water
Maintenance and Repair Fund. From the numerous requests received,
the managers approved the following projects for 1985:
Project
2
Municipality
Excelsior-shoreline
protection at
Excelsior Commons
Estimated
Cost
$20,000
District
Allocation
50% of actual
construction costs
not to exceed $4,000
~or rip rap only
Minnetonka-shoreline $5,000
erosion protection
at Burwell House
50% of actual
construction costs
not to exceed $2,500
As indicated earlier, the managers authorized
installation of fencing at the Gray's Bay Dam control structure in
connection with the City of Minnetonka project at the dam. The
-4-
authorization approved payment of 50% of the cost of material and
labor for fence construction, not to exceed $1,000.
M N, EHAHA CREEK C,ANNE,. MPROVE,aNTS CASCADE EDIN
(PROJECT CP-8;
Channel improvements authorized by the Board on December 19,
1983 in the Cascade Lane area of Edina to help reduce high water
problems in this area were not completed by the contractor during
the Winter of 1984.
The contractor commenced work January 8, 1985 and completed
the project by February 21, 1985. The Minnesota Department of
Transportation committed to pay up to a maximum of $30,000 for the
cost of the project. The City of Edina also contributed to the
project.
UPPER WATERSHED STORAGE AND RETENTION PROJECT, PAINTER CREEK
SUBWATERSHED (PROJECT CP-5)
Pursuant to a contract awarded December 20, 1984, work on the
Upper Watershed Storage and Retention Project in the Painter Creek
subwatershed commenced on January 9, 1985. All projects,
consisting of flow control devices and channel improvements, to
slow the rate of runoff into Lake Minnetonka, and improve water
quality, were completed by the contractor by July 17, 1985, except
for minor site restoration.
Of the 25 parcels over which easements were needed for the
project, voluntary agreement was reached with the owners of 21
properties. Valuation hearings were held by District
Court-appointed commissioners with respect to the four remaining
properties in early 1985. All awards were paid by May, 1985.
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANNING CHAPTER 509/DEVELOPMENT OF REVISED
DISTRICT RULES
During 1985, a significant portion of the District's work in
the development of its 509 Plan consisted of the development of
computer modeling of the hydrologic characteristics of the entire
watershed. By the end of 1985, this work was being placed in
final form by the District's engineers for presentation to the
Board of Managers. " .
As a part of its Chapter 509 work, the Board of Managers also
determined that it would be appropriate to prepare and adopt
revised rules of the District, incorporating and based upon the
Chapter 509 policy statements which had been developed by the
Board during 1984. The rules clarify the permitting program of
the District, and provide clearer statements of the requirements
-5-
of each rule. Accordingly, the District prepared draft revised
rules, and held a public hearing on the proposed revised rules on
November 21, 1985, at which hearing a number of interested persons
appeared or submitted comments. As of year end, the Board had
directed the staff to incorporate these comments into the proposed
revised rules for consideration by the Board early in 1986.
FLOODPLAIN REGULATION
The issue of floodplain filling continued to be an area of
concern to the managers, particularly in St. Louis Park and Edina,
where residents along Minnehaha Creek have experienced high water
conditions and have brought those concerns before the managers.
The managers continued to urge all creekside municipalities to
amend their floodplain ordinances to prohibit any further filling
in the floodplain in Minnehaha Creek, since additional
encroachment in the floodplain contributes to higher water levels
and peak flows thereby increasing the ~otential of damage to
structures and property.
BOUNDARY AMENDMENTS
On May 17, 1985, the Water Resources Board, in response to a
petition from the District, and following hearing, issued an Order
amending the District's boundaries. This action was coordinated
with the decisions by the Water Resources Board on the legal
boundaries of all watershed districts and water management
organizations adjoining the District.
In addition to these District-initiated modifications, the
City of Victoria petitioned the Water Resources Board to amend the
boundary of the District to include additional lands within the
City of Victoria within the legal boundary of the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District. The Board of Managers supported the petition
of the City of Victoria for this change, and on December 13, 1985,
the Water Resources Board issued an Order approving the change
sought by the City of Victoria.
