The URL can be used to link to this page

86-07-08 CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA A~ENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, JULY 8, 1986 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. Approve Minutes of the June 24, 1986, Regular Meeting Pg. 1283-1294 Commendation to Fritz Soule ~'k%,%qg~Pg. 1295 2. Presentation of 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Vacation of a Portion of Three Points Blvd. abutting Lots 13, 14 & 15, Block 25, Shadywood Point yCASE ~-~~ ~ubdivision, Carl H_~_~ ~ PID #23-~3_117-24 13 Audito ' 5. Pg. 1296-1305 0056, Pg. 1306-1312 CASE ~86-518 & ~19 & ~20: Steve Coddon, Lots 6, 7, & 8, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores, PID #'s 13-117-24 22 0046, 21 0052, & 0051 Request: Lot Size Variances all Three Lots & Front Yard Setback Variance Pg. 1313-1326 6. Consideration of Modification of the Zoning Code to Establ'ish Minimum Height and Width Regulations for Housing ..~ 7. Set Date for Public Hearing: To Amend the Recreation Equipment Definition in the Zoning Code and Modify the Exterior Storage Provisions (Section 23.702) Suggested Date: August ~, 1986 8. Set Date for Public Hearing: For Subdivision of Property Beachwood Road Area Suggested Date: July 22, 1986 Pg. 1338 Pg. 1327-1334 Pg. 1335-1337 9. Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present 10. Discussion: Liquor Liability Insurance (Dram Shop) Pg. 1339-1341 11. Discussion: Lost Lake Subdivision - Dock Proposal Pg. 1342-1349 12. Bid Award: Lynwood Blvd./Fairview Lane Improvment (To be handed out at the meeting) 13. Payment Request #1 - Lynwood Blvd. & Tuxedo Blvd. Proj. Pg. 1350-1357 14. License Approvals Pg. 1358 Page 1281 15. Payment of Bills 16. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. Department Heads June 1986, Monthly Reports B. 1987 LMCD Budget C. ~: Orientation Meeting with Maxfield Research Group, Inc., Wednesday, July 9, 1986, 7:30 P.M., Council Chambers D. Report from Mound City Days Committee E. Planning Commission Minutes - June 23, 1986 F. Park Commission Minutes - June 12, 1986 17. Adjourn Pg. 1359-1371 Pg. 1372-1398 Pg. 1399-1 407 Pg. 1408-1410 Pg. 14~1 Pg. 1412-1416 Pg. 1417-1419 Page 1 282 94 June 1R86 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING JUNE 24, 1986 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, June 24, 1986, at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Acting Mayor Russ Peterson, Coun¢ilmembers Phyllis Jessen, Gary Paulsen, and Steve Smith. Mayor Bob Polston was absent and excused. Also present were: City Manager, Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City Attorney Jim Larson, City Engineer John Cameron, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building Official Jan Bertrand, Public Works Superintendent Geno Hoff, Sewer & Water Superintendent Greg Skinner, and 'the following interested citizens: Reuben Hartman, Larry Beno, Eldo Schmidt, Ernie Johnson, Jim Nordby, Cheryl Grand, Klm Ryan, James Swietlik, Nancy Clough, Dell Rudolph, David Banghart, Christie Blank, Myrtle Blank, S. John Roach, J. KYalsten, Ron Gray, Clara Paz, Nancy K. inser, Rodney Larson, Pam Swihart, Lynne Schulz, Janes Walden, Steve and Sue Schmidt, Bill Alexander, Lucy Hahn, Bonnie & Gary Bernvold, Bob Byrnes, Duane Barth, John Thorsen, Janette Gellman. The Acting Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. There were additions made to the Agenda. The Minutes of the June 10, 1986, Regular Council Meeting were presented for consideration. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Paulsen to approve the Minutes of the June 10, 1986, Regular Meeting, as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: DELINOUENT UTILITY BILLS The City Manager reported that the amount is down to $1,291.13. Acting Mayor Peterson opened the public hearing and asked if there was anyone present who wished to address the Council regarding a delinquent utility bill. No one responded. He then closed the public hearing. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-70 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE DELINQUENT UTILITY BILLS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,291.13 AND AUTHORIZING THE STAFF TO SHUTOFF WATER SERVICE FOR THOSE ACCOUNTS 95 June 24, 1986 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE ~86-509 & 86-510: CONSIDERATION OF PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR COOKS BAY ESTATES - CREATIVE DEVELOPERS~ BLOCK 1~ MN~ BAPTIST SUMMER ASSEMBLY - PID ~2~-117- The City Planner explained that the developer has submitted an alternate preliminary plat for consideration which shows 6 single family, R-1 lots with a half circle drive off of Highland Blvd. This plan meets City Code and requires no variance approval or conditional .use approval· There is a minor problem with Lot 3 that would have to be taken care of before final plat approval. Staff is recommending approval with the 8 conditions listed in the Planner's letter of June 2~ 1986. The Planning Commission had a tie vote on this item. The followi.ng persons spoke against the above preliminary plat for the reasons listed below. John Thoresen, 5845 Fairfield Road Rod Larson, 2976 Highland Blvd. Steve & Suzanne Schmidt, 2986 Highland Blvd. Pam Swihart, 2896 Highland Blvd. ......... Nancy Kinser, 2848 Highland Blvd'. Larry Beno, 2885 Highland Bvd. Jeanette Gellman, 3056 Highland..:Blvd. Bonnie Birnbaum, 3110 Highland Blvd. Reasons: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 11. Concern that the City will have another street to maintain and snow plowing would be difficult. It leaves the neighborhood with 4 major intersections which are offset. It would increase traffic in the area. There is no benefit to having another street. Would prefer 4 houses all having frontage on Highland Blvd. This beautiful lot would be downgraded by developin'g 6 home sites. It should be left for larger lots. Don't want 6 tiny houses crammed on small lots. This would cause undue stress on water and sewer facilities in the neighborhood which would cause more watermain breaks. Against the appearance of the project. Half circle drive is the only way the developer could squeeze in the sixth lot and still meet the City Code. All the street accesses will be extremely dangerous to children in the area using the park. 96 June 24, 1986 Mr. Barth stated that these lots as proposed will sell for an estimated price of $80,000 to $90,000 and all the houses built on the property would be in the $200,000 range. All would be designed differently. The homeowners association would maintain the area in the middle of the half circle drive, would be landscaped and signage would meet City Code. Each home would have at least a 30 foot double wide driveway off the newly created street. The houses would be 75 to 90 feet from the lakeshore. Removal of the present building would be sometime yet this year. There will be 6 individual docks, one for each lot. Councilmembers Jessen, Paulsen and Peterson agreed on the following: 1. That the alternate plan that has been submitted for consideration is the best. 2. The half circle drive is safer than having 6 driveways on Highland Blvd.. 3. The half circle street is a good buffer for the development. 4. The project meets all city requirements. Peterson moved and Paulsen seconded by following resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-71 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT OF COOKS BAY ESTATES WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDED 8 CONDITIONS BE MET Councilmember Smith stated~that he will have to vote no on this because the road is a ~i~titious road put in only to allow the six lot and this is not upholding the integrity of the Zoning Ordinance. The vote was 3 in favor with Smith voting nay. Motion carried. CASE ~86-521:' KlM RYAN~ 6~6R RAMBLER LANE? LOT 2~ BLOCK 57 MOUND TERRACE~ PID $14-117-24 ~2 0027? SETBACK VARIANCE FOR EXISTING STRUCTURE The Building Official explained that the applicant has applied for a variance to allow the existing 11.6 by 25.2 foot unenclosed south deck to be remodeled, enclosing it and converting it to part of the existing living area of the home with a setback of 3.6 feet to the rear property line at the southeast corner of the .building. There is an 8 foot wide unimproved alleyway easement to the south and a 30 foot unimproved Forest Lane right-of-way to the west. The Staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval due to the topography and shape of the lot. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-72 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE AN EXISTING SETBACK '97 June 24, 1986 VARIANCE FOR LOT 2, BLOCK 5, MOUND TERRACE, PID ~14-117-24 32 0027 (6363 RAMBLER ROAD) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE ~86-522: CHRISTIE & MYRTLE BLANK~ ~60 DORCHESTER RD.. LOTS 18 & lq~ BLOCK 12~ AVALON~ PID ~14-117-2~ ~ 00~2 LOT SIZE VARIANCE & EXISTING FRONT YARD VARIANCE The Building Official explained that the applicants have applied for a variance to allow the construction of an 11 foot 7 inch by 13 foot 3 inch and a 4 foot 8 inch by 15 foot addition to an existing structure, plus a 10 foot by 10 foot deck and an attached 24 foot by 24 foot garage on an undersize lot of 6400 square feet with a front yard setback of 19.5 feet to the front property line. The Planning Commission has recommended approval with the following conditions: 1. The new construction of the garage will be conforming in setbacks as well as the deck and addition to the northeast corner of the building. 2. That the applicant negotiate with the City of Mound to obtain p.art of Lots 12 & 13 Block 12, Avalon, above the wetlands elevation of 940.3 NGVD. 3.That the house be brought up to' current building codes. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-73 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE LOT SIZE AND EXISTING FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCES FOR LOTS 18 & 19, BLOCK 12, AVALON, PID ~19- 117-23 31 0042 (4560 DORCHESTER ROAD) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE ~86-52~1: J.F. KVALSTEN~ ~12~ WINDSOR LANE~ LOTS 7 & 8~ BLOCK 17~ WHIPPLE~ PID ~2~-117-24 12 012~ RECOG- NIZE EXISTING NONCONFORMING REAR YARD $ETBACK The Building Official explained that the applicant has applied for a variance to allow structural modification to the basement level of her home with a maximum amount of $7,500 applied toward the improvement. The existing rear yard is 4 feet, 8 inches from the rear lot line. The Planning Commission has recommended approval upon the condition that a survey be submitted within 30 days. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-74 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVE THE VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING REAR 98 June 1986 YARD SETBACK FOR LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 17, WHIPPLE, PID #25-117-24 12 O125 (5125 WINDSOR ROAD) Nancy Clough, 5132 Waterbury, stated she is concerned that taxpayers money is being used to do this and there is no condition that the rest of the property be brought up to current codes. She further stated that there is only 3 feet to the rear property line. She further complained about Ms. Kvalsten's dogs barking and running between the Kvalsten home and the Clough fence. Ms. Kvalsten's attorney, John Roach, stated that she is receiving a housing grant from HUD to repair the basement so she can continue to live there. He stated she is a single mother and needs the dogs for protection, but that they have never bitten anyone. The Building Official stated that the maintenance repairs will conform to all codes. Councilmember Smith asked why this property should not have to be brought completely up to code as the previous one was. Mr. Roach replied that he feels this is maintenance that has to be done in order for Ms. Kvalsten to live here, not an improvement and that she cannot afford to do anymore at this "time. The City Attorney agreed that he does not see this case the same as the previous one. The vote on the resolution was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE $86-525: ERNEST & LOUISA JOHNSON~ 4651 MANCHESTER RD.~ LOTS 9 & 22? BLOCK 87 WYCHWOOD~ PID $1q-117-2~ ~2 0081~ FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE The Building Official explained that Mr. Johnson is requesting a variance in front yard setback to allow the construction of a 20 foot by 26 foot detached garage within 16 feet of the Cumberland Road curb line or 15 feet (plus or minus) to the property line at the closest point. The Planning Commission recommended approval upon the condition that the garage be lined up with and no closer to the right-of-way than the garage to the east, due to the topography of the lots. Smith moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-75 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVE A 4 FOOT FRONT YARD VARIANCE FOR LOTS 9 AND 22, BLOCK 8, W¥CHWOOD, PID 19-117-23 32 0081 (4651 '99 June 24, 1986 MANCHESTER ROAD) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT The Acting Mayor asked if there was anyone present who wished to comment or make a suggestion to the City Council. No one responded. PORT HARRISON TOWNHOMES ~ The City Engineer explained that he drove past the Port Harrison Townhomes and observed that the driveway and parking area had been paved, but no concrete curb and gutter was installed as was in the preliminary and final site plans which were a part of Resolution #85-151. Mr. Nordby was present and submitted two letters to the City Council, one from the 2 residents living in the townhomes and one from the architect. Both letters encouraged the Council to drop the requirement for concrete curb and gutter. The residents are happy with the paving as it has been done. The City Engineer stated that the blacktop curbing that has been installed is functioning properly so he had no objection to the Council accepting the change. Paulsen moved and Peterson seconded.~-the following resolution: RESOLUTION #86-76 RESOLUTION TO AMEND THE SITE PLAN FOR THE PORT HARRISON TOWNHOMES, DELETING THE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER AND ALLOWING BLACKTOP The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CHANGE ORDERS: L¥.NW00D BLVD. & COMMERCE pLACE The City Engineer explained Change Order #1, Lynwood Blvd, Revisions and Additions to Contract. Regarding Item #77, if the City provides the street light pole and fixture, then the City Engineer will negotiate with the owners of the old Super Valu building to see if they will pay the $1,649.50 to have it installed. Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION 986-77 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER #1, LYNWOOD BLVD. - MSAP 145-104-03, IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,992.00 CONTINGENT UPON THE OWNERS OF THE SUPER VALU BUILDING PAYING FOR ITEM ~77 IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,649.50 100 June P4, 1986 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The City Engineer then explained Change Order #2, Lynwood Blvd., Additional Work for Mound HRA - Commerce Place. He reported that he met with the Mound HRA before this meeting and they have approved the Change Order. Jessen moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION {86-78 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER ~2, LYNWOOD BLVD. MSAP 145-104-O3, ADDITIONAL WORK FOR MOUND HRA - COMMERCE PLACE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $70,054.20 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. ORDINANCE AMENDMENT - CHAPTER 11 & CHAPTER ~2 The City Manager explained that this item was held over at the last meetin~ until more research could be done on requiring public liability insurance as a condition for obtaining an on- sale liquor license and how much dram shop (liquor liability) insurance other cities were requiring. Mr. Earl Bailey was present and reviewed the letter he had prepared for the Council. He recommended that if the Council wished to keep the section on public liability insurance, that it be in the amount of $500,000. On the question of dram shop (liquor liability insurance) he r.~eeommended that the Council increase those amounts to $300,00b because most cities in the Metro area are requiring more than the state mandated minimum of $50,000/$100,000 due to increased exposure to lawsuits. The Council discussed the pros and cons of requiring an applicant to provide public liability insurance. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Peterson to delete from Chapter 11, Section 11.50, subdi%ision 14, subsecton (1), requiring an on-sale liquor license applicant to provide public liability insurance as a condition of license issuance. The vote was 2 in favor with Paulsen and Smith voting nay. Motion'failed. Paulsen moved and smith seconded the following: ORDINANCE t487 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 11.15, 11.50, 1180, AND 32.07 OF THE CITY CODE RELATING TO UNDER AGE PERSONS AND LIQUOR LIABILITY INSURANCE This ordinance amendment made the necessary wording changes in the above listed sections and amended Section 11.50, Subdivision 14, subsection (1) inserting $300,000 in the two 101 June 24, 1986 blanks for public liability insurance. The vote was 3 in favor with Jessen voting nay. Motion carried. MOTION by Smith, seconded by Peterson to table the matter of increasing dram shop (liquor liability insurance) requirements until the next meeting so that Mr. Bailey can bring more data supporting on why the City should increase these limits. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. LEASE FOR STORAGE SPACE FROM BALBOA MINNESOTA CORP This item was held over from the last meeting. The City Manager · reported that Balboa is willing to enter into a 1 year lease with the City to lease 6,774 square feet of space in the Spring Park facility. This would be strictly for storage and would, only provide enough space to store the seasonal equipment of the Street Dept. and Sewer & Water Dept. The Park Dept. would still not have any place to keep their trucks, mowers or miscellaneous equipment. The Council asked Geno Hoff, Public Works Supt., and Greg Skinner, Water & Dept. Supt. what they thought about leasing this space. .They both commented that it was a lot of money to spend but that the equipment is worth a lot too and they felt this justified the cost. MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Smith to authorize the Mayor and the Manager to en£er into a lease agreement, approved by the City Attorney, to lease 6,774 square feet of storage space from Balboa Minnesota Corporation, in the Spring Park facility. The terms to be as follows: $2.50 per sq. ft. net-net-net $16,935 per year $1,411.25 monthly 1st and last month rent due on occupancy Lease Term: 1 year Operating Costs: Currently $.62 per square foot. (cap at $1.00) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. REOUEST FOR PORTABLE SIGNS - INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL Bob Byrnes was present representing Our Lady of the Lake Church who is requesting approval for 5 foot by 9 foot portable signs to advertise the Incredible Festival from 3-5 days at a time in the following locations: 1. The parking lot across from the Ben Franklin 2. At A1 & Alma's 3. On the front lawn at Our Lady of the Lake School 4. At the Texaco station at Commerce Blvd. & Three Point 102 June 24, 1986 Blvd. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to allow Our Lady of the Lake Church to advertise the Incredible Festival with their portable signs at the locations listed above. Time limit the signs can be up is 3-5 days in one spot, from July 19 through August 3rd. Also to allow them to have a balloon that will advertise the Incredible Festival and Mound Crazy Days. The fee was, also waived. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. LICENSE RENEWALS The following licenses expire on June 30, 1986. period is 7-1-86 to 6-30-87. The new License OFF-SALE BEER A1 & Alma's Brickley's Market (formerly Mound Superette) PDQ Food Store SuperAmerica ON-SALE BEER A1 & Alma's House of Moy · CLUB LICENSE American Legion #398 VFW #5113 ON-SALE LIOUOR Captain Billy's Donnie's on the Lake A1 & Alma' s A1 & Alma's House of Moy DINNER DANCE Captain Billy's Northwest Tonka Lions - Wagon Train Day - June 21 & 22, 1986: Charitable Beer Set-Ups Publi- Dance Fireworks MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Smith to authorize the issuance of the above listed licenses as requested. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PAYMENT OF BILLS The bills were presented for consideration. MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Smith to approve the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list, in the amount of $171,113.79, when funds are available. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. '103 June 24, 1986 REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY SIGN - MOUNT OLIVE LUTHERAN CHURCH Ms. Lynne Sehulz was present requesting a temporary sign permit to allow a 24 sq. ft. sign advertising Vacation Bible School, to be up from July 10 to August 10, in the yard of the church on the Wilshire Blvd. side. There would also be a 3 foot high sign at Video Update on the corner of County Rd. 15 and Wilshire Blvd. for approximately 1 week prior to the Vacation Bible School. She also asked for permission to place several smaller signs on the way to Mount Olive. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jessen to approve the temporary signs permit for Mount Olive Lutheran Church as requested above, waiving the fee. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PAYMENT REQUEST ~1 - BARTLETT BLVD. REPAIR MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Smith to approve Payment Request ~1 (Bartlett Blvd. Project) in the amount of $40,788.91. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PAYMENT REQUEST ~1 & CHANGE ORDER ~1 - BEACHWOOD POND MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Paulsen to approve Payment Request tl (Beachwood Pond) in the amount of $21,028.37. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Jessen moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-79 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER ~1, BEACHWOOD POND The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. .DESIGNATE NEW POLLING PLACE FOR PRECINCT Jessen moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~86-80 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING MOUNT OLIVE LUTHERAN CHURCH AS THE NEW POLLING PLACE FOR PRECINCT 91 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS May 1986 Financial Report prepared by Finance Director John Norman. B. Planning Commission Minutes - June 9, 1986. 