86-05-27 CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
A~ENDA
BOARD OF REVIEW
7:00 P.M., TUESDAY, MAY 27, 1986
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
3.
4.
5.
Call the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
Introductory Comments - Milt Hilk, Hennepin County Assessor
Questions and Comments from Citizens Present
Council Discussion
Adjournment
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MAY 27, 1986, FOLLOWING BOARD OF RE¥IEN
-COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. 'Approve MinUtes the May 13, 1986, Regular .Meeting
Pg. 987-996
PUBLIC ]~ Delinquent Utility Bills
Pg. 997
DISCUSSION:
1985 Financial Audit - Gary Groen, Abdo, Abdo
and Eick - John Norman, Finance Director
Reconsideration of Resolution #85-121
Pg. 998-1010
DISCUSSION:
Lost Lake Market Analysis (Please bring your
copies of RFP and Consultants Proposals to the
meeting. They were handed out at the 5/13/86
meeting.) Pg. 1011
Minor Lot Split (Subdivision), Lots 14, 15 and 1/2 of 13,
Block 14, Whipple, PID #25-117-24 21 0151 Pg. 1012-1025
Sideyard Setback Variance, Lot 26 and the South 1/2 of
Lot 27, Block 2, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeville Park,
PID #13-117-24 32 0021, 2151 Cedar Lane Pg. 1026-1032
City of Minnetrista's Request for Utilities - Maple
Hill Estates
Pg. 1033-1048
Dock Proposal for Lost Lake Addition
Pg. 1049-1051
Page 985
10.
Propo-~ed Budget Resolution - Councilmember Smith
Permits For Mound Fire Department - 6/14/86
12.
License Renewal - House of Moy
Appointment to Cable TV Advisory Committee -
Suggested Appointments:
Bernard F. Lister, 2721 Tyrone Lane
Larry Connolly, 2910 Hazelwood Lane
Maurice Krake, 5972 Ridgewood Rd.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
Payment of Bills
Ao
Bo
April 1986 Financial Report as prepared by
John Norman, Finance Director
Minutes of May 8, 1986, Park Commission
Co
Letter from John Bierbaum - Town Square Name
Change to "Commerce Place"
Letter to Police Officers from Len Harrell,
Police Chief
E. Minutes of May 12, 1986, Planning Commission
F. Adjournment
Pg. 1052
Pg. 1053
Pg. 1053-1055
Pg. 1056-1068
Pg. 1069-1071
Pg. 1072-1074
Pg. 1075-1076
Pg. 1077-1078
Pg. 1079-1081
Page 986
CITY OF HOUND
ASSESSHENT .NOTICE
NOTICE I'~ HEREBY GIVEN, That the Board'of Review of the City of Hound
in Hennepin County, Hinnesota,' will meet at the office of the City Clerk,
in said C, ity at 7:00 P.H.,on Tuesday, the 27th day of Hay, 1986, for the
purpose.of revi. ewi.ng and correcting'the assessment of said City'for the
year '1~86.. A!1 persons c0nsldering'themsel-ves aggrieved by said assess-
ment-or who wish to complain that. the.property of another is assessed
too low,.are hereby noti'fled~to appear at said meeting and show.cause
for havEng such assessment corrected.
No complaint that. another person~is assessed too,low wil.) be acted upon
until'the person so assessed, or his agent, shall have been notified of
such complaint,e
Dated this l~th day of Hay 1986.
~r~n~:ene ¢. Cl.ark, CHC,-City Cler~
City of Hound, Hinnesota
Publish in-The Laker Hay 12, 1986
.mL,~ .-.117 -,,2. ¥ II ,mol?
5-21-86
11 013 168~ )1
11 o13 17o8 71
11 028 1656 61
11 O46 1743 41
11 058 5043 01
11 o67 1743~02
11 067 192~ 41
11 070 ~921 6~
11 070 1)27 31
11 082 176782
11 100.2085 41
1~ 103 5804 92
11 112 5918 81
11 112 5954 33
11 121 2080 11
11 136 6216 53
11 166 2257 21
11.175 5504 31
11 187 5444 71
11 21& 2161 23
11 214 2201 63
Delinquent water and sewer
S. Hinchcliff $.146.G8
Valerie Langley 76.89
R°nald Nelson 59.30
Craig Hillerns 60.92
John ~Anderson paid
Eric Stubbs 107.47
Bruce Gustofson Paid 1OO.00
Jack Breazile Paid
Cort Schneider 76.31
43.86
A. Chapman
112.87
Kim Reinhart
Gerald Baker 80.41
104.35
Bruce Ro]fhus
June Hyland Paid 222.32
Mike Swanson * 101,'69
Arnold Neridith 211,21
Mike Farrell * 11~.51
C. Duffy 184.,12
Verlin Paine 158.44
Craig Byington * 101.31'
Sizanne Mc Queen 165.28
Keith Putt 137.24
James Mc Namee * 185.37
1689 Avocet Ln.
1708 Avocet Ln.
1656 Finch Ln.
1717 Gull Ln.
1743 Sumach ln.
5043 Enchanted Rd.
1743 Shorewood Ln.
1920 Shorewood Ln.
1921 Lakeside Ln.
1927 Lakeside Ln.
1767 Wildhurst Ln.
2085 Ironwood Ln.
5804 Sunset Rd.
5918 Gumwood Rd.
5954 Gumwood Rd.
5971Gumwood Rd.
5804 Sunset Rd.
6216 Birch Ln.
2257 Cottonwood Rd.
5504 Spruce Rd.
5444 Tonkawood Rd.
2161 Centerview Ln.
2201Centerview Ln.
$2904.44
$2224.23
qq7
11 o13 1689 91
11 o13 17o8 71
11 028 1656 61
11 o31 1717 ol
11 046 1743 41
11 058 5043 Ol
11 067 1743 02
11 067 1920 41
11 070 1921 61
11 070 1927 31
11 082 1767 82
11 lO0 2085 41
11 103 5804 92
11 112 5918 81
11 112 5954 33
11 112 5971 71
11 121 2080 11
11 136 6216 53
11 166 2257 21
11 175 5504 31
11 187 5444 71
11 21~ 2161 23
11 214 2201 63
Delinquent water and sewer
$146.68
76.89
59.3O
60.9Z
137.90
107.47
100.00
219.99
76.31
43.86
112.87
80.41
104.35
222.32
101.69
2!1.21
110.51
184.12
158.44
101.31
165.28
137.24
185.37
$2904.44
5-21 -86
2OO
October 7, 1985
RESOLUTION NO. 85-1.21
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR NITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
APPROVE THE LOT SUBDIVISION AND LOT SIZE VARIANCE FOR
LOTS 15, 16, AND 17, BLOCK ?, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID ~
18-1.17-23 23 0040 AND 004'1 (1959 SHOREWOOD LANE)
WHEREAS, Creigh and Cheryl Thompson, applicant and
owners of the property described as Lots 15, 16, .and 17,- Block ?,
Shadywood Point, have applied for subdivision of Lot 16 and lot
size variances in order to construct a new dwelling for 1/2 of
Lot 16 and Lot 15 and 1/2 of Lot 16 and Lot 17; and
WHEREAS, Exhibit "A" has also been submitted to indicate
the requested subdivision and lot size variances;, and
WHEREAS, the City Code re. Quires .a lot size of 10,000
square feet' of area in the R-1 Zoning District; and
WHEREAS, an application to waive the subdivision
requirements contained in Section 22.00 of the City Co~e has been
filed with the City of Mound by the applicant., Creigh and Sheryl
Thompson; and
WHEREAS, said request for waiver has been reviewed by
the Planning.Commission and the City Council; and
WHEREAS, it is hereby determined that there are special
circumstances effecting said property such that the strict
application of the ordinance would deprive .the owner of the
reasonable use of his land; and that the waiver is necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of the substantial property right;
and that granting the waiver 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'
th& City of. Mound, Minnesota:
A. The request of the"City of Mound for a waiver from the
provisions of Section 22.00 of the City Code and the
request to subdivide property of less that 5 acres,
described as follows: Lots 15, 16 and 17, Block 7,
Shadywood Point, is hereby granted to permit .the
subdivision in the following manner; Parcel A. Lot 15
and 1/2 of Lot. 16, Block 7, Shadywood Point and Parcel
B. Lot 17 and 1/2 of Lot 16, Block 7, Shadywood Point;
upon the condition that:
1. A survey be submitted of the boundaries, area ar
legal description of the newly created parcels plu~
utility connections for the existing structure and
the newly created site.
qqf
October 17, 1985
0
The subdivided Lot 16, be combined 1/2 to Lot 15
and 1/2 to Lot 17. ~
The lot size variance be limited to 2,668 square
feet (plus or minus) for Parcel B and 1.965 square
feet (plus or minus-) for Parcel A shown on Exhibit
Any deficient unit charges be paid or assessed to
the newly created site.
No park dedication fees be assessed against
newly created site.
the
The subdivision must be filed
County Recorder or the Hennepin
within 180 days.
with the Hennepin
Register of Titles
8. ,The' existing accessory building and-
building shown on Lo~ 15 be brought up t~ur~nt
· code.
9. It is determined that the foregoing subdivision
will constitute a desirable and stable community
· development and it is in harmony with the adjacent
properties.
10. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified
copy of this resolution to the applicant for filing
in the office of t. he Register of Deeds or Registrar
of Titles of Henne~in County to show compliant with
the subdivision regulations of the City.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
Paul'sen and seconded by Mayor Polston.
' % '
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Jessen, Pautsen, Polston and Smith.
The following Councilmembers voted In the negative:
none.
Councilmember Peterson abstained·
:.ttest: City Clerk
Mayor
o!
:. /pOp ·
2OB October
PUBLIC HEARING
Application for Conditional Use Permit for Consignment/
Gift Shop, 50 8 Three Points Blvd. - Gall and Roger ·
Eager.
Mayor'Polston opene~ the'Public Hearing and asked for anyone present to
speak in favor or against.
Mrs. Larson. asked to.have "Conditional Use. Permit" explained.
Attorney Jim Larson.di.d.$o..for her. Mrs. Larson .then'asked if .lots
14 and 15 were commerical.-Jan Bertrand, Building Inspector; said they
were not;., the lots were'zoned E2, for parking'only.
Mayor..Pol):ton closed the'Public'Hearing.
Council'..
He theD turned it over to the
Councilmember dessert.mentioned lots 14 and 15, she had heard complaints
from residen~s, about...high weed growth, and would .this be taken care of,
Also,'did Mr. Rager.intend to use these lots. for parking.
Mr. Rager responded that the'lots are used for"personal, parking now,
and that the weeds ~ave.be taken care of. Mr. Eager felt the parking
was adequate for the. type of'food .business he. has compared to the number
of parking spaces larger resturants have in the area.. Jan Bertrand
mentioned the uses. of the business would be outlined in the CUP, and
also the park~ing in lots 14 and 1.5.o~1y.
Mayor Polston asked the Counci. l to grant the CUP for a consignment/
gift shop.at 50~8 Three Points. Blvd..
Motion for the following reso)ution made by Paterson, second, Smith. I-
'RESOLUTION #85-120 RESOLUTION TO GRANT THE CONDITIONAL USE PEPJ, tlT
, FOR.A CONSIGNMENT/GIFT SHOP AT 5098 THREE PTS. BLVd.-
The vote was unanimously in favor. Resolution passed.
REVIEW & RECOMMENDATION.OF.PLANNING COMMISSION ON REZONING OF PART OF
OR ALL OF .SHADYWOOD POINT FROM. E-'I'TO g-2.
The Acting City Manager stated that in August 85, the Council asked
the Planning Commission to check into the possible rezoning of this
area due to many variances applied for because lot sizeof lO,OO0 sq. ft.
The Building Inspector, Jan and. Mark Koegler, City Planner., checked into
this. Mark did a study, and thislwas discussed.. The Planning Commission,
Jan and Mark agreed the SEadywood Point should remain at R-{. zoning.
The Planning Commission will'consider each request as it comes in.
Councilmember Paterson thanked the Planning'Commission for investigating
this issue.
CASE #85-43'7: 'Creigh S Cheryl Thompson, Subdivision &. Lot Size
, : Varia.nce f.Omr 'lots 15, 16 ¢;17, BJock 7,' Shadywood Point
Jan Bertrand ~xplained the request of the Thompson's. She highlighted
the recommendation of the Planning Commission and the staff approval,
under specific conditions.
One of the recommendations was to either repair the buildings to
building code requirements'or to remove it. Mr. Thompson felt the
building was useable, if brought up to code.