COOPERATIVE STUDY WITH CITY OF ST. LOUIS PARK
During 1985, the District's engineering staff and the
engineering staff of the.City of S~? Louis Park undertook a
cooperative study to investigate drainage patterns within a
subwatershed in the City of St. Louis Park, identified by the
District as MC-19. The Board was particularly concerned with t~is
area due to previous contamination at the former Reilly Tar and
Chemical site located in this subwatershed. The results of that
study were reported to the Board in February, 1985.. The City of
St. Louis Park, in response to the study, committed to implement
such steps as it deemed appropriate and necessary to deal with
-6-
localized flooding issues identified by the study.
Water quality data for the South Oak Retention Pond was also
reviewed by the Board of Managers during 1985. The Board invited
representatives of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to brief
the Board with respect to water quality issues and the proposed
remedial action plan to be implemented at the former Reilly Tar
site.
RULE PROVIDING FOR RECOVERY OF EXPENSES
During June and July, the Board of Managers reviewed problems
arising where individuals perform work without a District permit,
and then later apply for a permit after the fact, and problems
associated with violation of issued permits. The managers
concluded that it would be appropriate to charge such applicants a
fee equaling the cost of the District's engineering evaluation of
such applications or violations. On September 19, 1985, the Board
of Managers held a public hearing on a proposed Rule which would
impose fees in those circumstances. The rule was adopted by the
Board following the public hearing.
LAKE MINNETONKA TOUR
In order to better familiarize all managers with permit
issues as they arise in the vicinity of Lake Minnetonka, the Board
of Managers conducted a tour of selected bays of Lake Minnetonka
in June, 1985.
CITY OF LONG LAKE/COOPERATIVE STUDY
In connection with the development of an industrial area in
the City of Long Lake, the managers encouraged the City of Long
Lake to develop a comprehensive stormwater management plan for
that subwatershed. Following meetings between the District staff
and the City's staff and elected officials, a conceptual plan was
submitted to the Board of Managers by the end of 1985.
BUDGET/1985
As required by law, the managers, pursuant to notice, held a
public hearing on September 19, 1985 on proposed budgets for the
District's Administrative Fund, Water Maintenance and Repair Fund,
and Watershed Management Planning Fund. Following the public
hearing, the managers adopted budgets for 1986 for these funds and
certified tax levies to the Counties for collection.
FINANCIAL RECORDS
The financial records of the District are kept by a certified
-7-
public accountant. All financial transactions are recorded in the
minutes of its meetings.
The treasurer of the District maintained separate records for
five funds in 1985: (1) the Administrative Fund; (2) the Water
Maintenance and Repair Fund; (3) the Data Acquisition Fund; (4)
Watershed Management Planning Fund, and (5) the Upper Watershed
Project Fund (CP-5). Records for each of these funds include the
dates and amounts of all expenditures, the names of individuals
receiving payment and the purposes for which payment is made.
The official depository for the District is the Wayzata State
Bank, Wayzata, Minnesota.
During 1985, the financial records of the District were
audite0 for the year 1984 and a copy of the audit was filed with
the State Auditor for the State of Minaesota in April 1985.
RespectfUlly submitted~
~a~id H.-~oChran, President
Board of Managers of the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
· 2498n
-8-
1~ PERMIT APPLICATIONS
A B C O E F g H !
Chanhassen
Oeephaven ! 4 I ! 7
Edina 2 1 3
Excelsior 1 I 1 3
Gol,den Valley 0
Greenwood 5 1 6
Hopkins 0
Independence 0
Laketown Twp. 1 1
Long Lake 4 ...1 2 7
Maple Plain 1 1
Medina 1 1
Minnetonka ' 19 3 I 3 1 1 1 29
Minneapolis ~' 1 1 1 3
Minnetonka Beach 0
Minnetrista 1. 7 8
Mound 5 3 8 2 18
Orono ' 1 I 23 1 1 27
Plymouth 6 1 7
Richfield 1 2 2 5
St. Boni facius 0
St. Louis Park 5 1 1 2 9
Shorewood 4 I 7 3 15
Spring Park 1 1 1 3
Tonka Bay 2 1 1 10 14
Victoria 1 1 3 1 6
Wayzata 2 1 3
Woodland 1 · 1
Total Permit
Applications 58 13 1 9 75 B 6 13 183
PERMIT APPLICATION CATEGORIES
A - Grading and Drainage
B - Bridge, Culvert or Utilities
C - Floodplain Development
D- Dredging
E - Shoreline Improvements or Rip Rap
F - Shoreline Setback Variance
G - Fill or Excavation
H - Other Categories
I - Municipality Total