104 June 24, 1986 LOST LAKE MARKET ANALYSIS The City Manager stated that he has hired the Maxfield Research Group to do the Lost Lake Market Analysis. There will be a meeting with the Maxfield group on July 9, 1986, at 7:30 P.M. in the City Council .Chambers. He is asking all Councilmembers, Planning Commission Members, and others who can to attend. MOTION made by Peterson, seconded by Jessen to adjounr at 11.15 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr. City Manager Fran Clark, CMC, City Clerk BILLS -juNE 24, 1986 Computer Batch 864061 dated 6/14/86 C~pUter Batch 864062 dated 6/18/86 Total Bills 132,228.42 38,885.37 171.113.79 RESOLUTION NO. 86-63 RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION FOR FRITZ SOULE WHEREAS, Fritz Soule plans to retire after a career of 30 years teaching social studies and 16 years as Athletic Director in the Mound Westonka School District; and WHEREAS, these years have been marked by dedicated service to the youth of this community as teacher, coach, athletic director, friend, and general counselor for thousands of young people; and WHEREAS, during his illustrious career, he has compiled a long list of honors, awards, and special activities, including: Heading the Mound Westonka Athletic Association - 26 yrs. Association with American Legion Baseball -'27 yrs. One of the founders of the Little League in this area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby convey to Fritz Soule this expression of its sincere appreciation for his many years of dedicated service to the community and its youth, and does hereby extend to him and his family its best wishes for many happy and successful years in the future. Robert D. Polston, Mayor ADOPTED BY UNANIMOUS VOTE ON MAY 27, 1986. CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSED VACATION OF A PORTION OF THREE POINTS BOULEVARD ABUTTING LOTS 13, 14 AND 15, BLOCK 25, SHADYWOOD POINT TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that.a meeting will be held at the City Hall, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, at 7:30 P.M. on the 8th day of July, 1986, to consider, the vacation of a portion of the following described unimproved platted street: Part of Three Points Boulevard (formerly known as Shadywood Boulevard) abutting Lots 13, ]4 and 15, Block 25, Shadywood Point. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the above will be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk~ McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS 3.Jne 19, 1986 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Jan Bertrand Planning and Zoning City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 SUBSECT: Oennings Road Street Vacation MKA File #Zll3 Dear Jan: As requested, we have reviewed the above proposed street vacation and offer the following comments and recommendations. Because of the three streets intersecting at one point, a large area of right-of-way was created which is not necessary for the actual driven street. Enclosed is a legal description for the subject vacation which describes the area we believe is unnecessary for the City to retain for street purposes. There is sanitary sewer located within this proposed vacation; therefore, utility easements have been retained over a portion. Ample room has been left behind the existing curbs for other purposes such as underground public utilities. We would recommend this street vacation be approved as presented. Very truly yours, McCOHBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Oohn Cameron OC:cah 1 77 Case N~; 8&-526 Public, Hear'lng on Proposed ~acatlon of portion of Three Points'.Bo~levard abuttlng'Lots-13,.l~.and 15, Block 25, Shadywood Point Robert"Fields..was present for. applicant, Brian Zubert The'City Planner, Mark Koegler, .stated'there is a report In the packet ' from th~ Citx Engineer's Office. Acea is'on Jennings.Road; 3 streets come together ~here and there is a very expansive right-of-way whic~ is not necessary for street purposes~ There are easements located within this '; proposed vacation; the'staff' recommendation by the City Eng;neer is to approve vacation subject to retaining utility and drainage easements. Hr. Fields stated the .reasOn' for the.requ~t'~as that when they went to set the house on tKe. lot, they di~cove.red'our setback caused'the house to be aligned w~th'the bend:in street direction; hence, hbuse would be facing' southwest ghen'the street actua11~ runs'in a northeast direction. They ~ant to'straighten the house.out'~ith other hous&s'do~vn the block.' The Commission questioned.If they intended to rearrange the curb llne. Koegler stated they only plan for'title of land to go to applicant with easements. Physically, it wou~d not look any different. It ~as discussed ~hat the little sliver in front of Lot 12 would go to the'owner of that 16t'. The Commission had questions on whether Lot 15 would become build- able ~ith the additlonal, vacated land. The Chair noted that-this was a public hearing; being ~s there were no persons present relative to this vacation; she closed the publlc hearing. Thai'moved and ~¥rnes. seconded a. motion to recommend approval of the street vacation as requested along Lots 12 through 15, Block 25, Shady- wood.~oint, per City. Engineer's recommendation and legal descriptlon. The vote was unanimously in favor. Hotlon carried. This wi.'11 be heard' by the. City Councll on the 8th day of July, APPLICATION FOR STREET CITY OF MOUND Highway 7, Minnetonka, ~ VACATION 55345 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY APPLICANT: PID # CASE NO.~F~- FEE $150.OO DATE FILED LOT 11, 12, 13: & 14 BLOCK 25 SUBDIVISION Shadywood Point STREET TO BE VACATED That part of Three Points Blvd. lying between existing curb and property line east of ~.eron Lane. REASON FOR REQUEST To straighten out lot lines in accordance with the exiating street in order to accomodate proper positioning of houses on these lots. Also to correct original plat of Three Points Blvd. inter- section with Heron and Sumach Lanes. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT ADDRESS 15612 Highway 7, Suite 310 TEL. NO. 938-1982 pplicant's Interest in Property O~-~er Residents and owners of property abutting the street to be vacated: see attached list. (Please attach llst. Certified mailing list can be obtained from Hennepln County. by calling 348-3271) Recommended by Utilities: NSP ~ Minnegasco ~ ; Continental Telephone Recommended by City:. Public Works ~;~ ; Fire Chief ---- ; Engineer ; Police Chief ----- ; Cable Systems ; Other Departments Planning Commission Recommendation: Date Counci) Action Resolution No. Date McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENOINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS al PLANNERS Reply To: 12800 Industrial Perk Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Vacation of Part of 3ennings Road formerly known as Navajo Road and Retaining Utiiity and Drainage Easement That part of 3ennings Road, formeriy known as Navajo Road, as donated and dedicated to the pubIic and shown on the piat of SHADYWOOD POINT, according to the recorded piat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, which iies northeriy of, as measured radiaI to and paraiiei with the center iine of Three Points Bouievard, now known as Shadywood Bouievard as shown on the piat of said SHADYWOOD POINT; southeriy of the south line of Lots i2, i~, i4 and i5, Biock 25, SHADYWOOD POINT and northeasteriy of the foiiowing described iine: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Lot i5, BIock 25, SHADYWOOD POINT; Thence Southeasteriy defiecting 60 degrees right from the south line of said Lot i5, to its intersection with the above described paraiiei iine ~ feet northerly of the center iine of Three Points Bouievard and said iine there terminating. The City of Mound reserves an easement.-for utility and drainage purposes over, under and across that part of the above described vacated Oennings Road which lies south of a line 15 feet south of, as measured at a right angle to, and parallel with the south line of said Lots 12, l~, 14 and 15, Block 25. 6/19/86 #2113 /$oo 12B.o9 'oeos Exhi bi t "A" CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 June 10, 1fl86 Cable Systems - Dow Sat of Hound Continental Telephone Company Minnegasco ~Northern States Power Company McCombs KnutsonAssoclates Public Works Department Re: Proposed vacation of a 'portion 'of Three Points Boulevard abutti.ng Lots 13, 1/4 and 15, Block 25, .$hadywood Point The City of Mound is considering a request to .vacate a portion of Three Points Boulevard. abutting Lots 13., 1/4 and 15, Block 25, Shadywood Point as shown on the map below. Do-'you foresee any need for this portion of the street? Planning and Zoning Department LAKE M I NNETONKA i~0J' PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 86-526 RESOLUTION N0..86- RESOLUTION VACATING CERTAIN STREET EASEMENT AND RETAINING FOR THE CITY AN UTILITY EASEMENT OVER, UNDER.AND ACROSS THAT PART OF THE DESCRIBED VACATED JENNINGS ROAD (NAVAJO ROAD) WHEREAS,. Minnesota Statutes, Sect:ion 412.851 provides that the City Council may by resolution vacate any street, alley, public grounds, or public way, or any part thereof, when it appears in'the interest of the public to do so; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound has claimed a street and utility easement over the following described land: law; and That part of Jennings Road, formerly known as Navajo .Road, as donated and dedicated to the public and shown on the plat of Shadywood Polnt, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota; WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on July 8, 1986, as required by WHEREAS, it has been determined that good area planning requires-that these easements be vacated and that a portion be retained as a ut).lity easement and that it wou]d be in the public interest to do so. 'NOW~ THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby vacates: That part of Jennings Road, formerly known as Navajo Road, as donated and dedicated to the public and shown on the plat of Shadywood Point, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin C6unty,.Minnesota, which lies northerly of, as measured radial to and parallel with'the center line of Three Point's Boulevard, formerly known as Shadywood Boulevard as shown on the plat of sald Shadywood Point; southerly.of the south tine of Lots 12, 13, 14 and )5, Block 25,'Shadywood Point and northeasterly of the followlng described line: Beginning at the southwest corner of said Lot 15, Block 25, Shadywood Point; Thence Southeater)y deflecting 60 degrees right from the south line of said Lot 15, to its intersection with the above ~escrJbed para.llel line 33 feet northerly of the center line of Three Points Boulevard and Said line there terminating and as shown on Exhibit A. The City of Hound reserves an easement for utility and drainage pur- poses over, under and across that part of the above described vacated Jennings ROad which lies south of line 15 feet south of, as.measured at a right angle to, and parallel with the south line of said Lots 12, )3, 14 and 15, Block 25. A certified copy of this resolution shall be prepared by the City Clerk and shall be a notice of completion of the proceedings and shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder and/or the Registrar of Titles as set forth in M.S.A. 412.851. 12'/.PI ~ne 16, 1R86 Oan Bertrand Planning and Zoning - City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 SUBOECT: Proposed Subdivision Carl Hanson Property Case #86-527 MKA File #7960 C~ar ~n: We have reviewed the material available on the proposed subdivision and have the following comments and recommendations. l) It is our understanding the parcel B of this proposed subdivision is to be combined with Lot 3, Block l, Langdon's Landing. We would recommend this subdivision be approved only on this condition, otherwise Parcel B will not have access to a public street. 2) Due to the fact this parcel is to be. combined with Lot 3, Block l, Langdon's Landing we would suggest that the proposed lot line between parcels A & B be shifted approximately 15 feet north to match the southeasterly lot corner of Lot 3, Block l, Langdon's Landing. By shifting the proposed lot line, 750 square feet would be added to Parcel A, resulting in a total area of 9,750 square feet, which is much closer to the lO, O00 s.f. requirement of the R-1 zoning. 3) It should be understood that the existin9 home on the newly created parcel .A is non-conforming because it does not meet the City's minimum square footage requirement and as previously mentioned the lot is undersized, both in area and width. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact me. Very truly yours, McCOHBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Oohn Cameron ,3C:tdv Case No. $6-5l? Subdtvlslon of Land - 59~2 'and 59~0 Beachwood Road .All of'the west'5~ feet of Lot ~7, Audit0r'$ Subdivi$'ion 168 Carl Hanson, applicant, wa~ present. The Pl;nner reviewed t~e City £ng)neer's report. There'~s presently a strdcture on. Parcel A and not on Parcel B. Structure,on Parcel B was recently removed. The.request is bas,icall¥ to adjust the lot line on the two tracts whlr. h ~ould make Parcel A 9,000 square.feet and pamrcel B 10,000 .square feet. JohH .Cameron had a.couple of concerns.~ one was that the new lot llne had'the opportunity to l'lne up wlth an existi.ng l~t corner (iron shown on the survey); therefore, he had recommended shifting the lot ' line 15 feet whlch would redistribute, the lot area a little bit. .It would make Lot A ~,750 square feet and Lot B 9,250 square feet. Camer6~' has offered you three recommendations: 1) If division is approved as ~hown, . ParcellB will remain landlocked and Englneer. is' recommending that Parcel B be comblned with Lot 3', Block 1L Langdon~s Landlng, which is not shown on this exhibit. Thls would have street access onto the cul,de-sac; Plannlng staff Wou)d concur with this 'reCommendation.', The.2nd point would be shift of lot line 15 feet .northward which would redistrlbute the area somewhat and he notes ia item 3 ~hat thai w~ll s~lll.result in. Parcel A being ~,750 which is under the Ordinance standard;.it has a house bn It, however, and the actual change'In lot llne Cameron proposes will create a llttle larger rear yard area than'what is proposed on the plan. The other item not contalne~ Fin that report and should be part of any motion ls that the appllcant has requested a.waiver of"the subdivlslon requirements for publlc hearlng and'platting. Thls would be a slmple subdivision and therefore, there was no'public hea~ing notlce sent to abutting neighbors of this particular proposal. Mr. Hanson stated he~s trying to lsolate the property on the road so he can dlspose of it;'the other portion he wants to sell to someone who will.develop it. ~e's.ellmjnated all of the easements. The Commlsslon'had questions about the land and access tO.publlc"rlght-of-way. He proposed the line as far to the south as posslbl.e, because that.seemed to m~e the most sense in connectlon wlth sornebodg's ult.imate development of it with the other 50 foot lot {shown as PID 23-117-2h 13 0023). Commission asked what lots they were talking about?' The Planner explained that on the half section in the packet, parcels P)D 23-117-2h 13' O02h and 002_~5; parcel P ID 23-)17-2h 13 O02_~G, which is the 'lO foot easement sinc-~combi~ed and then PID 23-117-2q 13 O02._~3would be 5D loot strip to east recent]y acqulred. Hanson explained that legal des-, scription of property on title certlficate was north 1/2 and south l/2. Because Of the topography where it drops down.hill, he feels it does not make sense to move the line north. He stated the easement was ellmlnated through a proceedings.subsequent because. It was not needed {only a l0 foot strlp). The Commission discussed'Parcel'B on the propose.d land divlslon to be marketed wlth Lot 3, Block l, Langdon'.S Landing, which would be the ultlmate access into PJrcel B, and moving the, lot llhe. north 15 feet to make Parcel A closer to minlmum lot'size requirements. The staff recommendation is that. Parcel"B, PID 23-117-2~ 13 002~3, be combined with Lot 3, Block'J, Langdon's Landing. In as much as applicant is proposing tq sell it as a package,-he'wouid.have no objection to combinlng all th6ee together. THis would be'simply'for record.keeping and does offer, the City protection that these will be sold as a package.' Reese moved ahd Ken Smith seconded a motion to recommend granting sub- dlvision to i.nclude.comblning'Lot 3, B1ock l', Langdon's Landiog, PID's 23-117-.2q 13 002~', 23-117-2q 13 O026.and-2)-ll~-2q 13 0023 as one tax parcel., andmove.~divislon'"line'betwe'--en'Parcel "A" and "B"--'to conform tO the City Englneer's recommendation anld waive the p~blic hearing. The vote was unanimously in'favOr. Hotion carried. H~nson' stated he ~hought hls-llne.was superior andlaSked if he had any recourse. The Cha3r advlsed' him'that the City Council would have final say on'thls and.it W°u)d be heard on July 8th. Han~on.commented that someone may want to'divldevthe one new parcel. Access.)nto the parcel was discussed briefly. il · : ~.1~ ~ ~'~ ~AP~.LICATION :~ ~'~ ~'~"; '~ Sec. · , , JLIN - 5 1~5 .,.: ,: v I L L A G E FOR SUBDIVISION OF 22.03-a OF MOUND LAND FEE FEE OWNER PLAT PARCEL .23-//-7-,,z ~z /.~ .z-3 -i/7- ~4 /3 Location and complete legal descri~?n of property to be divided: To be divided as follows: ~A11'..supp°r. tlng 'd0cuments, 'su.ch as sketch plans, 'surveys", attachtnents, etc. .s.ubm,tted ..in 8(~a;;acXh ~u]~eS'ioZres~/d/rOa~,nlZ~ copies, pi.us' one .8{"'X' ! ,'" copy. Y ' g showing adjacent streets, dimension of proposed · building sites, square foot area of each new parcel designated by number} must be A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR: New Lot No. From Reason: Square feet TO Square feet APPLICANT ADDRESS Applicant'slnterestin theproperty: (signature) ,,o. ,~. ~o x" //~??' DArE This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of the property, or an explan- 'etlon given why this is not the case. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: DATE 13o? -~, PROPOSED RESOLUTION CASE NO. 86-527 RESOLUTION NO. 86- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE THE FINAL SUBDIVISION OF LAND FOR THE WEST 50 FEET OF LOT 47, AUDITOR'S SUB- DIVISION NO. 168, PID 23-117-24 13 0024 AND 23-117-24 13 0056 (5932 and 5930 Beachwood Road) Planning Commission Case No. 86-527 WHEREAS, an application to waive the subdivision requirements contained in Section 22.00 of the City Code has been filed with the City of Mound by the- applicant, Carl R. Hanson; 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 reasonable use of his land; and a waiver is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property right; and that granting the waiver will nOt be detrimental to'the public welfare or injurious 'to other property owners. Minnesota:NoW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, 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 5 acres, described as follows: PID 23-]17-24 13 0024 and 23-)17-24 13 0056 North 1/2 of West 40 feet of Lot 47, Auditor's'Subdivisio~ Number 168, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof and the West 50 feet of Lot 47, except the North 1/2 of West 40 feet thereof, Auditor's Subdivision Number 168, Hennepin..County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof A. It is hereby granted to Permit the subdivision in the following manner, as per Exhibit "A": Parcel A: The South 180.00 feet of the West 50.00 feet of Lot 47, Auditor's Subdivision Number 168, according to the recorded plat thereof, HennepJn County, Minnesota. Parcel B: That part of the West 50.00 feet of Lot 47, Auditor's Sub- division Number 168, lying 'North of the South 180.00 feet, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepi.n County, Minnesota. B. Upon the further following conditions: ). Parcel B is to be combined with Lot 3, Block l, Langdon's Landing which will assure public street access. 2. Modify the proposed Jot line between Parcel A and B and shift it approximately 15 feet north to match the southeasterly lot corner of Lot 3, Block 1, Langdon's Landing, thereby resulting a total area of 9,750 square feet for Parcel A. 3. Submit a new survey to indicate the new division lines and be used as Exhibit "B" with the resolution. Proposed Resolution Case No. 86-527 - Page 2 4. Recognize t-hat the existing home on newly created Parcel "A" is non-confOrming as it does not meet the minimum square footage require- ment for the Mound Zoning 0rdinance,. also undersized lot area and width. 5. No additional unit charges'nor park dedication fee assessed against the property as-both of them are existing building sites. 6. The northerly parcel is to have existing sewer and water lines dis- connected at the property line. It is determined that the foregoing'subdivision will constitute a desi:rable and stable community development and it i's in harmony with adjacent properties. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolu- tion 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. This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded Within 180 days of the adoption date of this resolution. 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553.1950 TO: Planning Commission and Staff~/ FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner DATE: June 16, 1986 ~: Variance Appl/cation: Harrison Shores Lots 6, 7, and 8, Block 4, Replat of A[5:LI~: Steven Coddon LOCATION: 5361-5341 Three Points Boulevard CASE NO.: 86-518, 86-519 and 86-520 VHS FILE NO.: 86-310-A15-ZO PLAN: Single Family EXISTING ZONING: Single Family (R-l) PROPOSAL: The applicant has filed three separate variance applications for consecutive lots along Three Points Boulevard. For the convenience of the Planning Commission, all three will be reviewed separately w/thin this report and then, the entire area will be reviewed in a comprehensive manner. Lot 8 Lot 8 contains a total of 9,640 square feet. The applicant has requested a 360 foot lot area variance from the 10,000 square foot area requirement in the R-1 District. Additionally, a 10 foot front yard setback variance has been requested. The Mound City Council has established a policy of considering lot area variances providing the subject lot area falls within 90 percent of the required lot area. Lot 8 meets this threshold. Consideration of the setback variance requires an analysis of hardship. In order for any variance to be granted, the applicant must meet the criteria for granting a variance which is contained in Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Zoning Code. In reviewing the criteria and considering the City Council position on lot area, the requested lot area variance and setback variance for Lot 8 seems reasonable. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of requested lot area and front yard setback variances for Lot 8 since proposed variances meet the Criteria for Granting Variances contained in the Mound Zoning Code and the lot size falls within 90 percent of the lot area requirements which has been established as policy by the Mound City Council. Lot 7 Lot 7 contains a total of 8,840 square feet. Requested variances include a variance of 1,160 square feet for lot area and a ten foot front yard setback variance. The lot area variance does not fall within the 90 percent policy guideline. Additionally, the proposed front yard setback variance does not .represent the minimum variance that is required for construction of a housing unit. By placing the proposed two story house at the rear setback line, a four foot front yard variance wo~ld .be required in lieu of the ten 'foot which has been requested. Recommendation: The requested variances for Lot 7 do not meet City policy nor do they meet the criteria for granting variances contained in the Mound Zoning Code. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the subject request. LOt 6 Lot 6 contains 8,840 square feet of area. This amount of area does not meet City policy for the Granting of a lot area variance. Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the variance request for LOt 6. Comprehensive Approach Looking at three substandard lots on an individual basis is not the best approach in analyzing development potential. None of the three lots either · individually or collectively meet the ordinance requirements for lot area. Additionally, zoning theory and Mound ordinances require that approved variances constitute the minimum that is required to make a parcel developable. In order to uphold the integrity of the ordinance and meet the minimum lot area requirement, Lot 7 could be split and portions of the lot could be combined with Lots 6 and 8. This would create two lots which would exceed the minimum lot area requirement. Additionally, this would permit the construction of the applicants proposed units for Lots 6 and 8 with a five foot variance for each. This variance occurs only at the extreme eastern and western unit corners due to the curvature of Three Points Boulevard. This scenario represents the minimum variance in order to make the property buildable. BOARD OF APPEALS 1.