Mayor Po)ston suggested, after some discussion, to drop from the
recommendation the removal of the garage and amend it to say
"bring up to code" /(~(~
October 7, I~B5 20)
MOTION MADE BY MAYOR POLSTON TO AMEND THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S
RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE THE DWELLING, AND AMEND IT TO SAY,
"BRING UP TO BUILDING CODE". COUNCILMEMBER PAULSEN SECONDED THE
MOTION·
Discussion by.the Council opened. Councilmember Smith asked that
a list of improvements be made by the building inspector.
Smith also asked as to the cost.th improve. Jan replied that a. list
would be d~awn..up and the improvement cost around $1100.
Councilmember Jessen mentioned that she had been .to Creigh's home
and. it was very nice'ins.ide.
Mayor Polston called for'.the vote.
The motion carried, wi'th four'yes votes, Councilmember Paterson abstained.
Mayor Polston then asked for a'motion' to approve the subdivi.sion and
lot size variance'as amended.,
I
RESOLUTION #85-121t RESOLUTION.To. CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING
COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE LOT SUBDIVISION
AND LOT SIZE VARIANCES.FOR LOTS 15, 16,.
& 17, BLOCK 7, .SHAI3YWOOD. POINT, PID #
~ . . .~ 18-117-23 23 0040 and O041 (1~5~ S'horewood
' Lane) AS AMENDED.
MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER PAULSEN AND SECONJ)EO BY MAYOR.POLSTON
_ ADOPTING RESOLUTION #85-120. AS .AMENDED·'
" The vote passed wi. th four yeses, Counci.lmember .peter. son abstaining.
CONSIDER WAIVING OF PLATTING AND PUBLIC HEARING OF SUBDIVISION
REQUIREMENTS. AND APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL D NEEDED
FOR LYNWOOD BLVD. IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
Motion for the following resolution made be Peterson, second Paulsen.
RESOLUTION #85-122 RESOLUTION TO WAIVE THE PLATTING AND PUBLIC
HEARING OF SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS AND APP-
ROVAL OF SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL D NEEDED
FOR LYNWOOD BLVD. IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
The vote was unanimously in favor...Resolution passed.
~COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
There were no comments or suggestions from citizens present.
PUBLIC WORKS SITE STUDY UPDATE - BRAD LEMBERG
Mr. Lemberg mentioned that "Architect" should be added to the. company
name.
Mr. Lemberg referred to the Addenum to Report, he had passed out to
the Council.
tOOA
The Planning Commission.recommended that the accessory building and the
principal building be removed. The appllcants addressed this issue.
They felt the house was in good shape, however smaller than standard.
They.did not want the principal building removed for economical reasons.
The Mayor asked what reasons the Planning Commission wanted the'building
removed. It is non-conforming, Not that much-to bring i-t up to code.
Some exterior repair, some siding, possibly some roof bracing, and a
new roof put on. The windows are fixed now. There was some discussion
about other-such buildings'in Mound that are too close to the lot line.
It was discussed that this was not considered a hazardous building.
The Mayor moved to amend and drop the removal of the bui]di, ng and
substitute that it .be brought up to code as'per the building inspectors
recommendations this evening. Smith if any improvements had been'done
to the structure since it was before the Planning Commission, any list
written to identify what had to be dgne to the building. No. Smith
asked about a dollar amount to upgrade the property. If he does the work
himse]f it would cost around $1000., Jan said.
Mayor Polston called for the vote, 'by roll call 4 yeses Peterson abstain.
Motion to approve the subdivision and lot size variance as amended to be
in order, passed
LINDA STRONG TRANSCRIBED THE ABOVE FROM A RECORDING OF THE VIDEO TAPE'
OF THE OCTOBER 7,'1985 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. THE TAPE RECORDING WILL
· BE AVA)LABLEFAT tHE MEETING.
CASE NO. 85-437
CASE NO. 85-438
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
Planning Commission Agenda of August 12, 1985:
Board of Appeals
C'ase N~. 85-43~'-& Case No. 85-438
Location: 1~59 Shorewood Lane
Legal Desc.: Lots 15, 16 & 17, Block 7,
Shadywood Point
Request: Subdivision & Lot Size Variance
Zoning District:
ApR1 icant:
Creigh & Cheryl Thompson
~, MN. 55364
Phone: 474-2726 -
The applicant is requesting to divide Lot 16 in half and combine the Northwesterly
portion of Lot 16 with an existing Lot 17, which is owned by the State of Minne-
sota. The stipulation to release Lot 17 for sale is to adjoining property owners.
The ]and to the Northwest of 17 has two lots of record. Mr. Thompson presently
owns Lots 15 and 16.
The R-I Zoning District requires lO,O00 square feet lot area and a 60 foot lot
width. The lot width of the proposed division exceeds 60 foot width, but he has
applied for a lot area variance to al low two parcels of: "A" equals 8,035+-- square
feet and "B" equals 7,332+-- square feet.
Recommendation: Due to recently granted lot size variance approval and the
direction given by the City Council at their June 25th meeting
regarding the Shadywood Point, Staff does recommend approval of
the lot split subdivision upon the following conditions:
1. A survey be submitted of the boundaries, area and legal des-
cription of the newly created parcels plus the utility con-
nections for the existing structure and the newly created site.
2. The subdivided Lot 16 be combined 1/2 to Lot 15'and 1/2 to '
Lot 17.
3. The lot size variance be limited to 2,668+ square feet for
Parcel "B" and 1965+- square feet for Parcel "A".
4. Any deficient unit charges be paid or assessed to the newly
.created site.
5. No park dedication fees be assessed against the newly created
site as it is a possibility that a variance may have been
granted for Lot 17.
6. The existing accessory building has non-conforming setbacks
and should be repaired to Building Code Requirements or removed.
7. The subdivision must be filed with the Hennepin County Recorder
or Hennepin County Register of Titles within 180 days.
8. Variance approval is valid for one year.
The abutting neighbors have been notified.
This will be referred to the City Council at August 27, 1985 meeting.
Jan Bertrand
Building Official
IOOq
Planning Commission Ylinutes
$&6.
Cases No. 85-/437 &' 85-4.~8 Subdivision and Lot Size Variance, 1~$~ Sho. re~vood
Lane; Lots 15, 16 s 17, Block 7, Shad~ood Point'
Creigh and Cheryl Thompson were presenl;.
The Bul ldlng Off'iclal. reviewed the request.. The appl leant'presently owns Lots
15 and 16;' Lot' 17 is owned by the State. He is proposing Lot 16 be spli. t in
half and .then combine 15 and one half of 16; 17 and one half Of 16 as two build-
able par'c&ls.. Lot 17 and half of 16 ~vould b'e 8,035 square'feet and Lot 15. and
half of 16 would'be 7,332 square feet. It is 'in the. R-1 Zoning District which
requl res !O,000.. squa~'.fe~t-~fi'~-¥'0-t-¥'i-d~'-iS minimum of' 60 feet. Both of these '
1.ots.woulcl be over. the minimum'.ln width.and Parcel A would be shore 1,~65 square
feet and Parcel B 2,668 square .feet'. The staff' is .recommending .along with some
· of.. the recomme'ndations by the council. (minutes of June 25, 1~)85) to consider a
rezoning change to R-2 because.most, of area lots are single lot parcels. She is
.. r. ecommendlng approval 'subject to some conditions .....
.... ; -.'. ~ ':..' ~. .. .: · ·
'The City Hanage'r. sta~:ed ti~ii[ case differs in that ti~eG are creating 2 undersized
. lots whereas the other lots were lots of record
Discus'sad also the creating a site wi.th a lot'owned by the Stats. ·Cheryl Th0m~)~
son stated' they can purchase'Lot .17 over. the counter, b. ecause no one bid on it
.when it was off'red at the. tax'.forfeit' ~ale. They don~t wish to purchase the
· unless they can.upgrade and sell both parcels. Reese questioned Thompson'~s
-.-: strategy -.to build lot into'.a'$15,0.00' to $20,000 io.t ~ith a. $6 , 000 :house . on it.
They stated they're maklng, the lot: the house is on sma!le.r.. Reese. commented on
the dumping 'of junk'on 1;he lotS.anti-.suggested tearing do~vn the house 'and the"n
'Council Representative Smith clarifi~d his.motio~ in the Councii minutes..They
were asking that-the ques. tion be p~t on the table whe'ther it shoUld, be.re.zoned,
not. that we. wa.nted it.'to be rezoned. They just wante.d, it discussed..
The .neighborhood was discussed .and Hayer'brought up~ t~e-point that. directly
across from these three lots are./~.and ~//4 homes.and, applicant wants to divide :
this .and build two homes. The .Commission discussed that the lots ~ouid be worth ·
more without the structures on it. .. ..
Reese moved a'nd. St~ve Sm!th secon'ded a motion to approve the staff, re.commenda-
t,ion revising Item 6 to rea. d that existing structure and accessory building
shal J be removed .....
Thompson's think th~'t economica).l'y they wc~uId not.purchas'e Lot 17 if they must
tear down th.e. st'ruc'ture. Hichael ques.tioried creating 2 undersi:zed lots. Reason
given .for: the motion is :hat. it fits .nei'ghb0rhc~od and gets ~ tax forfeit lot
back on the tax roi Is; . .,'
The vote was all in favor of..the motion, except Hichael ~ho abstained. Notion
carried..
This ~ill 'be on the Council ag~n~Ja of August 27, 1~85.
/006
,PPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION
Sec. 22.03-a
VILLAGE ~F MOUND
OF LAND
FEE $ -.3'-Z)- o O
FEE OWNER
PLAT PARCEL
Location. and complete legal description of property to be divided:
L O'T'5 IS.,, I G, i7
~LocK 7 '
51-l-Aoyo3o~O -po ~ ~/T
(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:
' Lot No. ~)~ From ~.l~,/~(0
Square feet TO
"~ B3 ~ Square feet
ADDR~-~ :'~ ~ -
Applicant's interest in lhe properW:
This application must be sigqed by all the OWNERS of the property, or an explan-
ation given why this is not the case.
Approve subdivision and lot si~e variances
wi th condition existing structure and accessory
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
CITY OF HOUND
APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
(Please type the following information)
1. Street Address of Property 1959 Shorewood Lane Mound~ MN
2. Legal DesCription. of Property: Lot Lots 15,16,a~d17
Addition
Case
Fee Pald.~-o.
Date Filed ?-...~z -~--
55364
Block 7
18-117-23-23-0040
Shadywood Point PID No. 18-117-23-23-0041
3. Owner's Name Creigh & Cheryl Thompson Day Phone No. 474-2726
Address 5827 Vine Hill Road Minnetonka, Mn 55364
e
Applicant (if other than owner):
Same as above
Name
Address
Day Phone No.
5. Type of Request:
e
(X) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit
( ) Zoning Interpretation $ Review
( ) Wetland Permit ( )'P.U.D.
~lf other, specify-
( ) Amendment
( ) Sign Permit
(')*Other
Present Zoning District ~ 1
Existing Use(s) of Property Lot 15 600 se ft hoc, e. lot 16_vacant. lot 17
aump~ng - gro unas.
Has an application ever been made for zoning, F,~lF~-ar~c~, or conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? no 6tt~t~leclge) 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 pmemises 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 ~aw.
Sigmature of Applicant~~ ~~-~__/~~~ Date j~]~7 31;198~
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approve staff recommendation with the condition
existing structure and accessory building shall be removed.
Date 8-12-85
Council Action:
Resolutio~ No.
Date 8-27-85
Request for Zoning Variance Procedure '(2) Case
D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
E. Indicate North compass direction
F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
Ill. Request for a Zoning Variance
A. All 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 a11 use ~egulations for
the zone district in which it is located? Yes (~) No ( )
If "no", specify each non-conforming use:
C. Do the existing structures comply with all area height and bulk regulations
for the zone district in which it is.located? Yes (
If "no", specify each non-conforming use: ~~ O~ LoT IS DOES ~0~'
D. Vhich unique physlcal characteristics of the subject property prevent its
reasonable use for any of the uses permltted..in that zoning district?
( ) Too narro, ( ) Topography ( ) Soil
(X) Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface
( ) Too shallo, ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify:
Ee
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having
property interests in the ]and after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted?
Yes ( ) No (~ If yes, explain:
F. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (~) If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for'which you request a variance peculia.r
only to the property described in this petition? Yes (~) No ( )
If no, how many other prqperties are similarly affected?
H. What is the "minimum" modification (variance} from the area-bulk regulations
that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify,. using
maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional
sheets, if necessary.)
LoT5
I. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the
same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
,/
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 553~,64
(612) 472-1 !55
TO:
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
ED SHUKLE,. CITY MANAGER
LOST LAKE MARKET'ANALYSIS
MAY 13, 1986
Attached you will find the following documents:
1. Request for Proposal (RFP) for a market analysis on Lost Lake,
dated April 10, 1986.
2. Response to the RFP from R. B..Sollie and Associates, Plymouth
Minnesota; Maxfield Research'Group, Inc., Minneapolis, MN.,
and James B. McComb and Associates, Minneapolis,'MN.
The above firms are all very reputable and competent to do the work
requested, i would like you to take these proposals home with you
and study them and then at the May 27th regular meeting, we can have
a discussion on them, and you can decide whether or not you would like
to be involved in the interview process and selection.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
ES:Is
loll
An equal opportunity Employer that 0oes 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.
CASE NO. 86-515
TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official
Planning Commission Agenda of May 12, 1~86
CASE NO. 86-515
APPLICANT: Williams Realty, Inc. c/o Richard J. Williams, Broker & President
LOCATION: 5144 Windsor Road
LEGAL DESC: Lots 14, 15 and 1/2 of 13, Block 14, Whipple PID # 25-117-24 210151
SUBJECT: Minor Lot Split (Subdivision)
EXISTING ZONING: R-2 Single Family
The applicant, Mr. Richard J. Williams, has applied for a minor subdivision of
land, and to waiver the subdivision requirements under the provisions of Chapter
22 for public hearing, legal notification, etc. The proposal is shown on Exhibit
A and B attached. The applicants have stated the first choice to be Exhibit B
and second choice is Exhibit B which is an error. Lot 14 has an existing home on
the parcel. The existing structure is approximately 633 square feet+ and the
building is currently' valued at $7,200. tax appraised value. The topography on
Lot 13 has an apProximate slope of 10% to 12%.
The Zoning Ordinance for the R-2 district requires a minimum lot area of 6,000
square feet and a lot width of 40 feet. The minimum dwelling size is 840 square
feet.
SITE INFORMATION:
The proposal marked 'IA" divides a portion of Lot 14 to be added
to Lot 13 to bring the tax parcel to 5,930 square feet+. It
would be within 10% of the required 6,000 square feet ~nd would
require the existing home on Lot 14 to be removed to allow the
division line through the west portion of the house. Exhibit
"B" has a property line that varies in direction from the north-
east corner of Lot 14 at an angle deflecting about 45° to l0
feet west of the west line of the structure and the south and
again deflecting to the east in front of the existing dwelling.
The lot area of 13 and a portion of 14 on Exhibit B would be
5,680 squa[e feet+_ and approximately 320 square feet short of
the required 6,000 square feet.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff would recommend Proposal A to be appropriate for the
site due to the fact that the topography is 10 to 12% approxi-
mately and Would afford the construction of a home more to the
upper portion of the slope between Tuxedo and the dwelling.
Further, I would recommend the driveway entrance from Lot 13
be restricted to a Windsor Road entrance. The existing struc-
ture on Lot 14 would have to be removed prior to filing the
subdivision resolution with the County Register or County
Registrar of Titles.
IO1.
CASE NO. 86-515
Page 2
It is further recommended that the subdivision be granted
upon the following and additional conditions:
1. A new survey be submitted with the new legal descriptions
for the lots in the subdivision.
2. The deficient street unit charge be assessed in the amount
of $1,828.15.
Park dedication fee shall be collected in accordance with
Section 22.37 of the Mound Subdivision Ordinance, but in
no case shall it be less than $300.
The waiver of subdivision provisions for public hearing
notification of nelghbors, etc. is hereby granted to
afford the owner reasonable use of his land and that it's
determined it is in good planning practice to do so.
5. The lO to 12% Slopes for future development wouid be~
limited to the existing as maximum.
The abutting neighbors'have been notified.
JB/ms
MINUTES OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
MAY 12, 1986
Present were: Chair Elizabeth Jensen; Commissioners Robert Byrnes, Geoff Michael,
Thomas Reese,.Kenneth Smith, William Thai and Frank Weiland; Council Representative
Steven Smith;.City Manager Ed Shukle; Building Official Jan Bertrand and Secretary
Marjorie Stutsman. Commissioner William Meyer was absent and excused. Also present
were the fo)lowing interested persons': Richard J. Williams, James L. St. George and
Joanna and LeOnard J. Koehnen.
MINUTES ..
The minutes of t.he Planning Commission meeting of April 28, 1986 were presented for
consideration. On the last page under Exterior Storage, Weiland asked Q what? It
should have read '~...iimlt the quantity of stored equipment to Q recreational vehicles
· ..". Reese moved and Weiland seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the April
28, 1986 Planning Commission meeting as amended. The vote was unanimous)y in favor.
BOARD"OF APPEALS'.
~ Case No. 86J5.15 Minor Lot'Split/Subdivision.at 51QQ 'Windsor Road
Lots 13, lQ and 15, Block-lQ, WhiPple
Richard J. Williams was present.
The Building Official, Jan Bertrand, eXpllalned the applicant is proposing a
minor subd.)v)sIon'splitting three.lots Intg~o p~rcels. He has twq_diagrams.
marked. Exh)bits..!'A" and "B". On Exhi'bit. A,..it is pretty much. a rectangular
type lot; the l.)ne would' go through .the existing house and pretty much eveniy
divide the parcel~- one lot would have 5930~ square feet and the other wo~ld
..have 6,000 square feet,
Proposal. Bhas one )ot.that.'Is not within I0%;on this diagram {Lot' 13 and
part .of LOt 141., 'the proposed )ot..llne. jogs-from the .NE corner of Lot 14 sbuth-
west, then south and back southeast t. ola point on the south Lot 14 property line
taki.ng in a portion of LOt 13;. tt )s not a rectangular'lot and has approximate.ly
5680 square feet which is 320 square feet short of the required 6,000 square
feet.
The existing structure is approximately.633~square feet and is currently valued
at $7,200.tax appraised Value. The topography on Lot 13 has an approximate
s.lope of 10% to 12%.
The Staff :recommends Proposa1'A for the~site due to the fact that the topography
is l0 to 12percent and would afford the construction of a home more to the
upper port,on of Lot 13. ~he recommended the driveway entrance from Lot 13 be
restricted to a Windsor. Road entrance. The existing structure on Lot lQ would
· have to be .removed.
The Commission had various questions about moving the existing structure, how
street unit charges are determined, etc. They discussed, the request briefly.
Reese moved and Byrnes seconded a motion to recommend approval of the staff
recommendation with the condition that the existing house be removed and all
sideyards and .setbacks Be maintained. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
This will be on the May 27th Council agenda.
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF
Sec. 22.03-a
VILLAGE OF MOUND
FEE OWNER
Williams Realty, Inc. c/o
Richard J. Williams, Broker
4315 North Shore Drive
Mound, Mn. 55364
& President
PLAT
PID #
LL~_!
FEE
PARCEL
25-117-24-21-0151
Location and complete legal description of property to be divided:
5]44 Windsor Road (corner of Winds0r and Tuxedo Blvd,)
Torrens Certificate # 610286-1/2 is Lots 13 and 14, Block 14, Whipple
Torrees Certfiicate # 610287 is Lot 15, Block 14, Whipple
ZON,NG )q-7
To be divided as follows:
See attached surveYs labeled "A" and "B". Our first choice
is "B". Our second choice is "B" if we do not have to tear
part of the house down but remodel it inside and out to
change it to a year round residence which we will do in
· either case.
All 'supporting documents, such. as sketch plans, surveys', attach~nents, etc. must be_
subm'i tted: in '8½' X 11'" size :and/or lZl coples, pl.us' on~ .8'~',,-x 11,, 'copy.
Jattach survey or scale drawing showing adjacent streets, dimension of propgsed
building sites, square foot area of each new parcel designated by numberJ
A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR:
New Lot No. From Square feet TO Square feet
"B" 5,680
"A" '- 5,930
R~eason:
Applicant's interest in the property:
To improVe the value ofShe vacantmlot and'the old house when it is.
remodeled. The new hour/would be/v~orth/~n .excess of $60,000. the old $40,000.
Mound, Mn. 55364 472-3219 Fee Owner
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:
10/~1~ OATE
25 April, 1986
Architecture -£ASE NO. 86-515
interior design research land planninS and development
Richard Schwarz/Neil Weber
617/936' 9818
1511 Excelsior Avenue East Hopkins Minnesota 55343
Dick Williams
Williams Realty
4315 North Shore Drive
Mound, Minn. 55364
Dear Mr. Williams:
Enclosed are 2 layouts for homes on your property on Windsor Road.
I have labled them A and B for your purpose of submission to the
City. I have shown the building set backs in both cases. The new
home is located at the same point, only the property line is
different. The City can make the selection as to which way they
would like to divide the land.
Solution "B" prOvides one lot which is 320 sq. ft. under the 6,000
sq. ft. required (5.3%). Solution '!A" is the ultimate in that it
provides one lot of 6,000 sq. ft. and %he:.remainder of 5,930 sq. ft.
comes as close to the 6,000 sq. ft. (70 sq. ft. or 1.1%) as possible.
My concept that. I presented to Lu Gronseth I would also propose to
you. I am assuming that you are interested in building on this site.
As an.architect, I firmly believe that a carefully but ~imply
designed home can be built as inexpensively as a builder home which
shows no respect to the site or environment.
What I proposed t°'Lu was to design a home for the site and develop
construction documents that could be bid. The home could be presold
- based on the architectural rendering that I would do.
I know of contractors that could bid and build the home. I would
handle all that coordination. I would be available thru construction
to make sure that the job would be completed as planned.
I would be interested in discussing these approaches, if you are
interested. The basic concept would be that you would not have to
spend much of your time to complete the project.
Please let me know.
Nei 1 Weber
1017
CASE NO. 86-515
Certificate of Survey
forwil~iams Realty
of Lots ~3-15, Block 44, Whipple
Hennepin County, Minnesota
CASE NO. 86-515
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of
Lhe ~ounoaries'o~ Lots 13-15, Block 14, Whipple, and the location of all exist-
:ng ~u~ldings thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or
enc roac~ments.
COFFIN & GROi~ERG, INC.
Date - 4-4-86
Sca!e: 1" = 30'
o · Iron marker
ark S. Groncerg Lic./No. 12755
Engineers & Land Surveyors
Long Lake, Minnesota
B
Certificate of Survey
for Wi]Iiams Realty
of Lots 13-15, Block 14, Whipple
Hennepin County, Minnesota
CASE NO', 86-515
hereby certify that this ~s a true and correct representation of a survey .of
~.~e boundaries of Lots 13-15, B]ock 14, Whipple, and the ]ocati6n of all exis%- ·
~ng Du~Idings thereon. I% does not purport to show any other improvemen%s or
6ncroacnments.
Da~e · 4-4-86
Sca!e' 1" = 30'
o · iron marker
COFFIN & GR3~;BERG, INC.
k $. '5rc,-.~.rg Lic.
Engineers & Land Surveyors
Long Lake, ~[nneso%a
·
Certificate of Survey
for Williams Realty
of Lots 13-15, Block 14, Whipple
Hennepin County, Minnesota
CASE NO. 86-515
EXHI BIT
RESOLUTION #86-58
EXHIBIT IIAII
N
A
"l
¢ooo .-'.,rt.,-'/.
i
'/
Il hereby certify~that'this i's a tr~e and'cJ~r~Ct'r6~e~at~6n''of:'a'sd'rvey of
the=boundaries of Lots 13-15,~ Block 14, Whipple, and the location of all exist-
ing buildings thereon. It does not purport to show.any other improvements or
encroachments. '
' ~C6FFIN~& ~ONBERG, INC.
Date · 4-4-86 ~
Scale' 1" : 30'
o · Iron marker
Mar ... ronberg Lic.~o. 1275~'
Engineer. s & Land Surveyors
Long Lake, Minnesota
Proposed Legal Descriptions
A. Lot, !3 and the West 5.00 feet of Lot 14, Block 14;' I~hi.p~I~:.-.-. ~ ~ :
B. Lot'15 and that part of Lot 14 lying East of the West 5.00 feet thereof,
Block 14, Whipple.
I-4
CASE
NO,
86-515
5g
RG
g
*. j'
,r/
CASE NO.