-~. Lot Size and Street Front Varlances fomr~ Case No. 8¢-5~8 Lot 8, Block 4, Replat of Harr]sqn Shores (53~1 Three Polnts) Case'No. 8G-51~ Lot 7, elo~k 4, Replat of Harrison Shores (5351'Three Points)- Case No. 86-$20 Lot G, B3ock 4, Replat of:Harrison Shores (S341 Three Polnts) Applicant, Steven Coddqn, was present. .. The Planner, Hark Koegler; reviewed hls report on the above sea,rate va. rl'ance applications. He commente~ that Lot 8 contains ~,640 square f~et which falls within ten percent ofI the, minimum iO,OOO square feet area requirement '~n the R'I Di~t~iCt..AdditJonall.y, a.lO' foot front yard setback variance has been requested. Thestaff recommends grantlng approval, of the requeste~ lot area and front yard setback for Lot. B since.the proposed variances meet. the crl- terla for grantlng varlances and falls'wlt~ln the ~O percent'of lot area ..l requirement establlshed as pol-icy by. the!City. Council.' ~.. He ~ommented that. Lot 7'contalns 8~8~0 square feet as does Lot 6. ~e stated th~ thing to be de,termin&d is.wh~ther it.meets the c'riteria for'granting 'antes in terms of minimum varlance .in ordler.'tO make a.proper'ty usable and reasonable hardships and so forth. In,looking at the property, the lake level. has'.fluctuated over the years; .it did seem t~'be reasonable that in order to afford reasonable bsa of.the property,'a varlancewould be necessary.' Or~i'- hence requests that you alway~ look at absolute minimum necess'ary in order to make such a p~rcel, bulldable. Lot 7 did not represent the minimum that was required; it ~ould have been. setback further than presently proposed, and therefore, denial was recommended fo~ both Lots 6'and 7. In looking at.the:entire package l~ a'comprehensive fashion, the'most ap- propriate approach would be to look at spllttlng Lot 7 (mlddte lot) and do a slmple dlvision, whlch would not be a.great expense to the app.licant. Two building pads.cbu'ld be developed wlth about a 4 to 5 foot minlum setback variance. ~eiland'~ed a motion to table and get )nformatlon on the entire package. .Hot)on was seconded by Hayer. The vote was Jansen and Hichael against; Byrnes, Hayer, Reese0 Ken Smith, Thal, ~eiland and Steve Smlth all in favor. Applicant, Steven Coddon, stated that this is really a hardship on him. He stated that he had asked to'be heard prior to the discussion and motion. He'd like Lot 8 to be discussed on its merit and he's wlthdrawn the other two..~ Thal moved'a mOtlo~ to.reconsider the motion to table. Jansen seconded the motion. The vote wast Hlchael, Reese, ~en Smith, Thal and Jensen in' favor and Byrnes, Hayer, gelland and .Steve Smith against. Hotlon tattled. Coddon stated he put these 'in as'three separate applicatigns, but he has since found that he' can"purchase..Lot 5'which he can combine withlLots 6. and 7 and have more. than e~ough.square footage for two parcels.with.tho)e;. put in'a separate app)lcation on Lot B as it is so clqse to being a normal usable'lot' and he has'a'separate mortgage on that property with a balloon coming due. He sta'te~-~e will come in .for a c0mbinat)on of Lots 6. and 7 'or he wlll have enough area for legal, sized parcels if he buys LOt 5. The'Commlsslon'questloned the setback fr'om the water and the minimdm eleva- ti.on. Koegler stated the lot area measured above the ~2~.50H~ plus you have to have flni'shed floor level above ~33:5. They discussed setback on Lots G and 7.' Coddon stated Lot q has a 10 foot street front setback. Further discussion followed as to' how and what size unit might be placed on the"lots, that thls was one of the.. most visible places In the City, and it should look nice. Hotion by Heyer and seconded by. Reese to deny the request)'wlthout seelng the'whole plan. Th~ vote was Hichael and Thal opposed and all others.' voted in favor' of the. denlal. Hotion carried to deny the request. Case No. B6-$18 will be.on the Council agenda of July 8, l~B6. Case Num- bers 86-51.S and'86-520 have been ~ithdrawn by applicant. . .. Commissioner Thal commented: on Coddon"s' a~ in paper; he stated that it was very much out-of-iine tO critiCize>what is one of the Building Offic)al's jobs 'to. doJ Case CITY OF HOUND Fee Paid APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) Street Address of Property -s-3&l ~)jL~)~ ~.~, Legal Description of Property: Lot ~ Date Filed Block P,D .o. Day Phone No. 4. Applicant (if other than owner): Name Day Phone No. Address 5. Type of Request: ~X~Variance ( ) Conditional'Use Permit ( ) Amendment · ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Sign Permit ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( )*Other *If other, specify: Present. Zoning District /~' Existing Use(s) of Property Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance,-or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? /~/O If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized officia'l of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required~ ~ ~~/~ Signature of Applicant Date Planning Commission Recommendation: Date Council Action: Resolution No. Date 4/82 RESOLUTION NO. 86- CASE NO. 86-518 PROPOSED RESOLUTION RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL OF A LOT SIZE AND SETBACK VARIANCE FOR LOT 8,. BLOCK 4, REPLAT OF HARRISON SHORES, PID NO. 13-117-24 22 0046 WHEREAS, Steven Coddon, owner.of the vacant parcel of land described as Lot 8, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores, PID No. 13-117-24 22 0046, has applied for a variance in lot size and setback to the north Three Points prop- erty line to allow construction of a single family dwelling with conforming side yard and lakeshore setback; and WHEREAS, the City Code requires lO,O00 square foot lot in the R-1 Zoning District with a front yard setback of 30 feet; and WHEREAS, the property described has a lot area of 9,640 square feet above the 929.50HW elevation, and a request for setback variance to allow a structure within 20 feet of the north property line abutting Three Points Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend the lot size and setback variance to afford the owner reasonable .use of the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota does hereby approve the lot size and l0 foot front yard set- back variance as the lot size is within 10% of the required lot area and the hardship is shallowness of lot to allow the 20 foot front yard setback for Lot 8, Block 4, Replat of Harrison Shores, PID No. 13-117-24 22 0046, to allow the construction of a single family dwelling with conforming setbacks to the side lot line and the setback to lakeshore for lots of record. I~&quest for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) Case // J~/~-.~-/~ D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction .F. Any additlonal information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections. of the Zoning Ordinance. III. Request for a Zoning Variance A. All information below, a site plan, as described in Part I.I, and general application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. B. Does the present use of. the property'conform to all use regulations for the zone district in which it is located? .Yes C~ No ( )' If "no", specify each non-conforming use: Ce Do the existing structures comply with all area height and bulk regulations for the zone district in which it is.located~ Yes ( ) No' ( ) ...... If "no", specify each non-conforming use: //~/'/L~/ Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted, in that zoning district? ( ) .Too narrow (.) Topography' ( ) Soil - .' (~ Too. small · ( ) Drainage.. ( ) Sub-surface (~ Too shallow ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify: E..Was the hardship d~scribed .above. Created by the action of anyone having property interests iA the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No (~).!: If yes, expl.aln: F. Was the hardship created by any'other man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (~x) If yes, explain: G. Are the conditions of hardship for'which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes .]~ .No If no, how many other properties are simi.larly affected? ~'~/~! H. .What is the "minlmum~' modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations' that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans ~vith dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional I. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? c,-~t CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY Fo.:_, ~/ev¢ ~-~/~ ~ ~ /~/r~ ~]~ v~ · ~' O~~9 ' ' '~ ... .... ~ ~k~ ~ ~p of fou~t~n el~, - ~!~ ~. BENCH MARK: ~ dmln~ ~ ~un~rlel of t~ ~e ~l~d I~ ~nd of the I~tlon of ~11 ~ildin~, ~~ if Iny; ~e~n, Ind iii viliM, e~ch~ntk if .ny, from or on ~id I~nd. No.'~~. June 23, 1986 Mound Advisory Plannin~ Comlaission Mound, Minn. Re ~ Board of appeals agenda item 2 case No. 86-519 Board of appeals agenda item 3 c.~se No. 86-520 Deer Planning Commission Members: I wish to formally withdrow the application on the above two items as I am in the process of acquiring enough additional land adjacent to the above parcels so as not to require a yard size variance. Th~nk you for your consideration of this withdrawal request. Yours ~incerely, _ S~even Coddon, apFllca~t CITY OF HOUND APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) 1. Street Address of Property -q"~/ 7~g~~_ ~ 2. Legal Description of Property: Lot ~ Case No. Fee Paid .5'"~. Date Filed 4. Applicant (if' other than owner): Name Day Phone No. Address 5. Type of Request: (/~ Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( ) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit ( )*Other *If other, specify: ~, Present Zoning District ~' '""/ 7. Existing Use(s) of Property ~"~ 8. Has an application ever been made for zoning, v~ci~nce, or conditional use permit or · other zoning procedure for this property?/x'~/~] If so, llst date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be require~ ~ ~17'~ '~'~ Signature of Applicant ~ Date , ~ Planning Commission Recommendation: Date Council Action: Resolution No. 4~82 Date ~equest for Zoning Variance Procedure D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction .F, Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance, III, Bequest for a Zoning Variance A. All.information below, a site plan, as described in Part I!, and general application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. B. Does the present use of the property'conform to ~1] use regulations 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 ( ) No ( ) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: D. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil (~C~) Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface ()(~ Too shallow ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify: EJ Was the hardship described above c~ated by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No (,)~ If yes, explain: F. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (~) If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ( ). No If no, how many other properties are similarly affected?~ 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.) J o Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY ~ ~~~%~l,' ~ ~ off~ ~kz ~ ~op o( (oundz~on zl~. = ~o~ ~r~ (Ioo~ ~.= D~~- GABR~L ~ ,,y. thereon. ,nd ,11 viii~, encroach~nt~, if ,.y. from or on ~A~ s~~o~s. ~c. · ~ /- P~mouth MN 5~41 Phone: (612) ~ ~ CITY OF MOUND APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) 2. Legal Description of ProPerty: Lot ~~ Addition ,/~ ~] ~ 3. Owner's Name _ _ Case No. dP~-~'~o Fee Paid .~T.~, ~ o Date Filed Block P,D ,o. - //?- Day Phone ,o. 4. Applicant (if other than owner): Name Day Phone No. Address 5. Type of Request: e (~)<~,Variance ( ) Conditional'Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. *If other, specify: ( ) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit ( )*Other Present. Zoning District /~'"'/ Existing Use(s) of Property Has an application ever been made for zoning, var. ign~Re,.or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property?//////.~Y If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that all of the above statements and the .statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. Signature of Applicant /~ff--4/--~/ ~ Planning Commission Recommendation: Date uncil Action: Resolution No. Date 4/82 Request for Zoni.ng Variance Procedure (2) 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 Sectlons. of the Zoning Ordinance. III, Request for a Zoning Variance A. Ail Information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. B. Does the present use of. the property'conform to all use regulations for the zone district in .which it is located? .Yes (~ No ( )' If ~nos~, specify each nOn-conforming use: · C. Do the existing structures comply wlth all area height and bulk regulations for the zone district in which I't Is.located? Yes ( ) No' ( ) If 'no", specify each non-conforming use: / D. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent Its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted, in that zoning district? ( ) .Too narrow (.) Topography ( ) Soil -' (~<:) Too. small ( ) Drainage.. ( ) Sub-surface (,~) Too shallow ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify:' E..Was the hardship'd~scribed above. dreated by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No (~) If yes, expl.ain: F. Was the hardship created by any'other man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (/~Q If'yes, explain: G. 'Are the conditions of hardship for'which you request a variance peculiar onlyIf to how the property other described in this petition? affected? Yes ( no, many properties are simi.larly H. .What is the ~'mlnimum~ modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations' that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) I, Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY ' o D~t~ iron monument Pm~ Iow~ fl~r el~. = ~5-~ D ~t~ off~ ~ke Pm~ top of foundation el~. = x ~o~ Deno(~ exi~ing el~. BENCH MARK: (~.o ) D~ot~ Pro~ el~. · De~t~ m~a~ drain~ I here~ cetti(y that this is a true and correct repre~ntation of a survey of File No. the ~undaries of the a~ve ~ri~d land and of the location of all ~ildin~, D~A~-GABRIEL i~ any, thereon, and all visine encroach~nts, if any, from or on said land. ~ 8~YORS, ~C. s~ved~v me t ' ~ f ~ , 19 ~ B~k - Pa~ P~mouth MN ~1 ~ Phone: (612) ~ trio m I Io NOT'CE OF PUhuc "F-~l.G TO - CONSIDER MOanC~TION OF T~ ZON~N~ ' ~E TO ESTABLISH MINIMUM HEI~ AND WIDTH R~U~ONS FOR HOUSING ~ 10, 1986, m 7:~ p.m ,~ M~ · a ~blm' ~ ~, ~ held to d~ ~ f~ ~ ~ ~ ~'~ 20 f~t ~; .~ am~hto~.. · ':'. ..... - · ~t~.,. ~ ..~ ~, ..., .~;.~, . 27,.1~e) ~ '; Affidavit of Publication State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin. Bill Holm, being duly sworn, on oath says that he is an authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as THE LAKER, Mound, Min- nesota, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: A.) The newspaper has complied with all the re- quirements constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. B.) The printed /~"~A~ which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and v/as printed and published once eac~ week for /! successive weeks: It was first published Tuesday, tahn~ wa~th edraeYa~tfer ~' ' printed'a~d published ever Tuesday, to and including Tuesday, the day of , Authorized Subscribed and sworn to me on this Rate Info~mation (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for space: $7.84 per Inch. (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for above matter: $4.54 (3) Rate actually charged for above matter: $4.54 per inch Each additional successive week: $3.03 per inch Planning Commission· Minutes November 18, 1985 - Page discussed. Reese moved and Michael' seconded a .motion to accept the staff's recommenda- tion.to approve construction .of a 20.foot deep detached.garage with the added-condltlon.that'the lowest f]oor elevation of the principal structure be added.-to'thesurvey..'This will amend Resolut'ion 8~-7~. The'vote.on the mot.ion was all in favor except K.'Smith abstained. Motion carries. Thl.s'wIll be on the City.Council'agenda'of November 26, 1985. Case No. 85-~50 Recognize existing setbacks and ]olt size to do structure] repairs and add a 2nd .story at ~9 Island View Or.ive - Lot 3, Block 23, Devon M!chael and bebra Netka were present. . The' Building 0fflcial reviewed her.'~repo-rt. The request is to add a second floor to the existing 3q.7 by 22.2 foot structure which has 770 square feet of floor area. The s.tructure is on a q,O00 square .lOot',lot, has side yards of ~.8 and 13.2 feet,.front yard of 51 to 52-feet and a,rear yard of 8 .to 12 feet abutting.the Devons Commons. The R-2 Zoning district requires 6,000 square feet lot size, 6 foot side yard and 20 foot front yard with a 15 foot rear yard. CommiSsioner Thal questioned how'proposed 2 .story ~°use would fit neighbor- hood/house'would, look like a' three.story'.from, the street. I.t was discussed that there.were 2 story houses in area;, also d.[scussed the construction of existing house and that house wo'uld'have to`be upgraded.and meet.the buildin~ code.'.They discussed'that with the commons;.which i's basically part.°f their 'liv'ing space, the lot does come cloSe'to mi'nimum lot size of 6,000 square feet. Thal moved and K. Smith seconded a motion to approve the staff .recommenda- tion to;grant variance With. the condition'ent.i.re.structure should be. brought up to minimum building .code .requirements. The vote was unanimous]y in favor. Motion carries. This will. be on the City CounCil agenda of' November 26, 1~85. ~iSCUSSION ii i · * , . Memorandum'from City Planner'on Manufactured HOusing Regulations. Mark Koeg)er reviewed his report' It was discussed that'height~ width, etc.. 'were the type of controls that could be applied .evenly to all'housing.and that those kinds of amendments would be.reasonable. Reese moved that we.cause the staff to draft a modificat, i.on of. Section 23.~10 along the lines they proposed and pass i't along to the City Councll for immediate action. The motion was'seconded by Thai. 'The vote was un- anlmousl¥ in favor; Motion carries. Complaints: The following complaints were discussed at length: A. qB77 Brunswick Road - Car repair service on residential,property accessory building. in 3030 Harbor Lane North, Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 TO: Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler,~ City Planner DATE: October 22, 1985 SUB3: Manufactured Housing Regulations ~ recent application for a building permit for a 14 x 66 foot m~nufactured housing unit identified a potential deficiency in the existing City Code. At the present time, the City has no restrictions on manufactured housing providing that it complies with the State Building Code. Manufactured housing units can be_ placed in the R-l, R-2, R-3 and R-4 zoning districts with little .or no restrictions on the physical' .form of the unit. Cities generally restrict the form of manufactured hoUsing by enacting minimum height and width provisions. In order to ke valid, such provisions must apply to all types of single family detached housing and can not specifically target manufactured units. For discussion purposes,. I have assembled the following ordinance modification, the intent of which is to regulate manufactured housing so that it closely conforms to the general style of housing within the co0~unity. It would modify Section 23.410 which is found on page 19 of the Mound Zoning Code. 23.410 Minimum Residential Requirements (1)~ The following minimum floor area requirements shall be applied to all new residential dwelling construction: (A) (B) Single-Family Detached Dwelling T~w~ Family Dwellings 840 sq. ft. per dwelling 800 sq. ft. per dwelling (c) Twin Homes Dwellings (Ord. f444 - 1-4-83) 840 sq. ft. per dwelling (D) Townhouse Dwellings: 1 bedroom 760 sq. ft. above grade 2 bedroom 880 sq. ft. above grade 3 bedroom 960 sq. ft. above grade Each add'l bedroom (add 120 sq. ft.) (E) Multi-FamilyDwellings: a. Efficiency unit 480 sq. ft. minimum b. 1 bedroom unit 640 sq. ft. minimum c. 2 bedroom unit 760 sq. ft. minimum d. 3 or more bedrooms - add 100 sq. ft. per bedroom to requirements for a 2 bedroom unit. (2) Height Limitations - No single family home shall be less than 15 feet in height. Building height is defined in Section 23.302(14). (3) Width Limitations - No single family home shall be constructed in the R-l, R-2, R-3 and R-4 use districts where the length of the main structure exceeds the width of the main structure by more .than a multiple of three. The minimum width of a single family home shall not be less than 20 feet. A modification of the ordinance in this manner .would prevent placement of a~other 14 x 66 foot manufactured housin~ unit. /330 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - JUNE 10, 1986 PUBLIC HEARING: TO CONSIDER MODIFICATION OF THE ZONING CODE TO ESTABLISH MINIMUM HEIGHT AND WIDTH REGULATIONS FOR HOUSING The City Planner stated that this item is being brought to the Council because sometime ago the Planning Commission discussed this issue and felt it was a needed amendment to the Zoning Code. There are two recommendations: Height Limitations and Width Limitations as proposed on Page 1102 of the packet. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of this amendment. Councilmember Paulsen asked how these things would be measured. The Planner stated that it is very well defined in the present Zoning Code and .the Planning Commission is trying to bring consistency to the community. Councilmember Paulsen stated that he feels this amendment would be eliminating factory built homes in Mound and that there are lots in Mound that would conform well to this type of home. The Acting Mayor opened the public hearing and asked, for comments in favor of or against the proposed amendment. Steve Codden, 4629 Aberdeen, stated that he is against this amendment because even a double wide pre-manufactured home would be too short to meet the height requirement. He further stated that he 'does not know of another City who has this type of ordinance. Buzz Sycks, stated that he agreed with Councilmember Paulsen and Codden and that a community cannot preclude allowing factory built homes. The Acting Mayor closed the public hearing. The Council discussed the issues and asked the Building Official. about Mr. Codden's statement about double wide homes. The Building Official stated that she knows of several pre- manufactured homes that exceed the 15 fo6t height requirement. Mr. Codden stated that he has spoken with builder Ron Gehring and even the regular 412 stick built home would not meet the height requirement. The Building Official disagreed with this statement. MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Peterson to have this item brought back to the next Council Meeting when a full Council is present. Also have the Building Official bring back a report on the height of pre-manufactured homes. Also have the Planner find out how many other cities have ordinances similar to the amendment~proposed. The vote was 3 ' '"in favor with JeSsen abstaining. Motion carried. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 23.410 OF THE MOUND ZONING ODDE TO ADD HEIGBT AND WIDTH LIMITATIONS TO THE RESID~N~fIAL MINIMUM The City of Mound does ordain: Section 23.410 of the Mound Zoning Code is amended by adding the following: (lA) Height Limitations - No single family home shall be less than tD,~ feet in height. Building height is defined in Section 23.302(14). (lB) Width Limitations - No single family home shall be constructed in the ,R-l, R-2, R-3 and R-4 use districts where the length .~~, the main structure exceeds the width of the main structure~dy more than a multiple of three./ The minimum width of a single family home shall not be less/than 20 feet.~ ~ Attest: City Clerk Mayor crfY oF MOUND Mound, Minnesota NOI~CE OF PUBLIC HEARING IQ AMEND THE RECREATION EQUIPMENT DEFINITION IN THE ZONING fDDE AND MODIFY THE EXTERIOR STORAGE PROVISIONS. (SECTION 23.702) NOTI(~ IS HEREBY GIVEN that M ,~-~ .... ~ .... ~ at 7:30 P.M., at the Mound City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, a public hearing will be held to discuss amendment of the definition of recreation equipment and modification of the exterior storage provisions (Section 23.702) of the Mound Zoning Code. The existing ordinance allows storage of boats and recreation equipment not exceeding 20 feet in length provided they are kept in the rear yard area. The proposed change would allow storage of recreation equipment up to 30 feet in length providing that they are stored in yard areas excluding the front yard setback area. The proposed change also requires that the equipment be registered to the owner or the renter of the property and limits storage to four vehicles per lot. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the above will be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk /335- 3030 Harbor Lane North, · Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesote 55441 612/553-1950 ~ Planning Ocm~ssicr~ and Staff FECt~: Mark Koegler, City planner ~ DATE.' April 22, 1986 SUBJ: E~terior Storage Recent discussi°h~· 'between the Planning Commission and Staff have ir~icated the need to revise the exterior storage section of the Zoning Code Performance' Standards. The following language is offered for discussion purposes. The 'modifications broadert the definition of recreational equipment to include various types of recreational vehicles, change the minimu, length of boats and ' trailers" from 20 feet to 30 feet, limit quantity and restrict usage to property o~ners or renters. Proposed text deletions are indicated by "dashed" words and suggested additions are underlined. (92) Recreation EquiPment - play apparatus such as swing sets and slides, sandboxes, poles for nets, =.~oee~,e~be,%a, =nd - ~-- barbecue stands, and similar equipment or structures but not including tree houses, swimming pools, play houses exceeding twenty-five square feet of floor area, or sheds utilized for storage of' equipment. Recreation equipment shall also include recreation vehicles not exceeding .'thirty (30) feet in length including but not limited, to boats, boat trailers, travel trailers and self contained motor homes. 23.702 Exterior Storage .In residential districts, all materials and equipment shall be stored within a building or fully screened ~o as not to be visibl6 from adjoining properties, except for the following: laundry drying and recreational equipment, see definition (92), construction and landscaping materials and equipment currently (w~thin a period of thirty-six (36) hours) being used on the premises, off-street parking of licensed and operative passenger automobiles and pick-i~p trucks. ~al~-ar~-~~~~ =he-i~~¥-li~e. .Storape of recreatiorml vehicles including but not limited to boats~ boat trailers, travel trailers and self contained motor homes is ~ermissable sub~ect to the following conditions: 1. Such equipment shall be stored on private property 'in ~rar~ areas excluding the ~t ~ ~ck area. 2. Stor~ equipment s~11 ~ r~ister~ ~ ~ ~er or ~ter o~ . ~ ~o~r~. 3. 'Stor~ equipment s~ll ~ limited to no ~re t~n four (4) ' ~tio~ v~icles. 4. S~ ~i~t's~!l ~t ~ ~ (30) f~t ~ l~g~. ~isting uses s~ll ~mply ~ ~s ~isi~ ~ ~ve (12) ~ foll~ ~~t of ~s ~~. In ~1 dis~icts, ~ Ci~ ~y ~re a ~iti~ ~ ~it for a~ exterior s~ if it is ~~. that such storage is a haza~ ~ the ~lic ~, ~fe~, ~enien~, ~, or ~s a de~cia~ eff~ ~ ~ ~~ ~s, or .~~s scenic vie~, o~ ~ti~t~ ~t ~ liv~ ~iti~. CITY OF MOUND Mound, Minnesota LANGDON VIEW NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on July 22, 1986t at 7:30 P.M. at the Mound City Hall, 53q1Maywood Road, Mounds Minnesota, the City Council will hear a request for subdivision of the. prop- erty described as follows: Those parts of Lots 17 through 22, inclusive, Auditorls. Subdivision Number 168, lying southerly of the southerly right-of-way line of Beachwood Road; also those parts of Lots 23 and 24, said Auditor's Subdivision Number-168 lying northerly of the westerly extension of the south line of the north 15 feet of Lot 28, and lying southerly of the southerly right-of-way line of Beachwood Road; also that part of Lot.25, A.u~l. itor~s Subdivision Number 168 lying southerly of the goutherly right-of-way line of Beachwood Road; also all of Lots26 and 27, and'the north 15 feet of Lot 28, said Auditor's Subdivision Number 168, situated in the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota (Also to.be known as 58 Beachwood Road) PID # 23-117-24 13 ooo3/ooo /ooo5/ooo6/ - o8 Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the above will be given an opportunity to be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk R. L. YOUNGDAHL & ASSOC., INC. ! 52C)~ MINNETONKA BOULEVARD · MINN~='TONKA. MINN£.~O"rA June 19, 1986 City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, M~ 55364 Attention: Mr. Ed Shukle Dear Ed, I am writing you in response to the two insurance related issues that you asked me to review and state my recommendations on. The first issue being about the City of Mound requiring all on sale liquor license applicants to carry a specified minimum amount of public liability insurance. The second issue being the City's requiring these same liquor license applicants to carry a specified minimum amount'of liquor liability (dram shop) insurance. First, a city requirement of public liability. After talking to many insurance people and municipalities I find that the city of Mound is one of the few cities in Minnesota to have a public liability requirement as a prer'equisite to obtaining an on sale liquor license. Mone of our surrounding communities do, nor can I f~nd one of similar population to Mound that does. But that does not necessarily mean that Mound should eliminate their requirements. Although you should look closely at it. Carrying public liability insurance, or any insurance, is certainly one means of proving financial responsibility. The question is though, should the city control the basic insurance coverages, or other business .actiVitieS, of a restaurant, or a hardware store, or a bank, or any other main street business? The "public liability" insurance that we are addressing here covers the basic, general activities involved in running a business, any businems. It doesn't cover out of the ordinary or hazardous activities, in fact it excludes them. That is why a special policy like a dram shop policy is necessary. It addresses the special exposure or dangers of intoxicating people. This special exposure to the public is probably why cities control the exposure and issue licenses to a select few. Stringent requirements of the dram activity should be made without a doubt, but controls over the basic restaurant operation I question. If the City council should decide to continue with making a minimum requirement for public liability as a prerequisite for a liquor license, then I think you should consider a minimum of ~500,000 combined single limit per occurrence for Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability with an aggregate of $500,000 combined single limit. -2- The City does not own, nor is it running the activity of these two restaurants that are applying for liquor, so I don't see the need to require the city oriented $200,000/$600,000 split limits that the state refers to as a city's limit for immunity. This $500,000 limit is a reasonable limit and is readily available to the two restaurants concerned. Higher limits are available, but might cause financial hardships due to the high premiums being charged restaurants in 1986. A lower limit of $300,000 is the absolute minimum that you may want to consider. The price difference between $300,000 and $500,000 is only about 20%. In lieu of the price difference and the current trend of high court settlements, I do not recommend this lower limit. Secondly, the city requirement of a minimum limit of liability for ~iquor liability (dram shop) insurance. Once again I have contacted many varied people to get various angles of thinking about this topic. .Apparently, most cities are requiring minimum limits around $300,000. While a few are requiring $500,000 limits and an even rarer few are requiring the state mandated minimum of $50,000/$100,000. There are'only three "active" writersof liquor liability in .Minnesota. One of those is the "Risk Pool." The other two are Transcontinental Insurance Company and' St. Paul Company, with St. Paul Company being very restrictive. Here is a sample of Transcontinental's premiums per $100 of liquor receipts: 5O/lOO/ O/5O/lOO,OOO 300/300/300/300/300,000 500/5001500/5001500,000 $2.00/$100 $4.90/$100 $7.9015100 We are dealing with only two on sale liquor license applicants, and both of these have liquor liability insurance readily available to them at whatever limit the Council selects. Because of this, I think the state minimum of $50,000/$100,000 is way too low. I recommend that the Council consider as the minimum limits, $300,000 combined single limit for Bodily Injury each person and each occurrence, Property Damage, and Loss of Means of Support for each person and each occurrence, and $300,000 Aggregate. When you look back at the price difference'between the $300,000 and $500,000 limit of liability you will see about a $2,100 premium difference for each $100,000 of liquor sales. In other words, for $300,000 of liablity coverage and $100,000 in sales, the premium would be $4,900. While $500,000 of liability and $100,000 in sales would be a premium would be a premium of $7,000. A $2,100 difference. If liquor sales were $300,000 instead of $100,000 then the $2,100 difference would become a $6,300 difference. Thusly, I believe the $300,000 liability limit to be a reasonably acceptable minimum requirement for these times and this geographic and demographic loCation. If the license applicants wish to carry higher limits than this minimum then they are certainly welcome to do so. Thank you Ed for the opportunity to review these matters. I hope this input is beneficial. Respect fully, Earl E. Bailey R.L. Youngdahl & Associates, Inc. 15208 MINNETONKA BLVD. · MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55345. (612) 933-7488 July 8, 1986 City of Mound Attention: Mr. Ed Shukle Mound, MN Dear Ed, At the last Council meeting the Council asked myself and the City Attorney to find any evidence that would show that the State Statutory minimum Dram Shop Liability limit of $50,000/$100,000/$10,000/$50,000/$100,000 was too iow. These are the results of my attempt to find evidence indicating whether or not the State's minimum limits are too low. I talked to ~r. David Gorum at the Insurance Commissioner's office in St. Paul and he informs me that there are no records kept in his office that would indicate the dollar amount of settlements in Dram Shop Liability Suits. Due to the fact that he has no records of the settlements of these suits, he offers no opinion as to what limits would be adequate. I talked to a Ms. Debbie Woodard at the John H. Crowther Insurance Brokerage Firm. This Brokerage Firm is the main writer of Dram Shop Liability Insurance in Minnesota. Ms. Woodard had mentioned that they in their office once again do not have a record as to what the dollar amount of the Dram Shop settlements are. She did mention that many of the claims are settled out of court and thusly, no records are available. She recommended that the only possible way of getting specific information would be to find specific cases and then contact the Claims Departm~ent- of the various involved insurance companies. This process would take many weeks though investigating. I talked to the office of the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers and was informed that they have no information at all as to the amounts of insurance that should be required in Dram Shop cases or that they would recommend be carried in Dram Shop cases. They felt that the--area of insurance was somethinz that was totally out of their realm. I talked to Don Riley from the Professional Insurance ~gents Association of Minnesota he also stated that to his knowledge there are no records kept as to the amount of settlement in general on Dram Shop Liability cases. Once again, many of the claims are settled out of court and in private thusly, the knowledge is private and not for public record. He pointed out another issue and that was that insurance companies as a matter of practice do not ~ubl~sh or make available the records of claim settlements. He advised that it would be almost impossible to get claims records out of an insurance company regarding the general issue of Dram Shop Liability. - 2- I also talked to several Attorneys all of which asked to leave their name as anonymous. One of the Attorneys was a °laintiffs Attorney another Attorney was an Insurance Company Attorney and another Attorney was a Defense Attorney. Ail of the Attorneys seemed to agree that businesses should carry the most amount of Liability insurance that they can afford to pay. It was pointed out that if there is not adequate insurance available, it will not stop an Attorney sueing for more than the amount of insurance that is being carried. It was pointed out that if somebody is legitimately injured for the rest of their life then the Attorney will sue for whatever he believes to be a proper amount of settlement for the neglagence that caused the accident. In summary it appears that several facts are apparent. Firstly, insurance companies do not like to make public the amount of the settlements in insurance claims. This makes it very difficult for anybody to come up with a logical dollar amount to put as an adverage settlement amount of claims. We just don't have available of minimums and maximums of these settlements. Secondly, if somebody is legitimately injured in a claim, the sky is the limit as to the amount that a neglagent party is going to be sued for. It appears to be a question of just how much is enough. I do know that the insurance policies that are being written on this Dram Shop Liability currently all carry an aggregate amount. Meaning that the amount of coverage being written is all that is available for the policy. Which is usually for a 12 month period. If an insured has a policy limit of $50,000 per person for bodily injury and $100,000 for all of the people involved in an accident for bodily injury then the policy is saying that that is all that is available for a 12 month period whether those amounts are used up in one claim, two claims or more claims. In talking to insurance company people, their attitude is not to take a stand on the amount of coverage of the type of coverage that a person should be carring. There stance is to simply offer what ever limits that a City Council requires. They leave the decisions both up to the individual cities and to the individual insureds without making a preferrence one way or the other. So it appears to boil down to a City's comfort level as to what they feel is a minimum amount of Dram Shop Liability insurance that the insureds in their city should carry to prove their financial responcibility for their citizens. After reviewing all of this information I still contend that a $300,000 combined single limits of liability insurance should be a minimum requirement of the city of its two on sale liquor venders. I hope that the information that I have porvided will help the Council in making this difficult decision. Respectfully, Earl E. Bailey CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 July 3, 1986 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY CLERK The following is a beer or liquor and 1. A1 & Alma's On-Sale & Set-Ups Wine 2. American Legion Club 3. Captain Billy's On-Sale Liquor 4. Donnie's On-Sale Liquor 5. House of Moy On-Sale Beer Wine 6. P.D.Q. Off-Sale Beer 7. SuperAmer i ca Off-Sale Beer 8. V.F.W. Club list of establishments in Mound serving intoxicating the dram shop insurance they are providing. Insurance Provided $500,000 & Off-Sale Beer ' $500,000 aggregate $300,000 & $300,000 aggregate $5O/lOO/lO & $300,000 aggregate $500,000 & $500,000 aggregate $300,000 & $300,000 aggregate $300,OOO $1,000,000 $300,000 in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs ancl activities, A. THOMAS Wu~$'r, P.A. CuI~?I$ A. PI'AllISON. P.A. ~.,IAM~'S D. LA,I$ON, P.A. TNONA$ ~'. UN~e'I~WOOD, LAW OF'F'IC £$ WURST, PEARSON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD IIOO FIII~$T BANK I~LAC£ MI NN£APOLI$, NII N N £SOTA July 2, 1986 Mayor and City Council City of Mound, Minnesota Re: Lost Lake Subdivision / Docks Gentlemen: I have been talking with Mr. Larson concerning a question which came up relating to dockage in the Lost Lake Subdivision. I have read the memorandum of May 12, 1986, from Jim Fackler and Dell Rudolph to Ed Shukle. I am confused by the reference to Woodland Point, Dreamwood, and Wyckwood since Mr. Larson informs me that those commons are private commons. I call the Council's attention to Section 26.9301, Subds. 1 and 2, of the City Code. The ordinance included the definition of docks for "publicly owned shoreland" and in Subd. 2 license is required on "public structures, road, parks, and commons". It is obvious that the ordinance does not apply to private lakeshore and private commons. Reference is also made to Section 26.9303, Subd. 1, which again defines where a license is necessary. Whatever parallel is being drawn between Dreamwood, Wychwood, and Woodland Point and Lost Lake would in my opinion be improper. The lands which abut the Lost Lake Subdivision on the west are publicly owned lands, and if it is the City's desire to make that into a public park or public docks, they certainly can do so if there are means for the public to obtain access to those lands. In most cases, this will mean public expenditures for preparing the access and also for providing trails or whatever improvements may be necessary on the publicly owned land. If we were to obtain an easement over certain properties in the Lost Lake Subdivision so the public had a way to get to this land, the City Park Commission and Council could decide that docks would be allowed. If public dockage is to be allowed, then the priorities will be those established in Section 26.9303, Subd. 6. Mr. Larson informs me that three lots would in effect have first priority since the docks abut those lots. If six additional docks were to be provided in the area, they would be governed by priorities 2 and 3, and there would be no preference given to other lots in the Lost Lake Subdivision unless they happened to be the first to apply and to be awarded the docks. WURST, PEARSON, HAI~ILTON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD Page 2 Mayor and City Council City of Mound July 2, 1986 I think a plan can be worked out which will permit public docks on the lands abutting the Lost Lake Subdivision, but there should not be any indication that the lands in the Lost Lake Subdivision have priority, but rather that the dock ordinance itself is controlling. It would therefore be the opinion of this office that before any dockage is permitted in this area, a total plan be worked out for access, location of docks, and other public usage of the property. I hope this answers the Council's questions, and we will expand upon this if you desire. CAP:Ih cc: Mr. Ed Shukle Mr. Jim Larson Curtis A. Pearson City Attorney CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 553F.4 (612) 472-1155 TO: FROM: RE: ED SHUKLE, CITY HANAGER AND PHYLLIS JESSEN, PARKS CO~J,~SIONER JIM FACKLER, PARKS DIRECTOR AND DELL RUDOLPH, DOCK INSPECT'01~ DOCK PROPOSAL FOR LOST LAKE ADDITION, BY ECKLEY-SCHNEIDER CONSTRUCTION CO. 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 Commission 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 dr~dged Lost Lake Channel, available for nine dock sites (30 feet apart). These dock sites would be restricted to the residents 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 th'is be favorably ~onsidered. The Park Commission approved this preliminary plan and will present it to the City Council for action. DR:Is An equal c, ppo'tum ? Emptcyer that Ooes not Oiscriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicappecl status / / V I~. I ,,' · I 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 informatioh on this proposal. ..-- . .- We, as contractors and future homeowners, would lik~ your .immediate attention in resolving this matter. Thank.yoU very much for your support'. '. S in cere ly, Eckley Schneider Construction Co. BS .- wr ?a~e 1 Three Points Wawauossa Co.~mon (Woodland Point) m~nd we hereby d~dtcate ta the owners off the [ote,.as shown on the annexed plat, forever,'a~l the streets or avenues thereon showno~ Jume 19, 1906 N ~ Sec. 13, T.11?,-R. 24 Wau~ik~ Common For de&~catton of th~s ~axxd see wording ~der Wawanos~a Common : ' Sec. 13, Pebble Beach Common (Sha. dywood Point) ' m have caused the same to be surveyed and platted as 'Shadywood P*oint' Hennepin 6ounty, Minn., and hereby do donate and ~edicate to the public use forever all the streets, avenue,boulevard,roads,lanes, .drives,path, place, trial, so. nato,' common, landings and'.parks as shown on the annexed 'plat. In ~itness whereof said Lakeside Park Ass6c~ation has caused these pres.ents t5 be signed by .t'ts proper officers and its corporate sea~ to'be herewith affixed this 8th day of Ju~y ' Wtota Co.on (Dream~'~ood) .. . ' have' c.aused the sane to be survey~ and p~atted as aDremmwooda and we hereby d~dx=ate to the owners of the lots as shown on the annexed plat all the streets 'or avenues thereon shown. In witness whereof we have heron.ute set our hands and seals this 2~th day' of May 1907' sllrvey o.oo ..... °° I hereby certify that this is a correct there are no public highways other th~ as shown. Crescent Pa~:~ (Shadywood Point) For dedication of l~nd see wordin~ umder Pebble Beach Park in Shad~-~ood Point _ Ycr ,iedic:~tion of this land see wording under Pebble Beach Pembrook Park ( all forA'one) $. ~ Sec 1~, T.1170 R. 23 "have caused the same to be surveyed and platted as "Pembroke" and we hereby ~onate and dedxcate to the publxc use forever, the avenues, streets, and alleys as shown on the ann'exed plat. 23. -April-l~10 Page 2 .Pembroke~Park ~Phelps £~land A~ark) ~'ix'st Division Mr. and ~rs. Phe.:~s owners and ~rcprxetors of the foll'owxng describe~ real estate to wit: Lots five and six Section nineteen T. 117 Range twenty .three West of the fifth principal meri~i~u. Have c~u-~ed a portion o~ the same to ~e surveyed and platted as repA'ese~ted on this plat for the uses and purposes.~ stated in this certificate and not otherwise and to be known and designated as 'Phelps Island l~ark,First Division'. The avenues, streets, alleys, ~arks and wharves shown on said plat, excepting the County Ro~ so designated, are not intended for public use or dedicated for public .purposes, or to be subject ~o public or munxcipa& control but are intended for private use and enjoyment, and are and shall remain the sole and exclusive property of said proprXetors their heirs and assigns and be cohtrolled, improved, graded, and maintained and regulated by +-hem for thair own benefit and the common use and enjoyment;of th e owner~ of said ~ots,' their heirs and assigns, forever. 28- September - 1889 The Highlm.uds ' have caused the same to be ~urveyed and plmtted as "The Highlands' and we her by donate and dedicate to the public use forever the avenues, streets,places, park~, D~ives,Parkways, Channels, ~'~goons', Lanes, and Boulevards as shown on the annexed plat. In Witness whereof we hsv'e here'~to set our hands and seels this 15th day of December 1910 (M'r.. and Mrs. Tuller and Mr. az, d Mrs Beckelhaup and Osca~ C. Greene ' That- I Oscar C. Greene mortgagee.~ of the property de~crioed in the foregoing dedicztien, 'hereby consent to the dedication to the public use forever of the Acenues,Streets, plac--s,Psrks,Drxves, parkways, c,hannels, Lagoons, Lanes and Boulevards as sho~m on the annexed plat witness my h~nd and seal thi~ 15th day of December 1~10 Ther.: are no public highways to be designated on said plat other then as sho~m thereon(2urvey) ' ~,Tcb, woo~ {,~I ~ -':ec. 2~, '/'. :L.I.?, A. 2~) ' nave cause~ the s~e to ~e s~veye& ~ platte~ Es ~y=h~ood~ ~=~. ~0 hereby donate ~d ~e~ic~te to the public use forever the county ro~ ~s shown on the ~nnexe~ plat; an~ do also hereby dcnate ~d de&ir=re to the lot owners of sai~ "Wychwood" the use forever of the'l~es, rc=Cm an~ co=mens as sho~= on the ennexe& olat. In witness whereof the ssi& ~edo Park Comp~'has cause~ =nese ~resents tc be signeC its corporate sesl to b~ he~e~to ~fixe~ this 25th.&ay of ~ 1908 I ~c hereby certify ..... that the outside · Bo~dary lines ~e correct~ designated on the plat ..... that, there ~e no public highw~s to be &esignat~ on said plat other th~ ~ shown thereon. (=~vey°r) Xenm~e Common'(Seton) (~ll' torrens) N } Sec. ~ h~ caused ~e s~e to be s~veye& an~ plstte~ as,"Seton" an~ does hereby ~onate ~n& ~edxcate to ~e public use forever ~e streets, avenues roads, l~As ~& co.on as shown on ~e annexe~ plat. I= witness whereof sa1& T~e~o P~k Comply h~ ~use& these presents to be si~e& ~ i~s corporate seal to ~e hereto affixe& on ~s 26~ ~y-of . ~ov~ber 19~ (Footnote: Seton 19 ~oon ~e&icate~ to ~e public)- Page 3 Devon Common (all torrens) 'ha~ c~used the Same to ,be surveyed and platted as eDevon~ ~ does hereby ~onate ~ ~edicate'to the ~b!lc for the ~ub!ic use forever the roads, l~es, streets' ~& common as shown on the ~exe& plat. In witness whereof said ~edo Park Compnny has cause~ these ~resents to be si~n~ ~ni its corporate 12th d~y of 1~!1. Sec. 3o,. 23. Brighton Oo~mon (~den) "n~ caused the seas to be surveyed and pl~tted as "Arden~ and do hereby donate and dedicate t'= the public use forever, the streets, avenues, and a~eys as shown on said. plat. In witness whereof the Tuxedo Park Comp. an.* has caused these presents to be signed and. its corporate seal affixed ~hia 13th day 'of M~-y 1910 Waterb-~J~ Common t Lakside .~ark) . surve ed and platted and to be ~nown an~ desx~ate d as ~esl~e PsJk ..... .= ..... b-lc use forever ~ .he roa~s we hereby ~onate ~ ~e~ic~%e ~o ~-= y= ~ ~ avenues a~ streets h~reon shown, xn %estimony ~sreof we hi%ye hereunto set ~ur h~ds and ~eals this 26 a~y of November 19u7 ~ hereby certify that I have ~-*t-d the land. that the outside buundary line~ surveyed and o-=.- - ' .... are correct~ designated on the plat ~ud there a..'e no wet lands or public h~z~ways to be designated or, siad plat other th~ as shown thereon. (Albert Grober,surveyor) McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINE[RS · LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS Ouly 2, 1986 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Edward O. Shukle, 0~. City of Hound 5341 ~aywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Subject: Lynwood Boulevard MSA~ 145-I04-05 & Tuxedo Boulevard MSAP 145-i01-05 Street Improvements MKA Files #7193 & #3724 Dear Ed: Enclosed is Preferred Paving's Payment Request No. 1 for work completed through Oune 30, i986 on the subject projects. The totai amount of this payment request is $ 116,709.63. Of this amount, $1ii,380.6i is for the Lynwood Bouievard project and $ 5,329.02 is for the Tuxedo Bouievard Safety ImProvement project. We have reviewed this request and find that it is in order and recommend payment in the above amount to the Contractor. If you have any questions, please contact us. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Oohn Cameron gC:cah Enclosure McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS LAND SURVEYORS PLANNERS 3une 8, 1986 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park BouLevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (612) 559-3700 Honorable Mayor and ~mbers of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota SUBOECT: 55364 1986 Bituminous Overlay Project Lynwood Boulevard and Fairview Lane MKA #?829 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Enclosed is a tabulation of the bids received yesterday for the bituminous overlay project on Lynwood Boulevard and Fairview Lane. The low bid of $33,830.00 was submitted by Hardrives, Inc. of Maple Grove. The Engineer's estimate for this project was $40,250.00, with bids received ranging from the low of $33,830.00 to a high of $41,209.00. We have briefly discussed the project with Hardrives and they would like to do the work about the last week of 3uly. Hardrives was the general contractor for Mound's street improvement project's in 1979 and 1980 and performed satisfactorily on those projects; therefore, we would recommend they be awarded a contract in the amount of $33,830.00. If the Council should have any questions, we would be pleased to answer them. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, 1NC. Oohn Cameron ~C: tdv PROJECT: 7829 !986 BITUMINOUS SECTION 1 ENGINEER: M¢COMBS-KNUTSON OVERLAY F' RO JE C T - hiOUND ~ MINNESOTA PAGE ENG. ESTIMATE HARDEIVES, INC. UNIT QUANTITY UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL BUFFALO BITUMINOUS UN IT TOTAL ~ O0 8.00 B,740.00 PAVEMENT PROFILING SY %~370.0 8.00 B,740.00 1.00 REMOt~ CONCRETE C E G LF 40.0 3~00 180.00 3~00 180.00 S.O0 -800;00 REPLACE CONCRETE C E G LF 40.0 1S.00 600.00 14.00 560.00 10.00 400.00 8" CONC. DR!VE~A¥ APRONS S¥ 8!.0 40.00 840.00 30.00 630.00 30.00 630.00 TACK COAT MN/DOT 8357 GA 80.0 8.50 800.00 8.00 !60.00 1.00 -80.00 WEDGE PATCH~LEVEL~M!SC. TN 800.0 40.00 8~000.00 3t.00 G,800.00 4S.00 ~000.00 TACK COAT MN/DOT ~357 GA pen 0 1.BO 37S.00 8.00 BO0.O0 1.00 8S0.00 .... 83.75 - ~0~687,50 8" BIT,LEVELING ~URSE IN 4S0.0 88.00 18,600.00 83.90 i0~755.00 TACK COAT MN/DOT £357 GA 850.0 ~.50 375.00 B.00 500.00 1.00 BS0.00 !-i/B" BITUMINOUS WEAR TN 450.0 88.00 18,600.00 86.30 !1,835.00 84.75 1i~!37.50 AOJUST GATE VALVES EA 4.0 IS0.00 G00.00 150.00 600.00 !8S.00 500.00 ADJUST MANHOLE CASTINGS EA 6.0 800.00 1,800.00 100.00 600.00 800.00 !~800.00 TOTAL SECTION l 40~850.00 33,830. O0 37,07S. O0 PROJECT: 7889 1986 BITUMINOUS OVERLAY PROJECT -- MOUND~ MINNESOTA ........ PAGE SECTION 1 ENGINEERi McCOMBS'KNUTSON ENG. ESTIMATE ALBER CONSTRUCTION ' ITEM ' UNIT QUANTIT~ ' UNIT ...... TOTAL UNIT TOTAL % PAVEMENT PEOFIL!NG S¥ 1,370.0 2.00 8,740.00 8.70 3,699.00 '-8 EEMOVE'-CONCEETEC ~'G "LF 40.0 ...... 3;00 .... 180;00 .... 4:00 ....... ~60,00 ....... 3 ~EPLACE CONCRETE C E G LF 40.0 1S.00 600.00 1S.00 600.00 4 8" CONC. DR!VEWA¥ APRONS SY 8!.0 40.00 840.00 40.00 840.00 S TACK-COAT-MN/DOT-SE~7 - GA - 80.0 ..... 8;50 ..... 800.~00 1.50-- ..... t80~00 ...... 6 WEDGE PATCH,LEVEL,MISC. TN 200.0 40.00 8,000.00 36.00 7,800.00 7 TACK COAT MN/DOT 8357 GA 850.0 1.50 375.00 1.50 37S.00 .... 8 8"-BIT;LEVELING-COURSE---TN ..... 450.0 .... 88;00 .... t8-,600-;Oor~ .... 89;45- -t3~858~S0 9 TACK COAT MN/DOT 2357 GA 850.0 1.50 375.00 1.SO 375.00 10 1-1/8" BITUMINOUS WEAR TN 450.0 28.00 12,600.00 89.75 13,387.50 11 ADJUST GATE'VALVES EA 4.0 t50.00 ---600~00--- 75.00 -' 300.00 " 18 AOJUST MANHOLE CASTINGS EA 6.0 800.00 1~800.00 1S0.00 ~00.00 TOTAL SECTION ! 40~8S0.00 4!~80~.00 ~ONTRACTOR PAY ESTIMATE NO. 01 PAGE ]'193 CITY OF HOUND - LYNWOOO & TUXEDO BLVD - STREET IMP. 01 ENGINEER: ltcCOHBS-KNUTSON CONTRACTOR: PREFERRED PAVING lP800 IND.PK.BLVD. PLYHOUTH, MN 55441 DATE: 06~0/86 -- CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIMATE SUMMARY -- THIS PERIOD ~R~ COMPLETED PART I"MSAP 145-104-03-LYN~OOD BOULEVARD 0.00 PART 2-MSAP 145-101-O5-TUXEO0 BOULEYARO 0.00 MATERIALS ON SITE PART 1-MSAP 145-104-03-LYN~OOO BOULEVARD 0.00 PART 2.-MSAP 145-101-05-Tb'XEDO BOULEVARD 0.00 ADJUSTED TOTAL LESS RETAINAGE - 02 PREVIOUS, 0.00 52 CURRENT 6,14~.6I TOTAL AMOUNT DUE FOR ~RK COMPLETED TO DATE -~,14P.61 TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 116,70~.~.3 TO OATE 5,6~.50 0.00 0.00 116, 7~. 6:3 1.1.6, ?OCJ. 63 ENGINEER: McCOMBS-KNUTSON APP ROVED: W - ~2.- g CONTRACTOR: PREFERREO PAVING CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIMATE NO. 0.1 PAGE 7'193 CITY OF MOUND - LYN~OOD & TUXEDO BLVO - STREET IMP. PART 1HtSAP 145-I04-03-LYN~OD BOULEUARD ENGINEER'- McCOMBS--KNUTSON CONTRACTOR: PREFERRED PAVING 12800 IND.PK.BLVD, PLYMOUTH, MN 5~441 DATE: 06/30/86 -- PAYMENT SUMMARY FOR ~RK COMPLETED TO DATE -- ITEM ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION 1 E0~.1.501 MOBILIZATION B E101.511 C & G ROADWAY 3 E103.501 BLDG. REMOVAL 4 ~'104.501 REM. ST.S. PIPE 5 E104,501 REMOVE CON. C&G 6 E104.503 REMOVE . SIDEWALK 7 E104.509 REMOVE MH OR CB 8 E104.509 REMOVE MALLS 9 E104..~3 SALVAGE CASTING 10 ElO4.5E3 SALVAGE L.POLE 11 2105.501 COMMON EXCAV. 12 E10~..~3 COMMON BORROW 13 ElOS..T~.5 TOPSOIL BORRO~ 14 E130.SO! MATER .L5EE11.SO1'AGG. BA~ CL.E: 16 EE11.501 AGG. BASE CL.S 17 E331.504 BIT MAT FOR MIX 18 E.'~31.514 BASE COURSE MIX 19 E:341.504 BIT MAT FOR MiX E~O ~341.50B ~AR COUR~ MIX E1 ~T.50~ BIT MAT - TA~K ~ E~B.SO1 BIT HAT -PRIME ~3 ~03.511 ~" RCP ST.CL.S E4 E503.511 ~" R:P ST ~.5 ES'~503.511 18" RCP ST.CL.3 E6 E503.~1 ~4" RCP ST.CL.3 E7 ~503.5&~ ET" RCP ST.CL.E EB E~03.5iI 30" RCP ST.CL.E E9 E503.~ 30" RCP C.APRON 30 ESOG.5~ DESIGN 31 ES~.50T MH~B OESIGN ~ E~.~OT MH/CB DESIGN C ~ E5~.516 CASTING AS~M.A ~ ESOG.516 CASTING AS~H.B ~ E5~.5~6 CASTING AS~H.C 36 ~06.~1 ~STALL CASTING 3~ 2506.SEE AD3.F~ME&RINC 3B Z511.5~ RIP ~P ~ E51~.~1~ C~N~AR FILER 40 ~5~.501 4" CONG. ~ALK CONTRACT UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE QUANTIT~ 1.0 L$ E,500.O0 0.0 1.0 LS 500. O0 0.0 1.0 L$ ~8,500.00 0.0 870.0 LF 6. O0 O. 0 160.0 LF 1.00 .0.0 1,670.0 SI:* 0.35 0.0 4.0 EA 1'*/5.00 0.0 1.0 LS E,500. O0 0.0 E.O EA 75.00 0.0 1.0 EA 110. O0 O. 0 i~,600.0 CY 4.00 0.0 0.0 CY 0.00 0.0 ~30.0 CY 6. O0 O. 0 E8. O GA 1.50 0.0 4.5.0 TN 17.. O0 0.0 1,360.0 TN 8.00~ 0,0 ~5.0 TN 165.00 0.0 5E5.0 TN 13.80 0.0 i~1.0 TN 165.00 0.0 .'~0.0 TN 17.00 0.0 125.0 GA 1. SO O. 0 ~0.0 GA 1.50 0.0 106.0 LF ~0.70 0.0 63.0 LF E1. BS 0.0 88.0 LF ~4.40 O. 0 E80.O LF E9.90 0.0 4P'5.0 LF 36. O0 O. 0 35.0 LF 40.00 0.0 1.0 EA 1,100.00 0.0 19.6 LF 170.00 0.0 9.4 LF 170. O0 O. 0 5.8 LF 1TO. O0 0.0 E. 0 EA EE5. O0 O. 0 4 · 0 EA E:~.~. O0 O. 0 1.0 EA P~5. O0 O. 0 9.0 EA 60.00 0.0 9.0 EA 70.00 0.0 6.6 CY 40.00 0.0 3.3 CY 18.00 0.0 4,580.0 SF 1.40 0.0 .... THIS PERIOD ..... AMOUNT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O. O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O. O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 "0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O. O0 .... TO DATE ', QUANTITY 1.0 1.0 1.0 1B~. 0 30.0 6BO. 0 4.0 1.0 E.O 1.0 ~',600.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1,219.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 103.0 '/3.0 8G.O 276.0 4~8.0 35.0 1.0 18.6 6.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 3.0 0.0 AMOUNT E, 500. O0 500. O0 EB,500. O0 1,110. O0 30.00 E38. O0 700. O0 E,500.O0 1BO. O0 110. O0 10,400.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O. OC 9,7~.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 E, 13E. 10 1, 5~5. OS lS,4OB.O0 1,~00.00 1,100. O0 3,1~. O0 1,6,.~..00 1,020.00 450. O0 900. O0 2~5.00 0.00 0.00 200. O0 ~4.00 0.0 CONTRACTOR PP..Y ESTIMATE NO. 01 PA(~E '7193 CITY OF MOUND - LYN~OOD & TUXEDO BLVO - STREET IMP. PART 1-MSAP 145-104-03-LYN~30D BOULEVARD 03 -- PAYMENT SUNMARY FOR ~ORK COMPLETED TO DATE -- ITEM ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION 41 E531.501 C&G DESIGN B618 4E ~531.507 6' APRONS 43 E545.511 INSTALL L.POLE 44 E545.515 LGT.BASE, DES.E 45 ;,545.5E! 3-l/E" CONDUIT 46 ;,545.553 PULL BOXES 47 ;,571.5~ TREES - MAPLE 48 ;,571.$0;, TREES - ASH 49 ;,57.l.50;,TREES-HACKBERRY SO E575.501 ROADSIDE SEED 51 ;,$75.50;, SEED MIXTURE 5 S~ E5~.505 SODDING 53 E575.511 MULCH MAT TYPE1 54 SP CONCRETE STEPS 55 SP DRY R~E MASON I~ALL 56 SP F&I 6' DIP I~ATERMAIN -57SP F&I DIP FITTINGS 58 ~ F&I 1-1/;," COPPER SER SP F&I 1-1~" CORP. COCK SP F&I 1-1/~" CURB STOP 61 SP F&I 6" gATE VALVE ~ SI:'AD,TUST EXISTING 63 SP AD,TUST EXIST CURB BOX 64 SP RELOCATE HYD. & 65 SP FIJI 8" PVC SAN. SEER 66 SP F&I 6" CISP SEILSERV. 67 SP AD,T. EXIST. 68 SP RECONSTRUCT EXIST MH 69 SP F&I SIgN POSTS 70 ~P F&I ~-1 SIGNS 71 SP F&I R7-! SIGNS ~ EXC.COM.BORRObl (;,105.5;,3) "/3 LOI~ER WATER SERVICE '74 RELOCATE CURB STOP 75 KEYSTONE RETAINING I~ALL 76 1-1/;," RIGID CONDUIT-RMC 77 ALT. FOR STREET LIGHT CONTRACT UNIT .... THIS PERIOD ..... QUANTITY UNIT PRICE QUANTITY AMOUNT 1,600.0 LF 5.85 0.0 0.00 140.0 ~Y ;,0. O0 0.0 0.00 1.0 EA 1.10.00 0.0 0.00 1.0 EA 5;,0.00 0.0 0.00 40.0 LF 11.75 0.0 0.00 ;,.0 EA 700. O0 0.0 0.00 4.0 TR 75.00 0.0 0.00 4.0 TR 75.00 0.0 0.00 4.0 TR 75.00 0.0 0.00 0.3 AC 1,500. O0 0.0 0.00 15.0 LB ;,.30 0.0 0.00 1,000.0 SY 1.70 0.0 0.00 0.6 TI{ 300.00 0.0 0.00 ;,0.0 RI 115.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 ~ 0.00 0.0 0.00 35.0 LF- ;,0.70 0.0 0.00 ;,60.0 LB .1.. 50 0.0 O, O0 30, 0 LF 17. O0 O. 0 O. O0 1.0 EA 115.00 0.0 0,00 1.0 EA LiS. O0 0.0 0.00 1.0 EA 400. O~ 0.0 0.00 1.0 EA 86.00 0.0 0.00 ;,.0 EA -50. O0 0.0 0.00 1.0 EA 6-50. O0 O. 0 O. O0 40.0 LF 19.00 0.0 0.00 40.0 LF 16.00 0.0 0.00 4.0 EA 100. O0 O. 0 O. O0 1.0 EA -500. O0 O. 0 O. O0 4.0 EA 80.00 0.0 0.00 ;,.0 EA 100. O0 0.0 0.00 ;,. 0 EA 100. O0 O. 0 O. O0 ;,,788.0 CY 5.;,5 0.0 0.00 1.0 EA ;,90. O0 O. 0 O. O0 1.0 EA 550.00 0.0 0.00 1,4;,0.0 ST 9.75 0.0 0.00 110.0 LF .5. ~ O. 0 O. O0 1.0 LS 1,649.50 0.0 0.00 ..... TO DATE QUANTITY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.0 150.0 58.0 E.O ~.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 40.0 61.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ;,,788.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 AMOUNT 0.00 0.00, 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O. O0 0.00 E89.80 ;'ES. O0 986. O0 ;,30. O0 ;,30. O0 BO0. O0 0.00 O. O0 650. O0 760. O0 976. O0 0.00 500. O0 O, O0 0.00 0.00 14,6.27. O0 ;,90. O0 550. O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL PART 1-MSAP 145-104-03-LYN~OOD BOULEVARD O. O0 117,;,4E.TS CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIHATE NO. 03. PAGE '73.93 CITY OF HOUND - LYN~OOD & TUXEDO BLUD - STREET IHP. PART I~SAP 14S-104-03-LYNbIOOD I~LLE~ARO ENGINEER: )~cCO)~BS'-~UTSON CONTRACTOR: PREFERRED PAVING 1PBO0 IND.PK.BLUD. PLYHOUTH, HN 5.5441 DATE: 06/~O/Bro u PAYHENT SUNHARY FOR HATERIALS ON SITE -- THIS PERIO~ ' ITEI~ Il'Eli CONTRACT UNITS INVOICE UNITS TOTAL NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY DELIUERED PRICE, ON SITE ITEI~ UALUE INVOICE PRICE TO DATE. UNITS ON SITE TOTAL ITEH URLLE TOTAL PART I-'HSAP 145-104-03-LYN~OOD BOLL£~RD O. O0 0.00 CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIMATE NO. 01 PAGE '7193 CITY OF MOtIND - LYN~OOD & TUXEDO Bt. VD - STREET IMP. PART I-MSAP 145-104-03-"LYNbIOOD BOULEVARD 05 ENGINEER: McCOMBS-KNUTSON CONTRACTOR: PREFERRED PAVING 12BO0 IND.PK.BLVD. PLYMOUTH, MN 5S441 DATE: 06130186 -- SUNMARY OF CHANGE ORDERS -- CHANGE ORDER NO. O! 06/30/86 9,99E.00 ITEM ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION .1.1 2.1.O~.SO1 COMMON EXCAU. 1E 2105.S23 COMMON BORRO~ SS SP DRY RI. JI3~E MASON ~LL '?E LrXC. COM. BORROW (210~..E~.3) '/'3LOWER WATER SERVICE 74 RELOCATE CURB STOP 7S KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL 76 .l-1/2" RICID CONDUIT-AMC 77 ALT. FOR STREET LIGHT PREVIOUS QUANTITY UNIT PRICE 2,7S0.00 CY 4.00 1,S00. O0 CY 6.50 1,4E0. O0 SF 7.90 O. O0 CY O. O0 O. O0 EA O. O0 O. O0 EA O. O0 0.00 SF 0.00 O. O0 LF O. O0 0.00 LS 0.00 -CHANCED QUANTITY UNIT PRICE 600. O0 CY 4. O0 O. O0 CY O. O0 0.00 SF 0.00 2,TBB,O0 CY 5.ES 1. O0 EA 290. O0 1. O0 EA 550. O0 1,4EO. O0 ~ 9.75 110. O0 LF S. 3S 1.00 LS 1,649.50 AMOUNT DEDUCTED -600. O0 -9,i~0.00 -.11,218. O0 AMOUNT ADDED 14,637.00 290.00 5S0. O0 13,845. O0 SB8.SO 1,649.50 PREVIOUS CONTRACT PRICE ORICINAL CONTRACT PRICE 1B~, i3~. ='~ + CHANCE CHANGE 9,992.00 = REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT = REVISED CONTRACT AMOUNT 192,124.2S CONTRACTOR PAY ESTIMATE NO. 01 PAGE 7193 CITY OF HOLED - LYN~OOD & TUXEDO BLVO - STREET IMP. PART E-MSAP 14S-101-OS-TUXEDO BOULEVARD O6 ENGINEER: McCOMBS.--KNUTSON CONTRACTOR: PREFERRED PAVING iZ800 INO.PK.BLL~. PLYMOUTH, HN S5441 DATE: OG/30/BG -- 'PAYMENT SUMMARY FOR ~ORK COMPLETED TO OATE -- ITEM ITEM CONTRACT UNIT ~- THIS NO. DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT PRICE QUANTITY 1 8101.S13 C&G RT OF mY 1.0 LS SOO, O0 O, 0 8 ~IM.S01 REM CONG, C&G 80.0 LF 1.00 0.0 ~ ~104.501 REM. BIT. CUR~ 1BO.O LF · 1.00 0.0 4 ~105.501 COMMON EXCAV. 1S.O C¥ 6.00 0.0 S 210S.S~3 COMMON BORROW 400.0 C¥ 6.S0 0.0 6 ~-iOS.SZ5 TOPSOIL BORROW' 70.0 CY 6.00 0.0 ? ~331.504 BIT MAT FOR MIX 1.6 TN 165.00 0.0 B 23'31.514 BASE COURSE MIX 3S.O TN 17.00 0.0 9 2341.504 BIT MAT FOR MIX 0.6 TN 165,00 0,0 10 234]..508 tlEAR COUR~ MIX iO.O TN PO,O0 0.0 11 8357.50~ BIT MAT - TACK 5.0 GAL 1,50 0,0 lp ~503,Sll ]2" RCP ST,CL,S S,O LF 27,00 0.0 13 ZSOG.SOD MN/~B DESIGN N 1.0 EA 170.00 0.0 14' 2506,S16 CAST ASSEMBLIES I.O EA 285,00 0,0 15 853S.501 BITL~INOUS CURB 170,0 LF 4,00 0,0 16 2554.501 DESIGN A 180.0 LF 5B. O0. 0,0 17 8571.50~ TRE~$ - MAPLE 4,0 EA 75,00 0.0 18 8S71,502 TREES - A~! 4,0 EA TS, O0 O. 0 1~ 8571.541 TRANSPLANT TREE 2.0 EA TS. O0 0.0 80 857S,505 SODDING 540.0 SY 1,70 0,0 81 SP RELOCATE EXISTING CB 1,0 LS 150,00 0,0 TOTAL PART ~5AP 145-101-OS-TUXEDO BOULE',,~RD PERIOD ..... AMOUNT QUANTITY 0.00 1.0 0.00 80.0 O. O0 1TS. 0 0.00 2S,0 O. O0 400, 0 0.00 0.0 0.00 8.0 O. O0 43.0 0.00 0.8 0.00 14.2 0.00 S.O 0.00 S.O 0.00 1.0 0.00 1.0 0,00 0,0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0,00 0,0 0,00 0.0 0,00 0.0 0.00 1.0 0.00 AMOUNT SO0· O0 20.00 1'75. O0 150. O0 E,600.00 0.00 :~0.00 '/31. O0 284.00 ?.SO 1:35.00 170. O0 825. O0 O.Or 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1SO.O0 5,609.50 CONTR~.CTOR PAY ESTIMATE NO. 0;!. PAGE '7'! 9~ OF MOUND - LYN~OOD & TUXEDO BLVO - STREET IMP. PART E-MSAP 145-101-05-TUXEDO BOULEVAP, D 0'7 ENGINEER: McCOMBS-KNUTSON CONTRACTOR: PP, EFEPJ~ PAVING 1P800 IND.PE.BLVO. PLYMOUTH, MN 5~441 DATE: 06/30/86 -- PAYMENT SUMMARY FOR MATERIALS ON SITE -- THIS PERIOD ITEM ITEM CONTRACT UMIT$ INVOICE UMIT$ NO. DESCRIPTION QI~NTI~ DELI~RED PRICE ON SI~l~ TO DATE, TOTAL INVOICE UMITS TOTAL ITEM VALLE PRICE ON SITE Il'Eli VALLE TOTAL PART E-'MSAP 14.~-iO1-05-TUXEDO BOULEVARD 0.00 0.00 ORIGINAL CONTRACT PRICE 1B,443.50 + CHANGE 0.00 = REVI~ED CONTRACT AMOUNT 1B,443. SO July 8, 1986 Council Meeting July 2, 1986 NEW LICENSE APPLICATIONS Public Dance Permit - July 12, 1986 Minnetonka Music To be held at Pond Arena for youth in the City 7:00 to 12:00 Games of Skill - License Period 5-1-86 thru 4-30-87 One - Minnetonka Music 5567 Shorline Blvd. ~- Mound, Minn. Public Dance Permit - Aug. 2,'1986 Incredible Festival Our Lady of the Lake Charitable 3,2 Beer'permit - Aug. 2 & 3, 1986 Our Lady of the Lake Incredible Festival BILLS JULY 8, 1986 Batch 864063 Batch 864064 Computer Run dated 7/1/86 Computer Run dated 7/2/86 107,280.21 45,728.72 Total Bills 153,008.93 lot i. ,j- .,J ! ! ! 4,..4,'14' I I,I W .i · OJ ', i I t iW fill il/) I I r~ dl i I I ? *1 I L '1 c~ · T CK.' -{ 3' CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: FROH: RE: DATE: ED SHUKLE, CITY HANAGER AND CITY COUNCIL JAN. BERTRAND, BUILDING INSPECTOR HONTHLY REPORT JUNE 1986 JULY 2, 1986 6-1-86 6-2-86 6-3-86 6-4-86 6-5-86 6-6-86 Three hours Planning and Zoning recommendatlons Answer phone inquiries 1700 Canary footing inspection 1700 Canary final Plan review 4739 Kildare Road 4651Hanchester Road - needs variance stop construction Hake out reports Review mail received Review mall received Answer phone inquires Contel with Randy - remodel Discussed title and opinion with attorney for 1721 Dove Lane and Lost Lake Road Correspondence and inspections Ron Anderson called to get access' to 2965 Oaklawn Lane Answer inquiries 8-10 AM' Zubert - Three Points Blvd re: Street vacation 5967 Idlewood Road - final 5665 Bartlett Blvd - final 5934 Hawthorne Rd - progress Plan'review Answer inquiries 8 - 10 AM Met with Ed and John RE: 6635 Bartlett Blvd. Trailer Court Plan review 2605 Westedge Blvd - stop order 2620 Halstad - left notice Answer inquiries 8-10 AM Commerce Place Left Office at 12:00 ]~.~ 2~._~ 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. Building Department June Report July 2, 1986 Page 2 6-9-86 Answer inquiries 8-10 AM Chapman Place - 2670 Commerce Blvd 6635 Ha]stad Lane - trailer placement 4673 Island View Drive - footing 4850 Edgewater ' Complaint 4432 Radnor Road - concrete 2017 Arbor Lane - final 5132 Waterbury Rd - fence 5909 G]enwood Rd - complaint P and Z meeting 6:30 - 10:00 PM 6-10-86 8 - 12 Answer inquiries 2147 Forest Lane Eagle Fire Protection Plan:Review 1.959 Shorewood - Compliance'inspection for Creigh Thompson 1725 Jones Lane Seahorse Condominiums'-'complaint Council meeting 7:00 - IO:OOPM 6-11-86 6-12-86 Answer. inquiries'8 - 10 AM' 6616 Bartlett Blvd - Court inspecti'on' 5560 Three'Points Blvd -.Heating and fire inspection Plan review Fire sprinklers - ComMerce Place Three single familydwellings Review Correspondence Get gasoline Answer inquiries.8 -.10 AM " 5300 Shoreline Blvd - Progress inspection 4 hours 1725 Jones Lane - Partial footing Correspondence Plan review (7 - 9PM) 6-13-86 Answer Inquiries 8 -.10AM 2200 Commerce Place - Fire Sprinkler Line 5516 Lynwood B1vd - compliance with notice to secure a vacant house 2670 Commerce-- Surfside marina Met with Curt Hagfors and John Cameron 2609 Grove lane City Manager meeting 1928 Shorewood and 1916 Shorewood - compliance 6-16-86 Answer Inquiries 8 -10 AM File expense report, time 'sheet, etc; 2670 Commerce - NSP cut service.- electrician is out at job site 3018 Devon - site inspection Plan review'and correspondence Sign request for Our Lady of the Lake Church Building Department June 1986 Report Page 3 duly 2, 1986 6-17-86 6-18-86 6-1'9-86 6=20=86 6-23-86 6-24-86 Answer inquiries 8 - 10 AM, Met with City Manager Staff meeting Answer inqui.ries 8 - 1'0 AM Met with Dick.Ferrick and,Dave Hansing RE: 'Pelican. Point Chuck Raab and Lee Stover RE: Balboa .SprinEler system and remote stati.on Field inspection Commerce Place, Three Points Blvd, Bartlett Spruce Road, etc. Plan review Heating meeting at Mlnnegasco, test commerica! kitchen 6375-Acorn Road pre final 2605 Westedge Blvd - heating and-deck 5337 Shoreline Blvd ~ SA Cathode test. plus site inspection Fill site on Bradford and Leslie Rd, etc. Answer inquiries '250t Emerald Drive - footing 1?68'Lafayette - framing 1748 Avocet Lane - footing 5300 Balboa.with ADT monitoring alarm--company Met with June Hyland to discuss code compliance exterior storage complaints Answer inquiries 8 - lO.AM 3153 Donald Drive - Plumbing 3200 Dexter Rd.-- footing ,. 