86-51
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 86-515
RESOLUTION NO. 86-
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE THE FINAL SUBDIVISION OF
LAND FOR LOTS 13, 14 AND 15, BLOCK.14, WHIPPLE,
PID # 25-117-24'21 0151 (5144 Windsor Road)
PLANNING COMMISSION CASE # 86-515
WHEREAS, an aPPlication towaive the subdivision requirements con-
tained in Section 22.00 of the City Code has been filed with the City of Mound
by the applicant, Williams Realty, Incorporated; and
WHEREAS, it has been 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 preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right;
and that granting the.waiver would 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:
The request of the' City of Mound .for-'a waiver from the provisions
of Section 22.00 of.the City Code and the request to subdivide
property of less.than five' acres, described as follows:
Lots 13, 14 and 15, Block 14, Whipple PID # 25-117-24 210151
It is hereby granted to permit the subdivision in the following manner~
as per Exhibit "A":
A. Lot 13 and the West 5 feet of Lot 14, Block 14, Whipple
B. That part of the following described property: Lot 15 and that
part of 14 lying East of the West of 5 feet thereof, Block 14,
Whipple
Upon the forthe.r following Conditions:
l, A unit charge will be assessed or paid against the newly created
building site in the amount of $1,828.15 when the building permit
is issued.
2. Park dedication fee shall be collected in accordance with Section
22.37 of the Mound Subdivision Ordinance, but in no case shall it
be less than $300.
..
The l0 to 12 percent slopes for future development will be limited
to the existing lot grades. '
The driveway entrance from Lot 13 will be restricted to a Windsor
road entrance.
Existing structure on Lot 14 will be removed prior to filing this
subdivision resolution with the County Register or the County
Registrar of Titles.
jo 4
It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute
a desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony
with adjacent properties.
7. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this
resolution to the applicant for filing.in the office of the Register
of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show
compliance with the subdivision regulations of this City.
8. This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days
of the adoption date of this resolution.
9. The developer is to provide water and sewer utility connections
from the.main at the time of development.
TO:
FROH: Jan Bertrand, Building Officlal
Planning Commission Agenda of Hay 12, 1986
CASE NO. 86-517
Planning Commission, App!icant and Staff
CASE NO. 86~517
APPLICANT: Leonard J. Koehnen
LOCATION: 2]$] Cedar Lane
LEGAL DESC.: Lot 26 and the south 1/2 of Lot 27, Block 2, Abraham Lincoln Addn.
to Lakeside Park; PID No. 13-)17-2h 32 002)
SUBJECT: Side yard Setback Variance
EXISTING ZONING: R-3 One & Two Family Zoning District
The app)icant, Leonard j. Koehnen has app)ied for a variance to al)ow the con-
struction of a. 20 by 26 foot attached one story garage to be'placed h feet from
the side )or line with a one foot gable overhang. The front setback would b~
35 feet to match the existing home.
The R-3 Zoning District requires lO foot sideyards except for )ors of record;
one side yard may be reduced to 6 foot width when the lot width is between
40 and 80 feet. The front yard'setback is required to be 30 feet.
RECOHHENDATIoN: Staff recommends, approva) of the request due to the topography
of the )or. The property slopes down to.the west and has a
drainage area at the back of the property for a)l of the south
.end of Block 2. Upon the further condition that the Planning
Commiss'ion also recognize the existing north side Yard setback
of ~ feet instead of the required 10 feet. Further require-
ment that the wa)l'wlthin h feet of the south lot line have
5/8 inch type X sheetrock or equal applied to the inside of
the garage wall to construct a one hour fire rated assembly
and no additions be constructed in the future without
additlona) City Counci) approval.
The abutting neighbors have been notified.
JB/ms
Piannlng Commission Minutes
May 12, 1~86 - Page 3
(~ Case No. 86-517 Side Yard.Set.backVarlance for 2151 Cedar Lane
'LoE 26 and 1/2 of.Lot 27, Block .2, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park
Joanne and Leonard Koehnen were present.
The Building Official explained t~at the Koehnens' want to put in an attached
garage 20.by 26 foot to be placed 4 feet from the~side lot line with a one foot
gable overhang; The front setback would be 35 feet to match the existing home.
The appli.cant~'.Joanne Koehnen stated the north side yard setback is 9 feet
from the property line; at the'time the existing house was built, the setback
was 7 feet'. The R-3 Zoning District requires.lO .foot.sldeyardsexcept for lots
of record which allows one sideyard may .be reduced to 6 feet when the lot width
is between.40 and 80 feet.' The BUilding Official recommends approval of the
side yard setback Variance· of 2 feet an.d also-recognize the existing norFh side
ya.rd setback of ~ feet instead of the'required lO feet. She,stated'a further
requirement would be that wall withi, n 4 feet of south lot llne have 5/8 inch
type X sheetrock or equal on the inside of the garage wall and that no additions
be·constructed in the' future without'additional City Council appr°valo
Weiland moved and Reese seconded a motion to recommend approval with the staff
recommendations and recognizing the nonconforming sid~yard setback.
The commission discussed the request and-it' was brought up that a single garage
could be built'without.another variance' Ken Smith w~s in favor of more leeway
on existing homes if they need variances to make them look better. _
The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor.
Discussion' of Signage for Tonka West Business center
The request from Balboa Minnesota Company was discussed bri.efly including that
Item"f" of Resolution No. 85-87 requires a comprehensive slgnage plan to be sub-
mitred and"approved. The Building. Official stated she can't issue permits for
signs without their coming through. The City Manager advised that he would with-
draw the request from the Council agenda.
Weiland moved and Byrnes seconded a motion that request be t~bled due to no
plan.s being presented. The vote was ali in favor except Ken Smith voted against.
The Commission questioned a temporary structure'erected for the Ben Franklin Store.
Adjournment
Byrnes moved and Weiland seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 P.M.
All were in favor, so meeting was adjourned.
Elizabeth Jensen, Chair
Attest:
.;. MAY _
I.
2.
CITY OF HOUND
Case No._ [/. -.5'/
APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
(Please type the following information)
Date Filed
Street Address of Property 215-'J
Legal Description of Property: Lot
Block
Addition A. Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park
· Address
PID No. 1%'1~'7-'~-~"2. oo~1
Day' Phone No. Y72-/d 71
e
Applicant (if other than owner):
Name --'---
Address
Day Phone No.
Type of Request: _(.~riance ( ) Conditional
(')zo
ning Interpretation & Review
( ) Wetland Permit (') P.U.D.
Use Permit
.) Amendment
) Sign Permit
)*Other
.*If other, specify:
Present Zoning District
Has an application ever been made for zoning,,,variance, or conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property?/VO I.f so, list date(s) of
list date(s) of appl.icatlon, 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 off.icial of the City
of Mound for the purpose of inspecting,.or of posting, maintaining and removing such
Sighature of Applicant~[ .. ,,,/ Date . 4~ .
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Date 5-12-86
Council Action:
Resolution No.
y
Date
"kequest for Zoning Variance Procedure (2)
Case # 8~-$17
O. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. .
E. Indicate North compass direction
F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections. of the Zoning Ordinance.
Request for a Zoning Variance
A. All information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general
appllcatlon must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled.
B. Does the presen~ use of. the property'conform to all use regulations for
the zone district in which it is located? Yes .~/~) No ( )'
If "no", specify each n~n-conforming use:
Ce
De
Do the existing structures comply, wlth a11 area height and bulk regulations
for the zone district in which It Is.located? Yes
If "no~, specify'each non-conforming use:
Vhlch unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its
reasonable use for any o~f/t~e.uses.permitted.in(th~t zoning dlstrictT
( ) .Too narrow . (~ TopOgraphy. . Soil ".
( ) Too. small (~ Drainage .... ( ) Sub-surface
( ) Too shall°w ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify:'
E..Was the hard.ship*d~scribed above* created by the action of anyone having
property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted?
Yes (/) No ( ) if yes, expl.aln:
Was the hardship created~by any_'o;Lher man-made change, such as the reloca-
tlo. of a road? .o ) If'yes, explain:
G. 'Are the conditions of hardship for'which you request a variance pecullar
only to the property describe~ in this.petition? Yes
If no, holm any other properties are slmi.larly affected/
.~/hat is the S'minimum'~ modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulati°ns'
that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using
maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additlonal
sheets, if necessary.) ~" ~
~/iI1 granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the
same zone, or~e enforcement of this ordinance?
This rom need not ~ used ~en p~o~ p~ns drawn ~o sca~e of no~ less
~"-20' ~ filed w~th pemJt epplic~Jon, (E~ch building s~e ~us~ h~ve
sep~e~e plot
~,103
12/82,
CASE NO. 86-517
For new buildings provide the following information: Elevation of existing
& adjoining yard grades, location of proposed consturction and existing improve-
ments; show building, site, and setback dimensions. Show easements, finish
contours or drainage, first floor elevation, street elevation and sewer
service elevation. Show location of water, sewer, gas and electrical service
lines. Show location of survey pins with elevations. Specify the use of
each buildng and major portion thereof. To be completed by. a registered
land surveyor· '
INDICATE NORTH IN CIRCLE
RESOLUTION #86-59
EXHIBIT 'IA,,
GRAPH SQUARES ARE 5' X 5' OR 1"-20' I
I/W~ ), that the proposed construction will con
firsi obtaining approval.
'&~,4~T~I ~y/~'OWN[RISI OI~ $(*T~-~& STRLJCTU~ir.($! (PRINT) '
enslons and uses shown above and that no change II be made without
SIGNATURE.. OF OWN[RIS) OR AUTHORIZED RE*PRE~$£NTATiVl;'
PROPOSED RES0LUTION
CASE NO. 86-517
RESOLUTION NO. 86-
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO APPROVE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR LOT 26 AND SOUTH
1/2 OF LOT 27, BLOCK 2, ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION
TO LAKESIDE PARK, PID # 13-117-24 32 0021
(2151 Cedar Lane)
PLANNING COMMISSION CASE NO. 86-517
WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Leonard J. Koehnen, owner of the property des-
cribed as Lot 26 and South 1/2 of Lot 27, Block 2, Abraham Lincoln Addition
to Lakeside Park, PID # 13-117-24 32 0021 (2151 Cedar Lane) have applied for
variances and setbacks to the side yards, South and North in order to
construct a'20 by 26 foot attached one story garage; and
WHEREAS, Exhibit "A" has also been submitted to indicate the re-
quested setbacks of 4 feet to the South lot line and existing setback.of 9
feet to the North lot line, and 35 feet to the East property line; and
WHEREAS, the City Code requlres'6 feet to the property line and
lO feet to the property line in R-3 one & two family zoning district for lots
of record; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Com~ission has reviewed the request and does
recommend approval of the setback variances.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, does approve the 4 foot side lot line variance to the South
and recognize the existing 9 foot setback to the North property line as shown
on Exhibit A for Lot 26 and South 1/2 of Lot 27, Block 2, Abraham Lincoln Addi-
tion to Lakeside Park, PID # 13-117-24 32 0021 (2151 Cedar Lane),
Upon the condition that the wall adjacent within four foot of the
South lot line will have 5/8 inch type X sheetrock or equal applied to the
inside of the garage wall with a maximum of a two foot overhang, and no
additionswill be constructed in the future without additional City Council
approval.
,42
CASE NO. 86-517
/
/
/
.% ~ '~.- CHURCH
RD -~
: ""; BL.VD ~ a ~ ~.._-/
L.Y NWOOD ~,7,~,,.~?.3 :,.e,'t'ii'v~ ·
COMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINE[RS · LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS
N~y 22, 1~66
Reply To:
12800 Industrial Park Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
(612) 559-3700
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Hound, Minnesota 55364
SUBJECT:
Hinnetrista Request for Utilities
Maple Hill Estates
H.K.A. File #7699
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
As requested by the Council, we have investigated further the affects the
proposed watermain extension would have on domestic use and fire fighting
capabilities. Under separate cover you should have a report from the Hound
Fire Chief, which we assume explains his findings on the existing conditions
relating to fire fighting. We will address the question of what the impacts to
domestic service woggld result from the proposed extension serving the 9
residential lots in Hinnetrista.
First, we would like to confirm our findings as stated in our letter of
April 22, 1986, a copy of which is enclosed. 8y looping the proposed watermain
from the main at the end of Haple Road through the proposed plat to the main at
the intersection of County Road 15 and West Edge 8oulevard, the 9 lots would be
provided with pressure adequate for domestic use. By adequate pressure, we
would anticipate a range of 35 to 37 P.S.I. static pressure at the proposed
hydrants. This additional demand should not affect the water pressure to any
of the homes in Hound served by the present system.
As stated in Don Bryce's letter, currently the pressure drop is very
signfficant when a pumper is connected to the hydrants in this area, especially
the one at the end of Haple Road. The hydrant on County Road 15 at West Edge
Boulevard drops from 40 P.S.I. to approximately 20 P.S.I. with a nozzle
pressure of 140 P.S.I. from the pumper. We can predict what will happen at
these two hydrants and the proposed hydrants if a main is looped through the
proposed subdivision. The residual pressure on the hydrant at the end of Haple
Road would be increased from 0 to 5 or 10 P.S.I. with a fire pumper connected
using one 2 1/2" hose. On the other hand, the hydrant at County Road 15 will
probably drop to approximately 15 P.S.I. under the same conditions. The
residual pressure at the new hydrants in the proposed subdivision will fall
somewhere in between.
One other item we would like to bring to the Council's attention is the
possibility of connecting this section of the water system to the existing 10"
main which presently ends at the intersection of West Edge Boulevard and
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
May 22, 1986
Page Two
Halsted Lane. This additional main would loop the entire system in the Dutch
Lake area with the Highlands water tower, and significantly improve the
residual pressure for fire fighting and also static pressure for domestic use.
At the present time, approximately 2100 feet exists between the ends of the two
10" mains. We would estimate this connection to cost in the neighborhood of
$75,000.00. If the other development proposed in Minnetrista for the area
south of County Road 15 and west of West Edge Boulevard proceeds, this
watermain loop would be a necessity in order to provide a dependable, domestic
water supply. Approximately 650 feet of 10" watermain would be the requirement
of the developers, leaving roughly 1500 feet to finish the loop. These are
items which should be considered if the second proposed subdivision proceeds.
In conclusion, we would recommend that the City of Mound could enter into
an agreement to serve the proposed 9 lot subdivision, Maple Hill Estates; with
both water and sanitary sewer without affecting their present operation.
If the Council should have any questions, I will. be present at the meeting
on May 27.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS-KNJTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
OC:khw
cc: Bill Turnblod
City of Minnestrista
.Buzz Sykes
ti
LAKE
LANGDON
WELL N4~.~
CITY of MOUND
MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
May 21, 1986
Mound City Council
5341Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Councilmembers:
The Mound Fire Department has been requested to comment on the proposed
Maple Hill Estates development and associated water main extension ~y
John Cameron of McCombs-Knutson. Associates, Inc. We were specifically
requested to comment on the water supply that would result from the
proposed water main extension.
On Wednesday, May 14, 1986, the Mound Fire Department conducted a series
of water flow tests to evaluate the static and residual water pressures
at the hydrants that the proposed water main extension would be tied into.
The static hydrant pressure is the pressure at a hydrant with no other
sources of water in demand. The residual pressure is the pressure re-
maining at a h~lrant.when there is demand, such as a fire truck, which
lowers the remfiining available water supply. This concept is improtant
in determining the available water supply for fire fighting.
The fire department checked three hydrants in their evaluation.
following pressures were found:
HYDRANT LOCATIONS STATIC PRESSURE
Cty. Rd. 15 & Westedge 40 PSI
Walnut Road 38 PSI
Maple Road 50 PSI
The
RESIDUAL PRESSURE
20 PSI @ 140 PSI NozZle Pressure
10 PSI @ 100 PSI Nozzle Pressure
OO PSI @ 100 PSI Nozzle Pressure
Por determining the residual pressure a 50 foot section of 2½ inch hose
was connected to a fire pumper and the nozzle pressure noted was the
reading on the pumper gauge.
An equal opportunfly 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.
City Council
Page 2
Based on these results, it is my opinion that the proposed water main
extension will not provide an adequate water supply for fire protection
in the proposed Maple Hill Estates development. Additional water would
have to be hauled in by tanker to fight a structural fire with the water
main extension as proposed.
Last, the ISO rating of the City of Mound will not be affected by this
new development, while the new development will have the ISO rating of
the City of Minnetrista.
Please fell free to contact me with any additional questions concerning
this matter.
)ce re l
Y,/~
Don Bryce, C~ief
Mound Fire Department
DB:ls
A. THOMAS WUR$?,
UO$~;PH E:. HAMIL?ON, P.A.
UAM~$ O. LAR$ON, P.~
THOMAS I~. UND~;RWOOD, P.A.
RO~[R ~1. F£LLOW$
LAW
WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD
IlO0 FIRST BANK PLACE
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA S540~
May 7, 1986
Mr. Ed Shukle,.City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Re: Minnetrista Water/Sewer Extension
Dear Ed:
I am enclosing herewith a draft of a proposed agreement
between Minnetrista and Mound relating to the Maple Hills Estates
Subdivision. I am sending a copy on to John Cameron, and hope-
fully the two of you can review and give me any comments or
approval as the final form of the agreement.
Very truly yours,
Curtis A. Pearson
City Attorne~
-CAP:ih
Enclosure
cc: Mr. John Cameron
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MINNETRISTA AND THE CITY
OF MOUND RELATIVE TO PROVIDING UTILITY SERVICE TO
MINNETRISTA PROPERTY OWNERS IN MAPLE HILLS ESTATES
SUBDIVISION
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of
, 1986, by and between the City of Minnetrista, a municipal
corporation, of the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, hereinafter
called "Minnetrista", and the City of Mound, a municipal corporation of the
County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, hereinafter called "Mound",
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Mound has inplace water main and sanitary sewer lines
adjacent to the City limits along its boundary with Minnetrista; and
WHEREAS, the area in Minnetrista being sUbdivided into the Maple
Hills Estates Subdivision is isolated from existing water main and sanitary
sewer in Minnetrista; and
WHEREAS, Mound has indicated that they will allow water and
sanitary sewer extensions from Mound inplace lines to be connected with the
new construction so that the new construction in the Maple Hills Estates
Subdivision in Minnetrista can be served by said extensions; and
WHEREAS, the parties have mutually agreed that it-is in the best
interest of both parties to provide sanitary sewer and water service from
the Mound system to the Minnetrista Property owners within the Maple Hills
Estates Subdivision, and that Minnetrista and residents of the Maple Hills
Estates Subdivision will pay to Mound the following established amounts and
will abide by the rules and regulations established for the Mound system and
as set fo[th in this Agreement,
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and
agreements herein described, /~
IT IS HEREBY AGREED as follows:
1. Minnetrista shall construct water
and sanitary sewer
extensions from above described Mound utilities to serve
the Maple Hills Estates Subdivision. All plans and
specifications must be reviewed and approved by the Hound
City Engineer.
Within the limits established in this agreement, property
owners in Minnetrista shall be allowed to connect to and
become part of the sewer and wate= system of Hound, and
shall be subject to the same charges and regulations as
property owners of Mound.
At the time that Minnetrista constructs water and sanitary
sewer lines in the Maple Hills Estates Subdivision an~
connects to the Mound systems, Minnetrista shall pay to
Mound availability and connection charges as follows:
lo¥o
Original Unit Assessment
Original Footage Assessment
(60' Minimum)
Mound's Sewer Availability
Charge
SANITARY SEWER
9 Units at $292.00/Unit
540 L.F. at $ 9.04/L.F.
9 Units at $125.00/Unit
$2,628.00
4,881.60
1,125.00
Original Unit Assessment
Original Footage Assessment
(60' Minimum)
MOund's Water Availability
Charge
Total for Sanitary Sewer
WATERMAIN
9 Units at $ 65.62/Unit
$8,634.00
$ 590.49
540 L.F. at $ 4.87/L.F. 2,629.80
9 Units at $125.00/Unit
1,125.00
Total for Watermain
$4,345.29
Total Utility Charge $12,979.89
In addition thereto, Minnetrista agrees to pay to Mound
'all costs incurred by Mound for Engineering, Legal, and
Administrative expenses·
Since no property in Mound will be served by the proposed
utility extensions, the entire cost of construction of the
water and sanitary sewer extensions shall be borne by
Minnetrista.
Users in Minnetrista connected to the Mound systems shall
be billed usage charges on the basis of the same water and
lOdl
sewer rates applicable to users in Mound, said charges to
be billed directly to the user by Mound. Minnetrista
shall guarantee payment of these charges, subject to the
cooperation of Mound in providing information to
Minnetrista which will allow Minnetrista to specially
assess unpaid water and sewer use charges against
Minnetrista properties·
Property owners in Minnetrista connecting to the Mound
systems shall be required to obtain connection permits
from Mound for all sewer and water connections and shall
pay all connection fees in the same amounts and manner as
Mound residents, prior to making any connection to the
proposed utility extensions, or for any future extension[
of the presently proposed lines' within the service area
described·
Mound shall not be responsible to any person, firm, or
corporation for damages claimed as a result of backing up
of sewers in any basement in Minnetrista.
Mound will perform all normal maintenance on the above
described sanitary sewer and water main lines within the
Mound corporate boundaries· MinnetriSta will perform
all normal maintenance on the above described sanitary
sewer and water lines within the Minnetrista corporate
boundaries·
Construction of service lines or new laterals required fo
the service area described above to connect to the above
described Mound utility extensions shall be the
10.
11.
responsibility of property owners in Minnetrista and
under the auspices of Minnetrista.
Water and sanitary sewer construction by Minnetrista and
the property owners in Minnetrista shall meet the
requirements of Mound's Water Main and Sanitary Sewer
Standard Specifications, and any special provisions
deemed necessary by the Mound City Engineer.
Mound agrees to cooperate and make available any and all
records, plans, specifications, and other materials which
may be necessary to allow Minnetrista to specially assess
any and all costs which Minnetrista may be required to pay
to Mound as a result of these improvements.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto authorized an~
entered into this Agreement upon authority of the City Council of the City
of Minnetrista and the City Council of the City of Mound.
In The Presence Of:
CITY OF MINNETRISTA
BY.
Mayor
BY.
City Administrator-
Clerk-Treasurer
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this__day
of' , 1986, by and ., th~
Mayor and City Administrator-Clerk-Treasurer of the City of Minnetrista, a
Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the municipal corporation.
'In The Presence Of:
CITY OF MOUND
BY.
Mayor
BY.
City Manager
STATE' OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this__day
of , 1986, by Robert Polston and Edward Shukle, the Mayor and
City Manager of the City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on
behalf of the municipal corporation.
· io¥
April 22, 1~@6
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Reply To:
12800 Industrial Park Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
(612) 559-3700
SUBOECT:
Minnetrista Request for Utilities
Maple Hill Estates
MKA File #7699
Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members:
Last Fall, the City of Mound was approached by the City of Minnetrlsta
about allowing a connection to Mound's sanitary sewer and watermain, to provide
City utilities for the proposed plat, Maple Hill Estates. The Council gave
conceptual approval, and we were instructed not to do any additional work until
the approval process for the proposed plat was further along. Since that tlme,
the developers have received preliminary approval from Minnetrista and would
now like to finalize their projected development costs and gain approval for
extending Mound's utilities.
one question raised by the Mound property owners in the area is the lack of
sufficient water pressure in the Dutch Lake area. We had Mound Rublic Works
take pressure readings at three locations various times of the day, with the
following results. The average main pressure at the hydrants on the end of
Walnut Road and at the last hydrant on West Edge Boulevard south of County Road
No. 15 was 40 R.S.I. The pressure on the hydrant located at the intersection
of County Road No. 15 with West Edge Boulevard and at the hydrant on the end of
Maple Road was 50 R.S.I. The difference in pressure is due mostly to the
difference in elevation between these hydrants. The problem that we foresee in
ext'ending the watermain in Maple Road and looping it through the proposed
subdivision to'the main in County Road No. 15 will be the pressure drop within
the new plat. Our calculations show the pressure would be approximately 35
R.S.I. at the end of the proposed cul-de-sac. A desirable City watermain
pressure would be approximately in the range of 50 to 60 R.S.I. We do not see
any disadvantage to the City of Mound in allowing this watermain extension; in
fact, Mound would be eliminating 2 dead end watermains. The extension of these
mains should not lower the water pressure 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
Hembers of the City Council
April 22, 1986
Rage Two
Residential Equivalency Units (REV'S) will be charged to the City of
Minnetrista 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 should charge the developer as a fee to connect to the City's
utilities. The amoun~ of $12,979.89 was arrived at by charging the nine
proposed lots in Ninnetrista the same as they would be charged if they were
located in Mound and had never paid a sewer or 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 additional items that the Council may wish
to include. If any Councilmembers should have questions or require additional
information, I will be present at the meeting on the 29th of April.