3245 Dexter - final Trailer.Park with Ray Karnuth 6635 Halstad Lane/Bartlett 2200 Commerce Place - framing 2640 Setter Circle -progress 2620 Setter Circle -' progress 2625 Westedge - progress 2624 Westedge - progress 2646 Westedge - final 2636 Westedge - final 2200 Commerce. Blvd - framing 6142 Evergreen Rd - final 6038 Evergreen - recheck 4673 Island View Drive final. 4687 Island View Drive- no permit talked'to owner to obtain one 3153 Priest Lane -.garage site, possible variance'location 6:45 PM Council meeting until 10:50 PM 4967 Wilshire - Code compliance Building Department June Report July 2, 1~86 Page 4 6-25-86 5225 Waterbury - water problem in 6 year old house Get gasoline and car wash 5040 Enchanted Rd - code.compliance 5043 Enchanted Rd - code compliance. 164~ Gull Lane -..code compliance 2240 Commerce - Old Super Valu wa11 bei.ng ripped out 1721 Dove Lane.- not started yet 1701 Dove Lane- final 1669 Dove Lane - final Met with City Manager, etc. 6-26-86 Answer inquiries 8 - 10 AM 4568 Denbigh Rd - garage site inspection 5411 Bartlett Blvd 'footing 3007 Highview Dr. r footing 2174 Overland Lane - final 5971Hillcrest.- final, inspection Balboa and other correspondence. ~ Met with, Greg Skinner RE: 1959 and 1928 Shorewood, etc, 6-27-86 6-30-86 Answer inquiries 8 -10 AM Talked to Eon Burns RE: temperature, of building and C.O. Carlson to service-air .conditioner 1721 Dove Lane'- demolition 4947 Crestview,- fence 2200 Commerce. 1584 Finch Answer inquiries 8 - 10 AM. 2620 Tyrone Road -. code compliance 4977 Brunswick - code.compliance 5024 Bartlett Blvd. - framing 4805 Shoreline - progress 1721 Dove -demolition of Ci.ty property Met C.O. Carlson and Eon Burns RE: heating and cooling system at City Hall 6038 Evergreen Rd - tnsulation etc. 9 Variances 1 Vacation 1 Subdivision 1 Preliminary Plat The above items were handled by .the P & Z Commission'and referred to the City Council JB:ls I3 CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: FROH: RE: DATE: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER AND CITY COUNCIL JOHN NORMAN, FINANCE DIRECTOR JUNE 1986 FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT JULY 2, 1986 June was a good month to get caught up on various projects before the budget process gets going full force in July. The following is a list of a few of the items worked on in June: - The final 1985 figures were submitte~ to the State Auditor by June 30, as required by state law (this information was also published in the Laker). - A study of our computer service bureau, LOGIS, began in June. The objective of the study is to determine whether to continue with LOGIS or recommend selecting an alternative computer system. - A finance Department staff meeting was held regarding the backing up of duties in the event of an emergency. The backup responsibility for all of the major functions has been assigned to persons within the department. The person presently performing the function is to write out procedures and instructions to be reviewed with the assigned back up. This is an important project that will enable us to avoid using crisis management. 3 ''~/~ Employer that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicapped status An equal opportunity in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment ~n. ~ts programs and activities. Finance Department June Report July 2, 1986 Page 2 INVESTMENTS The following is June investment activity: Balance 6-1-86 Bought: CD 6.75% Due 9-26-86 BA 6.715% Due 9-12-86 BA 6.77% Due 8-1- 86 Comm Pap 6.64% Due 10-10-86 Comm Pap 6.64% Due 10-17-86 Marquette American Nat"l American Nat'l Marquette Marquette Matured: Farm Credit 13.125% CD 7.8~ Dain Bosworth Marquette $6,211,921 100,OOO 260,108 139,529 117,638 195,811 (50,000) (12o,ooo) $6,855,OO7 .. Breakdown of Balance - U.S. Gov't Securities Certificates of Deposit Bankers Acceptance. Commerical Paper Government Trust Pool Repurchase Agreement $4,145,518 1,145,000 595,821 513,668 335,000 120,OO0 $6,'855,O07 COMMERCE SQUARE TAX INCREMENT-FINANCING DISTRICT Balance 6-1-86 $3.88,238 6-30-86 Interest Earned 2,930 Balance 6-30-86 $391,168 The only change in the tax increment district was the name - it has gone from Town Square to Commerce Place to Commerce Squ~re. What next? JN:ls I$?? CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: FROH: RE: DATE: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER AND CITY COUNCIL JOEL KRUMM, LIQUOR STORE MANAGER JUNE 1986 REPORT JULY 2, 1986 Sales for' the month were $79,027.29. This compares with $84,804.32 from last year. We are down $10,729.42 from last year, but $22,377. above the 1984 sales. A mild victory and happy medium. The big news to report on was our mid-year inventory. Our inventory was conducted Sunday, June 29th. It was successful but quite uneventful. One person did fail to show up due to illness. Other than that, we had a sufficient number of people to complete the task. Donuts and coffee were served about 9:00 AM, lasting until about 9:20 AM, then things got offically under way. A new employee and myself worked in the wine section. Julie Clyne and another employee headed up the liquor department, and two of the part time guys who have been here the longest were in charge of counting the beer. One of the guys mentioned (in jest I'm sure) that he enjoyed doing inventory so much that he would like to come in every Sunday and do it! We finished with counting the beer, liquor and wine out front by 1:00 PM. Since I had finished the inventory in the back room the previous night, there was nothing else to do but send the part timers home. It took Julie and I about an hour to count the mix and miscellaneous items on the sales floor and to go around and collect inventory tickets. We left at 2:00 in the afternoon. Well, we hope to have a very busy month in July and we will be waiting eagerly to see the results of the inventory. JK:ls j~ ~ (~ 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. Oi[.TY OF FiOU~ 1.10If'ND, I',iTN~ 'lES OTA I'.IONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT OF LIQUOR DEPARTKI~'T" i~onth & iYe~r Compa~-ison o£ HontbZy Sales // CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 July 2, 1986 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Ed Shukle Greg Skinner Water & Sewer Supt. June's Monthly Activity Report WATER DEPARTMENT In'June we pumped 28,461,000 gallons of water. There was 3 new accounts in June. We flushed fire hydrants in June with no problems. It seems we had a run on hydrants being damaged in June. A total of 3 hydrants were damaged at a cost of approximately $3,060. The Beachwood Project is now completed. The watermain had to be rerouted under the storm sewer, but should not create any problems to the system. Water T-offs are going fine, we had to dig up 6 standpipes that were on the list for T-offs. We had a minor electrical problem with Well #7, but seems to be all right now. We sent out 28 letters to the residents in the Tonkawood area that didn't have outside readers yet. This was the only section that hadn't received the letter. As of this date we have installed 10 outside readers and found 2 that are not possible. As of now we have 164 home out of 3069 that do not have outside readers, which is about 5%. SEWER DEPARTMENT June was pretty normal only 1 back-up with no damage. We have started to do our own seal and sleeve repair in our lift pumps. Gravity sewer line cleaning is going well. We had one of our lift pumps at the Grandview station up graded to it's normal' pumping capacity. But there still seems to be a problem. There is a possibility that we may have an obstruction in the force main. If this is the case we_wil'l~ha~e.:~o:digi~o:fifid:.it~:. but hopefully it just might pass through. 3 "~('-'~ An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on the race, color, origin, or handicapped ,'7/--,, basis of national status in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities. June 1986 SHOP MAINTENANCE RECORD The following is a record of work to City vehicles by the mechanic° STREET DEPT. Unit #1 - Replace front drive shaft U-joint Staff Car - replaced air filter, cleaned converter ADMINISTRATION Unit #20 - changed air filter POLICE DEPT. #840 - Install radios, cage, shotgun holder, printer, removed rear door handles and window controls, install light bar, siren and door stickers #841 - Fixed flat on right front and balanced, Installed light bar from #840, replaced city antenna lead, replaced two bad bulbs #842 - changed oil, filter & lubed #843 - changed oil, filter & lubed, installed dog cage, relocated city radio, removed rear seat & door panel, installed new trunk switch. #844 - Changed oil, filter & lubed, installed new light bar. Installed new front brake pads CSO - replaced top radiator hose~ CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER AND CITY COUNCIL JIM FACKLER, PARKS DIRECTOR~ dUNE MONTHLY PARKS DEPARTMENT REPORT JULY 1, 1986 PARKS DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS General Comment The Parks Department in June is operating at maximum level of personnel and line item expenditures. The months from June through August the per cent of expenditures will show a dramatic increase and will not taper off until September, with the department losing the seasonal personnel. This summer we are experiencing numerous breakdowns in vehicles and equipment. A hard look at equipment replacement for the Parks Department is in order for the next three budget years. My.request for this upcoming budget year of 1987 will seem extremely high. But with a look at current equipment you will see the Parks Department needs. SPECIFIC Depot Operations Tree removal has increased this month to'approximately 25 trees. We have had numerous requests for clean up of areas where residents have dropped branches, leaves and grass clippings onto City owned property. The Parks Department does not have the personnel or equipment to maintain these areas. Cemetery Approximately.five dead elm trees have to be removed from an area next to the new plot sites. This cost will be put onto the tree removal line item #4511 in the Parks Budget. A planned tree trimming for the old section is being budgeted for in 1987, this will be approximately $1000.00. Parks The parks are being maintained by a staff of seven, including myself. Of these, four are assigned to mowing crew and two of these four are Tree Trust Workers that are at no cost to the City. Two other seasonal employees are mainly doing repairs and installation of parks equipment. Again, we are faced with more work than is capable with the limited men and equipment on board. in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, its programs and activities. Monthly Parks Department Report July 1, 1986 Page 2 Docks With the high waters this sp~ing, the docks have been late in installation. This has put a greater length of time to bring all docks into compliance. Currently, Dell Rudolph, Dock InspectoF, has compiled a list of Commons shoreline which is need of repair. Our intention is to get a cost figure for this, which we expect to be a sizabl.e amount. The Council will need to look at this retention of an important asset very closely. JF:ls /3zO CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 June 30, 1986 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Ed Shukle ' Geno Hoff, Street Supt. June's Monthly Report This month was devoted almost entirely to get ready for sealcoating. We have about 11 miles to seal this year and seeing that we had a winter that raised havoc with the streets, we had alot of patching to do. It took 18 days to do the work and here are the figures for the materials. 1016 gallons of oil (~ac) $1.50 per gallon or $1,524.O0, 168 ton of mix (asphalt) at $19.50 a ton or $3,276.00. The total just for the materials is $4,800.00 In the 1986 Street Budget we have a line item #4234 Street Maintenance Materials, we started out the year with $19,OO0 and at the end of May we used 51% which left us with $9,250.94, now subtract $4,800 which leaves $4,450.~9. We have 5 frostboils to dig out and Tuxedo needs alot of handpatching from Clyde to Cty. Rd. 125, plus salt and sand for November and December, so I don't know how we can make this money stretch. (we have a problem) STREET SIGNS June was a rough month on signs, we had alot of vandalism such as stolen signs, bent posts and paint, must have been a full moon. We had a double rockwall go down the weekend of the 21st (4" of rain). We had a wallrock company give us a bid of $1,800 to replace it. They will repair it next week and the city will sod it. /'~ ~) [""~ 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 Drograms and activities. LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Telephone 472-3711 Mound, MN 55364 Dispatch 544-9511 EMERGENCY 911 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Ed Shukle, City Manager ~ Len Harrell, Police Chief~ Monthly Report for June, 1986 STATISTICS The police department received 704 calls for service in the month of June. There were 45 reports of Part I offenses and 82 Part II offenses. The Part I offenses included 1 criminal sexual conduct, 8 burglaries, 34 larcenies, and 2 auto thefts. In addition, there were 12 accidents (2 with injuries), 13 medical emergencies, and 105 animal complaints. The patrol division issued 308 adult citations; including 47 parking violations. Twenty-eight citations were issued to juveniles. There were 12 arrests for DWI; all adults. The department issued 106 warnings. There were 11 adults arrested for felonies and 30 arrested for misdemeanors. Four juveniles were arrested for felonies and 9 for misdemeanors. For the first 6 months of 1986, Part I offenses are up 12% and Part II offenses are up 64%. Clearance rates for Part I crimes are at 36%, as compared to 20% for 1985 and 19% for the county-wide average. Part II offenses are being cleared at a rate of 64%; up from 55.7% for 1985 and 52.4% for the county-wide average. Hazardous violations are up 50% over 1985, with traffic accidents being down 40%. DWI arrests are up 116% over 1985. Adult arrests are up 36%; but juvenile arrests are down slightly. II. INVESTIGATION Sgt. Hudson was involved in depositions for 56 houns '~._~g~f~he~Tm~.~h.' of June. The depositions are in regards to the "Doe" lawsuit. Seven child abuse/neglect cases were investigated during the month Police Department June Monthly Report Page Two of June requiring 38 hours of investigative time. Other cases investigated included a criminal sexual conduct, assault and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, issuance of a worthless check, forgery, and a burglary of business. Seven formal complaints were issued in June. The complaints included assault, burglary, forgery, narcotics possession, driving after revocation, and gross misdemeanor DWI. I!I. MANPOWER Officers were utilized to assist in investigation where scheduling allowed. The increase in the clearance ratemay be attributed to the use of patrol officers to assist in the following up of cases. Additionally, the new reporting system is allowing for better tracking of cases and providing additional information. With the s~m~,er months upon us; officers are taking their vacations and scheduling adjustments have been made as manpower is available. IV. TRAINING Each officer.received two hours of firearms training'in' the month of June. V. RESERVES The police reserves donated 345.5 hours inthe month of June. The largest amount of time was spent in' co~nunity service details and assisting in patrol units. The current staffing of the reserves includes 9 officers and a liaison officer. The liaison officeris Kyle Larson and the unit has two reserve officers that hold the rank of sergeant. OFFENSE ACTIVITY SUMMARY ~ ~z ~ DART I CRIMES o ~ = ~ o ~ u ~ u ~DULT,, J~ {omicide 1 Sexual Conduct 1 1 ' 1 3 %ssault 5urglary 8 1 7 1 3 Larceny 34 2 32 1 3 1 3 Vehicle Theft 2 1 1 1 Arson 1 1 TOTAL 45 4 41 1 7 8 4 PART' II CRIM~-9 ~ 1 2 2 Child Abuse/Neglect ForgeryfNSF Checks 4 . 4 1 Criminal Dsmmge to P:operty 21 21 1 Weapbns 1 1 1 2 Narcotic Laws Liquor Laws 4 4 4 2 3 D~[ 12 12 12 12 S~e Assault ~3 1 2 1 Domestic Assault ~ 7 4 2 2 Domestics (No Assault) Harassing Phone Calls 3 3 Runaway/Incorrigibility 8 8 1 5 5 Public Peace 8 8 3 1 1 Ail Other Offenses 8 8 5 1 1 82 2 80 17 27 .21 8 PART III & IV REPORTS Property Damage Accidents .... 10 10 Personal Injury ~ccidents 2 2 Fatal Accidents - - Medicals 13 13 Animal C~mplaints 105 105 Mutual Aid 19 19 · _~General Invest±g_~.t±ons ~28 428 577 577 TOTAL AcrI¥ITIF..S 704 6 698 ~$ 34 29 12 MONTH GENERAL ACTIVIT, Y SUMMARY POLICE/CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT JUNE YEAR 1986 'THIS THIS YEAR . LAST YEAR MONTH TO DATE TO DATE Hazardous Citations 198 686 457 Non-Hazardous Citations 58 298 397 Hazardous WarninEs 33 268 156' Non-Hazardous Warnings 48 575 504 Parkin~ Citations -47 418 660 DWI ~ 12 67 31 OVER .10 5 44 17 property DamaEe Accidents 10 35 '62 Personal In,jury Accidents ~ 14 19 Fatal Accidents 0 0 0 ~ult Felony Arrests 11 32 13 Adult MisdemeanOr Arrests 30 262 203 Adult Misdemeanor Citations 13 51 - Juvenile Felony Arrests 4 17 32 Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests 9 68 56 Juvenile Misdemeanor Citations 3 21 - Part I OffensEs 41 185 165 P~rt II Offenses 80 459 280 Medicals 13 93 136 Animal Complaints 105 600 661 Other General Investigations 428 2,568 3,030 TOTAL 1,150 6,160 6,879 Assists 74 436 - Follow-Ups 48 287 - PROPERTY LOSS/RECOVERY SUMHARY Bikes Snowmobiles ITEH Boats, Motors, Trailers Clothing Currency, Notes, Etc. Jewelry $ Preclous Metals unS Home Furnishings Radio & Electronic Equipment Vehicles $ Vehicle Equipment Miscellaneous TOTAL STOLEN $ 365 50 170 125 349 4,765 84 3,177 $9,085 RECOVERED $ 360 $ 360 City' MOUND Month JUNE 19 86~ CITATIONS ADULT JUV OWl or OUI 12 More than .10~ BAC 5 Careless/Reckless Orlvin9 Drivin9 After Susp. or Rev. Open Bottle 1 2 Speeding 141. No DL or Expired DL 3 Restrictlon on DL 1 Improper, Expired, ~r No Plates 22' · llle~al Passln9 StOp Sign.Violations Fallure to Yield - 17 22 Equipment Violations 22 2. H&R Leavin~l the Scene 1 Illegal or Improper Lane Usage Illegal or Unsafe Tbrn · -Over the Centerline esFk] 47 Crosswalk '~ 3 0o9 Ordinances 7 Derelict Autos . 1 MisCellaneous Tags , 19 TOTALS t 308 WARN I NGS · Traffic 29 3 28 4 .Equipment 40 8 Crosswalk Animals 9 Trash/Derelict Autos 12 Other 4 TOTAL ,- ARRESTS Felony 3 Hisdemeanor 9 12 1 MOUND POLICE RESERVES MONTHLY HOURS JUNE 1986 NAME ECO RS R, Brown - - R. Hawks - - D. Huggett - - D. Niccum - - D. Shenkyr - 35 D. St.Cyr - 6½ D. Thompson 5 - R. Vogel - 38½ TOTALS 5 80 RA CS 7 4 - 12½ - 4 19½ 27 - 7½ 24 19 36 17 86½ 91 TR IN AD MM - - 10 - - - 15 2 8 - - ~½ - - - 1.5 ~o 8 20 ~½ - - - 1½ 18 8 45 12 TOTAL 21 29½ 5 55 16 87½ 93 ECO- Emergency Call Out RS- Reserve Squad RA- Ride Along w/Regular CS- Community Service Details Mound City. Days Graduation Party Firemen's Fish Fry Lion's Wagon Train Dance TR- Training IN- Instruction Given AD- Adnistrative MM- Monthly Meeting MOUND POLICE RESERVES MONTHLY SEVERENCE JUNE 1986 NAME R. Brown R. Hawks D. Huggett D. Niccum D. Shenkyr D. St. Cyr D. Thompson R'. Vogel AMOUNT DEPOSITED 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 TOTAL TOTAL 42.50 161.50 58.00 5.00 75.00 40.00 138.00 172.00 692.00 CITY of MOUND July 2, 1986 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: FROM: RE: CITY MANAGER CITY CLERK JUNE MONTHLY REPORT June of a State election year is when the City starts gearing up for the 2 fall elections. There is one mandatory election meeting with the Secretary of State's office regarding changes in election laws from the last Legislative Session. Then there are and will be a number of meetings with Hennepin County regarding supplies that are provided by the County, procedures to be followed, absentee ballot training session, punchcard training session,' etc. I a~ also a member of the Hennepin County Elections and Voter Registration Coordinating Committee. This Committee monitors legislation tMat could affect election laws and prcedures and most recently worked with the Voting Machine Task Force on optical scan voting equipment. Hennepin County is looking at this optical scan equipment to be used county wide in the next several years. They are working on a bulk purchase and then would sell to the municipalities, but Lhis would not affect Mound this year or next. Brooklyn Park will be using this equipment as a test city this year. I met with Reverend Moeller of Moun't Olive Lutheran Church to check out the area that will be used as a polling place for Precinct #1 in the upcoming elections. I have now notified Hennepin County and they will be sending us mailing labels to notify all registered voters in Precinct #1 of the change. We will also publicize this well closer to the elections. There were two regular Council Meetings in June and the reconvened Board of Review. Agendas, Minutes and Resolutions to prepare and cleanup items after each meeting. There was research done on things the Council has asked for such as the public liability insurance requirement for liquor license holders. The finishing touches were put on the tax forfeit parcels that will come before the Council in July. Things such as assessments from before forfeiture that need to be placed on the property in 1 137 3 An equal opportunity Employer that does not discriminate on t e basis of race. color, nationa~ origin, or handicapped status in the admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, ItS programs and activities. Page 2 City Manager July 2, 1986 the resolution, seeing if the parcels need to be reconveyed to the county before disposition, etc. Voter registration maintenance runs that come from the County were worked with. Mound had over 1,000 challenged voter registrations and the Legislature has now given us the authority to delete these after Hennepin County has mailed out two notices and they are returned in the mail as undeliverable.- Then there were the usual property problems, research into these' problems, phone calls (some which require time such as who was the Mayor of Mound in 1941 for and upcoming class reunion.) In case you would like to know it was J. R. Krause. There was a budget preparation meeting with you and working out the schedule to input the budget information into the .computer. I have called the County Assessor and asked for the updated assessed valuation for the Fire Contract Cities in order to start preparing the 1987 Fire Contracts. We will soon be working on the Central Business District expenses so that we can integrate the figures into the formula for the CBD assessment roll. fo 2 FIRE DEPARTI",[I~T MOI,'~IRLY ACTIVITY R[.POR1 ~] TH1S . LAST. THIS YEAR LAST YEAR NT MONTH MONTH . ~ TO DATE ~'TON~ BEACH- FIRE 0 ~ ~ EHERGENcY ' ./ ~ ~ ~HERGENCY / ~ ~ ORONO - _ SHOKEWOOD - ~IRE 0 0 ~ SPRING PARK- FIRE ~ / /~ TOTAL EHERGENCi CALLS ' 2~ // 51' GRASS ~ HISCELLANEOUS F ~ ~ /~ /0' '- M'TON~ B.-FIRE 0 · 0 J ' ~O '0 EMERGENCY ' ~ ~ F~ ~. 0 ,, - OBONO F IRE - SHOREWOOD-FIRE 0 0 ~ TOTAL ~ EMERGENCY' 0 ~ ~ TOTAL DRILL HOURS / ~ /03.~ g~)~ ~. "~,~ TOTAL FIRE ~ EMERGENCY HOUKS' ~ ~-]~ ~~)' ~/m'~ ~,UTUAL AID RECEIVED 0 ~ 0 DRILLS & t;IIh~RgNA~ICE FI?~ a RESCUE WAGES WAGES HOURS RATE WAGES D. Carlson J s.,.co~,~ ~ / A Ig~ ;1 '& -- 12~,~ ~i. David / / ~ /~dg ~ Z ~ ~.~ S. Eridkson C. Henderson ~ngram - -- '- O..Johnson B. Landsman D. Platzer T. Rzsmussen W. '~wenson R. ~¥~ms ~ / ~ /f~ ~ ~ ~ /~.~ MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT Hound, Minnesota $5~611 OR I L L R£ PO R?. Oate ine and Team Work Critique of Fires Pre-Plannlng &'lnspectl°ns ~ools & Apparatus Identifying Hand Extinguisher Operation Wearing Protective ¢lothlng Films Firs: Aid and ResCue Operation Uge of 'Self-Contained Hasks inhalator Operation NOTE: Hours Training Paid Ti me X Excused pumper Oper~tlon Fire Str~am.s ~; Friction Loss House Burnings Natural & Propane (;as Talk & Demonstrations Ladder Evol utions Salvage Operations Radio Operations House Evolutions Nozzle & Hose Alliance X Unexcus~d ~ Present, Not Paid ellafieous Time (]~___J. Andersen ~ I/j..G. Anderson ~ I I,~_j. Beauchamp ~ t/~-O. Boyd ~m/j._ D. Bryce ~/~S. Bryce j~_P. Charles ~)/~M. David ~ I/~_S. Erickson ~)~/~j. Gravais ~I/~L. Heitz ~I/~.C Henderson ~ !