Very truly yours,
NcCONBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Ooh~nCameron~
OC:jmj
Enclosures
cc: 8ill Turnblad, City of Ninnetrista
PROPOSED AVAILABILITY AND CONNECTION CHARGE
NAPLE HILLS ESTATES
SANITARY SEWER
Original Unit Assessment
Original Footage Assessment
(60' Winimum)
Wound's Sewer Availability
Charge
9 Units ~ $292.00/Unit
540 L.F. 8 $ 9. E~/L.F.
9 Units 8 $125.00/Unit
Rroposed Total for Sanitary Sewer
$ 2,628.00
$ 4,881.60
$ 1~ 125.00
$ 8,634.00
WATERWAIN
Original Unit Assessment
Original Footage Assessment
(60' Winimum)
Wound's Water Availability
Charge
9 Units ® $ 65.61/Unit
540 L.F. 8 $ 4.87/L.F.
9 Units ~ $125.00/Unit
Rroposed Total for Watermain
$ 590.49
$ 2,629.80
$ 1~ 125. O0
$ 4,345.29
Proposed Total Utility Charge
$12,979.89
PRELIMINARY PLAT
OF:
MAPLE HILL
E STATE S
~INDICATES ProPOSED ELEVATION
D EVELC Pi ~:
M N S ASSOCIATES
At,. L Syck:
5900 Beachw;~i .cad
Mcu ,d, N,i--:.:~,ta
SU,;V~O2: EGAN, F;D.,~ &NOWAK, INC.
7~L5 W:.y. c,t;.
Ve:':c- A. ;~ickcl:
Pho- ~: ~ - 68)7
.SC,-.. PT~ON:
The W~r~ 14L ~ fed ~f
Gova~e~t Lot 1, S~tio-
N"t~. ~:~,gc ~4Wc:t of th,: 5th P
Meridian.
T.: ?:t 172 feet of Gove:nment Lot ], ,'.x=, t
'.e South 47~ 5 fcet nf t,hr East C,~
Sectin-, 15, Town'.h~; 117 Nc tn, ,';a=g,: ,..W: t
the 5th P. :ncioal Me::J.a:'.
I hereby ce..'tify that this plat was prepa,,ed by me o~
under my direct supervision and that I am a duly
Regi.~tereo Land Surveyor under the Law: df
State of Minnesota.
Datm this 4th day of F~b u~y, ).986.
E G A N, F I E L D & N 0 W A K, , ;~ C.
Su,veyo:.~
by ~ ,(,'L.,.'~,.. '~ ! ' ~',
At,. :'.esota ,<eg:rt:etic'. Nc. 905J
DUTCH
...... wa*er Elev.
' L.---- ~"1--~'"~'~"'*
LAKE
Scale:
uJ
4263
CITY of MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
($12} 472-1'J$5
TO:
FROM:
RE:
ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER
AND PHYLLIS JESSEN, PARKS CO~,S?I. ONER
JIM FACKLER, PARKS DIRECTOR ~7~-'
AND DELL RUDOLPH, DOCK INSPECTOR
DOCK PROPOSAL FOR LOST LAKE ADDITION,
BY ECKLEY-SCHNEIDER CONSTRUCTION C0.
DATE: MAY 12, 1986
At the May 8th Park Commission meeting, a proposal was made by Barry
Schneider for three dock sites off the Parks land in the Lost Lake
Addition. This was denied by the Park Commissien because it only
served three abutting site owners. A second proposal was offered to
make the Lost Lake Subdivision a dedicated dock site area, like three
other such areas (Woodland Pt., Dreamwood and Wychwood) we have in the
dock system. ~This would then make the 280 feet of shoreline on the
already d[e_~dqed Loser Lake Channel, a_vailabli for' nine d~ck si~es-- '
~L_f~t~part}J The~-~e ~o~-~ '~[tes wou~ld b~ restricted tot~eresidents
only from this Lost Lake Addition. All of the provisions provided for
by Dock Ordinance #332 would apply and the City would maintain control
of the dock area. The City would collect dock fees for all nine sites
and inspections would be made by the Dock Inspector. A walkway to
the sites and along the shoreline would be provided by the Construction
firm. NO permits would be issued until residency would be established at
the new homes yet to be built.
This appears to be a good solution for some more dock availability, for
as many as 18 more Mound residents on a shared dock arrangement.-
The Park Director and Dock Inspector recommend this be favorably
considered. The Park Commission approved this preliminary plan and
will present it to the City Council for action.
DR:ls
An equal opportunI'.y Employer that 0des 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.
8:
: ..... , t~ i~° ' ' -- '
~.~. ,.
'-
o
~ ~ ~ I ..'.. "" ~ SCALE':
I ;('J. /' I "~0 't~,] J'~ JJ ¥ ;?:, j.. ~ ,o.*~. S,b.~,.,* .. o DENOTESBEARiNGS
J ; '
,,,~,o, t !i9 '..' GORDOI
Thc
o,~, ,.> ~--, ENG ,, ~ E EF
.
'"
April 30, 1986
City of Mound
Park Commission
Mound, MN 55364
We are proposing and seeking your approval to install 3 docks,
3'4" x 24' for lots 16, 17, and 18, of the attached plat.
Applications will be made by the homeowners as soon as they are
occupied. Provision for access will be granted to the city for
review and inspection of the docks.
Please review the enclosed plan showing the proposed docks
and footage between docks. As contractor of this development,
I will answer any questions or provide additional information
which you will require to make your decision. If possible,"
I would like the Park Commission to appoint a member to contact,
in respect to this proposal, to provide or receive additional
information on this proposal. ' ~-- .~ --
We, as contractors and future homeowners, would like your
immediate attention in resolving this matter.
'Thankyou'very much for your support.
Sincerely, .
Eckley Schneider
Construction Co.
BS :wr
:
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICY DIRECTIONS, GOALS
AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE CITY MANAGER ON
DEVELOPING THE 1987 BUDGET REQUESTS
WHEREAS the Mound City Council has established a Policy on
Budgeting that calls for establishing budget guidelines and setting
policy directions, goals, and objectives for the City Manager prior
to June; and
WHEREAS, the Mound City Council desires to establish as its
goal to preserve and protect, and expand where possible, the present
level of services provided to the residents of Mound so that the taxes
paid by the Citizens of Mound are expended to provide the fullest
measure of service and protection for all residents of Mound; and
WHEREAS, the Mound City Councilf. de~i~es -to.~establish~as.~.a
goal to preserve and support fully the services provided by the
City Departments; and
WHEREAS, the MoUnd City .Council desires to establish as a
goal the protection of each of the City employees providing said
services with reasonable cost-of-living pay adjustments; and
WHEREAS, the Mound City Council is mindful that certain
- unforseen events or financial developments may on occasion require
spending increases, the Mound City Council desires to establish as
a goal that the City Manager achieve a budget in 1987 with proposed
spending appropriations at the overall level of the 1986 General
Fund Budget appropriations,.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mound City Council
hereby establisheS the f0~l°wing policy directions~,, 'goals and
objectives for the City Manager in the preparation of proposed
spending requests for the 1987 Budget:
1. Maintenance of city services.
2. Reasonable cost-of-living pay adjustments for city employees.
3. No cuts to essential services.
4. Allocation of sufficient funds to the City Departments to
achieve the goals and services each is assigned.
5. The 1987 overall spending requests, not necessarily any
individual request, shall be held at the 1986 overall level.
May 27, 1986 Council Meeting
May 22, 1986
Mound Fire Department - Fish Fry - June 14, 1986
Charitable Organization 3.2 Beer Permit
Public Dance Permit
Set-Up Permit
Restaurant License
House of Moy - 5-16-86 to 4-30-87 License Period
(A 15 Day License was approved by the
4-29-86 Council Meeting)
Add to List of Licensed Tree Removal
Robert F. Dahlke
P.O. Box 13
Belle Plaine, Minn.
56011
CITY of MOUND
MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO: Ed Shukle, City Hanager
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 ~' 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
IO '/
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.
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy
CITY of MOUND
4~BUILDING & ZONING DEPARTMENT
DATE APPROVED
SITE ADDRESS 5555 Shoreline Boulevard
OWNER House of Ney
MAILING ADDRESS
P.I.D.. 1.3-117-2q :~3 0005
BUILDER David g. WJllette
qbK, 5 Shoreline Boulevard BUILDING PERMIT: -
~,n~l, H1~. .c53_r-!' ' NO. 84-6506 ,DATE I~UED Feb. 28, 1~8q
THE FOLLOWING' ITEMS ARE NOTED AS INCOMPLETE OR MI~ING, THESE M~ BE CORRECTED
OR COMPLETED AND REIN~ECTED WITHIN ~O DAYS OR THIS CERTIFICATE WILL BE VOID,
FAILURE TO CORRECT ~ESE DEFICIENCIES WILL ~USE OCCUFANCY VIOLATION CITATIONS TO BE ISSUED.
InStal) co, ers w~cn cna)ns ~ s~s~r~ ~partment connection at Auc~t~r's I{oao .. J
~. · Ex[end sprinkler head pipe at rear t~nan[ spac~ above 'furnace r~m ~here i~ ls t~ close
.. ~o adjacent pipes and ~Jean inspector's cast plate kre~ve paint); sue ~ lb tot snuc
d~n o~ ~ke up alt unit with fl~ of ~prlnkler heads.
Place flre extinguishers as per Fire Harshel, '~errY.:l~abb's requirements. .;
i- C1~,~ 'v ,~ ' v ' ,,~ ~, ' ~-'"':' :.
· 'FLe&r exit"arear to:remain unob~'ruc,.;, '~ '~"~': ~'. ~' :.:.'-. '~' *':'"': .... '"" "*' "~'"L :
8, Exit 51qn to be ~de directlonat" td r'leht e'~r~ on'lv at' RoOm I18.' ~ .
~. ~rovide electrical final inspection. ' /
JO. ,~omo1ete Ot.~t~Jd~ on-crete ~rk hn4 ~t~lm,~v to ha~e~n~ t~ minimum code.
ll. hinnegasco ~o.re~ve gas meter a~d llne.~o Key Shop, as per Tom Krel, fro~
12. ln~ell'~le=e ~ver cqndul~ w~th 'exoo~ed wire aS r~ ~ees~ of the n~/ P.u~ untO). ~'{J
i3. R~move scrap lumber and debris fr~ fmf area· ~ ~)t~ .
(See ?aaa 2)
I HEREBY AGREE TO MAKE THE ABOVE CORRECTIONS AND TO CALL FOR REINSPECTION WITHIN
THE TIME ALLOWED':
, , . ,,.,:- . .,
- r .->-~,.. ]~ DATE · · · ....
OWN E R/CONTRACTO~~A~
c'.'
i
BILLING FOR:
(t~o Change) X CITY WATER
X . CITY SEWER
,)an bectr~:n6.,
BUILDING OFFICIAL
,.,u,-rr~. ,-~a~Ce~/~d'rl3A/'Tf~13 ¥1::1 I t3W. RIII INK ~1 IcRK PINK: I:IL~ ~' -; '-
BILLS ...... HAY 27, 1986
Batch. 864051
Batch 864052
Batch 864053
Computer Run dated 5/17/86
Computer 'Run dated 5/22/86
II II
Total Bills
107,.! 14.73
25,130.15
286,630.81
418,875.69
W
U
W
{3.
ZZ
,C~C~
W
N
LI. bJWbJ
Ld UUU
Z
bJ
I Ill II
~Jw
Z
W
Z
w
Z
ZZZZZZZZZZ
U
o
Z
ir,
bJ
(~ WWW
s- W~lbJ
U
U
U
ZZ
WWWWWW
X
100o
W
X
ZZZ~
ZZZZ
W
'.r'
U
W
X
TTTTTTTTT
Z
b.J
bJ
C3
Z
,,~
--I
I
I
I
Z
W
W
X
W
3..
W
.d
bJ
O.
-r,
:3
Z
I I
,k
t~
JJJ
; ;
W
W~
ZZ
O0
3::~
WW
T
Z
t~
~)
I I
o
.J
bJ
C)
W
W
I
(/3
biO.
Z3i:
,,J D..
UU
UUU
WLULU
--I --I --I
b~ bJ t~J
U
w
J
0O(;3
41 (::3
Z
bJ
,,
I I I I I I I I ' I . I I I
I
W
W
W
W
W
n~
W
W
,.I
n
W
Z
0
ZZ~Z
.C~ Z C~ Z
0~,~
C~
C~Z C~ Z
._l ::l .~ "l
Wtd bJ bJ
hJ
h.J
CITY of MOUND
5341 k~AYWOOD ROAD
MOUND. MINNESOTA 55,'~4
(612) 472-1155
TO:
FROM:
RE:
ED SHUKLE
CITY MANAGER~'
JOHN NORMAN
FINANCE DIRECTOR
APRIL 1986 FINANCIAL REPORT
The budget to actual expenses for April looks good.
The water fund has expended 41.7% of budget (compared with
33.3% of year). However, the water fund expenses for April
were down significantly from the first three months of the
year. The reason for the decline is because we didn't have
the watermain breaks in April like we did in the winter months.
Hopefully, we will not have any significant breaks'this
summer and the water fund expenses may come close to the
budgeted amounts.
JN:ls
IOto'f
An equal oppo,tumty 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.
CITY OF HOUND
1986 BUDGET REPORT
REVENUES
APRIL 1986
33.3% of
the
Year
BUDGET
APRIL
REVENUE
YTD
REVENUE VARIANCE
PER CENT
RECEIVED
GENERAL FUND
Taxes $ 931,061
Intergovernmental 719,964
Business. Licenses 13,060
Non-Business Licenses
& Permits 114,000
General Gov't Charges 27,750
Court Fines 82,000
Charges to other
Departments 23,000
Other Revenue 5~00
28,881
469
18,110
1~:594
14,701
2,744
2,451
33,549 913,512 3.5
6,875 713,089 1.0
1,738 11,322 13.3
59,014 54,986 51.8
5,118 6,682 43.4
21,160 60,840 25.8
10,985 12,015 47.8
5,014 50,236 9.1
TOTAL REVENUE $1,966,135
68,950
143,453 .1,822,682
7.3
Federal Revenue Sharing 45,000 12,405 12,405 32,495
Liquor Fund 820,000 55,187 201,884 618,116
Water Fund 264,00~ 29,810 95,051 168,949
Sewer Fund 500,000 42,745 188,385 311,615
27.6
24.6
36.0
37.7
o. CITY. OF HOUND
1986 BUDGET REPORT
EXPENDITURES
APRIL 1986 33.3% of the Year
UNEN-
April YTD CUMBERED PER CENT
BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE BALANCE EXPENDED
GENERAL FUND Council
City Manager/Clerk
Elections & Reg.
Assessing
Finance
Legal
Cable T.V.
Contel
Recycling
Police Protection
Planning & Insp.
Civil Defense
Streets
Shop & Store
City Property
.Parks
Contingency
Transfers
GENERAL FUND TOTAL
$ 36,964 998 1'O,797 26,167 29.2
89,273 9,493 28,509 60,764 31.9
10,307 113 369. 9,938 3.6
43,369 707 2,940 40,429 6.8
141,420 11,O86 43,107 98,313 30.5
80,330 11,407 23,117 57,213 28.8
.... 55 8o2 (802) -
20,000 380 7,380 12,620 -
18,585 18 3,o15 15,57o 16.2
568,199 51,113 179,369 388,810 31.6
lOO,333 6,557 3o,664 69,669 30.6
3,000 196 486 2,514 16.2
369,950 32,941 131,139 238,811 35.4
47,o96 4,419 14,838 32,258 31.5
83,449 4,657 15,935 67,51.4 19.1
130,o93 7,855 2~.,65o lO8,443 16.6
- 5O,OOO -
50,000 ~ -
75,741 6,312 25,247 50,494 33.3
$1,868,109' 148,307' 539,--~ 1,32,-'8'~ ~
Federal Revenue Sharing 52,000
CDBG ---
Area Fire Service 142,802
Sealcoat Program ---
CBD Assessment --'
Liquor 193,450
Water 315,O22
Sewer 631,O84
Cemetery 3,896
- 3,612 48,388 6.95
1,293 3,754 (3,754) -
16,847 47,643 95,158 33.4
96 13,266 (13,266) -
1,090 8,861 (8,861)
20,O18 51,128 142,322 26.4
20,418 131,494 183,528 . 41.7
45,291 192,542 438,542 30.5
166 1,O80 2,816 27.7
1071
MINUTES OF THE
Mound Advisory Park Commission Meeting'of
May 8, 1986
Present were: Chair Nancy Clough; Commissioners Cheryl Burns, Dolores Maas,
Linda Panetta .and Low, J1 Swanson; Park Director Jim Fackler;.Dock Inspector
De]J Rudolph and Secretary Marge Stutsman. Council Representative Phyllis Jes-
sen and Commissioners Marilyn Byrnes, Cathy Bailey., Andy Gearhart and Robin.
Michae] were absent and excused..Also, present were the-roi]owing interested
persons: Joseph'- W.. Andrews, Andrew and Barb Mahoney, Michael B]unt and Barry
Schneider. -
MINUTES
The minutes of the Park'Comm[.ssi. on.meeting~of. April 10, 1986 were presented for
conslderationL Swenson moved and Maas seconded a motion to .approve the minutes.
The.vote was unanimously in favor.'
MAINTENANCE PERMIT REQUESTS
l. The Dybing's were not present, so the Park Commilssion tabled this item until
later in the meeting.when the following action was taken:
Robert & LaDonna.Oybing, 1737 Canary 'Lane'are requesting to be able to trim
the'sumach by'the steps on ,Wiota Commons in front of thei.r house so they
will have a view of the .lake. The Park Director'.recommended allowing the
trimming with the condition' )t be.ti.rimmed .no )ower than 3 feet.
Burns moved and panetta.seconded..a motion to r~rCommend approving allowing
'the trimming'of the;sumach conditioned<that It be no lower than 3 feet.
The vote was unanlmously In favor. -
Andy and Barb Mahoney of 46q$.lsland View..Orive were present regarding
their'request to.maintain.steps 'on the Commons in front of ~heir. home. Mr.
Mahoney explained that hls~:house has a'steep.bank in front.and the Commons
start just over that bank.' They built'a, sta[rway over the-old stone stair-
case that had been there since 1939. Theyare new toarea and had thought
their building permit would'apply to the stairway; they didn't know they'
needed to come before the.Park .Commission .and it was not their intention to
circumvent that body.. The stone'stairway was' hazardous and slippery and
some guests had fall,nOn, them,. They want to improve the Commons and clean.
but the j~nk there.
Maas moved andSwenson .secondeda mot'ion to recommend approva] .of a main-
tenance, permit for the.stairwayon the Commons.
The Commission asked ilf the.stepswould obstruct others 'frOm using the Com-
mons and discussed'the request briefly. It was thought steps would not ob-
struct use of Commons.
The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor.
Michael Blunt of. 4771 Island View Drive was present regarding request to put
in a retaining wall on Commons in front' of his home. Mr. Blunt explained
that he wants to put in retaining wall to hold back the bank and then clean
up the area and put in some shrubs.
Park Commission Minutes
May 8, )9BG - Page 2
The Park Director stated his concern has. been with erosion'with the removal
of a couple of trees and the brush, The Commission discussed the request and
questioned.if other people could use the Commons, Blunt stated that the re-
taining wal.1 would actually increase usable area People could use.
Burns moved and Clough seconded a motion to recommend, approval of the.permit
for the ,retaining wall, "The vote was unanimously in favor.
Request for 3 Dock Permits'for Lost Lake Addition
BarrY Schnei-der.of Eckley Schneider Construction Company was present; he is seeking
approval of a .revised proposal to-allow the homeowner purchasers of Lots 16,. 17 and
18 to be able.to apply for dock space and to put up docks on City property adjoining
theirs in the Lost Lake Addition'. He stated'purchase agreements are dependent on
whether or not people can get space for docks on the channel.
The Chair commented that it would not be Possible for other people to use this
space because of it not having-a public access. She asked if they would be open
to having the drainageeas'ement made a .public access. Schneider thought not be-
cause it is a quiet area and it would.destroy, the privacy to open'it to more than
LOst Lake Addition .residents.' The Dock Inspector-stated there are other areas that.
a~e similar; a~eas whereUse is dedicated to,residents within a specific subdivision.
Cl.ough moved that request be-denie<J.'because of the. exclusive rights to access with
"the c0ndition that' i.f an access' coul:d be.worked out.for more than these three par-
cels, we bring application back for discussion. BuFfs seconded the motion.
Schneider'stated. they don't want-area open as.,Commons and have people coming to.the
dock spaces from all over and parking on the.streets. He reviewed their previous
plan of the association.applying for.a number of dock spaces and sharing them with
the owners within t.he Lost Lake Addi.tion..Swenson questioned the amount.'of footage
on the channel; it was'thought footage'was, a little over-300 feet and on,the basis
used for Commons With docks.30'feet-'apart, 10 docks could be accommodated. Also
questioned.was depth of water in channel.and"the, height of the bridge. Schneider
Stated present depth of water was' 4 feet at shoreline and 8 feet in center of channel.
He stated the'drainage'-easement.goes with':Lots 1'7 and 18 and the proposed owner of.
Lot ]8 Stated he.would"be agreeable.to having a 6 foot wide walkway .through there
and they had talked of the possibility,Of'putting a bridge over the pond. Schneider
stated only'two, builders will be build,ing, in this area and-it was thought that the
size and quality of the homes wil'l depend on whether dock space.is available. The
Commission discussed, the request at length.
The'vote on the motion for'three d0ck's:ites was Burns'and Clough in favor of the
denial'; Maas, Panetta and 'Swenson against the denial. Motion failed.
Maas moved and,Swenson seconded a second motion to recommend that Barry Schneider,
the Park Director and Dock InSpectorget together and decide number of. docks appro-
priate and have .area' designated for Lost Lake area only conditioned'that it, (1)
would fall under rules and regulations of Dock Ordinance 332; and (2) that their
associationput in a bridge or walkway after getting opinion from the City Attorney
On legal liability of bridge/walkway. The vote on the motion was unanimously in
favor. Motion carried.
Park Commission Minutes
May 8, 1986 '- Page 3
Late Dock Permit Applications by' Abutti. ng'Proper~y. Owners to'Commons '
The Doc~ Inspector sent a final notice.to two abutting.property owner to'Commons
because they have not made application within the allotted time for their dock per-
mits and notice requires appearance before the Park'commission.
'Joe Andrews of 4921 i~land'View Dr)ye.was present stating 'that.he. leases the
.house and.the house has been put Oh',the.market-for sale and he'was.not sure that
he would be there this summer. He admitted he is in total vio]atlon of the ordi-
nance. He wants to pa¥'.for'the dock. space, i.f the .Commission.allows it. The fee
including i)'ate charge was discussed and also the purpose, for requiring the appear-
ance before this body.
Swenson moved and Panetta seconded'a'motion to approve-issuance of the dock per-
mit with the. payment~of.the:fee,including'the late penaltY. The vote was un-
animously in.favor,
The other person,. Hr. A. H'. Empson,'dld notappearat this. meeting. It was dls-
cussed that he i's a summer resident and perhaps did not get the letter sent to him.
Maas moved and Clough seconded.a mot[on' to table action on his dock permit and
if he doesn't appear at the next:month's meeting,.dock permit will be denied for
~his year, .:The vote.was unanimously in favor. '.
~.Poposed Street Vacation - Cresent Road
After reading t-he letter from the'City Engineer regarding this reques~,'the Park
Commission .discussed the pros and cons briefly.
.Burns moved and~C]ough seconded'almotion to recommendlthat the request be deni.ed
'because it appears that the City nAeds the use of.this portion of Cresent Road.
The vote Was unanimously in favor of the denial.
RepOrts
The Park Director reported that:Bob Johnson is back to work as of the Ist of the
month. Jim Halvorson will be leaving;, however, Andy,Manthei will'replace him.
Water fountains are being i'nstalled at Clover Circle, Three'Points.and Swenson Parks.
The volley ball courtwill 6e done by next week at. Hound Bay Park. Bids are in for
the ramp at Hound Bay.Park, Widme~.got thebid and will be re-laying new planking.
HA rePorted that.Bruce'Johnson is.not parsuing his request; he i's raising the Pitch
of his drive and adding rock,
The D9ck Inspector reviewed..hi~ report, He has succeeded in getting many people to
.share and except for one case,.everything' has gone we]l', He commented they may want
to talk about Fnc~easing the size of fine for late applications at 'the November
meeting,
Clough commented briefly on the Mound City.Days plans.
Adjournment
Burns moved and Panetta seconded a motion to-adjourn the meet)ng at 9:~$ P.M.