/.~ G. Johnson ~/~-F..M. K1 eeberger ~ Y/~_B. Landsman ~I/;~.R. Marschke D ~/J'J' Nafus ~/~.M. Nelson ~.A. Opitz ~ ff.:.B. Palm ~ I/a-G. Palm ~ I.~...M. Palm ~) f/~.G. Pederson ~ I~-D. Platzer ~ ~/J-T. Rasmussen Drillmaster ~;/j~M. Savage ~ ~/~T. Stal lman ~ ~/~x_T. Swenson ~/~.W. Swenson ~) I/a-M. Tobey ia ~/~. R. Williams .~) ~/~-T. Wi 11 lams MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT Mound, Minnesota 5536~ DRILL R E P 0 R T Date Dlsclpline and Team I~ork Crltique of Fires Pre-Planning &'Inspections · .T'ools S. Apparatus Identifying Hand £xtlngulsher Operation l~earing Protective Clothing Films Flrs.t Aid and ResCue Operation Uge of Self-Contained Masks ! nhalator Operation Time Pumper Operation ~ire Streams & Friction Loss House Burnings · .Natural & Propane Gas Talk & Demonstrat Ions Ladder Evol utions Salvage Operations Radio Operations House Evolutions Nozzle & Hose Alliance Time NOTE: Hou'~s Training Pald X Excused X Unexcus~d 0 Present, Not Paid 14i scel 1 a~eous ~ t/~j: Andersen ~ I/~.G. Anderson ~ f/J-J. Babb ~ ~/~J. Beauchamp i~'~.D. Boyd ~ I/~_j). Bryce ~/~-.S. Bryce ~ V~j). Carlson ~/J- P. Charles ~) I/J-~. Collins ~ ~/~.M. David ~ ~/:a~. Erickson la ~/-~ n. Gravais ~ ~/~_L. Heitz i~L ~/.~_C, Henderson ~//J_G. Johnson ~q.z_M. K1 eeberger ~ ~/~B. Landsman D '/a-R.' MQrschke C)~/~.J. Nafus C2 ~/~J~. Nel son CL~/~_A. Opi tz · ~/.~. Palm ~ )/~J3. Palm ~l~. Palm , .~/~' Pederson j~l/~. Platzer ~/~. Rasmussen Drillmaster ~~0 ~/jJl. Savage ~ ifa_ T. Stallman ~ ~/~.T. Swens0n ~I/J.W. Swenson ~t ~./,,~. Tobey ~ Ua.R. Williams ~ ~/J,T. Wfl liam~ BOARO MEMBERS Robert Rascop. Chairman 5horewood JoEIlen Hurt. Vice Chairman Crone Audrey Gisvold. Secretary Wayzata Jeff Elam. Treasurer Mound Marvin Bjorlin Tonka Bey Jan Boswinkel Minnetonka Beach Robert Tiplon Brown Greenwood Frank de Moncheux Minnestrisla Richard J. Ga,wood Deepheven Ron Kraemer Spring Park Robert K. Pillsbury Minnetonka Robert E. Slocum Woodland Ron Spargo Vicloria Carl H. Weiser Excelsior LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 402 EAST LAKE STREET WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 TELEPHONE 6121473-7033 FRANK MIXA, EXECU'flVE DIRECTOR June 26, 1986 TO: LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT MUNICIPALITIES Attached is the 1987 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District budget which is generally categorized as to purpose. It has been certified by the LMCD Board of Directors at its regular meeting June 25, 1986. Minnesota Statute Chapter 907, Section 4 provides= "Expense of the district shall be borne by the municipalities. The portion of the expenses borne by each municipality shall be in proportiom ; to its assessed valuation." · Section 5'provides= The board of directors of the district shall on or before July 1 of each year, prepare a detailed budget of its need for the next calendar year and certify the budget on that date to the governing body of each municipality in the district together with a statement of the proportion of the budget to be provided by each municipality. The governing body of each municipality in the district shall review the budget, and the directors, upon notice from any municipality, shall hear objec- tions to the budget and may, after the hearing, modify or amend the budget, and then give notice to the municipalities of modi- fications or amendments. It shall be the duty of the governing body or board of supervisors of each municipality in the dis- trict to provide the funds necessary to meet its proportion of the total cost to be borne by the municipalities as finally certified by the directors, the funds to be raised by any means within the authority of th~ municipalities and to pay the funds into the treasury of the district in amounts and at times the treasurer of the district may require. The municipalities may each levy a tax not to exceed one mill on the taxable prop- erty located therein, to provide such funds. Said levy shall be within all other limitations provided 'by law. This budget reflects anticipated .changes in activity of the District to implement the recommendations of the Metro Task Force on Lake Minnetonka. To initiate the development of .a Comprehensive Lake Management Plan, $10,000 in consulting services and other increases are projected for research and data development next y~ar. The District is pursuing an active legislative program in 1987 to support research, development, and funding for the regional aspects of the program. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT LMCD Municipalities June 26, 1986 Page 2 These funding sources, i.e., Boating Safety or special fund alloca- tions, exemption from municipal levy limitations, user fees, or other regional grants and aids which may become available, should limit or reduce the burden on the ~unicipal lax levy. The District will also review its fee schedule this fall for possible additional support. Any future changes in the program requiring additiofial staffing, equipment, .or facilities will depend on the outcome of our legislative proposals. If you have any questions regarding this Budget or any particular information as it relates to the activities of the District, please contact me. Respectfully submitted, Frank Mixa, Exe'cdtive Director Lake Minnet0nka Conservation District enc: 1987 Adopted Budget June 25, 1986 Memo to LMCD Board c/enc: LMCD Board Members Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 1987 ADOPTED BUDGET REVENUE LMCD Communities Other Income TOTAL GENERAL FUND REVENUE $100,917 1984 1985 1986 1986 1987 Actual Actual Jan-Apr Estimate Adopted $ 68,824 $ 49,975 $36,349 $ 49,975 $ 62,912 ~32,093 52,304 55,982' 59,682 63,300 $102,279 $92,331 $109,657 $126,212 DISBURSEMENTS General Fund - Administration Personal Services Salaries Auditing Services Total Personal Services Contractual Services Telephone Postage Prtg., Publ., & Adv. Utilities Maintenance - Office Equip. Janitorial'Services Other Contractual Services Total Contractual Services Commodities & Supplies Office Supplies Books & Periodicals General Supplies Total Commodities & Supplies Other Char~es Office Rent Insurance & Bonds Memberships Employer Contributions Mileage & Expenses Total Other Charges $ 52,480 $ 58,633 $20,366 $62,762 $ 65,272 600 500 -- 500 550 53,080 59,133 20,366 63,262 65,822 761 782 214 780 805 1,184 1,412 700 1,500 1,450 900 750 152 800 950 313' 213 58 360 360 1,123 941 322 1,800 2,020 660 645 225 720 780- 6,002 924 340 2,700 2,700 10,943 5,667 2,011 8,660 9,065 1,520 2,390 678 '1,900 2,100 103 161 66 135 135 272 241 19 245 245 1,895 2,792 763 2,280 2,480 3,600 3,600 1,200 4,005 4,005 2,621 1,518 -- 1,800 1,900 216 235 110 235 240. 9,028 9,306 3,194 9,900 10,100 1,195 1,162 134 1,250 1,250 16,659 15,821 4,638 17,190 17,495 1984 Actual DISBURSEMENTS (cont.) General Fund - Administration (cont.) Capital Outla% Office Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment Total Capital Outlay 1985 1986 1986 1987 Actual Jan-Apr Estimate Adopted $ 1,251 $ 4,731 $ 4,452 $ 4,452 $ 1,350 1,251 4,731 4,452 4,452 1,350 Total General Fund - Administration General Fund - Legal Legal Services Total General Fund - Legal $ 83,828 $ 88,144 $32,230 $ 95,844 $ 96,212 $ 13,652 $ 17,055 $ 4,593 $ 16,000 $ 16,000 13,652 17,055 4,593 16,000 16,000 General Fund - Consultin~ Services Consulting Services ~ ~' Total General Fund - Consulting Services -- 10,000 -- 10,000 General Fund - Committees & Contingency Committees & Contingency Total General Fund - Committees & Contingency 1,380 4,609 565 1,380 4,609 565 3,000 4,000 3,000 4,000 TOTAL GENERAL FUND DISBURSEMENTS $ 98,860 $109,808 $37,388 $114,844 $126,212 · 3 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 1987 ADOPTED BUDGET - Continued DISTRBUTION OF EXPENSE Deephaven Excelsior Greenwood Minnetonka Minnetonka Minnetrista Mound Orono Shorewood Spring Park Tonka Bay Victoria Wayzata Woodland Beach Total % of % of Budget. Assessed Total Resulting from Value Assessed 1/3 Mil $12,582 Maximum (1,000's) Valuation Taxable to Minnetonka $ 45,092 22,270 9,209 480,402 10,918 35,836 64,585 100,778 51,215 14,916 19,668 17,866 57,221 11,486 4.8 % $ 15,031 2.4 7,423 1.0 3,070 51.0 38,422 1.1 3,639 3.8 11,945 6.9 21,528 10.7 33,593 5.4 17,072 1.6 4,972 2.1 6,556 1.9 5,955 6.1 19,074 1.2 3,829 7.8 3.8 1.6 20.0 1.9 6.2 11.2 17.6 8.9 2.6 3.4 3.1 9.9 2.0 $941,462 100.0% $192,109 100.0% Share of $62,912 1987 Budget $ 4,907 2,391 1,007 * 12,582 1,195 3,901 7,046 11,073 5,59~ 1,636 2,139 1,950 6,228 1,258 $62,912 *Maximum of $12,582 Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 4 1987 ADOPTED BUDGET - Continued LAKE HINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1987 PROPOSED BUDGET COMPARISON 1986 - 1987 TAX LEVIES Share of $49,975 1986 Budget Deephaven $ 3,848 Excelsior 1,999 Greenwood 750 Minnetonka * 9,995 Minnetonka Beach 900 Minnetrista 3,198 Mound 5,747 Orono 8,996 Shorewood 4,498 Spring Park 1,249 Tonka Bay 1,599 Victoria 1,549 Wayzata 4,648 Woodland 999 Share of $62,912 1987 Budget $ 4,907 2,391 1,007 12,582 1,195 3,901 7,046 11,073 5,599 1.636 2,139 1,950 6,228 1,258 Change +12,937 + $ 1,059 + 392 + 257 + 2,587 + 295 + 703 + 1,299 + 2,077 + 1,101 + 387 + 540 + 401 + 1,580 + 259 Total $49,975 $ 62,912 + 12,937 * Maximum by law. · LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT TO: LMCD BOARD MEMBERS FROM: ExecUtive .Committee DATE: June 25, 1986 SUBJ: 1987 Proposed Budget Attached is the proposed 1987 budget for the District. The total budget request of $126,212 represents an increase of $12,937 from last. year's $49,975 levy, and an increase of $3,618'over last year's Other Income of $59,682. Other Income includes license and permit fees, interest, and other miscellaneous revenue ".. · Distribution of the. levy Go. the villages would also be an increase of approximately 25.9% over last year, depending on relative.changes in assessed values. There was no levy increase from 1982 to 1983. 1984's levy was reduced 28%. There was also no change in 1985 or 86.: The budget now levys..approximately 32.8% of the 1/3 mil allowable under the Statute, compared with 26.4% last year, and 39.8% in 1983. This ratio has declined from 75% in 197~ (relatively, a 60% reduction.) .... '' The budget provides the following adjustments: 1. 4% for salary increases. 2. Continued adjustment.in the Capital Outlay. to replace funds expended for the Xerox, Memorywriter, and for other future office equipment purchases~-- 3. Office equipment maintenance contracts changes. 4. Recodification of the LMCD Code of Ordinances has been budgeted as needed. 5. The office rent increase for 1983 is amortized over the balance of the.lease @ $405 per year. 6. Provision has been made for increased insurance costs. 7. $10,000 has been provided for anticipated consulting, services. 8. Committees and contingencies have been inCreased to $4,000. The Contingencies and Reserve fund of-$43,174 is below the District limit of one-half the budget as of the end of 1985, after purchasing office equipment, and authorized special projects. The Committees and Contingency for 1987 has been increased to $4,000 to provide for an anticipated higher level of activity. · 'LAKE HINNETONKA CONSERVATION DIST~CT , 1987 Proposed Budget: . .... .? The reserve funds ~are~.¢urren=l~ commi==ed as follows: License and per~ fees were'adjusted .in 1984, and fees were added in 1983 .. ;_. ;- ''- .~:. :. . for boat storage, densitY.., and .per~nen~.... :.-'- dock__ .- pemits. .......:... :~ -' -.-..-- -.' ~e le~ re~t~s well below the $68,825 village share Of 1984, although .. ... from 1981 municipalitie, have been allowed an 8% annu~ levy : under state law. - "'.-. . . :;.. : - · ' ~e budget provides for'CounsulC~ng engineering or ocher seduces. enc:' 1987 Proposed Budget CITY of MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 TO: FROM: RE: DATE: INTERESTED PERSONS ED SHUKLE, CITY HANAGER ORIENTATION MEETING WITH HAXFIELD RESEARCH'GROUP- LOST LAKE ANALYSIS JUNE 30, 1986 . As you are all aware, the City of Mound has hired a market analysis firm to do a study on what.the highest and best use of the Lost Lake property should be. Maxfield Research Group, .Inc., Hinneapolis,, has been hired by the City of Mound to do the market'analysis. Haxfield is a very competent firm with a great deal of experience in this type of work. Part of the study involves.an orientation meeting, where the firm sits down with interested persons to discuss the project and its various study areas. I felt that it was important for'you'to be notified of this meeting.and am inviting you to attend'if you are at all.interested in this study and. the future development of the Lost Lake property. The. meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, July ~, 1986, at 7:30 PM, in the City Council Chambers at City Hall... PJease advise my office on whether or not you will be attending by Tuesday, July 8th. Enclosed is some information, with regar~ to Maxfield Research Group's project outline, which you may be interested in reviewing prior to the meeting. If you have any questions, please cohtact me. ES:ls J ~((J ~3 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 actiwties. MAXFIELD RE CH L ROUP June 25, 1986 Hr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr. City Hanager City of Hound 5341Hayvood Road Hound, Hinnesota 55364 CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Haxfleld Research Group, Inc. proposes a research program addressing the high- est and best use of the Lost Lake property located in downtown Hound, Hinne- sota. The ob~ectlve of the research program is to assess the site as it laces to the needs and demand for various development types, and to make recom- mendations for the highest and best use based on the local economy, market conditions, demographic trends, and other practical land use planning consider- ations germane to the site. Our methodolog~ will include analysis Cf the site and the location, and detail- ed demographic analysis of population and household growth trends, employment, and other characteristics of the study area population. Harket analysis will include discussion of residential and commercial development, and the strength of the housing market, market for lodging services and commercial market (office space, retail sales, etc.). Conclusions and recommendations will focus on appropriate type(s) of development for this property. This preliminary study can be further refined in a second phase vhich would include more de- tailed recommendations on concepts, design, target markets, and Other factors specific to the selected development. SCOPE OF SERVICES AND REPORT O~TLINE A. Lost Lake Site and Location Analysis I. Site visit. 2. Analyze site's relationship to adjacent areas. 3. Strengths and weaknesses of site, related to various development types. 620 KICKER.NICK, 430 FIKS'T AVENUE NORTH ~ ~Tk'T~'T~ AD~T ~C ~ATPJk~C/~'I'A ~A~I I Cl1 Mr. E~ard J. Shukle, Jr. City of Mound June 25, 1986 Page 2 B. Demographic Review 1. Study of population, household and employment grovth. 2. Revlev study area ~rovth trends. · C. Analysis of Connnerclal/Reta£1 Harket De 1. Identi~y existing retail and counnercial development. 2. Identify planned and proposed development. 3. Analysis of market strength of retail services and office space demand. 4. Market de=and analysis for retail services and office space. Analysis of Need 'fo~ Lodging Facility (hotel) 1. Identify existing fac/1/tles in the market area. 2. Room demand Based on umrket for lodging facilities. E. Analysis of Housing Market 1. Definition of market area. 2. Assess strength of current rental and for-sale market. 3. Identification of planned and p'roposed projects. 4. Demand estinmtes for housing, based on growth trends. .,;o Conclusions and Recommendations 1. $,,-~arize growth trends. 2. Define type and scale of development ~ost appropriate given long-term market, conditions. 3. Identify target markets for development. 4. Discuss public improvements required. 5. Recommend overall timing for project. 6. Other development considerations. WORK PRODUCT These findings will. be presented in a Feasibility Study format and will cover the basic market criteria from whlch a decision can be made to proceed vith the project. The Feasibility Study is accepted by many lenders, limited partners, investors or governmental bodies vho require such documentation to satisfy their financing criteria. 6/30/86 ~HE FINAL MEETING OF 1986 "~DUND CITY DAY" CC~qITI~E MET ON JUNE 18, 1986, TO CONCLUDE ITS FINAL BUSINESS. HAROLD RECEIVED AN OFFER OF LOAN EQUIPMENT FOR NEXT YEAR FROM DOW/SAT IF WE HAVE A TRAINED OPERATOR (TV CAMERA). DEE MAAS VOLUNTEERED HAROLD ALSO VOLUNTESRED TO COORDINATE THE "CITY DAY" FOR ONE MORE YEAR. ALL VOTED IN FAVOR. Ticket Donations' Checkin~ Acct. Checks to Deposit A1 & Almas (41) Donations: .Mound Police Dept, "Rex to the Nationals" .Mound Park Dept. .Seniors Kitchen Band .Mound Street Dept. .Westonka/Mound High School Band .Around Mound 5 Mile Run .Ticket sellers and parade coordinators ; $751.00 '196.00 36.00 $983.00 21.00 300.00 ($321.00) 100.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 60.00 ($410.00) $252.00 Respectively submitted: MINUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JUNE 23, 1986 Present were: Chair Elizabeth Jensen; Commissi'oners Robert Byrnes, William Meyer, Geoff Michael, Thomas Reese, Ken Smith, William Thal and Frank Weiland; Council Representative Steven Smith; City Manager Ed. Shukle; and City Planner Mark Koegler. Also present were'the, following interested persons: Steven Codd0n, Robert Fiejds and Carl Hanson. M I NUTES . . The minbtes, of. the Planning Commission meeting of June 9, 1986 were presented' for ~ consideration; Reese moved .and Meyer; seconded a mot[on to approve'the minutes as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. .. BOARD OF APPEALS I.-3. Lot Size and Stree'c Front Variances fo'r. Case No. 86-5t8 'Lot 8, Block 4, Replat of Harriso~ Shores (5361 Three Points) Case'No. 86-519 Lot 7, BloCk 4, Replat of Harrison Shores (53SI'Three Points). Case No. 86-520 Lot 6, Block 4, Replat oflHarrison Shores {5341 Three Points) Applicant, Steven Coddon, was pres~nt. .. The Planner, Mark Koegler~ reviewed hls report on the above separate va, r.l'ance applications. He commented that Lot 8 contains 9,640 square fqet which falls within ten percent ofI the: minimum '10,000 square feet area requirement '~n the R-I Di~t~ict..Additionally, a.lO' foot front yard setback variance has been requested. The staff recommends granting approval, of the requested lot area and front yard setback for Lot 8 since.the'proposed variances meet~ the cri- teria ~Or .granting variances.and falls within the 90 percent'of lot area requirement estabtlshed as pol-icy by. the!City. Council. · B'~840 ' ' He commented that.Lot 7 'contains square feet as does Lot 6. He stated the thing to be de,termined is..whether it.meets the criteria for'granting var~-' 'ances in terms of minimum variance .in or'er-th make a.property usable and reasonable hardships and so forth, in.looking at the property, the lake level. has'-fluctuated over the years'; it did seem to-be reasonable that in order to afford reasonable Use of.the property,'a variance would be necessary.' Or~i'- hence requests that you alway~ look at absolute minimum necessary in order to make such a parcel, buildable. Lot 7did not represent the minimum that was required; it ~ould have been. setback further than presently proposed, and therefore, denial was recommended fop both Lots 6'and 7. "' In looking at. the':entire package in a comprehensive fashion, the most ap- propriate approach would be to look at splitting Lot 7 (middle)or) and do a simple division, which would not be a.great expense to the applicant. Two building pads.'couid be developed with about a h to 5 foot mlnium setback variance. Wei)and'mo~ed a motion to tab]e and get information on the entire package. Motion was seconded by Meyer. The vote was Jansen and Michael against; Byrnes, Meyer, Reese, Ken Smith, Thal, Weiland and Steve Smith all in favor. App)icant, Steven Coddon, stated that this is rea]ly a hardship on him. He stated that he had asked to be heard prior to the discussion and motion. He~d )ike Lot 8 to be discussed on its merit and he's withdrawn the other t~ Planning Commission Minut~s June 23, 1~B6 - Page 2 Thal moved'a motion to reconsider the motion to table. Jensen seconded the motion. The vote was: Michael, Re, se, Ken Smith, Thal and Jensen in' favor and Byrnes, Hey,r, Weiland and Steve Smith against. Hotion carried. Coddon stated he put these 'in as three separate applications~ but he has since found that he' can'purchaSe.Lot $'whlch he can combine wlth-Lots 6. and 7 and have more than e~ough .square footage for two parce]s.w|th tho~e~. He put in'a separate application on Lot 8 as it is so clqse to being a normal usable'lot' and he has'a .separate mortgage on that property with a balloon coming due. He stated he will come in .for a combination of Lots 6. and 7 or he wlll have enough area for 1.ga! sized parcels if he buys LOt 5. The-COmmission'questioned the 'setback fr~m the water and the minimum el,va- ti.on. Koegler stated the lot area measured above the ~2~.50HW plus you have to have fini'shed floor leVel above ~33.5. They discussed setback on Lots 6 and 7. Coddon stated Lot q has a 10 foot street front setback. Further discussion followed as to how and what size ·unit might be placed on the"lots, that this was one of the most visible places in the City, and j · it should look nice. Motion by Meyer and seconded by. Reese to deny the requests without seeing the'whole plan. The Vote was Michael and Thal opposed and all others.- voted in favor, of the denial. ·Motion carried to deny the request. Case No. 86-518 will be.on the Council agenda of July 8, 1~86. Case Num- bers 86-51.9 and'86-520 have been withdrawn by applicant. Commissioner Thal.commented:on Coddon"s'aa in paper; he stated that it was very much out-of-line to criticize,,what is one of the Building Official's jobs 'to. do. ,' Case No. 86-52~ Public'Hear'ing on Proposed Vacation of portion of Three Polnts".Boulevard abutting Lots' 13, lq.and 15, Block 25, 5hadywood Polnt Robert' Fields·was present for. applicant, Brian Zubert The'City Planner, Mark Koegler, stated there is a report in the packet from th~ Cit~ Engineer's office. Area. is'on Jennings.Road; 3 streets come together there and there is a very expansive right-of-way which is not necessary for street purposes; There are easements located within this proposed vacation; the'staff recommendation by the City Engineer is to : approve vacation subject to retainSng utility and drainage easements. Mr. Fields stated the.reason'for the.request'was that when they went to set the house on t~e lot, they diScovered-our setback caused'the house to be aligned with'the bend'in street direction; hence, hbuse would be facing' southwest When'the street actua11~ runs·in a northeast direction. They want to'straighten the house.out'with other houses down the block. The Commission questloned,if they intended to rearrange the curb line. Koegler stated they only plan for ~it]e of land to go to app)icant with easements. Physically, )t woutd not )ook any different, it was discussed that the little sliver in front of Lot 12 would go to the'owner of that lot'. The Commission had questions on whether Lot 15 would become build- able with the additional vacated land. The Chair noted that'this was a public hearing; being as there were no Planning Commission Minutes June 23, 1986 - Page 3 persons present relative to this vacation; she closed the public hearing. Thal moved and Byrnes. seconded a motion to recommend approval of the street vacation as requested along Lots 12 through 15, Block 25, Shady- woodPoint, per City. Engineer's recommendation and legal description. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. This will be heard' by the. City Council on the 8th day of July, 1986. Case No. 86-527 Subdivision of Land - 5932 'and 5930 Beachwood Road All of'the west'SO feet Of Lot 47, Auditor's.Subdivision 168 .. Carl Hanson, applicant, wa~ present. The Planner reviewed the City Engineer's report. There is.Presently a structure on. Parcel A and not on Parcel B. Structure .on Parcel B was recent)y removed. The.request )s basically to adjust the lot llne on the two tracts which would make Parcel A ~,O00 square .feet and Parcel B lO,OO0.'square feet' Johfi .Cameron had a.couple of concerns.~ one wes that the new lot llne. had the opportunity to l'ine up with an existi.ng )or corner (iron'shown on the survey); therefore, he had recommended shifting the lot line 15 feet which would redistribute-the lot area a little bit. -It would make Lot A ~,75.0 square feet and Lot B ~,250 square feet. Cameroh has" offered you three recommendations: l) If division is approved as 'shown,. Parcel. B will remain landlocked and Engineer.is' recommending that. Parcel B be combined with Lot 3', Block 1; Langdon's Landing, which is not shown on this exhibit. This would haye street access onto the cul-de-sac; Planning staff Would concur with this 'reCommendation.. The.2nd point would be shift of lot line ]5 feet 'northward which would redistribute the area somewhat and he notes in item 3 ~hat thai w~ll still.result in-Parce) A being ~,750 which is under the Ordinance standard;.it has a house On it, however, and the actual change'in lot line Cameron proposes will create a little larger rear yard area than'what is proposed on the plan. The other item not contained in that report and should be part of any motion is that the applicant has requested a.waiver of'the subdivision requirements for public hearing and platt)ag. Th.is would be a simple subdivision and therefore, there was no'public hearing notice sent to abutting neighbors of this particular proposal. Mr. Hanson stated he's trying to iso]ate the property on the road so he can dispose of it; the other portion he wants to sell to someone who wi)l.develop it. He~s eliminated all of the easements. The Commission had questions about the land and access t0.pubiic"right-of-way. He proposed the llne as far to the south as possibl.e because that.seemed to maEe the most sense in connection with' somebody's u)t.imate development of it with the other 50 foot lot (shown as PID 23-117-24 13 0023). Commission asked wha't lots they were talking about?. The Planner explained that on the half section in the packet, parcels PID 23-117-24 13'O02/4and 0025--; parcel PID 23-117-2~ 13 0026, which is the '10 foot easement since combined and then PID 23-117-24 13 O02.~3would be $0 foot strip to east recent)y acquired. Hanson explained that legal des- scription of property on title certificate was north 1/2 and south 1/2. Because of the topography where it drops down.hi]], he feels it does not mai sense to move the line north, He stated the easement was eliminated through Planning Commission Minutes June 2), 1 86 - Page a proceedings.sub~equent because, it was not needed (only a i0 foot strip). The Commission discussed'Parcel'B on the proposed land division to be marketed with Lot 3, Block ], Langdon'.s Landing, which would be the ultimate access into P~rcel B, and moving the' lot li~e. north 15 feet to make Parcel A closer to minimum lot'Size requirements. The staff recommendation is that Parcel' B, PID 23-117-2q 13 0023, be combined with Lot 3, Block'.l, Langdon's Landing. In as much as applicant is proposing tO sell it as a package,'he'wou!d.have no objection to combining all th6ee together. This WOuld be:simply for record.keeping and does offer, the City protection that these will be sold as a package. .' Reese moved and Ken Smith seconded a motion to recommend granting sub- · division to i.nclude.combin'ing'Lot 3, Btock 1-, Langdon's Landing, PID's 23-117~2q 13 O02q', 23-117-2q 13 0026 and 23-117-2q 13 002~ as one tax parcel., and.move' division'--line' between'Parcel "A" and "B" to conform to the City Engineer's recommendation and waive the p~blic hearing. The vote was unanimously in'favOr. Hotion carried. Hanson-stated he thought his. line.was superior and.asked if he had any recourse. The Chair advised' him'that the City Councll would have final say on'this and'.it W°u)d be heaTd on duly 8th. Hanson commented that someone may want to' divide-..the one new Parcel. Access into the parcel was discussed briefly. Publ'ic Hearing.to amend the Recreation Equipment Definition in the Zoning ... Code 'and HodJfy the'Exterior Storage Provisions (Section 23.702). The Chair noted that .there v~as'no' one pr~ent fo-r the public hearing. Hark Keegler con~ented that this was generated from the.Building Official's office'.and discussed with the Planning Commission. 'The Commission thought it had'merit. ~herefore,.it.was'pursued.l He noted-that the Building 0ffi- · Cial has a problem running around and ,6forcing the City Ordinances. There · are boats parked everywhere and. she ithought the ordinanc~ wes a little overly restrictive and had. trouble'enforcing lt. There are'two Sections of the.'. ordinance that deal with this..and.'both'would require change. Basically right now, you can only store anything that'is under 20 feet in length. The Commission thought 30 feet was la more reasonable' standard. The important conditions are noted, 1 through h, of the Planner's report. He noted that if this.draft'is approved', anyone can .store.a boat in any front, rear or side yard area as'long as'it is'not within'the front yard setback area; i.e.', in the'.R-1 Oist.rict, you'd have to have' the first ~0 feet free and clear. It would have .to meet the h conditions which Koegler reviewed. The Commission discussed the proposed draftL .Thal questioned whether motor homes.are parked or stored.' There.were several issues that they thought the Building Official should look at and comment on such as: Dock storage, fish houses, etc. It was'mentioned that there will be a public hearing and'prior to that, the Building Off)cia1 could give her input. Reese moved and Thal seconded a motion .to recommend approval to the City Council of the .proposed ordinance changes. The vote was Jansen opposed; all others voted in favor. Hotion carried. Planning Commission Minutes June.23, 1986 - Page $ The City Manager reported that.the City has made .an agreement with a consultant to do the Lost Lake Marketing Analysis. His name is Lee Maxfield of Maxfield Research Group. An orientation meeting to clarify any questions on what he will be doing will be set up'for the ~th of July. The Commissioners asked to be sent a notice. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made and seconded to adjourn th~ meeting; all were in 'favor, so meeting was adjourned at '~:15 P,M, Respectfully submitted, Hark Koegle~ City Planner ~INUT£S O~ THE MOUND ADVISORY P,A~K COHHISSlON HEETING O~ JUNE 12,- 1~86 Present were: Chair Nancy Clough; Commissioners Cathy Bailey, Cheryl Burns, Marl- lyn Byrnes, Andy Gearhart and Loweli'Swenson; Council Representati've Phyllis Jessen; City Manager Ed Shuk)e; Park Director Jim Fackler; Dock Inspector Dell Rudolph and Sec[etary Harge.Stutsman. Commissioners Dolores Haas and Robin Hichael and .Linda Panetta were absent and excused. Also present were-the following interested persons: Carl Anderson, Bruce and Pat. Dodds, Harcia Halls, Hr, A. H. Empson,.~DeWayne LaGow and Todd'Warner. MINUTES The minutes of ~he Park Commi. ssion meeti.ng of'May 8, 1986 were presented for con- sideration. · Swanson.moved and. Gearhart seconded, a. motion .to accept the minutes as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor.· 1. Mr.' A. H..Emp$°n was present regarding his.dock permit application for 1986. He had been sent a"letter by'Dell Rudolph, because of his tardiness in making application, that the Commission would have to.act on granting this permit. Mr. Empson stated his..job.requires:.him..to .travel'for extended periods of 1, 2 or 3 months ata time and he had'.someone'handling things for him and someh°w they failed to'make applicatlon'on, time,. The Dock Inspector stated that the spirit of the letter was to put an.end to lateness'in getting dockapplications in for processing'. Clough advised'that appiicant 'h~d.sufficient time (applications first sent out in January) and that this was the last year. that permits would be issued if not app]ied for on time. Jessen moved and'Bailey seconded·a· motion·that Commission approve granting the dock space permi, t for 1986 with late fee to. be col.lected. The vote was unanimously in favor.. 2. Hr. Carl Anderson was present, regarding the letter he sent the Commission asking about use.of Sunrise Landing and whether it was open to the general public 24 hours a day'.or only for Mound resldents; also if there were any restrictions on Its use/ The Commission discussed the subject at length. Bailey remembers it as a "resident access launch'!i, there was to .be no trailer parking and mentioned. none of the aCCesses we.re intented, to befor regUlar launching. They asked the City Manager to, check with the City"Attorney to find out if access is "park land". Posting the access with limited hours was discussed. Bailey moved.and Jessen seconded a motion to have staff find out if Sunrise and Sunset Landings were .legal accesses and cou]d be posted with hours of use. The vote was unanimously in favor. Dock situation at.Ridgewood Access DeWayne LaGow, Bruce and.Pat Dodds, Harcia Halls and Todd Warner were present regarding this issue. Park Commission Minutes June 12, 1986 - Page.2 Mr. LaGow has written a letter to the City regarding the various problems with the spacing and access in and out of this area. He stated a number of years ag°, area was surveyed and docks' spaces located; after the dredging in 1983 or 1984, the docks were re-.installed without benefit of a survey. Also. dock.holders are sharing.their docks with another person in order to expand access to.the lake and' peop)e'are gett'ing larger boats. It is difficult,to move'boats, in or out, between the docks. The Dock InspectOr stated, if anyone gives up a dock, they plan to eliminate that dock Space. LaGow is sharing hi.s dock'and as a'result, Bruce Dodds has difficulty getting his boat out. The spacing of'the docks was discussed; also the width'of.boats as manufacturers are making them shorter'and wider. 'Those present all were given the opportunity to. comment. The question of the rights of'the person sharing a dock was brought u~; would'they automatically, have priority.for the dock space if the original dock ho)der moved or did not wish the space? It was brought up that it is a real privi-)ege to have.dock space end the boat owners.should work out access. The. Dock Inspector recommended that LaGow's dock be moved over a foot. After a lengthy discussion by both the persons present and the Commission, several persons volunteered to help LaGoW move his dock[ Clough moved and-Byrnes.seconded a motion.that moving of LaGow's dock be worked out with the Dock InSpector. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. It was suggested that sharing of docks be brought up at the July meeting. ~eports '" Council Representative.Phyllis Jessen.reported on the-Dock Proposal for Lost Lake .Addition; that the City Council is .asking the City Attorney to review it to make sure Council not violating any Commons laws~by dedicating this site area for a private subdivision and hav'ing him write some covenants for this area including'that subdivision maintain drainage area and provide a public access. The need for riprapping shoreline was discussed. It was thought the M.C.W.D. had some funding available and that the Dock. Inspector should make application. A)so it was brought up that the Park Gift Brochure needs some rejuvenation. The Park Director, Jim reck)er-, reported on the following items: Mound Bay Park boat landing is completed; done by Widmer for $4,000.; some riprapping has been done on Dove Lane; the 1987 budget.process was started today and will be presented to the Commission in August. The Dock Inspector, Dell Rudolph, reported docks were put in later this year because of the high water; they should be finished doing erosion survey by next week. He thinks all of the late fees problem is solved for next year. Chair Clough brought up the use of the depot on Wednesday nights by the Vineyard of the Lake group. They still want to continue using the depot.. The matter was dis- cussed briefly. If using the depot, Clough thought $200 deposit fee should be held. Park Commission'Minutes June 12, 1986 - Page 3 CommJssioneK Bailey asked if it w~re possible to have a town ~quare with a gazebo incorporated by the developer of. Commerce. Square and the moving of Lynwood Boule- vard. She commented .she has been..watching from the Senior Center, the new road 'being put in and thinking of the.beautiful flower gardens the Senior have been keeping up. She thinks Mound needs-a.square with benches and flowers and perhaps a gazebo for people to come to visit, etc. Cathy Bai. ley,.as a resident of the City, addressed the .Commission .on a request' for a dock'space.at the north'end of Bluebird Lane'. Due to a new home on the lake, they lost their dock space (home owner.has.a'priority 1). The north end of Bluebird is Type A Shoreline and shoreline criteria states "ho.docks"; however, docks have been allowed for several .persons on.this type of shoreline and they would be willing to put in and maintain stairway, if granted a dock space. The Commission discussed the variance request for a non abutting resident to have a dock on Bluebird Lane access. The Commission requested staff to get information on when this was designated "no docks"..and wildlife area and when abutting property owners were allowed to have docks. This will be brought up on the next meeting agenda. Adjournment Burns moved and Byrnes seconded a motion to adjourn.the meeting at 9:45 P.M. were in favor, so meeting wes adjourned. All CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1155 July 3, 1986 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY CLERK The following is a beer or liquor and 1. A1 & Alma's On-Sale & Set-Ups Wine 2. American Legion Club 3. Captain Billy's On-Sale Liquor 4. Donnie's On-Sale Liquor 5. House of Moy On-Sale Beer Wine 6. P.D.Q. Off-Sale Beer 7. SuperAmerica Off-Sale Beer 8. V.F.W. Club list of establishments in Mound serving intoxicating the dram shop insurance they are providing. Off-Sale Beer Insurance Provided $500,000 & $500,000 aggregate $300,000 & $300,000 aggregate $5o/~oo/~o s $300,000 aggregate $500,000 & $500,000 aggregate $3OO,000 & $300,000 aggregate $3OO,000 $1,000,O00 $3O0,000 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. NENO TO: Ed Shukle and City Council FROM: Jim Larson RE~ Con-Tel Refund DATE: July 3, 1986 On July 3, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in our favor on the refund issue. By way of background, in 1983 Con-Tel filed for a substantial increase and proposed to increase rates for all subscribers by 29% during the period of interim rates. Mound intervened on a small scale, with the goal of just monitoring the case. As I read the case file, I became aware of the fact that Con-Tel had raised Mounds Extended Area Service (EAS) rate by 29%, but had not raised outstate EAS rates. This issue was also raised by the Department of Public Service in the case and we supported the DPS with briefs and argument. The Commission agreed that it was unfair to raise metro EAS and not raise outstate EAS, but failed to correct the error retroactively for the eleven month period of interim rates. We asked the PUC to correct the interim rate error through the refund process, but the PUC refused, claiming that it had no legal obligation to correct the error during the interim rate period. The overcollection amounted to about $2.35 per month, per customer, or about $129,000 for the Mound exchange. We appealed to the Court of Appeals and won, appealed to the Supreme Court. and the Commission Throughout the appeal process Con-Tel took the position that the Commission had acted reasonably and that the Commission ordered refund plan should be upheld. Our efforts were also opposed by the Department of Public Service. My faith in the courts is rejuvenated when the City of Mound can win one with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, the Minnesota Department of Public Service and Con-Tel against us. The matter has been sent back to the Commission with instructions to fashion a refund plan that will return the proper amount of refund to the City. The overcharge amounts to $25.85 per customer. Some of that $25.85 was refunded incorrectly to outstate customers. Additionally, the Attorney General's office won it's issue on appeal, requiring an additional refund of about $13 per annum per customer. I think it will be necessary to watch closely how the PUC directs the refund of these two amounts. Mound should get back the $25.85 per customer, plus its prorata share of the refund, if any, resulting from the Attorney General issue. JDL:td un dahl & Associates, Inc. R.L. Youngaam ot 15208 MiNNETONKA BLVD, * MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55 · ' July 8, 1986 City of Mound Attention: Mr. Ed Shukle Mound, MN Dear Ed, At the last Council meeting the Council asked myself and the City Attorney to find any evidence that would show that the State Statutory minimum Dram Shop Liability limit of $50,000/$100,000/$10,000/$50,000/~100'000 was too low. These are the results of my attempt to find evidence indicating whether or not the State's minimum limits are too low. I talked to >ir. David Gorum at the Insurance Commissioner's office in St. Paul and he informs me that there are no records kept in his office that would indicate the dollar amount of settlements in Dram Shop Liability Suits. Due to the fact that he has no records of the settlements of these suits, he offers no opinion as to what limits would be adequate. I talked to a Ms. Debbie Woodard at the John H. Crowther Insurance Brokerage Firm. This Brokerage Firm is the main writer of Dram Shop Liability Insurance in Minnesota. Ms. Woodard had mentioned that they in their office once again do not have a record as to what the dollar amount of the Dram Shop settlements that many of the claims are settled out of court and mention !~ ~s~l~ are. She did ..... vailable. She recommended ~hat t~ ~n thusly, no records aL= = _ ........ ~ ha to find specific ~s~ hen getting specific informau~on w ....... . way of · contact the Claims Departmant- of the various involved insurance companies This process would take many weeks though investigating. I talked to the office of the Mothers Against Drunk Drivers and was informed that they have no information at all as to the amounts of insurance that should be required in Dram Shop cases or that they would recommend be carried in Dram Shop cases. They felt that the~-area of insurance was somethinz that was totally out of their realm. I talked to Don Riley from the Professional Insurance kgents Association of Minnesota he also stated that to his knowledge there are no records kept as to the amount of settlement in general on Dram Shop Liability cases. Once again, many of the claims are settled out of court and in private thusly, the knowledge is private and not for public record. He Oointed out another issue and that was that insurance companies as a matter of practice do not ~ubl~sh or make available the records of claim settlements. He advised that it would be almost impossible to get claims records out of an insurance company regarding the general issue of Dram Shop Liability. McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINE£RS LAND SURVI~YORS PLANN~:RS 3une 8, 1986 Reply To: 12800 Industrial Park Boulevard Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 (812) 559-3700 HonoraDle Hayor and ~embers of the City Council City of Hound 5341 Haywood Road Hound, Hinnesota 55364 SUBSECT: 1986 Bituminous Overlay Project Lynwood Boulevard and Fairview Lane HKA #7829 Dear Hayor and Council Hembers: Enclosed is a tabulation of the bids received yesterday for the bituminous overlay project on Lynwood 8oulevard and Fairview Lane. The low bid of $~,830.00 was submitted by Hardrives, Inc. of Haple Grove. The Engineer's estimate for this project was $40,250.00, with bids received ranging from the low of $3~,830.00 to a high of $41,209.00. We have briefly discussed the project with Hardrives and they would like to do the work about the last week of Suly. Hardrives was the general contractor for Hound's street improvement project's in 1979 and 1980 and performed satisfactorily on those projects; therefore, we would recommend they be awarded a contract in the amount of $33,830.00. If the Council should have any questions, we would be pleased to answer them. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. $ohn Cameron 3C: tdv PROJECT: ?889 !~86 BITUM INOUO~ SECTION ENGINEER: McCOMBS-,~UTSON ITEM UNIT 1 PAVEMENT PROFILING SY B-REMOtE CONCRETE C ~-G -LF 3 REPLACE CONCRETE C ~ G LF 4 8" CONC. DR!VE~A¥ APRONS S¥ ' S-TACK COAT MN/DOT 8357 --GA G WEDGE PATCH,LEVELEM!SC. TN 7 TACK COAT MN/DOT 5357 GA B B~BIT.LE .... NG ~URS'E_ -TN 'g TACK COAT MN/DOT 8357 GA 10 71/8' BITUMINOUS ~EAR TN 11 AOJUST GAT VALVES EA 18 ADJUST MANHOLE CASTINGS EA TOTAL SECTION OVERLAY PRO JE C T - MOUND~ MINNESOTA PAGE 1 ENG. ESTIMATE HARDRIVES, INC. BUFFALO BITUMINOUS QUANTITY UNIT ---TOTA[ ........ UNIT ..... TOTAL - - UNIT ..... TOTAL--- 1,370.0 8.00 8,740.00 1.00 1,370.00 8.00 8,740.00 40.0 ' 3~00 ..... 180.00 .... ~00 .......... 120.00 ..... S,O0 ....... 8007.00 - 40.0 !S.00 600.00 14.00 560.00 10.00 400.00 8!.0 40.00 840.00 30.00 630.00 30.00 630.00 BO.O B.SO ..... BO0.O~- 8i00 ....... !60,00 1.00- - -80.00 800.0 40.00 8,000.00 31,00 6,800.00 45.00 9,000.00 850.0 1.50 375.00 8.00 S00.00 !.00 850.00 '450.0- -88.00 .... 12,600.00'- ' 83.90 --' 10;755~'00 .... B3.7S ..... 1~;'687~50- - 850.0 !,50 375.00 8.00 SO0. O0 1.00 ESO. O0 450.0 58.00 18,600.00 86.30 11,835.00 84.75 11,137.50 4.0 !50.00 600.00-' 150.00 600.00 185,00 -- 500.00 6.0 800.00' 1,800.00. !00.00 600.00 800.00 !,800.00 40,850. O0 33,830. O0 37,075. O0 PROJECT: 7889 1986 BITUMINOUS OVERLAY PROJECT -- MOUND, MINNESOTA SECTION ENG INEER:--MtCOMBS--K~ UTSON PAGE ITEM ENG. ESTIMATE ALBER CONSTRUCTION UNIT '-QUANTITY .... UNIT----TOTAL--------t~IT ..... TOTAC I PAVEMENT PROFILING S¥ 1,370.0 8.00 8,740.00 --8-REMOVE-CONCRETE-C'-~-~--LF .... 40~O----~s-OO-----JBO~O0' 3 REPLACE CONCRETE C E G LF 40.0 15.00 600.00 4 8' CONC. DRIVEWAY APRONS SY 81.0 40.00 840.00 --S-TACE-COAT-MN/OOT-BB~7 .... GA----80,0-- 8~.50 6 WEDGE PATCH,LEVEL,MISC. TN 500.0 40.00 8,000.00 7 TACK COAT MN/DOT 8357 GA 850.0 1.SO 375.00 --B-B~-BIT;EEVE~ING-COURSE--TN -450zO----BB;~O 9 TACK COAT MN/DOT 8357 GA 850.0 1.50 10 i-l/B" BITUMINOUS WEAR TN 450.0 58.00 -ll-AD~UST-GATE-UA~S - --- EA -- 4~0 iR ADJUST MANHOLE CASTINGS EA 6.0 8.70 4.00 15.00 40.00 --I~.50 36.00 1.50 t8;60~90-----59745 375.00 1.50 12,600.00 29.75 150;00 ..... 600;00 " 800.00 1,800.00 150.00 3,699.00 160;00 600.00 840.00 180;00-- 7,800.00 375.00 13~858~0 375.00 13,387.50 300.00 ............ 900.00 TOTAL SECTION I 40,850.00 41,809. O0