Al] were. in favor, so meeting was adjourned.
JOHN E BIERI UM
88 SOUTH SIXTH STREET
SUITE 925
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-1196
(612) 338-3888
May 14, 1986
Mr. Eldo Schmidt, Chairman
Mound Housing & Redevelopment Authority
c/o Mound City Hall
5341Maywood Road
Mound, MN
Dear Mr. Schmidt:
I am writing to advise you of recent developments with our redevelopment project
in Mound. We recently learned that the name "Town Square" was put under trade
mark protection by the developers of the Town Square Building in St. Paul.
This reservation of rights to use that name will seriously affect the ability of
our merchants to advertise as a group. Accordingly, we have concluded the name
of the project should be changed. We have decided to use "Commerce Place" as a
name for the project. This seems to have some relevance to the City of Mound
and reflects on the commercial activities that will be carried out there.
As you are undoubtedly aware, the construction on Commerce Place is progressing
nicely despite one potential problem. We still expect to have the center open
and available for business with the public prior to Labor Day. The clinic
should be relocated to its new quarters at about the same time.
We are quite concerned about the difficulty with obtaining possession of the Tom
Thumb store and laundromat. The Tom Thumb people have not been cooperative with
Mr.' Pearson and as a result, he has been unable to clear that property for us.
This will soon-have an adverse effect on our ability to open the center as
scheduled because of the need to coordinate the excavation, grading and
preparation of the parking lot. We had hoped that these procedures could be
performed at the same time as the work on Lynwood Avenue. I trust Mr. Pearson
will come to a reasonable solution to this problem.
1075"
Mr. E1 do Schmidt
May 14, 1986
Page 2
I would appreciate receiving any thoughts .you may have regarding these matters.
Perhaps we could make arrangements to have dinner with your fellow members of
the Authority. I would be happy to bring you all up to date on the project.
Very truly yours,
JRW PROPERTIJ~S, INC.
F. Bierbaum
President
JFB/lg
· cc: Mr. Robert Polston Mr. Curt Pearson
Mr. Ed Shukle
LEN HARRELL
Chief of Police
MOUND POLICE
5341 Maywood Road Telephone 472-3711
Mound, MN 55364 Dispatch 544-9511
EMERGENCY 911
May 21, 1986
Mound Police Officers
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Gentlemen:
I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the recent effort of the police
personnel of the Mound Police Department. The spirit of cooperation and teamwork
thathas been exhibited over the last five months has been excellent. The proof of
this effort has been in the number of good arr~s~s a~ cases cleared by %he hard
work of our officers.
Some of the major cases this year have been:
i. In January,'the armed robbery of the PDQ Store in which Sgt. Hudson, Off.
Larson, and Off. McKinley worked many hours and combined efforts to gather
information and develop a suspect.
2. In February, Off. Grand and Sgt. Hudson collectively gathered information
leading to a formal complaint against a man for aggravated forgery. The
· defendant had passed over $6,000 worth of bad checks in the Twin Cities
area.
3. Also in February, Officers Bostrom, Grand, Ewald, and Sgt. Hudson teamed
together to solve a .local burglary in which two adult residents were
formally Charged. -.
4. In April, Officers McKinley and "Mickey" gathered evidence that helped
' Sgt. Hudson gain a confession and subsequent formal charges for two auto
thefts against a local young adult'.
5. In may, there have already been a couple of significant cases that
officers have combined efforts to solve.
Officers Ewald, Truax, and Sgt. Hudson solved nine residential burglaries
through their combined effor~m. Two juvenile males were charged and
property has been recovered.
In another incident, Off. McKinley assisted Sgt. Hudson in an auto theft
case by taking the initiative to present a photo line-up that identified
a suspect; later arrested by Sgt. Hudson. A confession has been obtained
and charges are pending. /O~
Mound Police. Officers
May 21, 1986
Page Two
In a third incident this month, 'Off. Truax and Sgt. Hudson have been
gathering information about a burglary at Koenen's Amoco. Charges will be
forth-coming.
There are many other incidents of officer cooperation and team-w~rk; too'numerous
to expound.'?All'officers should:be proud of the excellent job that they have
been doing in combating crime in Mound.
Another area that officers should be proud of is'that out of 45 arrests for DWI
through the month of April, 16 have been for aggravated or gross D~'s and one
for a criminal vehicular operation. This represents 38~ of the arrests are repeat
offenders, usually the problem drinker.
I also want to recognize the excellent work that Sgt. Hudson has done in the area
of child abuse/neglect, I regularly receive comments from child'protection workers
complimenting his efforts.
Keep up the good work!
.~~.. '~~Sincerely, .. '
Een Harrell, Chief
MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT
LH/sh
cc: Ed Shukle, City Manager
Mound City Council
/07?
MINUTES OF THE
HOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
HAY 12, 1986
Present were: Chair Elizabeth Jensen; Comm~ssloners Robert Byrnes, Geoff Michael,
Thomas Reese,.Kenneth Smith, William Thal and Frank Weiland; Council Representative
Steven Smith;.City Manager Ed Shukle; Building Official Jan Bertrand and Secretary
Marjorie Stutsman. Commissioner William Meyer was absent and excused. Also present
were the following interested persons': Richard J. Williams, James L. St. George and
Joanne and LeOnard J. Koehnen.
MINUTES
The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 28, 1986 were presented for
consideration'. On the last page under Exterior Storage, Weiland asked 4 what? It
should have read "...limit the quantity of stored equipment to 4 recreational vehicles
...". Reese moved and Weiland seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the April
28, 1986 Planning Commission meeting as amended. The vote was unanimously in favor.
BOARD'OF APPEALS'.
I. Case No. '86L~15 Minor Lot' Split/Subdivision.at 5144 'Windsor Road
Lots 13, 14 and 15, Block .14, WhiPple
Richard J. Williams was present.
The Bui]dlng Official, Jan Bertrand, explained the applicant is proposigg a
mlnor subdivision'splitting three.lots lnt~ ,~o ~rcels. He' has twq_dlagrams.
marked. ExhJblts..!'A" and "B". On Exhibit. A,..it is pretty much. a rectangular_
type lot; the l.Jne would go through.the existing house and pretty much evenly.
divide the parcel.- one lot.wou.ld have 5930~square feet=and the other would
· have 6,000 square feet, .
Proposal'.B has one lot.that'Is not within 10~;'on this diagram (Lot' 13 and
part of Lot )4)., the proposed lot,line jogs'from the .NE corner of Lot 14 sbuth-
west, then south and back southeast tola point on the south Lot 14 property line
taki.ng in a portion Of Lot 13; it is not a rectangular lot and has approxlmate.ly
5680 square feet which is 320 square feet short of the required 6,000 square
feet.
The existing structure Is approximately-633~ square feet and is currently valued
at $7,200 .tax appraised value. The topography on Lot 13 has an approximate
s~ope of 10% to 12%.
The Staff recommends Proposal'A for the~slte due to the fact that the topography
is 10 to 12.percent and would afford the construction of a home more to the
upper port)on of Lot 13. She recommended the driveway entrance from Lot 13 be
restricted to a Windsor Road entrance. The existing structure on Lot 14 would
· have to be iremoved.
The Commission' had variOus questions about moving the .existing structure, how
street unit charges are determined, etc. They discussed, the request briefly.
Reese moved and Byrnes seconded a motion to recommend approval of the Staff
recommendation with the condition that the existing house be removed and ali
sideyards, and.setbacks be maintained. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
This will be on the May 27th Council agenda.
107q
Plannlng Commission Minutes
May ]2, 1986 - Page 2
Ca~e No. 86-516 Public'Hearing on'Proposed Vacation of a Portion of Cresent
Road abutting Lots l'and 2, Block. 3, Linden Heights Addition. Applicant also
owns Lots. 3. and 4,' Block 3, Linden Heights Addition. His request includes
trading portion of Lots 2 and 4 for the portion' of Ct,sent proposed to be
vacated. James' L. St. George was present.
The Building Official, Jan Bertrand, explained that Hr. St.. George is suggesting.
that we trade land with him in order, to make Lot 1 more of a. rectangle shape.and a
buildable:.site. His survey shows that he is surrounded by 4 streets~ Heron
LaneFis unimproved as Is CreSent.Road.-.Sparrow Road i's improved and so is
Sumach Lane to the park. The City sent out.notiflcatJons to the abutting
neighbors and util'ity companies. Minnegasco, Contel and the Police Department
have responded and see.no need for this .portion of the street. The City Engineer
stated there are no .utilit'ies in' this. portion, but his recommendation would go
along wjth~the'PubJIc Works Departmen't; They use thi. s portion of land for
storing snow In the winter. She. stated, applicant, would probably need variances
in order to make proposed lot a bulldable site.
Mr. St. George stated.the City'has been dumping snow on his land for'years. He
thought they could dump off of Sumach and pushSnow back. He believes he will
be able to get.another building site {6.,O00.sq~are foot rectangular lot) if
portion Of street"iS vacated and trade iS made,..He stated shoreline-is eroding
and there is 'only about 15 feet between Lot.4 and the-lak~ Sumach Lane is im-
proved down'to the entrance to Ct,sent Park'
The Commission dis'cussed the request, commissioner Byrnes stated Cresent is
flat' and.he thought there might be more. of an area to'pile snow and it was low
enough not to Interfere with.view from house.' He thought they could drive .in
and drop the snow. Tax base would be increased'if a house were built.
The Chair opened the-public hearing. No one responded, so Chair closed the
public hearing.
Byrnes moved to'recommend granting this request. There was no second, so
motion died..
Michael moved a second motion, whi. ch was seconded.by Re,se to recommend the
denial of Che request based on'the. Cilty 'Engineer's and City Strpet Superin-
tendent's recommendations.
The'Commission questioned.what the'Park Department's recommendation was. The
Building Officla] stated the Park Commission denied the request at their meeting
and the Park Director, while they don't use the park that much, reiterated that
.the Street Department needs a place to store things and drop'off the snow. It
would narrow the access. The Commission suggested app))cant find out number of
square feet.proposed lot would have 'and setbacks for a proposed building before
the pub)ic hearing.
The vote on the motion was all in favor of denial except Byrnes voted against.
Motion carried.
The Council will be asked to set the public hearing for the June 10th meeting.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 12, 1986 - Page 3
3. Case No. 86-517 Side Yard.Setback Variance for 2151 Cedar Lane
'Lot 26 and 1/2 of.LOt27, Block 2, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park
Joanna and Leonard Koehnen were present.
The Building Official exp!ained th'at the Koehnens' want to put in an attached
garage 20'by 26 foot to be placed h feet from the.side lot line with a one foot
gable overhang.. The front setback would be 35 feet to match the existing home.
The appli.cantj Joanna Koehnen stated the north side yard setback is 9 feet
from'the.property line; at the'time the existing house was built, the setback
was 7 feeti; The R-3 Zoning'District requires .10 .foot.sideyards except for lots
of record .which allows one side .yard may be reduced to 6 feet when the lot width
is between.hO and 80 feet.' The Building 0fficial recommends approval of the
side yardsetbaCk Yariance of 2. feet and also--recognize the existing north side
yard setback of 9,feet instead of the'required 10 feet. Shestateda further
requirement would be that wall within 4 feet of south lot line have 5/8 inch
type X sheetroCk or equal on the inside of the garage wall and that no additions
be'constructed in the' future without additional City Council approval.
Weiland moved and Reese seconded a motion to recommend approval with the staff
recommendations 'and recognizing the nonconforming sid&yard setbacK.
The CommiSsion di'scussed the request and-if w~s brought up that a si'6gle garage
could be built'without.another variance; Ken Smith was in favor of more leeway
on existing homes if they need variances'to make them look better. _
The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor.
Discussion'of Signage for Tonka West Business Center
The request from Balboa Hinnesota .Company was discussed briefly including that
Item "f" of Resolution No. 85-87 requires a comprehensive signage plan to be sub-
mi'tted and approved. The Building Official stated she can't issue permits for
signs without their coming t'hrough. The City Manager advised that he would with-
draw the request from the Council' agenda.
Weiland moved and' Byrnes seconded a motion that request be tabled due to no
plans being presented. The vote was all in favor except Ken Smith voted against.
The Commission questioned a temporary structureerected for the Ben Franklin Store.
Adjournment
Byrnes moved and Weiland seconJed a motion to adjoUrn the meeting at 8:30 P.M.
All were in favor, so meeting was adjourned.
Elizabeth Jensen, Chair
Attest: