86-11-25 CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 1986
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. Approve the Minutes of November 12, 1986, Regular
Meeting
2. PUBLIC HEARING:
3. PUBLIC HEARING:
4. PUBLIC HEARING:
Delinquent Utility Bills
Cable Television Communications
Vacation of Certain Street Easement
Pg. 2423-2429
Pg. 2430
Pg. 2431
Lying Between Lots 43 & 44 in Koehler's
Addition to Mound Pg. 2432-2438
5. CASE ~86-5~l:f;~aul & Julie Boorsma, 3021 Highland
Blvd., Lots 3 & 4, Block 3, The Highlands
Request: Waiver of Subdivision Regulation~ for Minor
Lot Split Pg. 2439-2444
6. CASE ~86-552: Kenneth & Dianna Neukircher, 4997 Tuxedo
Blvd., Lot 19, Block 15, Arden
Request: Recognize an Existing Undersized Lot & Setbacks l
to Property Line Pg. 2445-2453
7. CASE #86-553: oseen, 1555 Bluebird Lane, Lot 7
& Lot 30, Block 6, Woodland Point
Request: Variance to Allow Unenclosed Deck in the
Required Rear Yard Setback Pg. 2454-2462
CASE #86-554: el~e Homes (Mark Rodrique), 52XX Lynwood
Blvd., Metes & Bounds Desc., Blocks 1 & 2,
Rearrangement of. Block 10, Abraham
Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park
Request-.
Variance for Access to Public Street for
Proposed Home
CASE ~86-555:
Bart Porter (Brookhaven Homes), 3018
Devon Lane, Lots 17 & 18, Block 11,
Pembroke
Pg. 2463-2473
Request:
Variance of Retaini~Wall on Public Right-
or-way
Pg. 2474-2483
Page 2420
Lot 39, Block 11, Seton
Request:
Variance to Recognize an Existing Undersized
Lot and Setbacks to Property Line
11. CASE #86-557: JRW Properties (Commerce Square),
Request: Comprehensive Sign Pl_an Approval
· - P~'s~-#~"113, 254~ ~.~eree Blvd.,
Lots 26-30, 32 and Part of 33, Auditor's
Subdivision #167
Request: Parking Variances for new VFW Building
13. CASE ~86-5~q: Be~~i (Harrison Bay Union 76),
4831 Shoreline Blvd., Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 21
& Part of 5 & 20, Block 1, Shirley Hills
· Unit A
Request: Fence Height Variance
14. Request for Extension for Work to be done at 1959
Shorewood Lane
15. Maintenance Permit Request: For Wiota Commons by Mr.
James Roseen, 1555 Bluebird Lane
16. Release of Cash in Lieu of a Performance Bond for
Grading Permit, Aspen Excavating
17. Resignation of Jon Elam from LMCD Board
18. DISCUSSION: Lost Lake Study (REMEMBER TO BRING STUDY
?o
19. Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present
20. Request to Sell Pull-Tabs, National M.S. Society, MN.
North Star Chapter - to be done at Captain Billy's
21. Payment of Bills
22. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS
October 1986 Financial Report as Prepared by
John Norman, Finance Director.
Planning Commission Minutes of November 10, 1986
REMINDER: City of Mound Christmas Party -
December 12, 1986.
Pg. 2484-2491
Pg. 2492-2510
Pg. 2511-2517
Pg. 251 8-2523
Pg. 2524-2540
Pg. 2541-2543
Pg. 2544
Pg. 2545
Pg. 2546-2548
Pg. 2549-2563
Pg. 2564-2566
Pg. 2567-2572
Page 2421
De
I have ~alked with Bill Turnblad, City Planner for
Minnetrista, and he has indicated that the 22 lot
subdivision proposed for the west side of Westedge
Blvd. in Minnetrista has been dropped. A revised
proposal is forthcoming but will not require any
improvements to Westedge Blvd. I also understand
that the Maple Hills Estates proposal may not proceed
as originally planned and, therefore, the immediate
improvements to Westedge Blvd. are not critical at
this time. We will keep in touch with Minnetrista
officials should anything change.
Page 2422
173
November 12, 1986
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - SPECIAL MEETING
NOVEMBER lZ, 1986
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in
special session on Wednesday, November 12, 1986, at 7:30 P.M. in
the Council Chambers at 5341Maywood Road, in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Phyllis
Jessen, Gary Paulsen, and Steve Smith. Coun¢llmember Russ
Peterson was absent and excused. Also present were: City.
ManaEer Edward J. Shukle~ Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City
Attorney Curt Pearson~ City Engineer John Cameron and the
following interested citizens: DuWayne Dorfner and Julie
Barrack.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in
attendance. He then stated that there are two items to add to
the Agenda, the Minutes of the last two meetings, and at the end
of the meeting there will be an Executive Session regarding labor
negotiations.
MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Smith to approve the
Minutes of the October 28, 1986, Regular Meeting and the
November 5, 1986, Special Meeting as presented. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PROC5AMATION - PROCLAIMING WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZEN'S WEEK -
DECEMBER 1ST THRU ~TH IN THE CITY OF MOUND
Jessen moved and Smith seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION $86-160 RESOLUTION PROCLAIMING WESTONKA SENIOR
CITIZEN'S WEEK IN THE CITY OF MOUND -
'. DECEMBER 1ST THRU 5TH
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING: VACATION OF CERTAIN STREET EASE-
MENT LYING BETWEEN LOTS 4q & 44~ KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND
MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Jessen to set November
25, 1986, at 7:30 P.M. for a public hearing to consider the
vacation of certain street easement lying between Lots 43 &
44, Koehler's Addition to Mound. The vote was unanimously in
favor. Motion carried.
RENAMING OF COUNTY ROAD 8q BETWEEN MAPLE PLAIN & MOUND
The City Manager explained that originally this item was
17q
November 12,~986
initiated in 1973. West Hennepin Public Safety and Maple Plain
have now brought the item up again and are asking for Mound's
concurrence.
Paulsen moved and Smith seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~86-161 RESOLUTION REQUESTING HENNEPIN COUNT~ TO
RENAME HENNEPIN COUNTY ROAD 83 TO
HENNEPIN COUNT~ ROA~ 110
The vote was unanimously in favor. 'Motion carried.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MOUND CITY DAYS CELEBRATION
Smith moved and Paulsen Seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #86-162 RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING MOUND CITY DAYS
· IN CELEBRATION OF THE CITY'S 75TH YEAR
AND ESTABLISHING THE DATE OF JUNE 12-~q,
1987.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
REOUEST TO INCREASE M.S.A. MAINTENANCE FUNDS
The City Engineer explained the background of this request.
Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded.the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~86-163 RESOLUTION REQUESTING AN INCREASE IN
M.S.A. MAINTENANCE FUNDS DUE TO INCREASED
MAINTENANCE COSTS ON CITY OF MOUND M.S.A.
STREETS
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
FINAL pAYMENT REOVEST - OVERLAY PROJECT - LYNWOOD BLVD. &
FAIR¥IEW LANE - HARDRIYES - SRI~qS.2R
MOTION made by Paul~en, ~econded by Smith to approve the
final paymen~ request of Hardrives in ~he amount of
$31,398.23 for the Overlay Pro,ecg - Lynwood Blvd. and
Fairview Lane. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
BID AWARD: FIRE/RESCUE APPARATUS
Fire Chief, Don Bryce, was present and explained the differences
in the two bids that were received. He sta~ed that the low bid
did not meet the specifications that were drawn up. Two bids
were received and they were as follows:
November 12, 1986
CustOm Fire Apparatus, Inc.
Fire Safety Products, Inc.
$39,915.00
$33,950.00
The Fire Dept. is recommending the bid of Custom Fire Apparatus
based on it meeting the specifications bid.
Polston moved and Paulsen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION 986-16q RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BID OF CUSTOM
FIRE APPARATUS, INC. FOR THE FIRE/RESCUE
APPARATUS, IN TRE AMOUNT OF $39,915.00
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
BID AWARD: SKIDSTEER LOADER
7 bids were received.
Carlson's Lake
Street Equip.
They were as follows:
Owatonna Mfg. Co.
Model 552
$15,120.O0
CaSe Power Equipment
Case
Model 1845 C
$15,813.00
Kortuem's Sales, Service
& Rental, Inc. John Deere
Model 675
$15,499.50
Lano Equipment, Inc.
Melroe
Model M843
$15,780.00
Long Lake Ford Tractor
No Bid
MECO (Mpls. Equip. Co.)
No Bid
Scharber & Sons
No Bid
The Park Dept. is recommending the bid of Lano Equipment, Inc. in
the amount of $15,780.00 for the Melroe, Model M843 because the
other bids deviated from the specifications.
Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~86-165 RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BID FOR THE
SKIDSTEER LOADER TO LANO EQUIPMENT, INC.
IN THE AMOUNT OF $15,780.00
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
BID AWARD: (1)~ 2 WHEEL DRIVE PICK-UP
5 bids were received.
They were as follows:
176
November 12, 198~
Brookdale Ford
Ryan Chev-Olds-
Cadillac
Star West
Thurk Bro. Chev.
Waconia Ford
FORD, F-250
CHEV. CR 20903
CHEV. CR 20903
CHEV. R-20
FORD, F-250
$10,171.00
$10,087'00
$10,100.00
$10,217.00
$10,495.00
Staff is recommending the low bid of Ryan Chev-Olds-Cadillac in
the amount of $10,087.00 for the Chevrolet, Model CR 20903.
Paulsen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~8~-166 RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BID FOR (1), 2
WHEEL DRIVE PICK-UP TO RYAN CHEV-OLDS-°
CADILLAC FOR THE CHEVROLET, MODEL 20903,
IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,087.O0
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
BID AWARD: (2)~ q WHEEL DRIVE PICK-UPS
5 bids were received.
Brookdale Ford
Ryan Chev-Olds-
Cadillac
Star West
Thurk Bros. Chev.
Waconia Ford
They were as follows:
FORD, F-250 $13,648.40 each
Total Bid of $27,296.80
CHEV. CV 20903 & E63 &
C68 & B35 $12,667.00 each
Total Bid of $25,334.00
CHEV. V-20 $12,700.00 each
Total Bid of $25,400.00
CHEV. V-20 $12,868.00 each
Total Bid of $24,736.00
FORD, F-260 $14,498.00 each
Total Bid of $29,196.00
Staff is recommending the bid of Ryan Chev-Olds-Cadillac in the
amount of $25,334.00 for the 2, Chevrolet, Model CV 20903 & E63 &
C68 & B35.
Paulsen moved and Smith seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~86-167
RESOLUTION TO AWARD THE BID FOR (2),
WHEEL DRIVE PICK-UPS TO RYAN CHEV-OLDS-
CADILLAC, IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,33q.00
177
November 12, 1986
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PARKING PROBLEM ON DEVON LANE
Julie Barrack and DuWayne Dorfner presented a petition signed by
87 residents requesting that there be no parking anytime on
either side of the street on Devon Lane between Cumberland Road
and Donald Drive·
The City Manager stated that the Police Dept. has studied the
problems on Devon and is also recommending this.
Paulsen moved and Smith seconded the following ordinance:
ORDINANCE ~91 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION ~6.29 OF THE
CITY CODE RELATING TO PARKING ON BOTH SIDES
OF DEVON LANE BETWEEN CUMBERLAND AND DONALD
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PAYMENT OF BILLS
The bills were presented for consideration·
MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Jessen to approve the
payment of bills in the amount of $127,9~2.90, as presented
on the pre-list, when funds are available. A roll call vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
INFORMATION/ MISCELLANEOUS
October 1986 Monthly Reports as prepare by the Department
Heads·
B~ Reminder: Tour of MWCC's Pig's Eye Treatment Plant.
De
Ee
Draft copy-of .the proposed Hennepin County Solid Waste
Master Plan. Anyone wishing to see a copy, contact the City
Manager or Councilmember Jessen.
Article from the Minneapolis Star & Tribune regarding the
Hennepin County Recycling Ordinance.
Final draft of the Lost Lake Study. Please review because it
will be on the November 25, 1986, Council Agenda.
Councilmember Jessen asked that the Council be periodically
updated on how the Recycling Program is going.
The City Manager reported that the Police Chief has returned from
the S~uthern Police Institute. He graduated last Thursday with
straight A's.
178
November' 12, 1986
The Council went into Executive Session to discuss labor
negotiations at 8:30 P.M. The session lasted until 10:20 P.M.
MOTION made by Paulsen, seconded by Jessen to adjourn at
10:20 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
Fran Clark, CMC, City Clerk
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
BI LLS ........ --'-NOVEMBER 12, 1986
BATCH 864103
BATCH 864104
Computer Run dated 1.1/4/86
Computer Run dated 11/6/86
64,968.06
62,974.84
TOTAL BILLS
127,942.90
11 013 1689 91
11 013 1730 12
11 o28 1616 o2
11 031 1721 21
11 043 5022 61
11 052 5001 11
11 055 .5024 61.
11 058 5043 01
11 064 4945 53
11 O67 1952 71
11 O82 1767 82
il 085 4973 22
11 103 5804
11 106 2011 72
11 112 5971 71
11 121 .2080 11
11 124 6090 O1
11 136 2169 O1
11 139 6200 31
11 169 5850 31
11 169 6256 21
11 175 5504 31
11 214 2174 51
11 229 5598 O1
Delinquent Water and Sewer
$208.35
66.89
131.40
155.62
248.73
168.12
90.26
100.31
97.62
98.02
73.05
121.69
102.69
68.56
204.00
102.98
145.83
223.34
122.14
lO7.76
128.15
108.18
86.75
170.29
$3130.73
11-2-86
Delinquent Water And Sewer 11-2 86
11 O31 1689 91
ll 013 1730 12
ll O28 1616 O2
ll 031 1721 21
-11 043 5022 61
11 052 5001 11
11 055 5024 61
11 058 5043 01'
11 064 4949 53
11 067 1952 71
11 082 1767.82
11 085 4973 22
11 103 5804 92
11 106 2011 72
11 112 5971 71
11 121 2080 11
11 124 6090 O1
11 136 2169 O1
11 139 6200 31
11 169 5850 31
11 169 6256 21
ll 175 5504 31
ll 214 2174 51
11 229 5598 O1
S. Hinchcliff
Daniel Rohrich
Wm. Bull
Craig Hillerns
R. Heuer
J. Pehrson
Ed Alexander
Eric'Stubbs
Brian Johnson
James Wa]ton
Kim Reinhart
Danny Hartin
Bruce Rolfshus
Welch Prop
Gary Brown
Hichael Farre11
Doug Rodewald
Gerald Baab
Ji. ll Swenson
Daniel Nelson
Sharry Johnson
Craig Bylngton
Wende Brady
Paul Ford
* $208.35
66.8~
* Pd. 131.40
155.62
* 248.73
Pd $90.00
168.12'
90.26
100.31
97.62
98~02
-73:05
Paid 121.69~
* 102.69
* 68.56
* 204.00
10~.98
145.83
223.34
* 122.14
Paid 107.761.
128.15
108.18
86.75
Paid 170.29
1689 Avocet Ln.
1730 Avocet Ln.
1616 Finch Ln.
1721Gbll Ln.
5022 Sparrow Rd.
5001Crestview Rd.
5024 Woodland Rd.
5043 Enchanted'Rd.
4945 Glen Elyn Rd.
1952 Shorewood Ln.
1767 Wildhurst Ln.
.4973 Three Pts. Blvd.
5804 Sunset Rd.
2011 Sycamore Ln. :-
5971Gumwood Rd.
2080 Clover Circle
6090 Aspen Rd.
2169 Birch Ln.
6200 Birch Ln.
5850 Lynwood Blvd.
6256 Lynwood Blvd.
5504 Spruce Rd.
2174 Centerview Rd.
5598 sherwood Dr.
* Made arrangements
$3130.73
$2509.59
Dow-Sat of Minnesota, Inc.
2381 Wilshire
Mound, MN 55364
(612) 472-6394
November 21, 1986
Mr. Ed Shuckle
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
RE: Notice and Consent to Transfer Cable Franchise,
Dow-Sat of Minnesota, Inc.
Dear Mr. Shuckle:
As you know Dowden Communications, Inc. is in the process of
restructuring its organization and forming a Limited Partnership
for the purpose of tax reasons, future growth and e~pansion.
The request for transfer approval was made to all of Dow-Sat's
franchises in a letter dated October 7, 1986 with December 2nd
being the deadline for completion of all approvals.
Specific documents, along with other information, have been
submitted to the city's cable consultant:
1. Private Offering Memorandum of Bariston Cable
Investors, L.P.
2. Copy of proposed Amended and Restated Agreement o£
Limited Partnership of Dowden Cable Partners', L.P.
3. Proposed form of Management Agreement.
4. Proposed form of Investment Banking Agreement.
5. Asset Purchase Agreement By and Between Dowden
Communications, Inc. (Seller) and Bariston Cable
Investors, L.P. (Buyer).
6. Dowden Communication Investors, L.P. Limited
Partnership Agreement.
7. Response to Questions of Franchising Authorities.
November 21, 1986
Page 2
Because the documents combined number several hundred pages,
I am enclosing a separate statement written in question/answer
format containing collected information for your convenience.
Twenty two of Dow-Sat's twenty eight franchises have given
approval to date. I am very pleased with the number of approval~
that have been certified, and am most hopeful of meeting the
December 2nd deadline to insure that commitments will not expire.
I will be present at the November 25th hearing to answer any
questions that should arise. Please do not hesitate to contact
me if I can be of further assistance.
Yours very truly,
Mary A. Smith
Regional Manager
MAS:cj
Enclosure
CC:
Start Blackburn
Lloyd Courter
. RESPONSE
TO QUESTIONS OF
F~.ANCHISING AUTHORITIES
Re:
Notice and Consent to Transfer Cable Franchise
of Dow-Sat of Minnesota: Questions from
Minnesota Franchising Authorities
1. Please identify by name, address, and telephone
number the principal(s) of Dow-Sat of Minnesota, Inc. and
Bariston Cable Investors, L.P. to whom inquiries should be
made.
Inquiries regarding the structure or terms of the
proposed transfer would be addressed to:
W. Stanley Blackburn
Kilpatrick & Cody
Suite 1750
100 Galleria Parkway, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30339
(404) 956-2680, or to
Lloyd W. Courter
Doran, Courter, Quinn & Doran
Security Bank Building
809 Eighth Street
P. O. Box 248
Boone, Iowa 30036
(515) 431-1355.
Inquiries regarding issues concerning operation of the
system should be addressed to the Dow-Sat representative
identified below (who will retain her present position with
the transferee, Dowden Cable Partners, L.P., after the
trahsfer). Inquiries regarding Bariston Cable Investors,
L.P., or its affiliates may be addressed to its
representative identified below.
Dow-Sat of Minnesota:
Ms. Mary Smith
2381 Wilshire Blvd.
Mound, Minnesota 55364
(612) 472-6394
Bariston Cable Investors,
David A. Barry, General Partner of
BHI Associates, L.P.
c/o Barriston Associates, Inc.
Two Oliver Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
(617) 451-3355
2. Please state in detail the ownership and
control of the following entities, including the nature of
the ownership interests and the percentage of ownership of
the entities:
(a) Dowden Cable Partners, L.P.
At the time of the acquisition of the system,
the transferee, Dowden Cable Partners, L.P.
(#Dowden Cable") will consist of Dowden Communica-
tions Investors, L.P. and Bariston Cable Investors,
L.P., as general partners, and TED_Corp. (a Georgia
corporation wholly=owned by Thomas C. Dowden and
herein referred to as "Dowden Corp."), The
Centennial Fund, a limited partnership, Raymond C.
Smucker, and Lloyd W. Courter as limited
partners. Dowden Communications Investors, L.P.
(the "Managing Partner") will be Managing General
Partner and will have responsibility for managing
the partnership. Details of the Managing Partner's
authority and control of the partnership are set
forth in Article VII. of Dowden Cable's Amended and
Restated Limited Partnership Agreement, provided
previously. Relative ownership interests, based
upon allocations of profits and losses, will vary
during the life of the limited partnership and are
set forth on pages 55-60 of the Private Offering
Memorandum of Bariston Cable Investors, L.P., dated
October 24,. 1986, a copy of which has been sent to
you (the"offering Memorandum"), and, as forecast
in the Offering Memorandum, will result in a
residual interest of 46.9% for Bariston Cable ..
Investors, L.P., and 53.i% for Dowden
Communications Investors, L.P., and the limited
partners as a group (the "Do,den Group"). Please
also refer to pages 111 and 112 of, and pages 5-14
of Exhibit 2-B to, the Offering Memorandum.
-2-
(b) Dowden Communications Investors, Ltd.:
At the time of the acquisition of the system,
Dowden Communications Investors, L.P. will consist
of Dowden Corp., as its sole general partner, and
the remaining members of the Dowden Group (510yd W.
courter, Raymond C. Smucker and The Centennial
Fund) as limited partners. Control will generally
be held by the general partner. Relative ownership
interests, based upon allocations of profit and
losses will vary during the life of the partnership
in accordance with the terms of the partnership
agreement, but Dowden Corp. is expected to have a
majority of interests in the partnership at all
times.
(c) Bariston Cable Investors, L.P.:
At the time of the acquisition of the system,
Bari~ton Cable Investors, L.P. will consist of BHI
Associates, L.P., as its general partner, and
limited partners making the investment described in
the Offering Memorandum. Control will generally be
held by the general partner. Relative ownership
interests, based upon allocations of profits and
losses, will vary during the life of the limited
partnership and are fully set forth on pages 60-65
of the Offering Memorandum, and, as forecast in the
Offering Memorandum, will result in a residual
interest of 14.29% for Bariston Cable Investors,
L.P. and 85.71% for the limited partners. Please
also refer to pages 106-107 of, and pages 14-18 and
25-32 of Exhibit 2-A to, the Offering Memorandum.
(d) BHI Associates, L.P.:
The general partners of BHI Associates, L.P.
are David A. Barry and Jac~ Kadis. Messrs. Barry
and' Kadis are the sole controlling partners of the
entity and own a majority of the economic interests
of the entity. Please refer to the Offering
Memorandum, p. 36.
3. Please provide copies of all agreements and
understandings with any person, firm, group, association, or
corporation with respect to the proposed transaction. This
includes agreements between the principals and affiliates of
Dowden Cable Partners, L.P. Specifically, please provide a
copy of the Asset Purchase Agreement relating to the acqui-
sition and the Management Agreement between Dowden Cable
Partners, L.P. and Dowden Communications Investors, Ltd.
-3-
Enclosed herewith (or, if marked with an asterisk,
sent under separate cover) are the following:
1. Offering Memorandum, which contains the form of
Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership of
Bariston Cable Investors, L.P. attached as Exhibit 2-A.*
2. Asset Purchase Agreement, dated as of October
24, 1986, between Dowden Communications, Inc. and Bariston
Cable Partners, L.P., to which is attached as Exhibit B a
form of Assignment, Assumption and Indemnification
Agreement.
3. Form of Amended and Restated Agreement of
Limited Partnership of Dowden Cable Partners, L.P.*
4. Form of Agreement of Limited Partnership of BHI
Associates, L.P.*
5. Form of Management Agreement.*
6. Form of Investment Banking Agreement.*
7. Form of Limited Partnership Agreement of Dowden
Communications Investors, L.P. (Draft dated October 15,
1986; execution version will be supplied upon completion).
Numerous additional consents, deed, assignments,
loan agreements, and closing and other documents will be
executed in connection with the transaction, but the above-
identified documents include the basic transactional
documents in connection with the asset transfer and the
agreements between the principals of Dowden Cable. Any
material changes or amendments to these documents agreed to
prior to closing will be furnished if requested.
4. Please describe in detail the organizational
structure of the proposed transaction. It is recommended
that a graph or flow chart be developed to further provide
an understanding of the transaction. Additionally, please
present the organizational'and creation documents for the
following entities:
a. Dowden Cable Partners, L.P.:
b. Dowden Communications Investors, Ltd.;
c. Baristown Cable Investors, L.P.;
d. B.H.I. Associates, L.P.
An organization chart has been provided in the
Offering Memorandum on page 2. Additional documentation is
identified in the answer to item 3 above. See also pp. 1-2,
32-37, 56-65, and 106-112 of the Offering Memorandum.
-4-
Si Pleas? explain in detail the investment banking
and flnanclal servlces which Bariston Cable Investors, L.P.
intends to provide to Dowden Cable Partners, L.P. Please
provide any written agreement describing the relationship
between the two entities.
Pursuant to the Investment Banking Agreement
referred to in Item 3 above, Bariston Associates, Inc. will
provide the following investment banking and financial
services to Dowden:
(a) Propose methods and sources of debt or equity
financing which may be required to fund operations
or acquisitions of additional systems by Dowden
Cable.
(b) Propose methods and sources for refinancing'
Dowden Cable's existing debt.
(c) Advise Dowden Cable with respect to proposed
acquisitions.
(d) Advise Dowden Cable on the expansion or
disposition of Dowden Cable's systems, identify
potential purchasers, and develop programs for the
sale of assets when so requested by Dowden Cable.
(e) Negotiate agreements relative to the above
matters and provide any additional economic or
financial services to facilitate such negotiations.
(f) Represent Dowden Cable in its dealings with
Bariston Cable Investors, L.P., a general partner
of Dowden Cable.
A complete description of such services is contained in said
agreement.
6. Please state in detail the projected timing of
the proposed transaction.
The transfer of the Dow-Sat of Minnesota, Inc.
franchises to Dowden Cable and the closing of the other
transactions contemplated by the Asset Purchase Agreement
referred to in Item 3 above is scheduled to take place on
December 2, 1986, or at such later date on or prior to
December 16, 1986, to which the closing is extended as
provided in the Asset Purchase Agreement, Sections 1.3 and
1.8. Please refer to the Offering Memorandum, pp. 16-17 and
the Asset Purchase Agreement, pp. 4-5 and 7.
-5-
7. Please provide a copy of the private offering
memorandum in its entirety, including the detailed
information appearing in the body of the memorandum and its
exhibits.
Bariston Cable Investors, L.P., has sent to you a
copy of its Private Offering Memorandum.
8. Please state whether Dowden Cable Partners,
L.P. agrees to execute the existing Cable Communications
Franchise between Dow-Sat of Minnesota, Inc. and the
franchising authorities and whether Dowden Cable Partners,
L.P. will comply with all terms and conditions of said
Franchise.
Dowden Cable Partners, L.P. will, at the time of
the consummation of the transactions contemplated by the
Asset Purchase Agreement, execute an instrument by which it
assumes the obligations of Dow-Sat of Minnesota, Inc. under
the Franchise in question (or, if preferred, will execute
the existing Franchise agreement) and will agree to comply
with all terms and conditions of the Franchise.
9. Please identify the person(s) or entity who
will guarantee the performance of the Franchise.
The current Franchise is held by Dow-Sat of
Minnesota, Inc. and guaranteed by Dowden Communications,
Inc., which is the parent not only of Dow-Sat of Minnesota,
Inc., but also of various other subsidiaries holding cable
television franchises in Iowa, Arizona, Illinois, and
Wisconsin. Under the Asset Purchase Agreement, all of the
systems held by Dowden Communications, Inc. subsidiaries
will be transferred to and assumed by Dowden Cable Partners,
L.P. as primary obligor. Accordingly, there will be no
holding company organization that will include any parent
corporation and no separate "guarantee", Dowden Cable's
obligation being as .a separate partnership without recourse
to any of its general or limited partners or their
properties.
10. Please explain in detafl'the status of Dow-Sat
of Minnesota, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dowden
Communications, Inc., as the transaction is proposed.
Specifically, please state whether Dow-Sat of Minnesota,
Inc. will be a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dowden Cable
Partners, L.P. at the conclusion of the transaction.
· --6--
Prior to the consummation of the transaction,
either (i) the assets of Dow-Sat of Minnesota, Inc. ("Dow-
Sat") will be transferred to Dowden Communications, Inc.
("DCI"), or (ii) Dow-Sat will be merged with and into DCI.
After consummation of the transaction, Dow-Sat's corporate
existence will be terminated either because of such merger
or through dissolution after such consummation. After such
consummation, DCI will also be dissolved.
-7-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CONCERNING CABLE TELEVISION COMMUNICATI6NS
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT a public hearing will be held by
the City of Mound on TueSday, November 25, 1986 at 7:30 p.m.
or as soon thereafter as parties can reasonably be heard, in
the Council Chamber of the Mound City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road,
Mound, Minnesota.
The hearing is called pursuant to the Cable Communications
Ordinance for the City for the purpose of providing an opportunity
for publi~ input on the .request by Dow-Sat of Minnesota, Inc.
to consent to a transfer ownership and transfer of the cable
franchise, as amended to'Dowden Cable Partners, L.P.
Anyone having an interest in Cable Television Communications
or the transfer of the cable television franchise is invited
to attend said public hearing.
Francene C. Clark, CMO
City Clerk
Publish in .The Laker November ll, 1986
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota
CASE NO. 86-548
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON
VACATION OF CERTAIN STREET EASEMENT
LYING BETWEEN LOTS 43 AND 44 IN
KOEHLER'$ ADDITION TO MOUND
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 Tuesday, November 25th,
I~86~ t.o consider .the vacation of a certain street and utility easement over
the following described land:
That part of the 'alley as dedicated.in Koehler's Addition to Mound
according to the.recorded plat'there°f,.Hennepin C~unty, Minnesota,
lying.northerly of.the.easterlY extension.of the northerly line of
Lot.45, said.Koeh]er's Addition. to Mound and southerly of the foi-
lowing descri, bed. lihe:
· -Commenci.'ng-at the northeast corner.of Lot'.41, said Koehler's Addition
to.Mound; thence, on a.'bearing~of South along'a east line of. said
Lot 41'a'distance of 10,00 feet 'to .the...beginning 'of saTd line:, thence
South~'8~.'degrees 28'minutes 45 seconds West 5.08 feet; thense south-
wes~er'l'y 287.22 feet..along, a tangential'curve,, concave to the.southeast
havi~g a rad.i~s .of 1056.~48 feet and:a central'angle of 15 degrees 34
minutes 35 seconds and sai. d 1.ins there terminating.
'Containi.ng 370,9i square:feet,. (150 feet East of intersection of Lynwood
and Commerce Boulevards)
· Such persons as desire to be heard with referen'ce to the above will be
heard at this meeting.
Francene C., Clark, City Clerk
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS · LAND SURVEYORS Il PLANNERS
September 19, 1986
Reply To:
12800 Industrial Park Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
(612) 559-3700
gan Bertrand
Planning and Zoning
City o? Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
SUBSECT:
Alley Vacation
"Koehler's Addition to Mound"
MKA File #2113
Dear Oan:
We have reviewed the request for vacating the small portion Of alley south
of new Lynwood Boulevard lying between Lots 43 and 44 in "Koehler's Addition to
Mound". Because this area is now in the parking lot of newly remodeled retail
center and there are no city utilities located wlthln it, we see no reason for
the City to retain ownership.
If you have any questions, or need any additional information, please
contact us.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
3ohn Cameron
3C:cah
COMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES INC.__.... ,
CONSULTING ENGINEERS ! LAND SURVEYORS · PLANNERS
Descr~tion to Vacate Part of Alley
In KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND
Reply To:
1:2800 Industrial Park Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
(612) 559-3700
That part of the aiiey as dedicate~ in KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND according to.
the recorded piat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northerly of the
easteriy extension of the northeriy iine of Lot 45, said KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO
MOUND and southerly of the foiiowing described iine:
Commencing at the northeast corner of Lot 4I, said KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO
MOUND; thence on a bearing of South along a east line of saiO Lot 4l a
distance of iO.O0 feet to the beginning of said Iine: thence South 89
degrees 28 minutes 45 seconds West 5.08 feet; thence southwesteriy 287.22
feet along a tangentiai curve, concave to the southeast having a radius of
i056.48 feet and a centrai angie of 15 degrees 34 minutes 35 seconds and
Said iine there terminating.
Containing 370.9I square feet.
APPLICANT
OADDRESS 5341Maywood Road
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY OWNED BY APPLICANT:
LOT
STREET TO BE VACATED
APPLICATION FOR STREET VACATION
CITY OF MOUND I
CITY OF MOUND
BLOCK
SEE ATTACHED MAP)
PID #
SUBDIVISION
CASE NO
FEE
DATE FILED 9-16-86
(SEE ATTACHED DESCRIPTION)
REASON FOR REQUEST Finish up the Lynwood Blvd. Project and get this piece back
back on the tax rolls. Recommended by the City Engineer.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT
ADDRESS
5341 Maywood Road
Mound., MN. 55364 TEL. NO. 472-1155
Applicant's Interest in Property
Residents and owners of property abutting the street to be vacated:
(Please attach list. Certi¢ied mailing llst can be obtained from
- Hennepin County by calling 348-3271)
Recommended by Utilities: NSP
Recommended by City: Public Works
Chief ; Cable Systems ;
Planning Commission Recommendation:
; 'Minnegasco
; Fire Chief
Other Departments
; Continentai Telephone
; Engineer ;
Police
Council Action
Date
Resolution No.
Date
SQUARE SITE., '-------~ 2 ~
,
'588
CURVE Nd.
D= 5" i6' 25"
A=I5O' 34"35"1 ,
R = 1086.48
L: 295.37
T= 14 8.6_Q
R l.-- 5+04.13
BU RLIN G TON
/.,.///////
, !
-'RN
5¸'
BELMONT
,~37
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 86-548
RESOLUTION NO. 86-
RESOLUTION. VACATING CERTAIN STREET EASEMENT LYING BETWEEN
LOTS 43 AND 4k IN KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND, P & Z Case
No. 86-548
WHEREAS, Minnesota StatUtes, Section 412.851 provides that the City
Council may be resolution vacate' any'street, alley, public ~rounds, 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:
That part of the alley as dedicated in Koehler's Addition to Mound
according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
lying northerly of the.easterly extension of. the northerly llne of
Lot 45,'said Koehler's Addition to Mound and southerly of the'fol-
lowing described llne:
Commenci. ng at the northeast corner.of Lot 41, said Koehler's Addition
toMound; thenceon a bearing of South along-a east line of. said
Lot 4l'a distance of 10~OO feet to the beginning 'of said line: thence
South.89 degrees 28'minutes 45 seconds West 5.08 feet; thence south-
wester)y 287.22 feet .along a tangential curve,, concave to the southeast
having a radius of )O56.'48 feet and a central angle of 15 degrees 34
minutes 35 seconds and said line there terminating..
Conta!ni.ng 370.9i square feet.
WHEREAS, a public hea~ing was held on Novemberl2, 1986, as required
by law; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that good area planning requires' that
these easements be vacated and that' |t would be )n 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 .the alley as dedicated in'KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND'
according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota,
lying northerly of the easterly extension of the northerly line of~
Lot 45, said KOEHLER'S ADDITION TO MOUND and southerly of.the fol-
lowing described llne:
Commencing at the northeast corner of Lot 41, said KOEHLER'S ADDITION
TO MOUND; thence on a bearing of South along, a east line of said Lot
4) a distance of lO.OO leer'to the beginning of said line:, thence South
89 degrees.28 minutes 45 seconds West 5.08 feet; thence southwesterly
287.22 feet along a tangential curve, concave to the southeast havlng a
radius of 1056.48 feet and a central angle of 15 degrees 34 minutes 35
seconds and said line there terminating.
A certified copy of this resolution shall be prepared by the City Clerk
and shall be a notice of completion of the proceedings 9nd shall be re-
corded in the Office of the County Recorder and/or Regi'strar of Titles
as set forth in M.S.A. 412.851.
CASE NO. 86-551
TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official ~
Planning Commission Agenda of November 10, 1986
CASE NO. 86-551
APPLICANT: Paul N. & Julie M. Boorsma
LOCATION: 3021 Highland Boulevard
LEGAL DESC.:. Lots 3 and 4, Block 3, The Highlands PID # 23-117-24 41 0015
SUBJECT: Waiver of subdivision regulations for minor lot split
EXISTING ZONING: R-2
The applicant, Mr. and Mrs. Paul N. Boorsma, have requested that the Planning
Commission waiver the ~ubdivision regulations for public hearing, escrow, etc.
to split off ten feet of Lot 3 to be combined with Lot 2 in Block 3, The High-
lands Addition.
The R-2 ZOning District requires a lot size of 6,000 square feet with setbacks
of 10 feet to the side and 20 feet to the front lot line.
The ten foot section to be split from Lot 3 will be required to be combined
with Lot 2. The remainder of Lot 3 and Lot 4 will have the required setbacks
and lot area for the R-2 Zoning District.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends the requested waiver of the provisions
of Section 22 of the City Code to allow ten feet to be divided
from Lot 3 and combined with Lot 2 with Parcel A being des-
cribed as:
Lots 3 and 4, Block 3, The Highlands, EXCEPT the North lO.O0
feet of said Lot 3.
Upon the condition that the applicant submit the ~igned survey
after subdivision approval.
The abutting neighbors have been notified.
This will be referred to the City Council for the November 25, 1986 agenda.
JB/ms
Planning Commission Minutes
November 10, 1986
e
Case No. 86-551 Waiver.of' subdivision regulations 'for minor lot split.
Lots 3 and q, Block 3., The Highlands.
Paul N,'Boorsma and neighbors, Mr. &.Mrs."Skochenski, were present.
The Building O{fic.la't explained applicant is proposing to split off ten feet
of Lot 3 to be combined with' Lot.2, all in Block 3, The Highlands, to give the'
neighbor a larger s[deyard and that the 'remainder of Lots 3 and 4 will have
the requiked setbacks, and lot area-for the R-2 .Zoning District.
Weiland moved and Andersen'seconded a motion to approve the subdivision with ;
the staff recommendation upon the condition that appl.icant submit a registered
signed survey of the new 'described Parcel A. The vote.was.unanimously in
favor. -
Th!s will be on the Cl.ty Council agenda of November 25, 1986.
APPLICA'rlON FOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND
- Sec. 22.03-a
VILLAGE OF MOUND
FEE $ -~"o. o o
FEE OWNER
PLAT PARCEL
· 614./ o /..~'/ 5'-
Location and complete legal description of property to be divided:
'~021 g C~l, tt,x~cl -B/vd ..
ZONING
To be divided as follows:
All supporting documents, -such as sketch plans, surveys, attach~nents, etc. must be
submit~:~'d'in'8½'"'X ll". size'~nd/or l/~ copses plus'one 8½'"'X ll" copy.
(attach survey or scale drawing showing adjacent streets, dimension of proposed
building sites, square foot area of each new parcel designated by number)
'A WAIVER IN. LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR:/,'~././&C~%I
Square feet TO
Reason:
(signature)
ADDRESS ~O// ,/7//~-/77~/~,z~ J~Z~'.~
Applicant's interest in the property:
This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of
'ation given why this is not the case.
TEL: NO. ~7~-- ~/~
DATE /~,/~- ~
the property, or an explan-
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
DATE
PROPOSED LOT DIVISION
FOR PAUL N. BOORSMA
~NLOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 3, THE HIGHLANDS
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Case No. 86-551
~D
oo
~ - - 59.2
I
I I z,: z
EXISTING DESCRIPTION
Lots 3 and 4, Block 3, THE HIGHLANDS
PROPOSED DESCRIPTION
Lots 3 and 4, Block 3,-THE HIGHLANDS, EXCEPT the North 10.00 feet of said Lot 3.
Scale: 1" : 40'
Date · 10 - 1 - 86
o · Iron marker
COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC.
Engineers, Land Surveyors and Planners
Long Lake, Minnesota
o~
I
I
~)Nl'ldl)l.g~
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 86-551
RESOLUTION NO. 86-
RESOLUTION T0 CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE THE FINAL SUBDIVISION
OF LAND FOR LOTS 3 AND 4, BLOCK 3, THE HIGHLANDS,
PID # 23-117-24 41 OO15 (3021 Highland Boulevard)
P & Z Case No. 86-551
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, Paul N. and Julie M. Boorsma; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that there are special circumstances
affecting said property such that the strict application of the ordinance would
deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; and the waiver is
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right;
and that granting the waiver will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the other property owners.
NOW,.THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of MOund, Minne-
sota:
The request of t'he applicant, Paul N. and Julie M. Boorsma for a
waiver from the'provisions of Section 22.00 of the City Code and the request
to subdivide property of less than five acres, described as follows:
Lots 3, 4, Block 3, The Highlands, PID # 23-117-24 41 0015
A. It is hereby granted to permit the subdivision in the following manner,
as per Exhibit A:
Parcel A: Lots 3 and 4, Block 3, The Highlands, except the North 10.00
feet of said Lot 3
Parcel B: Lot 2, and' the North 10.OO feet of Lot 3, Block 3, The High-
lands.
B. Upon the further following condition':
Submit a registered signed survey of the newly described Parcel A.
C. It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a
desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with adjacent
properties.
D. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this reso-
lution to the applicant for filing in the office of Register of Deeds or the
Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision
regulations of this City.
E. This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of
the adoption date of this resolution.
TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official ~
Planning Commission Agenda of November 10, 1986
CASE NO. 86-552
CASE NO. 86-552
APPLICANT: Kenneth and Dianna Neukircher
LOCATION: 4997 Tuxedo Boulevard
LEGAL DESC.: Lot 19, Block 15, Arden Addition PID # 24-117-24 43 00:18
SUBJECT: Recognize an existing undersized lot and setbacks to property line
EXISTING ZONING: R-2 Single Family Residential
The applicant, Mr. aod Mrs. Kenneth Neukircher, are requesting that the Planning
Commission and the City Council recognize an existing undersized lot and setbacks
to the side yard and rear yard to expand the area over an existing attached
garage.
The R-2 Zoning District requires a lot size of 6,000 square feet. The setback
to the side lot line of 6 feet and rear yard of 15 feet and a front yard of 20
feet. The size of Lot 19 is 4,000 square feet. The side yard is 5.3 feet at
the closest point to the north lot line with a rear yard of 7.8 feet. The owner
of Lot 19, Block 15, Arden Addition (4997 Tuxedo Boulevard) was granted a vari-
ance under Resolution 76-423 to allow a five foot high fence. Resolution 69-64
allowed a variance to provide a garage before a building permit was issued for
construction of the home.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommend the requested expansion of living space. The
land adjacent to the undersized property are both developed
parcels. The perimeter of the existing home will not be en-
larged in size from that which is existing.
The abutting neighbors have been notified. This will be referre~ to the City
Council for the November 25, 1986 agenda.
JB/ms
Plann'ing Commission Hinutes
November 10, 1986
Case No. 86-552
to property line for ~997 Tuxedo Boulevard; Lot 19, Block 15, Arden
Kenneth and Dianna Neukircher.were present. '
The Buildi'ng Offici;J reviewed her report and commented applicant wants to
expand the. living space over' an existing attached garage and .the perimeter
will not be enlarged in sizeL They.were*granted a variance in 196~ allowing
them.to build the garage.
Variance to recognize' an existing undersized lot and setbacks
Heyer moved and.Reese.seconded a.motion approving the staff recommendation.
The'vote was unanimously in favor.
This will be on the City Council agenda.'for November 25, 1986.
e
t ~ CI~ OF MOUND
lease ~ype ~he following
Leg,] DesCription of PrOperty: Lot /
Addition ~ o r pe 2
Applicant (If' other than owner):
Name Day Phone No.
Address
5. Type of Request: (~ariance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Amendment
· . ( ') Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Sign Permit
( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.~;' .( )*Other
e
*If other, specify:
Present Zoning District
Existing Use(s) of.Property "~~"l//.~~
Has an application ever been made for'zoning,variQnc~t or ~onditlonaI use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? L~ ~ If so, list da:e(s) of _ m
list date(s) of appllcation, action taken an(~provide Resolution No.(s)/_~~.J2.m
Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request.
I certify that all of the aEove' 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~uthorized offlcia'l of the City
of Hound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such
notices as may be requi~red by la~w..~ ~ ~ ~ :L/~-~ Date '~/ /*~
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Council Action:
Date
Resolution No.
Date
Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) Case
D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
E. Indicate North compass direction
F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
Iil. 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 a,1) use regulations for
the zone district in which it Js located? Yes (/X,) No ( )
If "no~', specify each non-conforming use:
C. Do the existing structures comply with all area height and bulk regulations
for the zone dj. strict in which it is located? Ye~ (~') No ( )'
If ~no~', specify each non-conforming use:
/-
De
Which uniqu& 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:
Ee
Was the hardship described above c~eated by She 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 ~Kh~r/X~ man-made change, such as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes ( ) No If yes, explain:
G. Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar
only to the property described in this petition? Yes ( ) No (~)
If no, how many other properties are similarly affected?
H. ~hat~/is the '~minin~um" mod~icatlon (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. A:tach.additional
sheets, if necessary.)
~'' ~ ma y detrlme~al t~property in
I. ~111 granting o~he variance be ~eriall ~ '
same zone, or ~o ~he enforcemen~ of ~his ordinance? _ /
Plat of Survey
for Kenneth P. ~eu]drchcr
of Lot 19, Block 15, Arden
Hennep~ Oour, ty, ~nnesota
/,4
Certif~cate of Su~vey:
I h~reby cer+~.~y thet th~. te ~ t~~ ~nd co~ect' ~presantd.!on of a
s~ey of the ~dar~es of ~t 19, 9lock 15, A~e~ and of the. lo~ti*~
of a].l ~ildin~ '%he,eons'and of the location o~ e concrete block re~-~Inin~,
wall. It d~s not ~rt ~ show other imorove~nts or ene~chr~nt&.
Sn~le: 1" = 30'
Date : 10.-26-76
L~nd Surveyor and P!ann~,r
Long Leke, }4innesota
69-64'
4-8-6~'
RESOLUTION NO. 69-64
RESOLUTION GRANTING LOT SiZE VARIANCE
UNDER CERTAIN COh~)ITIONS
(Lot 19, Block 15, Arden)
WEEREAS, the owner of Lot 19, Block 15, Arden has asked for a variance in
lot size from 6,000 square' feet to 4,000 square feet, and
WMEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that the variance be
granted provided space for a garage within the side yard and
set back lines be provided before a building permit is issued,
and all other requirements are met,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE VILLAGE C.OUNCIL OF MOUSED, MouND,
HINNESOTA:
That a variance from 6,000 to 4,O00 square feet be g~anted on
Lot 19, Block 15, Arden, provided space for a garage Within
the side yard and set back lines be provided before a building
pex~it is issued and all other requirements are met.
Adopted by the Council this 8th day of APril, 1969.
A 5o
RESOLUTION NO. 76-42)
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING C0!~ISSION
AND GP~NT 18 INCH VARIANCE OF FENCE HEIGHT
(Lot 19, Block 15, Arden)
WHE~%EAS, the owner of Lot 19, Block 15, Arden (4997 Tuxedo Boulevard)
has requested a fence height variance to keep snow and the
elements from his doorstep and to provide a safety factor for
entering his home due to the proximity of the house to the
roadway,.and
%~v~S, the Planning Commission has recommended that a variance be
allowed to erect a 5 foot high fence along the south line to
edge of garage and from there drop to required height to corner
of Brighton and Tuxedo,
THEREFORE, BE iT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOU]~D, MOU~D,
MIhq~S OTA:
T~t the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission
recommendation for a variance of Section 5517c to allow
erection of a 5 foot high fence along the south line to
20 feet west of house and than drop to required 42 iuch
height from there to corner of Brighton and Tuxedo.-
Adopted by the City Council this 9th day of November, 1976.
~o
M,~,NC
This blocl~ is oll mursh
fo'
RD ~ .....
~ ?
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 86-552
RESOLUTION NO. 86
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO APPROVE LOT SIZE AND RECOGNIZE SETBACK VARIANCES
FOR LOT 19, BLOCK 15, ARDEN PID # 24-117-24 43 0018
(4997 Tuxedo Boulevard) P & Z Case No. 8~-552
WHEREAS, Kenneth and Dianna Neukircher, owner of the,property described
as Lot 19, Block 15, Arden, P1D # 24-117-24 43 00~8, have applied for a variance
to allow the expansion of living space over an existing attached garage, to
recognize the existing nonconformin~ setback and undersized lot; and
WHEREAS, the existing structure has non-conforming setback of 5.3 feet
to the north and 7.8 feet to the east with a lot area of 4,000 square feet;
and
WHEREAS, the City Code requires 6,000 square feet of lot area in the
R-2 Single Family Zohing District with a side lot setback of 6 feet and rear
yard setback of 15 feet.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minne-
sota ~oes hereby approve the lot size and setback variances as requested to ~dd
an addition of living area above the existing attached garage to allow the
owner reasonable use of their land for Lot 19, Block 15, Arden (4997
Tuxedo Boulevard), PID #24-117-24 43 O018.
TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official ~
Planning Commission Agenda of November IO, 1986
CASE NO. 86-553
CASE NO. 86-553
APPLICANT: James L, Roseen
LOCATION: )555 Bluebird Lane.
LEGAL DESC,: Lot 7 and Lot 30, Block 6, Woodland Point
PID # 12-117-24 43 0~61
SUBJECT: Variance to allow unenclosed deck in the required rear yard setback
EX!STING ZONING: R-2 Single Family Residential
The applicant, Mr. James L. Roseen, is requesting that the Planning Commission
and City Council allow a 14 foot wide by lO foot unenclosed deck within five
feet of the Wawonassa'Commons.
The Zoning Code Section 23.408, Item 3, allows decks, balconies, and the like
attached to the principal building which extend in elevation above the height
of the ground floor within ten feet of the rear lot line. The home was built
in 1985 with a 15 foot setback.to the rear lot line allowing the atrium doors
to have only a five foot walkway down to grade. The owner of the new home has
a rise in elevation to the west which obstructs his visibility to the lakeshore
if a platform was built at grade level.
RECOMMENDAT!ON:
Staff recommends approval of the requested 5 foot variance to
allow.an unenclosed 10 by 14 foot deck within five feet of the
Wawonassa Commons due to the topography of the site for visi-
bility of the lakeshore to afford the owner reasonable use of
his land.
The abutting neighbors have been notified. Refer for Council action on the
City Council agenda for November 25, 1986.
JB/ms
j[ lanning Commission Hinutes
ovember, lO, 1~86
Case No..86-553 'VarSance'to a11°w unenclosed deck in the required rear yard
setback at. 1555 Bluebird Lane; Lots'7 and'30, Block 6, Woodland Point
James Roseen was present.
The Build.ing off|cia1 explalned.her report and that Hr. Roseen is requesting
an Unenclosed deck: be allowed 5 feet from the Commons~ Hr. Ros'een~s home was
recentty.bu!l't'15 fe~.(rear ~ard'setback for principal structures) from the ·
Con~nons'a.~d the builder propOsed, that he have a 5 'fogt walkway in front of his
atrium, door on' site plan. H~.nimum rear yard setback to commons, for an unenclosed
deck is 10'. feet.' Due to a rise in elevation to the'~est, the visibility to the
lakeshore'would be obstructed if platfo~nwas.built at grade level.
Hichael moved and ~eiland seconded a mot~ion'.to approve the reqUested 5 foot
variance.with the staff recon~nendations..The vote was unanimously in favor.
'Th~s will be on the City Council agenda of 'November 25, 1~86.
~~.~t ~,~ ..... -,,,~:,~,-~(Please type the following infor~tion)
Legal Description of Property: Lot
Address
Case NO. P~ -_.h--~3
Fee'Paid/__f'~. o o
Date Filed
Block ~..~,
.o.
Day Phone No. E'~1-313/
q. Applicant (if' other than owner):
Name "'- Day Phone No.
Address
5. Type of Request: C~ Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Amendment
· - ( ') Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Sign Permit
( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.~;' ( )*Other
*If other, specify:
Present Zoning District
o .u7 d,,
Existing Use(s) of Property ~],l~(~'~_'/~/¢ c~ _/~J"lc.'~"/~'~.
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditiona1 use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? If so, list date(s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s)
Copies of previous resolutions-shall accompany present request.
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained In any required
papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate· I consent to the entry in
or upon the premises described in this application by any ~uthorized official of the City
of Hound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such
notices as may be required by
Signature of Applicant , , ~ Date
Planning Commission Recommend on:
Date
Council Action:
Resolution No.
Date
h
Request~ for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) Case J/
D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc,
E. Indicate North compass direction
F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
III. Request for a Zoning Variance
A. All information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general
application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled.
B. Does the present use of the property conform to ~],¥use regulations for
the zone district in which it is located? Yes ~) No ( )
If "no", specify each non-conforming use:
Ce
Do the existing structures comply with all area heigh~ and bulk regulations
for the zone di.strlct in which it is located? Yes (~) No ( )
If "no", specify each non-conforming use:
DJ
Which unique physical characteristics of'the subject property prevent its
reasonable use for any o~/the uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) Too narrow J(~() Topography ( ) Soil'
( ) Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface
( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify:
Was the hardship described above c~eated by ~he action of anyone having
property interests iTthe land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted?
Yes ( ) NO (ii'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:
Ge
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar
only to the property described in this petition? Yes (~X[) 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 th,e enforcement of this ordinance?
1555 Blue Bird Lane
Mound, Minnesota 55364
October 20, 1986
City of Mound
5341 MaywoodRoad
Mound, Minnesota
55364
Dear Sirs:
I hereby submit this application for a variance which will enable me to
add a deck to my home located at' 1555 Blue Bird Lane in Mound.
The Deck:
The proposed deck will be top quality with the following dimentions.
A proposed 3' by 14' "runway" connected to a 14' wide by 10' "table and
chair" area. The ·rail will be 36" high with a plain and open spindle design,
allowing maximum visibility of the lake. This deck will be attached to the
main (upper) level of the home, and will be constructed of Cedar.
Safety Factor:
A ground level deck on this home would not be satisfactory for the
following reason, the topography of the land between the home and the lake
has a "mound like" rise, then drops quite sharply, (approximately 10'), to
the water's edge. This means, if I were seated on a ground level deck, it
would be impossible for me to see or supervise my Grandchildren, or any other
family members who happened to be on my dock. I suffer from hearing loss,
and must rely on sight for this type of supervision.
An additional safety precaution, the deck'hompany I have contracted
with will also complete approximately 30' of railing along the south sidewalk
of the home. This rail is not required by code, but would be needed for a safe
approach tomy main doorway.
The Deck Company:.
The deck company I have contracted with, is Wooden Rainbow Company. They
are well respected landscape and deck builders, who specialize in prize winning
design and workmanship. I have enclosed pictures of one of their completed
projects.
My Comment:
The variance I ask for, and the deck that I desire, is in keeping with the
neighborhood. It it reasonable in size and design. I make this request also,
because my home is designed to have a deck on the main upper level. (see enclosed
picture #2)
Thank you for your consideration.
· Roseen
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 86-553
RESOLUTION NO. 86-
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO APPROVE A FIVE FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK VARIANCE
FOR LOTS 7 AND 30, BLOCK 6, WOODLAND POINT PID #
12-117-24 43 0061 (1555 Bluebird Lane) P & Z Case
No. 86-553
WHEREAS, James L. Roseen, owner of the property described as Lots
7 and 30, Block 6, Woodland Point, PID # 12-117-24 43 OO61 (1555 Bluebird
Lane) has applied for a variance to allow the construction of a 10 by 14 foot
and 3 foot by 14 foot walkway unenclosed within five feet of the rear west
property llne; and
WHEREAS, the City Code'Section 23.408(3) requires decks to be con-
structed 10 feet from the rear property line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the variance as request'ed to construct
a 10 by 14 foot unenclosed deck within five feet of the west rear property
line for Lots 7 and 30, Block 6, Woodland Point (1555 Bluebird Lane) PID #
12-i]7-24 43 OO61, to afford the owner reasonable use of his land and due to
the topography for visibility from the structure.
3030 Harbor Lane North,
Suite 104
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441
612/553-1950
TO: Planning Commission and Staff
FRGM: Mark Koegler, ~tyPlanner ~/
DATE: November 3, 1986
SUBJEct: Variance (Access to Public Street)
CASE NO: 86-554
VHSFILENO.:. 86-310-A36-Z0
APPLICANT: Kele Homes - Mark Rodrique
ZONING: R-3
~SIVEPLAN:
Single Family Residential
PROfK~AL: The applicant is requesting a variance to establish a lot in Blocks
1 and 2, rearrangement of Block 10, Abraham Lincoln addition to Lakeside Park.
The lot contains 13,'700 plus square feet but does not abut a public street.
The applicant is proposing to take access to the property from an easement
which connects to Lynwood Boulevard.
RECOMMENDATION: The proposed variance meets the conditions of bmrdship
contained in section 23.506.1 of the Mound Zoning Code. Because the hardship
was created by past actions of the City of Mound. At some point in time, the
City vacated Laurel Street which provided direct access to the subject
property. Without Laurel Street, the property has no direct access and there
does not appear to be any other reasonable means for providing such access.
Staff recommends approval of the variance subject to a review of the easement
document by the City Attorney's office. App] }cant has to meet City Engineer and
Public Works approvals for utility connect|ons.
The abutting neighbors have been notified.
Planning Commission Hinutes
November 10, 1986
Case No, 86~55~ Variance for access to pubilc'..street for proposed home at
52XX Lynwqod Boulevard; Heres' &.Bounds Desc..,.Blocks t & 2, Rearrangement:of
Block ]0, Abraham' Llnco]h Addition to Lakeside. Park
Hark Rodrique of Ke]e Homes and Owner',' Jean Graff, were present.
'City Planner, Hark Ko&g'ler'reviewed his.' report. The 13,700+_squ~re foot lot
does not front'on a public, street'and was supposed to take access through an
easement that comes off. Lynwood Boul'evard. A hardship apparentl.~y does exist
because'at one time"the.re was'public right-of'way to this property and for some
reason, that was vacated by"the City'which severed public.access to the lot and
made it landlocked. As.a result,".there real.ly is no direct access to the lot
nor does there'appear any reasonabl'e meanS to'provide access.. He recommends
approval 'subject to review of the easement documents by the City Attorney's
office and that'Appl.icant meet'Engineer'-s and Public Works' approv&l for utility
connections. The Building 0fl'ica1 stated she talked with the qity Engineer and
they will..need new water service off'of'Lynwood; the sewer is extended up that
easement.'
The commission had various questions on.'the easement document. The neighbors,
Hr. and Hfs? Erickson'and Bob H°rtsch, were present. They.stated they purchased
the property divided as it is.
Thal moved and Welland seconded a.motion'to, approve the variance requested
with staff recommendations: .
The Commission dlscuSsed the.~asement, etc, ~and.they concluded the lot was a
legal lot. and ease~nt is apparently there and that it is private easement,
The vote'.dn the motion'was.unanimously in favor.
This Will be.on the November 25', t~86 Council agenda.
· (Pleese type the following infor~tion)
CITY OF HOUND
APPLICATION TO PLANNING S ZONING COHHISSION
t
Case No.
Fee Pald ~-~. o ~
Date Flled, /~-2/-~
1. Street Address of Property
2. Legal Description of Property:
Applicant (if' other than owner)
Name x/'7/~ ~x?/~.
Se
Day Phone No..~/-7~g2 ~ ?
Type of Request: (~;/L). Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Amendment
" ( ') Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Sign Permit
( ) ~/etland Permit ( ) P.U.~):' ( )*Other
*If other, specify:
Present Zoning District
7. Existing Use(s) of Property
Has an appllcatlon ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? /~f~ 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 ~uthorized officia'l of the City
of Hound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such
notices as may be required by law.
Signature of Applicant .....
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Date
Council Action:
Resolution No.
, Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) Case
D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
E. Indicate North compass direction
F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
III. Request for a Zonin9 Variance
A. All information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general
application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled.
B. Does the present use of the property conform to all use regulations for
the zone district in which it is located? Yes ~>~ No ( )
If "no", specify each non-conforming use:
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:
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 described above c~eated by ~he 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 j~) No ( ) If yes, explain:
A -
G. Are he conditions of hardship for which you request a variance pecullar
only to the property described in thi's petition? Yes ~ No ( )
If no, how many other properties are similarly affected?
H. What'is the "minimum" ~dificatlon (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. ~i]] 9ranting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the
same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance~
Certificate of Sttrvey
for Jean I. Gra£f
in Blocks 1 and 2, Bearrange~ent cL
Block lC, Abraham r.inccln Addition
to 4akeside Park
· ?,..~ Hennepin County, Y, inn.
Scale:
Date :
1" = 50~.
2-2-82
October 21, i986
To whom it may concern;
I acknowledge Jean Graff is applying for a building permit
for the waterfront property adjacent to my property at
5226 Lynwood Blvd.
October 21, 1986
To whom it may concern;
I acknowledge Jean G~aff is applying for a building permit
for the waterfront property adjacent to my property'at
5212 Lynwood Blvd.
· ,/
~96'7 Aerial Photo
LYN
, 16~
' BLVD
~R
RESOLUTION NO. 86-
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 86-55~
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO
ESTABLISH A BUILDABLE LOT FOR PART OF
LOTS 1,2,3 & ~, IN BLOCKS 1 AND 2,
REARRANGEMENT'OF BLOCK 10, ABRAHAM
LINCOLN ADDITIDN TO LAKESIDE PARK
PID # 13-117-24 31 0070
P & Z CASE NO. B6-55q
WHEREAS,'Jean-Graff, owner of property described as a lot in Blocks I
and 2, Rearrangement of Block 10, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside: Pa~k,
has applied for a variance toestablish a lq,o00~ square foot parcel as a
buil.dable lot since the parcel currently does not front on a public right-of-
way; and "
WHEREAS, the Mound City Code requires all lots to contain frontage on
-a public right-of-way; and '
WHEREAS, the Plannlng Commi. ssion'revieWed..the request and recommended
granting the variance due to the fact that the City of Mound previously
vacated Laurel 5treat which provided access to the parcel thereby.establishing
hardship under'Section 23.506.1 of the Mound Zoning Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Councll of the City Of Mound, Minne-
sota,, does hereby grant the variance subject to review of the proposed ease-
ment by the City Attorney for:
That oart of Lots I and 2, P~ock 2, and Lots 3 and ~, Block 1, and of
· vacated Laurel Street, and o~ the vacated 12-foot alley aa pie%ted
Between Lots 1, 2, 3, A,.and 12 of said Block 1, Rearrangement of
Block 10, ABraham Lincoln Addition to '~keslde Park, described as
follows: ~egir~ing at the point of intersection of the NorthweSterly
line of said Lot 2, Block 2, with a line drav~ parallel with and 75
feet North of the North line of'~ot 4 of said ~locE 2, as measured at
right angles to s~id North line; thence running Northeasterly along
the Northyesterly line o? said Lots 2 and 1, Block 2, to the most
Northerly corner of Said' LOt'i; thenoe running'Southeasterly along
the Northeasterly line of said ~ot 1, Bloc~ 2, and its'extension
thereof to the most. Northerly co~ner of ~zid Lot 3, ~1oc2 !; thence
continuing Southeasterly along the. Northeasterly line of said LOt 3,
Bloc~..1, to a point ~hich is 82.5 £eet Soutbeaster!y fro~ the most
Northerly corner of said Lot 1, Blo:k 2, as ,,-masured alon~ the. ~:orth-
easterly lines of said Eot 1, Block 2, and LOt 3, Bloc~ 1; thence
running Southwesterly 1~6 feet more or less to anoint in a line
drax.~ parallel with and 75 feet North o£ the North line of.b or 4,
Bloc2 2, extended, as measured at right ~ngles to said North line,
said point also being 15 feet East as measured at right angles fr~m
the East line of ~aurel Street; thence 'running West parallel with
the North line of said LOt 4, Bloc2 2, to the point of beginning,
with a 50 foot setback at west, 50 foot setback at north, 10 foot setbacks at
east and south property lines from the principal structure prow)ding two
off street parking stalls.
Planning Commission Hinutes
November 10, 1986
Case No..86-555 Variance of retaining wall on public'right-of-way for 3018
De¥on Lane;'Lots ]7.and 18,' Blo'ck 11, Pembroke
Don Paterson of K. P. Properties was present.
The Building Off.ici'at expla.ined retaining wall was bui]t adjacent to the new
home and is on City property-2½ feet. The City.had a lot of street projects
w.~.th retai.nl.ng walls which .the'Ci'ty must maintain. Because of these walls,.
it is. easy to.~isu~derstand where.walls, should be. Ordinance requires fences/
retaln'ing.wa']ls be on own property; The bu.llder put wall in line. with the
Clty walls. Street.Super-intendant :has determined he doesn't need walls any
closer to"~urb.than'-he has to have them:and'recommends moving wa1] onto Owner's
property. Walls close to. street make snow plowing difficu.lt.
Hr.'Paterson stated Cit~.bui]t. wa]'ls both uphi11-and downhi.11 from this property
and because of the..Steep slop.e,'his builder !ined Up wall with those. He stated
that-as main concern of City'seems to be maintenance of. the wall, his solution
would.be to. have owner s'ign'a perpetual' maintenance agreement for the'wa1] on
City.property. The Commission discussed the request.'
Ken Smith moved to .grant a variance with condition that there be a perpetual
maintenance agreement:.drafted 'an~ have. owner record on his deed with a copy of
.the registered document 'sent'to the Ci?~¥...Reyer seconded the mOtion. The
vote was unanimously in favor, ..
This wi'l'l be on the City'COuncil agenda of November'.25, 1986.
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO: Jan Bertrand, Building Official
FROM: Geno Hoff, Street Superintendent
SUBJECT: 30lB Devon, retaining wall variance
DATE: November 4, 1986
In reviewing the variance request for 3018 Devon Road,
I would recommend that the retaining wall be moved back the
two and a half feet whiCh would be onto the owners property.
I do not feel the City should be responsible for anymore
retaining walls. The exlsti~g walls are under street projects
which the City must maintain.
Thank you for your 9opsideration.
...... : .... o~ ~ *~ i-,~;~ ~* r=~¢ ~'nlmr national oricJif~ or haan:capped status
CITY of MOUND
MOUND. MINNESOTA
October 10, 1986
Brookhaven Homes, Inc.
Hr. Bart Porter
15572 'Red Oak Road S. E.
Prior Lake, HN. 55372
Dear Mr. Porter:
In regard to the Affidavit of Compliance for 3018 DevOn Lane,
Hound, you described the wood retaining. Wall .thbt is placed
in the road.right-of-way. The Temporary Certificate of Occu-
pancy of October 7, 1986 required the removal of the retaining
wa1.1 'from the'public right-of-way within thirty (30) days.
Fences and retaining walls are regulated by the City Zoning
Ordinance, Section 23./415, which requires.fences-and retaining
walls to be located within your own property.
I.have attached a variance application, if you want special
approval, to leave the wall in its existing location. Please
return the application and filing fee to my-office by October
22nd, the Planning Commission will act on the request-Novem-
ber loth, and the City Council would take final action by
November 25th '(within 30'days).
If you have any questions regarding this, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Building Official
JB/ms
cc: Don Peterson, K.P. Properties
Ed Shukle, City Hanager
Geno Hoff, Street Superintendent
86/91
Encl.
An equal O~pCrtumty Employer that does not discriminate on the ba~i_~ nf race
_~ .... . ...~ (Please type the following jnfor~tJon)
Street Address of eroperty~~/~ ~~~ ~
Legal Description of Property: Lot
Addi tion /
Owner's Name ~.~, ~P~r~;t5 -~'
Address
Applicant (if' other than owner):
Case No.
Fee Paid .3-o ~
Block //
Address /~'?~ ~
5. Type of Request: ~) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit · . ( ') Zoning Interpretation ~ Re'vie~
( ) ~etland Permit ( ) P.U.~:'
Day Phone No.
( ) Amendment
( ) Sign Permit
'( )*Other
f other, specify:
7. Existing Use(s) of Propert~ ~c~'/~/~7~/ -
8. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditlonal use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? ///~ If so, list date(s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolutlon No.(s)
1 accompany present request.
I certify that all of the alcove statements and the statements contained in any required
papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry
or upon the premises described in this application by any ~uthorized official of the City
of Hound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such
notices as may be required by law..
Si gnature of Appl icant~-~- ~7~' ..... -. --
Plannlng Commission Recommendation:
Date
Councll Action:
Resolution No.
Date 2¥77
Request for Zoning Variance Procedure
(2) Case #.~~5-.~-
D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, et~.
E. Indicate North compass direction
F. Any addltlonal information as may reasonably be requlred by the City Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
I!1; Request for a Zonin9 Variance
A. All Information below, a site plan, as described In Part II, and general
application must*be provided before a hearlng will be scheduled.
B. Does the present use of the property'conform to all use regulations for
the zone dlstrlct In which It is located? Yes ~ No ( ) ..
If "no", specify each non-conforming use:
Do the existing structures comply wlth all area hei~ht_and bulk regulations
for the zone district in which It is located? Yes j~::~ No ( )
If nnon, specify each non-conforming.use:
.0. ~/hlch unlqu& physlcal characteristics o~:"l~he sub.iect property prevent Its
reasonabl.e use for any qf the uses permltt~d in that zoning district?
( ) .Too narrOw ~<~ Topography ( ) Soil
( ) Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface
( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify:
E. ~/as the hardship des'Crlbed above c~eated by the actlon of anyone having
property Interests in the lan~l after the' Zoning Ordinance ~vas adopted?
Yes ( ) No ~<::)~ If yes, explain:
F. ~/as the hardship created by any other man-made change, such a.s the reloc.a-
tion of a road? Yes .( ) No ( ) If yes, explain: ,~./~'~. ~'~x~,~
Are the conditions of hardship for ~vh'ich you request a variance peculiar
only to the property described in this petition? Yes (~ No ( )
If no, ho~ many other properties are similarly affected? .
· !
H. ~/hat ls the "minimum'* modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations
that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using
maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional
sheets, if necessary.)
I. ~/ill granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the
same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
I
15
EXISTING DW£LLIN~
Low,~ Floor' El.. ~93.10 ..
K. P. Properties, Inc.
REAL ESTATE
DEVELOPMENT · MANAGEMENT
32 Interlachen Court · Tonka Bay, Minnesota 55331 · 612-474-0853
November 12, 1986
Jan Bertrand, Building Official
City of Mound
5341Maywood Drive
Mound, MN. 55364
Dear Ms. Bertrand:
As a follow up to the planning commission meeting of Nov.
10, I have prepared a preliminary draft of a perpetual
.Maintenance agreement for the wood retaining wall at 3018
Devon. I am submitting this as a suggested form to be
used if the city council accepts the recommendation of the
planning commission.
This can be used to aid in drafting an agreement if you
prefer another form. It might be helpful if you have an
agreement drafted when the issue is discussed by the City
Council.
I want to thank you for the patience that you have shown
in this situation. I am having absolutely no success in
getting Brookhaven Homes to do anything on this job and I
have had to line' up new contractors to finish almost every-
thing. Please call if you want to discuss the retaining
wall further.
Sincerely:
Perpetual Maintenance Agreement
This agreement between the City of Mound and the present
owners of lot 17 & 18, block 11, Pembroke, also known as
3018 Devon, outlines the responsibilities for maintenance
of a treated timber retaining wall constructed on city
right of way in front of 3018 Devon.
The CitY of Mound will allow this privately constructed
retaining wall to remain qn the city road right of way in
exchange for a commitment by the owners of 3018 Devon that
they or future owners will maintain such retaining wall in
good condition at no cost to the City of Mound. The city
assumes no responsibility for maintenance of such wall and
if the wall is not maintained to a standard acceptable to ~
the City building official the citY will have the right to
remove such wall and assess the cost of such removal against
lot 17 & 18, block 11, Pembroke.
The original ofthis agreement will be filed at the Hennepin
County Registra~ of Deeds as an encumbrance against this
property.
This agreement is entered into this
by the undersigned.
day of , 1986
Owners of lot 17 & 18, Block 11, Pembroke
City of Mound
By:
PROPOSED RESOLUTI ON
CASE NO.-86-555
RESOLUTION NO. 86-
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AND APPROVE A FRONT YARD VARIANCE FOR LOTS 17 AND
18, BLOCK 11, PEMBROKE PID # 19-117-23 33 0202
P & Z CASE # 86-555 (3018 Devon Lane)
WHEREAS, K. P. Properties, Inc., applicant, is the owner of the prop-
erty described as Lots 17 and 18, Block 11, Pembroke, PID # 19-117-23 33 0202
(3018 Devon Lane) has applied for a variance in setback to allow a retaining
wall 16 feet in width along the right-of-way of the Devon Lane; and
WHEREAS, Exhibit A has also been submitted to indicate the requested
right-of-way encroachment in front of Lot 17 and 18, Block ll, Pembroke; and
WHEREAS, the City Code Section 23.415 does allow fencing and retaining
walls within the property with no setback to the right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does
recommend approval of the setback variance with conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the variance to allow the. retaining wall
as shown on Exhibit A for Lots 17 and 18, Block 11, Pembroke PID # 19-117-23
33 0202 upon the condition that a perpetual maintenance agreement be drafted by
the owner, reviewed by the City Attorney and the owner is to record the document
and submit a registered copy to the City Office within 90 days.
3030 Harbor Lane North,
Suite 104
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441
612/553-1950
TO: Planning Commissi.on and Staff,~/
FR(]~: Mark Koegler, ~lty Planner
DATE: November 3, 1986
SUBJECT: Variance Request
APPLICANT: Gordon Wolf
4610 Kildare Road
CASE NO.: 86-556
ZONING: R-2
86-310-A38-Z0
~PLAN: Single Family Residential
BACKGROUND: In 1984, Mr. Wolf was tagged by the building inspector for
remodeling without'a building permit. Subsequently, Mr. Wolf applied for a
variance to improve an existing cottage that does not meet either the lot area
or structural setback requirements of the Mound Zoning Code.
On August 13, 1984, the Planning Commission reviewed a variance request and
tabled action pending the submission of more complete application materials.
On August 27, 1984, the Planning Commission a~ain considered the applicant's
request and recommended denial on a 5-1 vote. In subsequent action, the City
Council considered the vacation of Kildare Road along the south side of the
applicant's property. Because of utilities in the area and the desire to
preserve public access to the lake, the vacation request was denied.
The city recently prosecuted Mr. Wolf for the building permit violation.
Several court appearances occurred and Mr. Wolf pleaded guilty. Sentencing is
scheduled to occur on December 12, 1986 but prior to that time, the judge
directed Mr. Wolf to apply for a variance. As a result, the current variance
application was filed with the city.
PROPOSAL: The proposed variance includes recognition of nonconforming front
ar~ rear yard setbacks and an undersized lot. Upon approval of the variance,
the applicant is proposing to do structural modifications and remodeling of
the existing house. Since the current application did not specifically note
all proposed upgrades, I assume the improvements will be similar to those
referenced in the previous variance application. I attempted to contact Mr.
Wol~ to veri~y his proposed activities, however, hi~ phone i~ disconnected.
The application did contain three sketch plan sheets of proposed improvements.
In reviewing the variance, the issue of setbacks 'and the issue of lot size
will be reviewed independently. Lot 38 which lies immediately west of the
Wolf property was acquired by the city for roadway purposes. The lot contains.
an improved street known as Black Lake Lane. Acquisition of Lot 38 for
right-of-way established a 2.5 foot front yard setback. Since the acquisition
was an action by the city, hardship does exist. The rear of the house lies
seven feet from the property line requiring an eight foot variance. Both of
these variances represent the minimum necessary to recognize the existing
situation.
Lot 39 contains 3,600 square feet which is only 60% of the required 6,000 foot
lot area. In addition to Lot 39, .Mr. Wolf also owns Lot 6 which is
approximately 5,500 square feet in area. If both parcels were combined, the
lot 'area 'would be conforming and no variance would be required.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of a variance for Gordon Wolf
recognizing existing front and rear yard setbacks and allowing improvement of
the property subject to the following conditions:
1. All improvements shall be done according to current building code. The
applicant shall submit all required plans to the Building Inspector and
shall receive a building permit prior to any further remodeling
activity.
All illegal improvements completed to date shall be inspected by the
Building Inspector and other inspection personal as appropriate. The
applicant shall make all improvements readily available for visual
inspection and if required, shall remove drywall, paneling e. tc.
o
Lot 39 and Lot 6 shall be combined into one tax parcel making the lot
conforming. The requested lot area variance for Lot 39 is denied.
The applicant shall post a bond in the amount of 100% of the cost of the
proposed improvements to guarantee that the structure will be brought up
to current building code.
Planning Commission Hinutes
November 10, 1986
Case No. 86-$$6 Varia~'ce't~rec~g~jz~.a-n--~l'sting'iunde-rsi~ed 1or'and'setbacks'
to property li~e; Lot 39'and Lot 6, Block 11, Seton
Gordon Wolf was present.
The City Planner reviewed the:background of this'case'as'outlined in his report;
the end result of-previous appliCa~ions,.-etc~.was that'there was no posi'tive
aCtion taken. Hr. Wolf' is bac~.bef0re..the'City applying for ~ variance. He
wants to conduct improvements to'the exist'lng'house; the housepresentiy has
nonconforming setbacks:and is on an undersized 'lot. The Planner assumed the .'
proposed modification to be the.same as o~iginal,ly proposed as he was unable to
contact applicant. He'stated the'setback ~variances requested seem'to be the
minimum to make the prOperty usable; however, he is reCommending that Lots
and 39 be combined so lot area woUld be conforming and no 1or size variance
would be required. Staff is recommending approval of a variance recognizing
the existing setbacks and allowing improvments to the property subject to the
~ conditions outlined in ~his report.
The applicant· questioned Item4 "shall post a bond" and was not in favor of
combining .Lots. 6 and 39.
~ei. land moved"the staff recommendation of the q points set down. Thai
seconded the motion.
The Commission had'queStions'on, the bond. and Ken Smith stated only a iicensed
contractor With a.good track record Cquld purchase such a bond. ~olf stated
it ~as no:rhis intention to hire a contractor· The Commission discussed the
matter and'that the 'City:needs an ordinance.to'protect future buyers requiring
inspections of'residentlal properties"that would state certain things.that have.
to be corrected; The Comm'isslon agreed Item'h should be left in conditions to
guarantee,'work ~ill be done 'and acCording to. code. '
The vote.on the motion was unanimously in favor.
This will be on the City Council agenda of November 25, 1~86.
0 o,
i! /OC~T ~-3, L~85 ~ I APPLICATION TO PLANNIN~ · ZONIN~ COMMISSION
L ' ~ ' ~-~ - ~-'~"~
2. legal DesCription o~ Property: Lot
Addition'
Case
Fee'Paid
Date Filed
Block //
PlO No.II'-{"
3. Owner's Name ~O~:~0~J ~-, ~)O ~'
Address. ~'- ~ '~.~,
Day Phone "o.. ~7~-~ ¢
4. Applicant (if other than owner):
Day Phone No.
Address
5. Type of Request:
'(~'~iVariance ( ) 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, variance,, or conditional use permit
Other zoning procedure for this property? ~ If so, list date(s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s)
Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request·
I certify that all of the'above statements and the statements contained in any required
papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in
or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City
of Hound for the purpose of inspecting, o~ of post~ng, maintaining and removing such
notices as'may be required
Planning Co~ission Reco~endation:
Date
Council Action:
Resolution No.
Date
Request for Zoni.ng Variance Procedure (2)
Case #
O. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
E. Indicate North compass direction
F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
II!. Request for a Zoning Variance
A. All information below, a site pian, 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 ali use regulations for
the zone district In which It is located? Yes (-v') No ( )
If "no", specify each n~n-conforming use: "
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
( ) Too. small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface
( ).. Too shall°w ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify:
Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having
property interests in the land after-the Zoning Ordinance was adopted?
Yes ( ) No ('~-) If yes, explain: ....
Was the hardship created bY any 'other man-made change, such as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes (.~ No ( ) If yes, explain: _. "
; ..... ~ ;'~:'..- ,/ .-- . ~ ._ - . / :~:/.'~ ~ ,-.. :
Ge
Are the :onditions of hardship for which you request a varian.ce 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 regulationg
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?
7B-I1U i, SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE CASE NO.
:3/4
--HEDG[,.AND TREES ON-LINE
I t ~'C ~ ~POWER ~L[ 0.5 NORTH OF IRON
40.00 PLAT ./ ~-~
~ CON NET~ [, ,
/ HOUSE - = ~ ' ~ CONCRETE WALt.
' - ,'- ~~~~ - ~7. BO. WATER'S EDGE
~~AS~~-- 9Z'8 8~ M~ ,PLAT
AO.O0 PLAT
0
KILDARE LANE ' ..,,,z
, . /7 (,~
-- -.- ' /
Jm,.. t. I ,
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct
representation of ~ survey of the boundaries of:
Lots G.and .t9, Block ll, S[TO~(, according to the
recordo~ plat thereof, Hennepin County,.tlinnesota,
And of thc. locdt, ion of all buildings thereon, and
all visible, encroachments, if any, from or on said
lend. As surveyed by me this 10th day of July. 1978.
Harold C. Peterson, R.L.S.
Minnesota Registration lie. 12294
Scale: 1 inch · 30 Feet
0 Denotes iron t~nu~nt
lsraelson & Associates, Inc...
Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors
glOD West Bloomington Freeway
Bloomington, ~( 55431
CARLOW RD ',,
·
$!
$0
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 86-556
RESOLUTION NO. 86-
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW STRUCTURAL MODIFI-
CATION FOR LOT 39, BLOCK 11, SETON, PID # 19-117-23
21 0033 (4610 K|ldare Road) P & Z CASE NO. 86-556
WHEREAS, Gordon L. Wolf, owner of the property, described as Lot 39,
Block 11, Seton, PID # 19-117-23 21 0033 (4610 Kildare Road) has applied for a
variance in setback and lot area to allow structural modifications to the
dwelling; and
WHEREAS, City Code requires a front yard setback of 20 feet to the
property line, a rear yard of 15 feet to the property line and a lot area of
6,000 square feet in the R-2 residential zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does
recommend approval ~f the requested variances to allow the owner reasonable
use of his land with certain conditions.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the variance to recognize the existing
nonconforming setbacks to the property line as shown on Exhibit A and allow
improvement of the property subject to the following conditions:
1. All improvements shall be done according to current building code.
The applicant shall submit all required plans to the Building Inspec-
tor and shall receive a building permit prior to any further remodeling
activity.
2. All illegal improvements completed to date shall be inspected by
Building Inspector and other inspection personnel as appropriate.
The applicant shall make all improvements readily available for
visual inspection and if required, shall remove drywall, panelling,
etc.
3. Lot 39 shall be combined with Lot 6 into one tax parcel making
the lot size conforming. The requested lot area variance for Lot 39
is denied.
4. The applicant shall post a bond in the amount of 100% of the cost
of the proposed improvements to guarantee that the structure will be
brought up to current building code standards.
3030 Harbor Lane North,
Suite 104
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441
612/553-1950
TO: Planning Commission and Staff
FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: November. 3, 1986
SUBJECT: Commerce Place - Comprehensive Sign l~lan Approval
APPLICANT: JRW Properties, Inc.
CASE NO.: 86-557
VHS FILE NO.: 86-310-A37-Z0
PROPOSAL: JRW Properties has submitted a comprehensive signage plan for
Commerce Place (Town Square) as required by the Mound Sign Ordinance. The
plan seeks approval for street and arcade signage for the retail shops and
approval of a free-standing pylon sign for the shopping center.
The proposed signage for Commerce Place falls under Section 4.05(3) of the
Sign Ordinance. This section allows a free-standing area identification sign
not to exceed 48 square feet in area and 15 feet in height. Additionally, it
allows businesses with at least 2,000 square feet of floor area to have a 48
square foot wall sign. Many of the businesses in Ccx~erce Place do not meet
the 2,000 square foot threshold. Therefore, a variance from this provision
has been requested.
Retail Shops - Street Facade - Plans call for signage to be integrated into
the architectural design of the building. Sign locations are shown on the
elevation drawings. Signs are proposed to be 2' 6" tall and range in length
from 12'-15'. The retail signs account for a total of~t. _
Exclusive of the clinic and drug store which are not a part of this proposal,
five shops are included in the west elevation. If each business contained
2,000 square feet of floor area, a total of~of wall signs
would be allowed. The proposed retail shops street facade signage contains a
total sign box size of 207 square feet. Actual signage will be somewhat less
than the total box area.
All retail shop wall signs are proposed to be cut out, white plexiglass
letters which will b~ internally illuminated. The sign surfac, e will be a
gray/teal blue color which will complement the window and door frames of the
structure.
Retail Shops - Arcade Facade - Seven retail shops will front on the arcade
area which runs through the center of the retail complex. The arCade is not
readily visible from the external street system surrounding Commerce Place.
Within the arcade, plans show a total of 553 square feet of sign box area.
Applying the 48 square feet of area allowed for businesses exceeding 2,000
square feet, a total area of 336 square feet would be permitted by ordinance.
The arcade shops will require a variance since they do not meet the 2,000
square foot threshold and potentially will exceed the area requirement of 48
square feet per business.
Free-Standing Area Identification Sign - A 48 square foot free-standing area
identification sign has been proposed which will contain the words "Commerce
Place". The sign will be internally illuminated. The location of the area
identification sign was fixed during the site plan review of Commerce Place.
The sign, as proposed,, is 20 feet tall which will require a five foot height
variance. '
Bank Signa~e - Bank Signage is being shown at this time for informational
purposes only. As you will note, the proposal .calls for an electronic message
center to be constructed on the north and south sides of the drive-in canopy
of the bank. The applicant would appreciate any comments on the message
center that the Planning Commission cares to offer.
RECOMMENDATIONS: The proposed signage for the retail shops and area
identification sign for Commerce Place is generally consistent with the spirit
and intent of the sign ordinance. Because of the design of the facility,
variance from the minimum 2,000 square feet per business requirement is
recommended. Specifically, staff recommends the following:
1. Retail Shops - Street Facade - Recommend approval of the signs as
proposed providing that the signs relate exclusively to the five
businesses which front on the west side of the building. (Reference
Exhibit A)
0
Arcade Shops' Recommend approval of the sign boxes as showh on Exhibit
B, however, total sign area within the box structure for all arcade
shops shall not exceed 336 square feet.
Free Standing Area Identification Sign - Recommend approval of the 48
square foot free-standing sign at a height not to exceed 15 feet. There
does not appear to be grounds for a hardship, therefore, it is
recommended that the 5 foot height variance be denied.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 10, 1986
Case No. 86-557 Approval for ComPrehensive Sign P}an for Commerce Square
Saul Smil'ey was present. "
The Planner, Mark'Koegle~, reviewed h-is'report, and noted a Couple of cor'rections
that should be made. Commerce Place'.should read Commerce Square and in Para-
graph 2'on the'first page, 15 feet in height should.read 25 feet in height;~
also the last recom~ndation-should have'the 15 feet changed to 25 feet and the
last sentence deleted.as-it is not applicable."
The'Planning Commission di~scussed thesignage briefly.including the propoSed
electronic message Cen~er'sign.'.fOr the Bank; Wei]and'questioned if' any'sign-
age woUld.b~ on the'east side of. the building (none planned).
Wei]and moved and SteVe Smith.seconded a motion to accept the staff recommenda-
tions approving the-~ign-a~e w!~ the corrections in item.3 "not to exceed 25 -
feet in'.height" and striking, the last Sentence. The vote was all in favor
'except Vern Andersen who abstained.
This will be on the City Council agenda of November 25, 1~86.
NAME OF APPLICANT
ADDRESS
APPLICATION FOR SIGN PERMIT
CITY OF MOUND
Smiley Glotter Associates
1021 LaSalle Avenue
Street Number
Minneapolis,
PHONE NO. 332-1~O1
55403
Zip '----""----"'--'--""
BUILDING OWNER JRW Properties, Inc. 88 South 6th Street, Suite 925, Mpls.,
(If other than ~ppllcant) Name. Address
CONTRACTOR Kraus-Anderson Constructlont 200 Grand Avenue, St. Paul
Name Address
SIGN LOCATION See enclosed schedule for al! sign information.
55402
LOT
BLOCK ADDITION
ALLOWABLE SIGNAGE @ % .
WALL AREA BY'
EXISTING SIGNAGE ''
DESCRIBE SIGN (Materials, etc;)
HEIGHT OF SIGN
Ft. - TOTAL
NUMBER OF SIGNS
SIGN SIZE BEING REQUESTED BY
= SQ. FT.
LENGTH OF TIME SEASONAL SIGN TO BE ERECTED:
N/A
Square Footage
ZONING DISTRICT B-1
SQ. FOOTAGE OF SIGNS
ILLUMINATED: YES
TYPE OF SIGN:
WALL MOUNT
FREE STANDING
PORTABLE
NO
OTHER
PLEASE DESCRIBE REQUEST AND REASON FOR REQUEST: Comprehensive Siqnaqe Packaqe. Proposal
for Mound's Commerce .Square Commercial Developn~nt Project.
Is sign for a' community organization and does it meet all the stan'dards of Sectlon 55.38'
N/A
If additional information ls attached, please submit 8½" X 11" maximum sized drawings.
Applicant's Signature
Recommenda t I on:
Date submitted
APPROVED: ,
Building Official .'
· J coVE~ ~ ~F..VEAL.
I //
, I
L_,I i_.J
I"'"11'-1
r~m-i
·
"-'l--
\ I
\1
i i
,, --
I
!
I !
i
r'l-~-~--- ' ' ....... h
IL1--- '
./
I
1"7._ I~I __
II
~.£-T'
I
II
II
t
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 86-557
RESOLUTION NO. 86-
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COMPREHENSIVE
SIGN PLAN FOR COMMERCE SQUARE, 2200-2206,
2210-2214, 2224-2238 COMMERCE BOULEVARD
P & Z CASE NO. 86-557
WHEREAS, JRW Properties, Inc., Owner of Commerce Square has submitted
a comprehensive sign plan and variance application as required by 4.05(6)
of Section 55.38 of the Mound City Code; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does
recommend approval of the comprehensive sign plan and approval of the Vari-
ance to the minimum 2000 square foot floor area requirement of Section 4.05(3).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, does hereby approve the comprehensive sign plan for Commerce Square
subject to the following conditions:
The street facade signage shall not exceed 207 square feet in total area
and shall relate exclusively to the five businesses which.front on the
west side of the building.
2. Si§nage for the arcade shops shall not exceed a total of 336 square feet.
All signage locations and types shall be consistent with the plans ·
accompanying the appliCation.as shown on Exhibit A Pages 1 through 3
dated 11-3-86.
EXHIBIT A Page 1
11-3-86
COHPREHENSIVE SIGNAGE PACKAGE PROPOSAL
Commerce Square Development
Mound, Minnesota
Comm. No. 821-2
Signs included in proposal:
INFORMATIONAL ONLy .5.
INFORMATIONAL ONLY 6.
Optical Shop - west facade signage
Retail Shops - west facade signage
Retail Shops - Arcad~ facade signage
Area identification sign.
Bank Drive-in Canopy - north and-south sides signage
Bank Drive-in Canopy - west side signage
NOTES:
1. Various details, elevations and plans included for further
clarification. Oetails noted per sign type.
2~
Square footage of proposed signs are given in total sign face square
footage, not graphic or type square*f~6tage.
3. All signs to be permanent, non-seasonal signs.
4. Area identification sign to 20' high by variance, if possible.
5. Signage for bahk entrances and clinic entrances to be by other
permits pending owner approval.
S i gn Type Schedu ] e
1.& 2. Optical Shop and Retail Shops - west facade:
26§8 square feet of facade
403 square feet allowable signage
207 square feet total of sign boxes
EXHIBIT A Page 2
11-3-86
INFORMATIONAL ONLY
Description:
Continuous metal framed, top mounted, internally illuminated sign
boxes with transluscent plex letters in opaque plex background.
3. Retail Shops - Arcade facades:
2340 square feet of facade
351 square feet allowable signage
553 square feet total sign boxes
Description:
Continuous, wall mounted, internally illuminated sign boxes for
retail facades within covered arcade. Similar construction to types
1 and 2.
4. Area Identification Sign:
Ordinance #437, Section 4.05(1):
48 square feet allowable
15 foot height limitation
48 square feet double faced shown,-15"feet high*.
Description
Internally illuminated, free standing plax faced double faced sign
with .concrete posts and steel framing.
5. North and south sides Bank Drive-in Canopy soffit:
44~ square feet per facade
67.2 square feet allowable signage per facade
50 square feet proposed per facade
Description
7 x 96 lamp electronic message center. 11" deep cabinet recessed
flush into canopy soffit. 18" high characters x 21 characters long.
Sign for time, tamp, bank and public service messages.
* Height to 20'-0" by variance, if possible.
EXHIBIT A Page 3
Il-3-86
West Side Bank Drive-in Canopy soffit:
532 square feet of facade
7~.8 square feet allowable signage
64 square feet proposed signage.
Description
Bank identification sign box internally illuminated, recessed flush
into canopy facade. Bank name and logo strip layout block letters
(20'~ high).
INFORMATION ONLY:
EXHIBIT-A Page 3
11-3-86
West Side Bank Drive-in Canopy soffit:
532 square feet of facade
7~.8 square feet allowable signage
64 square feet proposed signage.
Description
Bank identification sign box internally illuminated, recessed flush
into canopy facade. Bank name and logo strip layout block letters
(20" high).
3030 Harbor Lane North,
Suite 104
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441
612/553.19r~)
TO: 3an Bertrand
FROH; 1/ark Koegle~
SUB J= "VII4 POSt-5113
D~.TE: October 21, 1986
I have reviewed the plans for V~J Post 5113 from Horan Assoc/ates
da=ed 10/14/86~ The plan as proposed will require a number of
parkinE var iances,
l~ ~. Space Size - The plan calls fcr 9X19 foot spaces. The xonlng
rdL-.~nce (23.716,2(2))requires 10X20 foo= spaces.
The '~s~ side of the propert~ borders an R. 1j~'z°n~g district.
Accordintly, Section' 23.716.4(4) o~ the ~und
requires a fence alon~ tM pirkint area. ~e plan does not show
a proposed f~ce.
'~ Eriveway en:rances tO tM two parkin~ ar~s are sho~
the
plan as'beint 2~'- 26'feet wide. Tb~ oraL. ute
l~its driveway aacesses to 22 feet h
4. The southern park~E lot is sho~ ~i:hh one foot of the
proparty lhe. The Zonint Ord~nce requires el:her a 3 foot
setback or t~ ins:allation of a ~ard of
no: less :Mn one foo~' from the property
The required vat.rices are primarily proceadural.' ~ it~s 1-3,.
a favorable ~:af/ reco~endaticn is likely. ~ i:m t, I
suE~est t~t the parkinE lot be sh~ted to the north to accomoda~e
the required'~ feo: se:back.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 10, 1986
Case .o. 8(;-SS8 Parking VarlanceS' °r Co-- r% .....
Boulevard; Lots 26-30, 32 and Partof 33, Auditor*'s Subdivision # 167
Mr. Roy. 14estergaard was present~
Mark Koegler reviewed his 'report on the. plans' for the new V.F.W. Post'5113
and commented on the. parking variances reqbired. On Item 2,. he stated City
does not advocate there should .be a .fence, but' Ordinance requires 6ne so a
variance Is needed for there not to be;. on' Item q, he suggested applicant
shift the Parki'ng lo.t sllghtly to allo~ a 3' foot setback to .conform with
ordinance. He is recommending other three variances be granted. The
Building Official.added a condition that City Engineer approve site plan
grading and drainage. She also expla'ined'the ratio of parking is tied to
the Occupant load of the bui'Iding which is 2(;1.people and parking limits the
number of people (amount of available parking). She stated occupant load will
be posted in the building.
The CommiSsion discuSsed how the: lot ~ould be marked, .curb cuts, entrances, etc.
~eiland moved to.approve the parking variances accordi.ng to the s~aff recom-
.mendations_[!tems 1 through 3).. K~n '.§mlth 'seconded the motio~'-'T~e v6t· w~s ....
unanimously i~ favor; '- - ...... --- '
This wl11 be on the City COuncll agenda of. November 25, 1986.
®
CITY OF HOUND
Date Fi led
APPL I CAT I ON TO PLANN I NG ~; ZON I NG COl'tH I SS I ON
(Please type the followin9 information)
Legal Description of Property: Lo~[-~%2~-~-$~- ~ &~3o~~ck
Addi ~ion PID No.
~ner's Name t] ~ Day Phone No. ~ ~ '~~
App 1 i can? ( I f' other.than owner) = 2
Name' (~~,)' ¢~ -~~~~)Day Phone No.,~¢-~--2~' '
Type of Request: .~) Variance ( ) Conaitlonal Use Permit ( ) Amendment
'./(') Zonin9 Interpretation ~ ~ev-le~ ( ) Sign Permit
( ) Netland Permit ( ) P.U.~;' ..( )~0ther
*If other, specify=
Present Zofiing District _~'~/ -
Existing Use(s) of Property /~/j/1..-/~. _
/ 4/-
Hasan ap~11cation ever been Jade for'~zoning, varlancq, or conditlonai use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? /~/~ .... If so, list date(s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken and p~ovide 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 ~uthorized officia'l of the City
of Hound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such
notices as may be requ|red~l~?~ ~/
S~gnature of Applicant ~ Date //-/--/- ~
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Date
Council Action:
Resolution No.
Da t e~a.~_~
Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) Case
D. Location of: ~igns, easements, underground utilities, etc..
E. Indicate North compass direction
F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
Iii. Request for a Zoning Variance
A. A)I 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 "no", specify each non-conforming use:
C. Do the existing structures comply with a11 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 physica] characteristics of: the subject property prevent its
reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district?
( ) .Too narrow ( ) Topography ./~c.) Soi1
( ) Too small ( ) Drainage () Sub-surface
( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify:
Was the hardship described above c~eated 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.)
I. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the
same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
HORAN
ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECTS
SUITE 221
FIRST NATIONAL
BANK BUILDING
WAYZATA, MN
5 5 3 9 I
612 I 475 - 3539
(0
9
rO
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 86-558
RF_.~O~ NO. 86--
RESO~ON~NGPARKINGVARIANCES
FO~V.F.W. POST 5113, 2544~CEBOULEVARD
LOTS 26,27,28 AND PART OF LOTS 32 AND 33,
AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION # 167; P & Z CASE NO.
86-558; PID # 23-117-24 11 0028
WHEREAS, V.F.W. Post 5113 has applied for variances from the
off-street parking requirements of the Mound Zoning Code; and
WHEREAS, the proposed parking lots contain spaces measuring 9 ft. by
19 ft., the proposed site plan does not show a fence along the eastern side of
the property which borders an R-1 zoning district and the driveway entrances
are proposed to be 25-26 ft. in width; and
WHEREAS, the Mound Zoning Code Section 23.716.2 requires parking
spaces to measure 10 x 20 feet, Section 23.716.3(4) requires a fence along
property lines which 9but residential districts and Section 23.716.3(1) limits
driveway accesses to 22 ft. in width; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the variances, found
them consistent with the ordinance criteria for the granting of variances and
recommended approval.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, does hereby approve the parking variances as aforement|oned.
Planning Commission Hinutes
November 10, 1986
CASE NO. 86~559
IO. Case .No.
Fence Height VarianCe-for 4831 Shoreline Boulevard
Lots. l,2,3',4,21 and'Part of S and 20~ Block 1, Shlrley Hills Unit A
Ben Mallnskl and Tim Bell were present.i
The Building Official explained that· there has been a lot of activity through
the Planning Commission and City Cquncll"on.this property; signs and..conditional
use pe'rmits.'. Mr. Halinskl wishes to construct a 6'foot high privacy .fence.
right up to property linb:as'shown':on':~esite p.lan. She: has. issued a partial
'building Pe-r~l~"be~a~se'.of the const.ructlon'deadline (snow) and is forwarding
this information'to ~he Commission tonight. He needs a variance for the portion
to the east of his building 1'ine toward Bartlett Boulevard. Applicant had
some.Pictures and described where fence would go.
Malinski stated he wants to get' towing contract with the City for. towing snow
birds and accidents, etc. The Building Official reviewed the conditions.of
the Conditional Use applicable to'this .property. The Commission discussed
that they'~ou'ld not like to grant 'the fence permi~ if conditional use Prohibits[
allowing t~is Use.' 'K~gler stated a variance applicati~-is part of it', but
so is condltional Use. You'd have to modify'the conditional use'to allow thi's.
The Commission.d.lscussed at length. Applicaht will have to come back and get
conditional use change,~.tO'~11°w 5usiness that he'Wants to conduct and it
alsOaddress the fence· Appllcant stated he wants to'finish f~Ce'Whe~he~ or not
he gets contract and a change of conditional use.._ _
lanning Commisslon'Hinutes
,vember 10, 1986
CASE NO. 86=55~
10.' Case-No. 86-'559 Fence Height Varlance -for Zi831 Shoreline Boulevard
Lots'.1,2,3',q,21 and'Part of S ahd 20~ Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit A -.
Ben Mallnsk] and Tlm Bell ~ere pr&sent~
The Bulldin~ Official explained that' there has been a lot of activity through
the Planning Commission and Clty. Cqunc11:'on.this property; signs and..con~itional
use.permits.'. Hr'. Hallnskl' wiShes to construct a 6'foot high prlvacy..fence.
.right up to'pr°pertyJln~:as''shown':on':~e site plan: s~e:.ha~.issued a partial
building P&'r~l~"be~auge;.of the Constructlon"deadl~ne [snow) and is forwarding
this Infom~tion'to ~he Comm. ission tonight. Heneeds a variance for the portion
to the east of his bul'lding 1'1ne 'toward Bartlett Boulevard. Applicant had
some.pictures and described where fence would.go.
Hallnski Stated he wants to ge~ towing con~ra~t with the City for. towing snow
birds and accidents, etc. The Buildlng Official reviewed the conditions.of
the Conditiohal Use applicable to'this .property. The Commission discussed
that they'~ould not 11ke to grant 'the fence permi~ if ¢gn~itional use Prohl~lts~
~11owing t~Is Use.' 'Kc~gler stated a variance appllcati~n is part.of if~ but
so is condltlonal bse~ You'd have to modify'the condi'tlonal use'to a11o~ thi~.
T~e Commission' ~iscussed at length. Appllcaht will have to come back and get
condltlonal use change,~.~O"~110w~t~e~s'that he'~ants to conduct an~ it w~l~__~
also'addr~sS'~he fence. Applicant stated he wants to'finish fence"~hethe~ or not
he'get..s contract and a change of.cond!tional us~ ......
~[~--smith'~-~d-~nd ~eyer seconded a moti°n to approve a fence height vari-;
ance for h8~1 Shoreline Boulevard.. The ~ote was unanimously in favor.
®
CiTY OF HOUND
APPL I CAT ! ON TO PLANN I NG & ZON I HG COHH I $$ I ON'
(Please type the following inforrnatlon)
Street Address of Property
Legal DesCription of Property: LoO~t~ /-~.) ~0~-/
Additlon.~&q .~~ t~.~~ PlO No.
I
Case No.
Date Filed //-
Block
Oay Phone No..
q. Applicant (If' other than owner):
Name'~.~o~y /~. ~(.// . . Day Phone No. ~/~2-72~
Address ~ _./7/,t~.~o~n ~. y~. /'~o-~d.../~/L~. ~'~'~(/'..
5. Type of Request: (~/~) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Amendment
( ') Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Sign Permit
( ) Netland Permit ( ) P,U.~;' ( )*Other
*If other, specify: .
Present Zoning District. [~ ~- -
Existing Use(s) of Property 6~ · ~¢~,L~/_ .
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or condltlonal use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? ff~_~ If so, list date(s) of
list date(s) of appllcation, action taken andbrovide Resol~tlon No.(s).
70- z.g?., 7o73oz , 70-$ozh .,?0<5oz--8
Copies of Previou~ res°lUtions~hall 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 Ie
or upon the premises described in this application by any~uthorlzed official of the Clty
of Hound for the purpose of Inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such
notices as may be required by law.
of Appllcant~ Date,,//'-~-~g
Signature
Plannlng Commission Recommendation:
Date
ouncil Action:
Resolution No.
Date
~/82
Request for Zoning 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 app]icable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
II1.. Request for a Zoning Variance
A. Ali 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 "no", specify each non-conforming use:
Do the existing structures comply with a11 area height and bulk regulations
for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (~L) No ( )
If m'no'~, specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of'the subject property prevent its
reasonable Use for any of the uses permltt~d in that zoning district?
( ) .Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil
( ) Too small (_ /) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface
( ) Too shallow (~) Shape ( ) Other: Specify:
Ee
Was the hardship described above c~eated 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 o, tfler 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 propert|es are slmilarly affected?
H. What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulatlons
that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using
maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additlonal
I. Will granting of the variance be materially detriment~al to property in the
same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
· /v
'CHAT AU -,. ~1
LA
LA t~ L
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 86-559
RESOLUTION NO. 86-
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
APPROVE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR PART OF LOTS 1 THROUGH 4,
20 AND 21, BLOCK.l, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT A PID # 13-117-24
44 0014 (4831 Shoreline Boulevard) P & Z CASE NO. 86-559
WHEREAS, Ben Malinski, owner of the property described as part of Lots
1 through 4, 20 and 21, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit A, PID # 13-117-24 44 0014
(4831 Shoreline Boulevard) has applied for a variance in setback to the front
yard to allow the construction of.a 6 foot high wood privacy fence within the'
required 30 foot front yard setback; and
WHEREAS, Exhibit A has also been submitted to indicate the requested
setbacks of zero feet to the east property line; and
WHEREAS, the City Code Section 23.415(4) allows a four foot fence in
the front yard location in the B'2 General Business District; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does
recommend approval of the setback variance with conditions:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the two foot fence height variance to allow
a privacy fence constructed in the required 30 foot setback as shown on Exhibit A
for part of Lots 1 through 4, 20 and 21, Block 1, Shirley Hills Unit A, PID #
13-117-24 44 0014 (4831 Shoreline BOulevard) upon the condition that the currently
adopted resolutions 70,302, 70-302A, 70-302B allowing a conditional use permit
for the property be modified if any abandoned vehicles are to be stored on the
premises.
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
TO: ,Edward Shukle, City Manager
FROH: Jan Bertrand, Building Official
DATE: .OctOber 23, I~86
SUBJECT: 1~$~ ShOrewood Lane.
Ken Larson and Bonnie Cornel1
I have attached a request from Ken Larson-and Bonnie Co'rna11 to
revise the requirements under the attached Resolution 85-121, Item
8, requiring that the structures.'be brought up to current Bui-lding
Code. The schedule for the extension is on their letter.
Possibly the City could require a performance bond or an agreement
letter requiri.ng these improvements or the. City could remove the
structure. Curt Pearson could advise the City Council on. the
matter. PleaSe forward to the City Council.
JB/ms
Attachments
An equal dr~portun~ty Emptoyer that ~oes not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or handicapped status
October 21, 1986
SonCor Investments - Keh Larson & Bonnie Cornell
19508 Hidden Valley Rd.
Mznnetonka, Mn. 55345
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Mound City Council
SonCor Investments
Request to Amend Resolution 85-121, dated 10/7/85
Proposed repair of house at' 1959 Shorewood Lanet Mound~ Mn.
Up grade electric service to 100 AMPS.
Replace furnace and have proper duct work installed.
Bring plumbing up to code.
Patch existing footings and foundation.
Shingle garage roof, replace garage windows and sheet rock garage wall.
Remove dead tree and debris from lot.
Fill in hole under sidewalk and repair.
Propose 3.year extenstion to:
Put 4 foot frost footings under house, which would also level floor.
Repair roof structure.
DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT
AGREEMENT dated , , 19__, between the City of Mound,
a Minnesota municipality corporation ("the City"), and
(requi res
signatures of the owners of ail persOns.with financial interest in the property).
WHEREAS,.the owner(s) has asked the City to approve an extension for building
improvements owned bY it to be'known as !959 Shore~ood Lane
(also referred to in this Agreement. as: Lots 15, 16 and 17, Block 7, Shadywood
Point). The land is legaily described as follows: See attached Exhibit "A".
AND WHEREAS; the City has. approved the .lot size
. .variance to subdivide land
by Resolutlon # 85~121 on. condition that the owner .bring the accessory building
and the'principal bu!ldlng Sho~n on Lot 15 up to current building code standards
and that the owner enter into this Development Contract to comply with its terms-
within three (3) years of the contract date.
Representation'by'Owner(s)... The C~ner(s) represents to this City that
the proposed existing building improvements comply with all City, County,
Metropolitan, State and Federal laws and regulat, lons, includlng but not
limi'ted to: The Uniform Building Code and State Building COde (which
include electrical, plumbing'and heating standards); If the City deter-
mines that the buildings'do not comply, the City may, at its option,
refuse to allow any construction or development work in the subdivided
land and/or remove the existing structures to assure compliance.
Phased Development. The existing build{ngs shal.1 be remodeled/renovated
in two phase~ in'accbrdance with the attached Exhibit B. The City may
refuse to approve subsequent phases until development of all prior phases
have been satisfactorily completed.'
Completion/of'WOrk. The Owner shall complete the.work required by
Paragraph 4 of this Agreement i'n accordance with City specifications
within 36 months from the date'of this Agreement. All work shat] be
subject to approval of the City Building Official and, when and if
necessary, any other governmental agency having jurisdiction.
Building Improvements. The required improvements and estimated costs
are $ The Owner shall retain a competent profession-
al to prepare the appropriate plans, specifications, and other instructions
6~
to'accomplis~ these activities..The Owner shall specific_ally instruct
hiS,contractor to provlde adequate field inspection personnel to assure
an .acceptable 1eve) of quality control to the extent that the Owners
will be ab'le to certify that the construction work meets the approved
City standards'as a condition of City acceptance. The Owner shall
schedule .construction inspections as requi.red by the State Building
Code"with City Staff to review the progress.of the construction work.
Bond Requirements. The Owner shall deposit wit.h the City a performance,
materials and labor bond'.satisfactory to the City to guarantee.completion
of the Work required by the Owner pursuant to Paragraph 4,of this' Agree-
ment and a~so guaranteeing the payment f6r all materials and labor costs
incurred in conjunction with the work. The amount of the bond shall be
for 125~ of ~he estimated cost of the work as set forth in Exhibit'B.
Responsibility for Costs
A. The Owner(s)' shall pay all costs incurred by it or the City in
conjunction with their development of the structures. The City
shall have no obligation.to pay such costs whether or not the
City has approved the work.
The Owner(s) shall hold the City harmless from claims by third
parties, including but not limited to other property owners,
contractors, subcontractors and materialmen, for damages sus-
tained or'costs incurred resulting from plat approval and
development..The Owner(s)'shall indemnify the City for all
costs, damages or expenses, including engineering and attorney's
fees, which the City may pay or incur in consequence of such
· claims by third parties.
The Owner(s) shall reimburse the City for costs incurred in the
enforcement of this cOntract, including engineering and
attorney!s fees.
The Owner(s) shall pay in full all bills submitted to it by. the
City within thirty (30) days. If the bil)s are not paid on time
the City may halt all redevelopment work until the bills are paid
in full.
The O~neF(s) agrees that.the City, at its option only~ can install
and construct any work on improvements required herein to'be made'
by the Owner(s). If the City makes any such improvements under its
· poWer:to make'loca]-improvements, Or if the City makes improvements
due .to the Owner(s) default as outllned in Section 7, the City may
in addition to its other remedies assess its cost in who]e or in
part.- Unless otherwise specl-fica.lly provided, the Owner(s) shall
pay the entire assessment-in a'single instal1~ent in the year. after
adopt:ion of'the.assessment.. 'Th~ Owner(s) hereby waive any and a11
substantive and.proc,dura1 objections to the City doing the work
and assessing the cost. -
0~de'~C'$) De.fault. If the 0~ner(s) do not satlsfactor.ily complete the
work 'this Development Contract requires of it, the City may at its optio6
perform, the work and the Owner(s) or the bonding company shall reimburse
the City for all expenses incurred by theCity. The City shall give the
0~ner(s) and the bonding company at least 48 hours notice of the City's
intention to perform any such work. However, in .the event of an emergency
as determined by the City.~ 48 hours notice is not required and the Owner(s)
or the bonding company shall reimburse t'he City for any expense incurred
by the City in the same manner as if notice had been given.
8. Miscellaneous.
A. This agreement shall be binding upon the parties, their heirs,
successors and assigns, as'the case.may be.
Breach of any term of this Agreement by the Owner(s) shall be
grounds for denial of building .permits.
If any portion, section, subsection, sentence, clause, paragraph or
phrase of this O~ner(s) Contract is.for any reason held invalid,
such'decision shall not. affect the'validity of the remaining portion
of this Agreement except that the City may elect to rescind its
approval of the subdivision.
De
No one may occupy a building for which a building permit is issued
on either a temporary or permanent basis until: '
t
SanTtary sewer and water lines have been.installed, hooked up,
tested and approved by the City, and
(2) Heating system is inspected, tested, and approved by the City,
and
(3)
Electrical ·system. i.s inspected, tested, and approved by the State
Board of Electricity InspeCtor
The action or inaCtiOn of'the City shall not constitute a waiver or
amendment to the provisions of this Owner(s) Contract. To be
binding, amendments or waivers shall be in writing, signed by the
parties and approved bY written resolution of the, City Council~
The-City'~ 'failure to promptly take iegal action to'enforce this
Owner(s) contract shall not be a waiver or release. The security
in the formof a performance bond or an approved letter of credit
shall not expire or be released until all work and improvements
have been satisfactorily c0mpleted and approved by the City.
This a~reement shal.1 run With the land and may be recorded against
the property 'on the subdivision.
Required notices to'the Owner(s) shall be'.in writing and shall be
either hand delivered to the Owner(s), its employees or agents or
mailed to the Owner(s) by certified or registered mall at the following
address: :
Notices to the City shall be.in writing and shall be either hand de-
livered to the City Manager or mailed to the City by certified or reg-
istered mall in care of the City Building Official at the following
address: City of Mound, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55.364. Attention:
City Building Official.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, we have hereunto set our hands and seal:
CITY OF MOUND
By:
- 4 -
Mayor
,. By :'
· ' (l~anager)
By;
Its:
CObNTY OF H ZN)
.On this _ day of
...... , 19 ..., .before me a notary Public within
and fo: said County, personally appea:ed
to me'known to be the pe:son desc:ibed in and who executed the fo:egoing
instrument and acknowledged that__he executed the same as
free act and deed. .. . ..... .~.
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss
COUNTY Or' HENNEPIN)
On this , . day of
· .., 19 .... , before me a notary.public within
and fo: said County, pe:sonally appea:ed
to me. known to be one of the partners of the partnership that executed the
foregoing instrument, and acknowiedged to me that such partnership executed the
same. '
~'~,~0 Notarv Public
Pro?osal Submitted To Work to be Performed At
Name ;~ e/L/ ~ ~.~1/ Street % '
__~ C i ty
City
State
Telephone
Date of Plans
We hereby propose to perform all of the carpenter labor for the completion of:
The above work to be performed in accordance with the drawings and
specifications submitted for above work and completed in a substantial
workmanlike manner for the sum of ($ ~-~CJO . )
with payments to be made as follows:
Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra cost,
will be executed only upon written orders, and will become an extra charge
er and above the estimate. All agreements contingent upon striked,
Cidents or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire, tornado and
other necessary insurance upon above work. Workmen's Compensation and
Public Liability I_nsurance on ~bov~ work to. be taken our by
Respectfully submitted,
Note - This proposal may be withdrawn by us if not accepted within~_~__days.
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL
The above prices, specifications and conditions are satisfactory and are
hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the work as specified. Payment
will be made as outlined as above.
Accepted
Signature
Lte Signature
KEN LARSON MASONRY INC.
16508 Hidden Valley Road
MinnetonkI, MN 55343
Phone: 935-2272
PROPOSAL
Submitted To: Work To Be Performed For:
We hereby propose to furnish all materials and perform the labor necessary
for the completion of:
All of the above work to be c.omDleted in a substantial workmanlike manner
for the sum of: $ ~ ~o~ ~ Dollars.
PaymEnts to be made:
c o
A FINANCE CHARGE OF ]%% PER MONTH WILL BE ADDED TO ALL ACCOUNTS OVER 30 DAYS.
Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra costs,
become an extra charge over and above the Proposal.
'Authorization to start above job will constitute acceptance of this proposal
with payment ~s outlined above.
Respectfully submitted_~~-- ~m~-~
Date:
This proposal may be withdra%~ if not accepted within 30 days.
$onCor Investments --gez~'Larson & ~nute Co:nell
8 Hidden Valley Rd. . ..
etonka, lin. 55345
TO:
Hound City Council'
SonCo: Investments
Request.to. Amend Resolution 85-121, dated 10/7/85
Proposed repair of house at- 1,9,,59' Shorewood Lanet l~oundt lin.
· . .. Up--grade---eI ect'r'[~'e':%%l'~-
~Rep~a~..e_. ,~fu.. ~ce::_~. d,~..~l~.~_v.e,, proper duct :'work :'installed.
· }._ri. ng :plumbing..up..t0.:code...
:Patcli";'existing~ fo0~ings, and foundation.~'
,... b'htngle"-§gti~i~§&-~60f," 'replace" ga:age windows
~..._ Remove"-dead t:ee'' and: debris'.:froTM "'lot..-
and.sheet
rock ga:age' ~all,
..
~Fill- in-h0'l&' -ti~d&f'"'Side~alk ';and repat, r.
~-~p0-se-3 year extenstton to.'. :.
·
foot frost footings under house, which would' also
Repair' roof structure.
level floor.
I'
October ?,
RESOLUTION TO COHCUR WLITH THE' PLANH~HG COHHZSSZON TO
~PROVE THE LOT SUBD~SZON ~ LOT S~E V~CE FO~
LOTS 15, 16,~ 17, BLOCK 7, SH~0OD POPOv P~ ~.
18-1.17-2~ ~ 00qO ~. 00~1 (1959 SHOR~OOD ~) ' '
" ~HEREAS, CreZ~h and Cheryl"Thompson,-applicant
1985 :
[:
and
.. 'the requested subdivision and lot size .variances; and -" .
· ' .. ~,.~.._ .~.~ 1,.: . .. ":.. ;~. 4' .:., '.'. '" ° ' ' · ': -
:.- , .... ';.'....'.. · .: · .~:~." : . . ~.'~ .... . ........ :.'".."
-'- I/HEREA3', the City Code requires a lot size"of'.!.0'~000. ......
square feet Of-area'. in:" the R-1 Zoning Dlstr~ct;. and
me ; ..'. 0:.0. :*' · , '.~'..' ; ·
~HEREAS, an application to vaive" the ,subdivision
.".' requirements contained in Section 22.00 of 'the City Co~e has' 'been
-'... filetl with the City.. of Hound by the' app~icant, Creigh a..nd Sher~L .
Thompson; and .~.-*- - ~'. --'-. ..... . ' '
oven,rs of the property described as Lots .1.5, 16, and.., l? , _ Block 7., ·
Shady~ood P'oint, have applied for subdivxston of LOt 16' and
size variances in order to construct a'new dwellina for .1/2'of ' .
.Lot.16 and Lot 15 and 1/.2.of .Lot 16. and Lot-l?; and. ~ :. '.
· -"i.'~.. ~.-:J~-:. ~ .- ~...:. .. .
MH£REA$, Exhibit 'wan has also been' submitted to lndicate.~.-. -
.o ;
. WH£REAS, said request for ~aiver. h. as' been rev'~ewed by '~.(
the Planning Commission and.t~he City Council, and · '-...." '-' . -
circumstances elf coting said property such .that. the' strict "
application of the ordin.ance ~ould d'eprive' the oe'ner".of the
reasonable use of his land, and that the waiver' is necessary 'for.
thepreservation-, and enjoyment Off the: substantial property right;.
· and. that granting the ~aiver ~ill not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious .to the other property owners.
· tlO~, T.H£a£F0aE, BE lit al/SOLVED by the City. Council
t, he City of Hound, Hinnesota:~. '-.-
· . /~. The request 'of the:'City of Hound for a waiver from the
provisions of Section 22.00 of the City Code and the
reques't to subdivide property of less that 5 acres,
described as'follo~s:. Lots .~5, 16 and ~7, Block
Shady~ood Point, is hereby granted to' permi~ ~h&
subdivision in the follo~ing manner~ Parcel i. Lot 15"
and 1/~ of LOt ~6, Block 7, Shady~ood. Poin~ and Parcel..
B. Lot ~7 and ~/'2 of Lot 16, Block 7, Shady~ood Point~
upon the condi~ion
A survey be submitted of the boundaries, 'area aha
legal description of the ne~ly created parcel~ plus
utility connections for the existing, ~tructure and
the ne~ly created ~tte. ,
October
Paulsen
17,
0
The subdivided Lot 16,
and 1/2 to .Lot 1'[.
be
combined .:1/2 to Lot
feet
"Aw.
15
The lot sAze variance be limited to 2,668 square
feet (plus or minus) for ParcelB and 1:.955 square
(plus or minus)for Parcel A shown on Exhibit
Any deficient unit charges be paid or assessed to
the newly'created'site. . '. ~
No Pa'r~ dedication fees be asse,sed'a~ainst the
newly created site.
The subdivision must be' .filed.with the Rennepin
County Recorder or the Hennepin Register of Titles.
within 180 days. " .. '.
· ,* ~ .:- :. . ..,,,
? Va[iance approval is valid for one year.
~8.'~-:,' The""eXisti~g"':'~'~&S~ory ..building an~. pr.incipal
" ' building' shown' ~ EO~--15'-be -brought up ..to curre, nt
~ ~,code ;':,:~ .":' '
0
Attest: City
properties, -.. -'.
'i0. The 'City Clerk is authorized to deliver, a ~ertified'
· copy' of this resolution, to the applicant for filing
in the office of ~he Register of Deeds or Registrar
of Titles of Henne~in County to show compliant, with
the subdivision regulations of the City.
Zt is determined that the foregoing subdivision
'w ill constitute
development and iat df:i:rable and stable community(:
· in harmony with the adjacent\-
The f0regoin, g resolution was moved
and se'C'ond~d by Mayor Polston.
by C.ouncilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Jessen, Paulsen, Polston and Smith. ·
The following
none.
Councilmember
Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Peterson
Clerk
abstained.
Mayor
'~1''~o m' '
_ . . May 27, 1986'
]'UBLIC HEARIN(I- DELINOU£NT UTIL~TT B~LL~ - '
' ' ~as a o ~
The ~ayor opened the public hearin~ and asked if there 'n~ n~
presen~ ~ho ~ished ~o address the Council retardinl a delinquen~
utility bill. No one responded.. The
The Council then moved to item 14 on the
The Building
aa follows:
Mayor closed the public
Agenda
CR£IGH & CHERYL THOMPSON. CLARIFICATION OF RES~
#8~-~21. SUBDIVISION & LOT SIZE VARIANC~ LOTS
q6. & ~?. BLOC~ ?. SHAD~OOD POINT
Official stated that 18 in Resolution #85-121 reads
"The existing accessory building and principal
building shown on Lot 15 be brought up to current code.e The
applicants and the staff are asking for clarification on whether,
the Council .meant "zoning code or building code". After
discussion the Council .stated that item #8 should ..read as
roi.lows: "The existing accessory building and principal building
shown on Lot ~5 be brought up to current building code.~ The
correction will be made to the resolutiog. '
The Council t~en moved to i~em ~6 on ~he Agenda.
RICHARD J. WILLIAMS. LOTS ~.'
WHIPPLE· MINOR LOT. SpLIT/ SUBDIVISION ~. 6i~a WI~aOn
ROa~. (PID ~-~17-2~ ~l Oi
The Buildin~ Official explained that the applicant has requested
a lot split/subdivision as shown on Exhibit "A" or "B"~ Staff
and the Planning Commission are recommending the plan as shown on
Exhibit "A" which would bring one parcel to 5,930 square feet
-(within ~05 of the required 6,000 square feet) and would require
.' the existing home on Lot ~ to be removed to allow the division
line .through'. the west portion of 'the house. The topography, on
Lbt ~ has an approximate slope of ~0 ~o ~25 and' this would not
be allowed, to increase. The Building Official also recommended
that ~he driveway entrance for Lot ~3 be restricted'.to Windsor
Road. The other recommendations are in .the proposed resolution
on Pages ~02~ and ~025 of the packet. M~. Regben Hartman asked
if there would only be one drivway for the two parcels. The
Building Official answered {hat there would be 2 separate
driveways, one on each lot. .
Peterson moved and Smith seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION 686-58
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNII~G
COMMISSION RECOMMENDATON A~D APPROVE T~E
FINAL SUBDIVISION OF LAND FOR LOTS 1~,
AND ~5, BLOCK 1~, WHIPPLE', PUD ~25-117-
21 0151 (5144 WINDSOR ~OAD) PLANNING
COMMISSION CASE ~86-515
LO~AT10N'OF PROPOSED
STREET ADDRESS
ADDiTIoN Shady~ood Point-
0~ SonCor' Invest~nt
ADDRESS
.'~DRESS
~PES OF
" BUILDING PERHIT APPLICATION
- CITY OF HOUND
53kl Kay~ood Road,. I~ound, H1nnesota
· k72'1.155
~PROVE~tENT
i959 Shorewood Lane
1650~.Hldd~n.'v~11~Y[HInnet°nk~ 55345
r~n [acson. 8ason.~/, I nc.
16508 Hidden. Valley Road, ~innetonka.''
I:::1 Sing le IrMi ly ° SqJrt-
l:~Hulti-F~l ly - lq. Ft.
1:::::3 Eoemercle i - . Sq. Ft.
r-~ Industrial - Sq.Ft~
I:Z3 Garage ~ Size Sq. Fc.
N.° 7466
ESTIFL~TED VALUE $~00.
I::~ t~eck
· t-1 Fence
ol-3151
ol-3151
01-2222
78-230q
78~377q
73-3155
PLAT .# 61980 ZONING O ISq'RICT
PARCEL # ......
18-11'7-2,3, 2.3 0070 COI~PLETION DATE
"' ~" '<" DATE 11-12-86
PHONE~ NO. 535-2272
PHONE NO. 935-2272
.Ce~nt block partia.1 house and 1~ .Cement slab (part|al
- Size Sq. Fc.
' r'~Utlllty Side.
- Size . ..sq..Ft. .
- Size tat. Ft.
PERJ~iT APPROVAL
PERHIT FEE $
PLAN CHECK FEE $
SURCHARGE $
S.A.C. $
VATER CONN. FEE $
~1.00
.75
FINAL INSPECTION
RB~OOEL.!,K. basement) & Plbg./Htg.
1::3 Md l i l m~ - lq. Ft.
In~erlor - Sq. Ft
Sub. Level - Iq. Ft.
IZ3 Roofing - Sq. Ft.
Siding - lq. Ft..
- Slze Sq.F~.
DATE
DATE
73'37qa
· 78-3'~ 58
TAPPING FEE $
SE~ER CONN. FEE $
STATIONARY ROD FEE $
TOTAL $
OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE
52.75
DATE
Yes Yes
ARE ADDITIONAL PERHITS NEEDED: ELECTRICAL PLUHBING HEATING
s granted, I hereby agree to do the proposed kork in accordance vlth descriptlon above set forth
and accordlng to the pr~vis;ons of all ordinances of the City of I~und and of att statutes of the State of
K~nnesota in such case. S made and pr~v;dcd. All building perm;ts expire ~e year after date of ;~suence.
GENERAL PERMIT
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MN 55364
(61_2) 47Z-1155
Date
11 - 12-86
Utilit~ Account No;
]ob Address: " 19S9 Shorewood Lane 01-3154 $ I~sid'~';Pib~'.'(# o~'ibct~res
" : '"'"" ' :i.:~: .~..--,:--:~ b~ ~..::': · ,: ....:~-,,o~,'.,,.
': '" ' ': ' S'onCo~ Investifient~?: :':' '":': .....' ~-' ' '
Owner: - '::: .;'' ; ' : - . :: : .... :- .':.. '
· .- 'lSS08"H]dden' Htka. 7 -37 4 Water et rtSi e-, .
Owner'sAddres~: (Ken Larson) .- .. :,.!~ :~.i;. ::'. ~.. '. .... -' Meter#. -. -:
· - ' ~ ~ .... . r ix - :,;. '*'! · L.*,,-'.. , ............ '" ". i_'" :! · '
,,.-. .... .; . .,~-, Sa~.? --.? ........ :: -. .-:
Contractor:. ........ .:-: ,..,..: :.- - ., ..... : Remote # -'
. . O~e
· : -,L-.,~:~. '".-. ': ~":- " ' ' ""~":" ' ' :Issue
..... -.,,"';~ . -~, .--..h: .:'- ,. ~ ~'~ '.:, :::-;::..: -.,,-.. - : ... ....... ...~
Contractor's Address:
.Legal de;cripti'onoflObAdch~ss: .!% 1"5 ~. p!,~ ..
New Construction: 78-2304 $
~Pd~ai~.: 1 ] n g
78-3774 $
~ ' 7~32Ss $
Addition: ~' :
Remarks and Special c0n.diti°ns:
,'. : · ',' , .' '~. 5.,~: '.; ~. '. .
Acknowledgement
The undersigned hereby acknowledges r~Ceipt of this iimited petit.
including acceptance of all special information, terms, conditions or
requirements written above. The undersigned understands and agrees
under penalty of law that this permit is strictly limited in scope to the
work, activity or improvement specified; that this permit does not
Brant any authority to do work or activities requirin~ ~ep~rate permit
approvals; and that thLs permit doe~ not grant authority to violate
provision of any City ordinance or State law, rule or regulation. All
work shall be done in strict compliance with dl City ordtnsnces,
builclin$ codes and/or health department regulations, and shall be
ject to inspection, approval or rejection by the City. Whenever
ordered, t~e undersigned asrees to correct any work [otmd 'to be in
violation of the conditions of this permit.
The City of Mound is an equal opportunity employer that does not
~cg '~minate on the basis of race, color, national origin or handicapped
in the admission or access to or treatment or employment in its
s and activities.
Signature of Applicant
Bonnie Cornel 1
)
)
- __ $ Other
01-3570 - $ Special Inspection Fee
190-33 $ 1 ~. O0 Subtotal
01-2222 $ .50 Surcharge
15.50
$ Total Amount
This permit is not valid until the proper fee is paid and
it is approved by an authorized City Official.
Permit Approval '
ms Official
73-3154 -; $ Water Inspection .Fee
': COpPer ~ ':-.-...:-:.--
78-3154 $ Sewer Inspection Fee,
'PVC ' Cast -
· '.: . ~..-. ..: ~.-._!
Sac Charge or Permit//
(99%}
Sewer Connection Fee or
,-, .::..:...,: : :...'..f .:.: . . Permit ~,.
Wate~ ConneCtion Fee or
· Permit #
73-3154 $ '- ' Water' Well
01-3157 '$ 1 ~_ ~0 Mechanical EquiPment
01-3162 $ Moving/Lifting/Wrecking
01-2300 $ Damage Deposit
01-3156 $ Grading & Land Reclamation
01-3152 $ Fire
GENERAL PERMIT
CITY OF MOUND Dat
5341 ~~OOD RO~ ~" "" ~ ~Vi ~, ' '~' ..
MOUND, ~N 55~64 U~W Accost No.
[~12) 472-1155
;f~ :" :A'.:. " "
Job Address:' ' 1959 Shorewo0d Lane 01-3154 $ 35.00 InSide Plbg~ (# of Fixtures
~ .... y;~' - ~.~ . ':'x~:': .... :~,~:'..::.;..:'_' ,,.:,
;"*-::' Owner. So or ~nveS.t~ent'
}{i ....... ' '"' 16 8 Hl'~deh"~al ley,' tka." .... 31~3 75.3744.;: . [.-$~-; Water Meter [Size .... ..
· . ,,,,,,,e,'sA,,,,,,,oS: - ':" ..... "'::" '" ": :> Meter#" ':' : "'
:. 'i.'. '".'
.. Sa[n
Contractor. ..............
- ....? " : :.)~ :[?"~::.: ::o;: t '~ · Remote# .- .......
Contractor's Address: :-.. ..~. :~ .... :.. :.... : .... -....
1'~' : ": -" 73-31M '$ ..... Water Inspection Fee .....
Legal
-!,.,.,~ .... :;: .:t [~.: ~;. : ~ :. ,':'.': '~.. -,. · '~;:',;- ~ .~-~. ,:..,':... ~,- . .;... . -, .
Blk. 7, -cff-~4~':oo4 Po','~+- '" .... .-.: -,- 78-3154 $
18-t17-23 23 0076-. .Plat: . :61980 ':"-PVC. "C~st
PID #:.
New Construction:
Remodel lng of ex|sting house 78-2304
· Repair. 78-3774
· Remarks and Special ConditiOns: -. 75-3155
Sewer Inspection Fee.
Sac Charse or Permit #
(99%)
Sewer Connection Fee or
Permit #. :..:.
"' Water"COnneCtion Fee or
· · .... ,.",; L: '. ,..
Permit #
Water We'll' .i ,,.
-: . : . . ~
Mechanical Equipment
Acknowledgement
The undersisned hereby acknowledges receipt o~'th~ limited permit.
including acceptance of all special information, terms, conclltiom or
requirements written above. The undersisned understands and a~es
under penalty of law that this permit is strictly limited tn scope to the
work, activity or improvement specified; that this permit does not
grant any authority to do work or activities requtrin8 separate permtt
approvals; and that this permit does not grant authority to violate eny
· provision of any Ctty otctinance or State law. role or regulation. All
· work shall be done tn strict compliance with all City ordinam~
· bulldin8 codes and/or health department regulatione, and shall be sub-
ject to inepection, approval or rejection by the CAty. Whenever so
ordered, the understsned asrees to correct any work found to be tn
violation of the conditions of tiffs permit.
01-3162' $
01-2300 $
o~-~5~ $
01.3152 · .$
01-3570- $
~90-33
$
01-2222 $
$
35,00
,50
35,5O
Moving/Lifting/Wrecking
Damage Deposit
Grading & Land Reclamation
'Fire
The City of Mound is 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.
Signature of Applicant
Bonnie Cornell'
Other
Special. Inspection Fee
Subtotal
Surcharse
Total Amount
This permit is not valid until the proper fee is paid ana
it is approved by an authorized City Official.
Permit Approval m~
Official
Park Commission Minutes
November 13, 1~86
I~INTENANCE PERHIT.REQUEST
Jim Roseen was present with hls'request'to~*trim the brush and trees on Wiota
Commons in front of his property at 155'5 Bluebird Lane. 'He'stated 'it wou]d look
better for. everyone.to have the. bush and'trees trimmed by a Professional.tree
trimmer which he is willing to.'.pay' for.anJ the. Park -Oirect0r. Would supervise.wOrk..
The Park Director, Ji'm'Fackle~, stated what is ~eing p~oposed is not very exten-
sive; dead branches, .underbrush; etc,'with the :total cost about $225. Some of '
the immatbre trees ne~d trimming to help.them grow. He commented that it' was ,.
a very reasonable request; mostly Just the lower branches.
The COmmission discussed'the request briefly.
Haas moved and. Panetta seconded a motion to approve the request for a mainte-
nance permit. The vote was unani.m6usly in favor.' _
CrJ'Y OF D~UND
}IOJND,
~AI~ITERANCE PF~
continuing the PreSent.Use o£ a Structure "::'"
,~,, ~V-provemen~' on Publzc l~nds or -%nunons ' ' ' "' ' '*~'"....
or
, · · . . . · :.. - '" . . '..':.2~
.~:~. ~,~',~ '-',:, ..~ . . '- ' -m~' ~:Z~'~'""""'~'"~"~'"""
Do you' '~v' ~n .~m~ro~,n~' or '~"~c~, o6 ~o' ~nd,' Or ~o~,. '~'0' " ":"~:""
..; .~. . ., : · . ....
. . ...... .. .~:~.,~:
~ yes, lls~ th~: , -...-. .. ..... -----
. ~. . -- . · .. . .. · , · . ..
".:.'x'
. . . · .. · .
~a~ a'pmi[ issued 2o authorize ~he com~cMon off this improvm~n~ or s~uc-"
t~*? ~. , '~ yes, month and y~: · ':.'~-.-'
.. . .
A~~'~ ~~ I~ ~~= .. . ~. . .7. '>/ .....
. .. .~. .. .. ... . -. .. '2~.
1. ~y of p=it issued..'t° authorize co~cMonr. . . ". . ..: ..'-' .-
2. ~, plo[ plan dr~n t~ s~i~' s~;ing dlme~io~ or~e''s~ctu~/' '"'"""' ': ' '~'~...' ::.--.." '~'~
improv~en~,,nd loCa[ion off, S~ . '- . -..'.':~ '.:'.: ..:.:...
. .. · ..... .%.: ..... : ~ .:'...' .}.
'~. ' ~ s~ of plans' a~ s~ifi~a[io~!.ifffi~i~n[ ~lari~n~ ~il' ~o. i."
indicate th, ~ture ~nd ' ' "
~n~ of [he struc~e or improv~n~.. ~ .--
founds[ion' plsn, floor plan,' frei snd side el~a[ion, ~,all and roof
section detail. ' -. '"'
. . ~ ' [. ..'.
Ri,~ CO>~BSI~ g~NOAT~: DA~ 11 - 13-86 .. .
Approval o~ app~ )cant~. req~st' to trlm brush and treos on WiO~a Commons in ~ront '.'~'~:~'--
of his property· at 1555 Bl~eb.i~d Lane.; work to be done .by profes!ional tre~ .... ..-
trTmmer'w~ the ~"~ 9T'recter ruperv!~n ..... ~ '
OTJNC~ AC~I~: ~UTI~ NO. DATE .
FSLLO'J-U P ACTION:
M COMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS [] LAND SURVEYORS ! PLANNERS
November 20, 1986
Reply To: .
12800 Industrial Park Boulevard
Plymouth, Minnesota 55441
(612) 559-3700
Mr. Edward Shukie, Jr.
City Manager
City of Mound
534i Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
SUBJECT:
Grading Permit #7439
BaIboa Property
MKA #8070
Dear Ed:
As you are aware, Balboa deposited $10,000.00 cash in lieu of a performance
bond as required by the City Council for the grading work at the cid Metro 500
site. We have inspected the work and are recommending that the City release
$8,000.00 for the work completed. The $2,000.00 to be retained is to cover the
uncompleted work consisting of (1) final grading and seeding and (2)
construction of weir at inlet to storm sewer. These items will have to be
completed next spring.
If you have any questions, or need any additional information, please
contact us.
$C:jmj
CC:
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Oohn Cameron
3an Bertrand, City of Mound
Sue Pierce, Gustafson and Associates
Developers · Contractors · Realtors · I~L$
7400 Metro Blvd. · Suite 417
£dina, MN 55435 · (612) 893-1950
The Creative Building Company
November 25, 1986
Mrs. Jan Bertrand
Building official
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Re:
Weir and finish grading
and seeding of Metro 500
Site
Dear Jan:
Please be advised that as of this date, all work has been completed
in compliance with Mr. John Cameron's letter of November 20, 1986.
In the referenced letter he is recommending the return of only
$8,000.00 of the $10,000.00 deposit made by Gustafson & Associates,
we feel that due to the full completion of all work requested, that
the full amount of $10,000.00 for the Performance Bond be returned.
Yours truly,
Phillip Poppler
Construction coordinator
Gustafson & Associates, Inc.
CC:
Jeffrey Gustafson
John Cameron
Andrea Goland/Balboa
November 12, 1986
Ed Shukle, Jr.
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Ed:
After four years I think it is time for me to resign my position
as Mound's representative to LMCD.
It has been a wonderful experience and I've tried to represent
~Mound well in the many issues facing Lake Minnetonka.
This resignation will become effective December 31, 1986, since
the Board only meets once more between now and the end of the year.
JE:cm
Sincerely yours,
Elam
CC:
Frank Mixa
LMCD
402 E. Lake St.
Wayzata, MN 55391
Bob Rascop
LMCD
402 E. Lake St.
Wayzata, MN 55391
For November 25, 1986 Council Meeting
November 19, 1986
GAMBLING LICENSE--Puli-Tabs
Nat'l M.S. Society, MN North Star Chapter
Gambling will be conducted at Captain Billy's Mound MN
Continuously - 3 ar 4 days a week.
THIS APPLICATION WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE CHARITABLE GAMBLING
CONTROL BOARD AND IF APPROVED BY THE BOARD WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE
30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT (11-17-86), UNLESS A RESOLUTION
OF THE LOCAL GOVERNING BODY IS PASSED WHICH SPECIFICALLY DIS-
ALLOWS SUCH ACTIVITY AND A COPY OF THAT RESOLUTION IS RECEIVED
BY THE CHARITABLE GAMBLING CONTROL BOARD WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE
ABOVE NOTED DATE.
· OTHER GAMBLING LICENSES IN MOUND ARE:
American Legion #398
Lady of the Lake Catholic Church
VFW Post #5113
Westonka Senior's (4 times a year-no license needed then)
Planning Commission Minutes
November 24, 1986
DISCUSSION -LOST LAKE
After considerable discussion, the following motion was made:
Reese moved that Ma×field Research Group be requested to provide an addendum
to the report commenting upon the fact of the Ortenblad Project of Spring Park
on their recommendations and.additionally I would request that they-consider
the potential impactof Advance Machine. The motion was seconded by Meyer.
The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor.
Charitable G~nbling Control Board
Room N-475 Griggs-Midway Building
1821 University Avenue
St. Paul, Minnesota 55104-3383
{612) 642-0555
GAMBLING LICENSE APPLICATION
FOR BOARD USE ONLY
PAID
AMT
CHECK#.
DATE
INSTRUCTIONS:
A. Type or print in ink.
B. Take completed application to local governing body, obtain signature and date on all copies, and leave 1 copy. Applicant keeps 1
copy and sends original to the above address with a check.
C. Incomplete applications will be returned. ·
Type of Application:
L-'JClass A -- Fee $100.00 (Bingo, Raffles, Paddlewheels, Tipboards, Pull-tabs)
lass B -- Fee $ 50.00 (Raffles, Paddlewheels, Tipboards, Pull-tabs)
lass C Fee $ 50.00 (Bingo only)
DClass D -- Fee $ 25.00 (Raffles only)
Make checks payable to:
Minnesota Charitable Gambling Control Board
DYes~No 1. Is this application for a renewal? Ifyes, give complete license number I I-I
I-I I
Yes F-iNo 2. If this is not an application for a renewal, has organization been licensed by the Board before? If yes, give base
.~, ,-
license number (middle five digits) I ~ ~, ,~, ~9 ,~1 J
X]Yes [~No 3. Have Internal Controls been submitted previously? If no, please attach copy.
4. Applicant (Official, legal name of organization) 5. Business Address of Organization
Net'l M.R..o,c,xm~i~t~.: )vN lkl~,'hh ~qt-.~' ~p~ 2344 N~ll~ ~
6. City, State, Zip 7. County ~8. Business Phone Number
~=n~=_ ~ ~n~ H~eo~ ]( 612 ) 870-1500
Type of organmzatmon: ~Fraternal ~Veterans ~Remigious ~ther nonprofit'
' If organization is an "other nonprofit" organization, answer questions 10 through 13. If not, go to question 14. 'Othe[ nonprofit" organizations
must d~ument its tax~xempt status.
~ Yes ~ No 10. Is organization incorporated as a nonprofit organization'? If yes, give number assigned to A~icmes or page and
· book number: J 33216 I Attach copy of certificate.
][]Yes I-]No 11. Are articles filed with the Secretary of State? New York
[] Yes~ No 12. Are articles filed with the County?
X] Yes [] No 13. Is organization exempt from Minnesota or Federal income tax? If yes, please attach letter from IRS or Department of
Revenue declaring exemption or copy of 990 or 990T.
[DYes]liND 14. Has license ever been denied, suspended or revoked? If yes, check all that apply:
[]Denied ~Suspended []Revoked Give date: [ - [
15.
Number of active members '116.
I
20,000
17. Name of Chief Executive Officer
Willard M. Munger, Jr.
Title
Executive Director
Business Phone Number
19.
conducted
:-~ , , \.' ~ ,\
Number of years in existence
( 612 ) 870-1500
Name of establishment where gambling will be
City, State, Zip \
"' ' ~' ' ' ;-' ,'-'-i '-~ / ~
CG-O001-02 (8/86)
White Copy-Board
32
18.
Note:
If less than four years, attach
evidence of three years
existence.
Name of treasurer or person who accounts for other revenues
of the organization.
Eleanor M. Novak
Title
Director of Administration & Contmol
Business Phone Number
( 612 ) 870-1500
20. Street address (not RO. Box Number)
.
22.
County (where gambling premises is located)
! \¥' .,~"~ ~\ . '
I
Canary-Applicant Pink-Local Governing Body
Gambling License'Application
Type of Application: [-IClass A -- ~?ass B
[-]Class C ~Class D
Page 2
~ .~,Yes'ClNo 23. Is gambling premises located within city limits?
Z3Yes []No 24. Are all gambling activities conducted at the premises listed in # 19 of this application? If not, complete a separate
application for each premises (except raffles) as a separate license is required for each premises.
[] Yes
[] Yes E~io
Yes ~1o
25. Does organization own the gambling premises? If no, attach copy of the lease with terms ofat least one year.
26. Does the organization lease the entire premises? If no, attach a sketch of I 27. Amount of Monthly Rent
the premises indicating what portion is being leased. A lease and sketchI / $
is not required for Class D applications.
28. Do you plan on conducting bingo with this license? If yes, give days and times of bingo occasions:
[~'es ~ No
29. Has the $10,0(~0 fidelity bond required by Minnesota Statutes 349.20 been obtained? Attach copy of bond.
30. Insurance Company Name
'~ Fidelity and Deposi~rs
'3~. Lessor Name
35. Ga,rnbling Manager Name
.,. Wayne E. Novak ·
31. Bond Number
9882268
38. Gambling Manager Business Phone
I 612 ) 870-1500
33. Address
36. Address
2344 Nlcol],et AVe. So.
34. City, State,Zip
37. City, State, Zip
Minneapo_ l~s~ ~ 55404
39. Date gambling manager'became
member of organization: I Decembe= r 1978
GAMBLING SITE AUTHORIZATION
By my signature below, local law enforcement officers or agents of the Board are hereby authorized to enter upon the site,
at any time, gambling is being conducted, to observe the gambling and to enforce the law for any unauthorized game or
practice.
BANK RECORDS AUTHORIZATION
By my signature below, the Board is hereby authorized to inspect the bank records of the General Gambling Bank Account
whenever necessary to fulfill requirements of current gambling rules and law.
OATH
I hereby declare that:
1. I have read this application and all information submitted to the Board;
2. All information submitted is true, accurate and complete;
3. All other required information has been fully disclosed
4. I am the chief executive officer of the organization; '
5. I assume full responsibility for the fair and lawful operation of all activities to be conducted;
6. I will familiarize myself with the laws of the State of Minnesota respecting gambling and rules of the Board and agree,
if licensed, to abide by those laws and rules, including amendments thereto.
40. Official, Legal Name of Organization 141. Signature (must be mgned by Chief Executive Officer)
..? ~' h~ ? '
/
[klat~ 1 ~ ~e~: ~ ~ ~ ~a~ Date *- ' / ' *_~ / :
Title of Signer
~m~ ~~r , ~, ~ / ,~,' '
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF NOTICE BY'LOCAL GOVERNING BODY
I hereby acknowledge receipt of a copy of this application. By acknowledging receipt, I admit having been served with
notice that this application will be reviewed by the Charitable Gambling Control Board and if approved by the board, will
become effective 30 days from the date of receipt (noted below), unless a resolution of the local governing body is passed
which specifically disallows such activity and a copy of that resolution is received by the Charitable Gambling Control
Board within 30 days of the below noted date.
42. Na?e of City or County (Loca.!.Governing Body)
Signature~f person receiving application
X ~. ,.' ' ' ~ : ' ~ .. '~ l, '~',''~-~-~
Titfe ~..~. I~ate received (30 day period
' begins from this date), .
44; Name of Person delivering application to Local Governing Body Title
If site is located within a township, item 43 must be completed, in
~ddition to the county signature.
t3. Name of Township
Signature of person receiving application
X
Canary-Appl~c.ant ^ Pink-Local Governing Body
BILLS ...... NOVEMBER 25, 1986
Batch 864111
Batch 864112
Batch 864113
Computer Run dated
Computer Run dated
Computer Run dated
11/18
11/21
11/21
158,485.35
23,910.07
18,529.88
200,925.30
SuperAmerica
Octobe'r gasoline
702.71
TOTAL BILLS
201,628.01
Ld
0
'I'
Z
O0
I
I
G.
'r
ZZZZ: :z Z:'.Z
La,.
T
N
-J
LIJ
nn n,,
n-, 0
.d.J Z
.d.J 0
o
C~
Z
ZZZ
000
0
Z
~J
cO
Z
-J
13.
k-
LiJ
-t
o o
oo
o o
~o~r
i i
MM
I I
ZZ
ZZ
O0
ZZ
k-
O
Z
Z
LU
uJ
Z
0
Z
0
O0
O0
I,d
Z
*s-
·
Z
0 ZZZZZZZZ
00000000
ZZZZZZZZ
OJ OJ
w
-r
ZZZZZZZ~ZZ
0000000000
2Z~C ~-
I-..
T ? 'i'
I I I
I I I
I I I I
lei :l"q lei
I ;I I
I ~1 I I
Z
0
Z
'-' 0 0 ,-', m
L) t,.,1 C~ 0
Z
0
UJ
Z
Z Z
0 0
e,,. ~
\ \
Z
Z
"r
0
?'
! I
bJ LU
,.'-. e-,
Z
0
i.-
,ri,.
o o o o o o o o o
o o
J I
o o
~
w
0
Ld
Z Z Z
,,c .,c
\
I I I
.-I .J -.J
laJ LtJ I. iJ
'~' Z ~"
UJ LIJ
I.IJ
Z
o o
I
n,- 0
~ r.J Z
_j ~ '"r'
~ ~ oo oo ~ Oo ~ O0 oo ~M oo O0 ~o ~ ~
O,J C~J Cd
oJ
Z
0
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
i,~ Iii UJ ~1 LU ~ LIJ
I I I
LIJ LIJ liJ ~ ~ LU ~1
.J
~C
Z
T.
m
Z
m
l-J
Z Z Z
UJ UJ
I ] I
IJJ UJ
C~ C3 ""
~, :3: ~ N ~ .~,.~ '!- 0 0 n ~
U
I
4~
\ % \ % x, \ % \ \ % % ~ \ \
o
A SSi,
~ ZZZZ~ZZZZ
~ 0o0000000
0
Z
·
I I
~-
I I
~-~
oP.-
Z
)-
0
~o~o
oo
LAI~I
-I
I.-
0
Z
Z
0
· ~
.J
0
0
I-
X
.Il/
L~
moo
Z
0
T~
I-'
L~
r~
U
0
L~
Z
CJ
Z
Z
L~
·
II IIII
~~'
00000000
ZZ~ZZ~ZZZ ZZZZ
0000000000000
~ZZZ~ZZZZZZ
I I I I I I I I I I I I I
0000000000000
00000000000000
O000~O0000000~
0000
ZZ~Z
ZZZZ
IIIIIII
~oo0o
IIIIIII
'1111111
Z
0
ZZO0
I
,&
Z
.J
0
r~
UJ
t~
>,.
I-
I
O;
I"
I:
0
~J
0
0
I,-'
0
I-
0
I
Z
_J.J
I-I-
ZZ
LIJLd
h-I-
Z
0
CI
0
C~
L~
:Z
Q:
Z
0
Iii
0
n
I--
r~
0
! !
I I
I
h-
0
n~
0
O
X
0
n,
L~
X
* 69
*
W
~C
0
Z
:>
Z
bJ
0
-I
I I
777
I-LU
I--
e~
UJ
Z
· P'l fei
e
e r--
e
11. oJ
#
4~ 0
~.0
oJ
· * GJ
~J
W
I-
0
0
0
LU
·
i
X
Ul
Z
I-
Z
Z:
I-
X
i.I
I
Z
Z
3::
o
~J
Z
LU
Z
0
0 ·
0,.I
!
L:l
l.-.-
m
UJ
t~
·
Ir'
'
~ "Ir
~o~
LIJUJ
I-.I-
l-l-
O0
ZZ
O0
UJ
Z
_1 0
~
~
O~
I-
0
r~
Z
·
Z
3:
.J
Z
O0 O0
O0 O0
I--
I--
Z
0
LLI
..J
·
Z
CITY of MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD
MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364
(612) 472-1155
November 17, 1986
TO: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER
FROM: JOHN NORMAN, FINANCE DIRECTOR0'~1')
RE: OCTOBER 1986 FINANCIAL REPORT
BUILDING PERMIT REVENUE
Through October the planning department has taken in $66,000 in Building
permits. The total received during 1985 and 1984 was $47,212 and $35,978
respectively. The City Council approved increasing the building permit fee
over a three year period starting with 1986. The rate increase accounts
for a portion of the large increase in building permit revenue.
However, the main reason for the increase is the heavy construction
activity in Mound this year.
SEWER FUND EXPENSES
The sewer fund expenses for October shows up as -$8,248. The MWCC
bills us based upon an estimated cost and usage for the following year.
At the conclusion of the year, the MWCC accumulates actual costs and
usage and compares this with the estimated amount the City paid in during
the year. In 1985, the City paid estimated costs of $54,736 higher than
the actual costs. The reason for the large credit is that Mound was
charged for usage tha~ some of the surrounding communities should have
paid. The following is a breakdown of sewer fund expenses for October:
Sewer Fund Expenses $46,488
1985 Final Cost Allocation ($54,736)
(8,248)
JN:ls
CITY OF HOUND
198~ BUDGET REPORT
REVE"UES
October 1986
83.3% of Year
BUDGET
October.
REVENUE
YTD
REVENUE
PER CENT
VARIANCE RECEIVED
GENERAL FUND
Taxes $
Intergovernmental
Business Licenses
Non-Business Licenses
& Permits
General Gov't Charges.
Court Fines
Charges 'to other
Departments'
Other Revenue
931,061
719,964
13,060
114,000
27,750
82,000
23,000
55,~oo
__ 465,515 465,546 50.0
-- 380,139 339,825 52.8
60' 8,228 4,832 63.0
13,765 118,359 (4,359) 103.8
1,131 13,106 14,644 47.2
-- 72,483 9,517 88.4
1,660 20,651 2,.349 89.9
3,354 21,587 33,713 39.0
TOTAL REVENUE
$1,966,135
19,970
1,10o,o68
866 06 .
Federal Revenue Shari:ng
Liquor Fund
Water Fund
Sewer Fund
45,000
820,000
264,000
500,000
61,907
52,513
45,026
31,079
620,741
265,837
462,154
13,921 69.0
199,259 75.7
(1,837) 100.7
37,846 92.4
CITY OF MOUND
1986 BUDGET REPORT
EXPENDITURES
October 1986
8~,3% of Year
BUDGET
EXPENSE
UNEN-
YTD CUHBERED PER CENT_
EXPENSE BALANCE EXPENDED
GENERAL FUND Council
City Manager/Clerk
Elections & Reg.
Assessing
Finance
Legal
Cable T.V.
Contel
Recycling
Police Protection
Planning & Insp.
Civil Defense
Streets
Shoh & Store
City Property.
Parks
Contingency
Transfers
GENERAL FUND TOTAL
$ 36,964
89,273
10,307
43,369
141,420
8O,33O
20,O00
18,585
· 568,199
lO0,333
3,000
369,950
47,096
83,449
1.30,093
50,000
75,741
$1,868,109
1,066
5,957
10,147
4,837
135
3,450
1,268
38~253
7,180
19,674
3,847
28,215
7,520
775
6,312
28,252 8,682 76.5
70,396 18,877 78.9
4,857 5,450 47.1
42,703 666 98.5
111,636 29,784 78.9
57,426 22,904 71.5
1,004 (1,004) --
14,462 5,538 72.3
11,832 6,753 63.7
440,270 127,929 77.5
77,056 23,277 76.8
1,093 1,907 36.4
314,980 54,970" 85.1
38,342 8,754 81.4
84,952 (1,503) 101.8
108,766 21,327 83.6
4,206 45,794 8.4
64,312 11,429 84.9
139,673 1-,476,575 391,534 79.0
Federal Reserve Sharing
Area Fi re Service
Sealcoat Program
CBD Assessment
Liquor
Water
Sewer
Cemetery.
52,000
142,802
153,~50
315,022
631,O84
3,896
168 30,711 21,289 59.1
8,206 122,005 20,797 85.4
10,443
15,501
(8,248)*
95
116,912 36,538 76.2
273,765 41,257 86.9
443,941 187,143 70.3
3,111 785 79.9
MINUTES OF THE
- HOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
November 10, 1986
Present were: Chair El.izabeth Jensen;~Commissioners Vern.Andersen, William Meyer,
Geoff Michael, Thbmas Reese, Kenneth Smith, William Thal and Frank Weiland; Council
Representative.Steve Smith; Acting City Manager.Fran Clark; City Planner Mark Koegler;.
Building Official Jan Bertrand and Secretary. Marjorle Stutsman. Also present were 'the
following interested persons: VincelForystek, Del Pfelfer, Dianna Neuklrcher, Kenneth
R. Neukircher, Ben Mallnski, Tim Bell., Jean I.' Graff, Lee Heller, Tim Miller, Frank
McGill, Roxanne McGill,.Paul Boorsma, Gordon Louis Wolf, James L. Roseen, Delores
Skochenskl, Duane Skochenskl, Bob Nortsch, A1Erickson, Terri Erickson, Kevin D.
Murphy, Mark Rodique, Helmer Johnson, Roy Westergaard, Jean Westergaard, Karen Hefner,
MauriCe Gunderson, Alfred J. Johnson, Donald. Peterson and Saul Smiley.
MINUTES
The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of October 6, 1986 were presented for
consideration· Reese moved and Weiland seconded a motion'to approve the minUtes as
presented. The vote was unanimously in favor.
BOARD OF APPEALS' '
1. Case No. 86-550 Public Hearing on Proposed Plat, Inverness Heights
Lots 5,6,7,8,9,25,26,27 and part of Lots 15 and 16, Block 8, 'Pembroke
Vince Forystek was present.
The City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed his report. He is recommending pre-
llmlnary p'lan approval with six conditions which include, due to the shape of
the parcel and topographic constraint,.a 38 foot variance for access width for
Lot 5 and the limiting of number of lots for the plat to 5 rather than 6 as Lot-
6 has no access to a public right-of-way.
Jan Bertrand, Building Official, commented on the City Engineer's report dated
October 13, 1986 which also included some background information. The Engineer
is basically recommending that the drainage be from the existing cul-de-sac ad-
joining Paisley Road. The water should flow SWly from the new cul-de-sac down
the existing st'feet. The grades of the new cul-de-sac with the grades of the
street will have to fit together. The Engineer is recommending a 80 foot dedi-
ca'ted diameter with a 70 foot improved street for the cul-de-sac. Sanitary
sewer should be a 8 inch minimum diameter and the watermain 2 inch minimum dia-
meter. The Engineer recommended preliminary plat approval with 3 conditions
which include 1) eliminating Lot 6; 2) variances be granted for undersized width
of Lot 5 and undersized cul-de-sac; and 3) addition of drainage & utility easements
to plat and an increase of 5 feet in width of easement on Lot 2 for sanitary sewer
main.
Commissioner Weiland stated he'd like a 6 inch watermaln for fire protection.
Applicant Forystek stated that in 1985 the Fire Chief stated fire protection was
fine and that he would provide a letter to that effect; also Forystek'stated
services to Lot 2 are in the ground. He asked questions on what would be required
to divide off Lot 6 in the future and whether park dedication should be required
when replatting legal lots. Koegler stated for now, Lots 5 and 6 would have to
be combined and if, at a later date, additional land can be acquired for street
access for Lot 6, applicant could do a minor subdivision. Koegter will clarify
the park dedication with applicant.
The Chair opened the public hearing and the following persons had,questions and
Planning Commission Hinutes
November 10, 1986 - Page 2
comments:.
DEL PFEIFER - is against having.existing easement used for proposed Lot
ROXANNE McGILL'- questioned whO owns easement; feels putting additional traffic
on the easement'would be a hassle, in the winter because of its steepness and
· congestion; also commented draineger.is another problem; they had to put swale in
for their house .to keep water away. The Building Official noted Cameron stated
drainage ~)ul.d':be'critical and would need very. specific'plans when they go for
final plat approval.
DEL PFEIFER questioned why he'was not' not{fled about ordinance change from "line
of sight" on principal dwe]llngs front yard setback.'
The Chair closed the publi-c'hear)ng as there were no other comments relative to
this preliminary plat. The Planning Commission discussed the proposal.
Reese moved and ~ei.]and'seconded.a. motion to accept staff recommendations with
the'ie~cept{onof clearing up whether park dedication {s appropriate and combining
proposed Lots 5 aha 6 and also {nc]uding the provisions for a letter on'fire-
hydrant.
The P]anning Commission discussed where house should be on proposed new Lot 5;
Hark Koeg]er Stated that as Lot $~{s .not conforming and needs a vari'ance, the
P]ann{ng Commission can specify the building area and recommended approving the
plat subject to a]] the conditions with Lot $ and 6 being combined into one building
{or and that the'housing pad be ]ocated on what is shown right now as Lot 5 on the
site plan.
Thal moved an amendment to the motion to include recommendation of the staff on
placement of the house... 'Steve Smt'th. seconded the rnot~on. The vote on the amend-
ment was Meyer, Michael, Re,se and Ken Smith opposed; Andersen, Steve Smith,
Thal, ~e'iland and Jensen in favor. Amendment passed.
The vote on the motion as amended'was unanimously in favor,
The City Council'has been asked to set December 9, 1986 for the public hearing.
Case No. 86-551 Waiver Of'subdivision regulations for minor lot ~plit
Lots 3 and 4, Block 3, The Highlands
Paul'N. Boorsma and neighbors, Mr. & Mrs.'Skochenski, were present.
The Building Official explained applicant is proposing to split off ten feet
of Lot 3 to be combined with Lot 2, all in Block 3, The Highlands, to give the
neighbor a larger si. deyard and that the remainder of Lots 3 and 4 will have
the requi~ed setbacks and lot area for the R-2 Zoning District.
Weiland moved and Andersen.seconded a motion to approve the subdivision with ~
the staff recommendation upon the cond|tlon that applicant submit a registered
signed survey of the new described Parcel A. The vote was unanimously in
favor.
This will be on the City Council agenda of November 25, 1986.
Plannin9 Cdmmission Minutes
November 10, 1,9B6 - P~ge )
case No. 86-552 Variance to recognize an existing undersized lot and setbacks
tO property line for 4997 Tuxedo Boulevard; Lot 19, Block 15, Arden
Kenneth and Oianna Neuklrcher were present.
The Building Official reviewed her report and commented applicant wants to
expand the. living space over an existing attached garage and the perimeter
will not be en]arged in size'. Theywere granted a variance in 1969 allowing
them to build the garage.
Heyer moved and Re,se seconded 'a motion approving the staff recommendation.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
This will be on the City Council agenda for November 25, 1986.
4.- Case No. 86-553 Variance to allow unenclosed deck in the required rear yard
setback at 1555 Bluebird Lane; Lots 7 and 30, Block 6, Woodland Point
James Roseen was present.
The Building Official explained her report and that Hr. Roseen is requesting
an unenclosed deck be allowed 5 feet from the Commons. Hr. 'Roseen's home was
recently bu!l't 15 feet (rear yard setback.for principal structures) from the
Commons and the builder proposed that he have a 5 'foot walkway in front of his
atrium door on s'ite plan. Hinimum rear yard setback to commons.for an unenclosed
deck is lO feet.' Due to a rise in elevation to the west, the visibility to the
lakeshore would be obstructed if platform was built at grade level.
H|chael moved and Weiland seconded a motion .to approve the requested 5 foot
variance with the staff recommendations. The vote was unanimously in favor.
This will be on the City Council agenda of November 25, 1986.
5. ~Case No. 86-554 Variance for access-to public street for proposed home at
52XX Lynwood Bou]evard; Heres & Bounds Desc.., Blocks 1 & 2, Rearrangement_of
Block 10, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park
Ha'rk Rodrique of Kele Homes and Owner, Jean Graff, were present.
City Planner, Mark"Koegter Yeviewed his' report. The 13,700~ square foot lot
does not front'on a public street and was supposed to take access.through an
easement that comes off Lynwood Boulevard. A hardship apparently does exist
because at one rime'there was public right-of-way to this property and for some
reason, that was vacated by the City which severed public access to the lot and
made it landlocked. As a result, there really is no direct access to the lot
nor does there appear any reasonable means to'provide access. He recommends
approval subject to review of the easement documents by the City Attorney's
office and that Applicant meet Engineer'.s and Public Works' approval for utility
connections. The Building Offical stated she talked with the City Engineer and
they will.need new water service off of Lynwood; the sewer is extended up that
easement.
The Commission had various questions on the easement document. The neighbors,
Mr. and Mrs. Erickson and Bob Hortsch, were present. They stated they Purchased
the property divided as it is.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 10, 1986 - Page 4 _
Thal moved.and Weiland seconded a motion to. approve the variance requested
with staff recommendations.
The Commission discussed the easement, etc. and they concluded the'lot was a
legal lot and easement is aPparently there and that it is private easement.
The vote.dn the motion was unanimously in favor.
This will be. on the NOVember 25,..t.~86 Council agenda.
Commissioner Reese left the meeting at 8:45 P.M. to catch his plane.
6. Case No. 86-555 Variance of retaining wall on publlc right-of-way for 3018
Devon Lane; Lots 17 and 18, Block 11, Pembroke
Don Peterson of K. P. Properties was present.
The Building Official explained retaining wall was built adjacent to the new
home'and is on City hroperty 2½ feet. The City had a lot of street projects
wi. th retal.ni.ng walls which the City must maintain. Because of these walls,
it is easy to.misunderstand where walls should be. Ordinance requl.res fences/
retaining walls be on own property. The builder put wall in line with the
City walls. Street Superintendent 'has determined he doesn't need walls any
closer to Curb.t.han.he has to have them:and recommends moving wall onto Owner's
property. Walls close to street make snow plowin~ difficult.
Mr. PeterSon stated City built wa]is both uphill and downhill from this property
and because of the steep slope, his builder lined up wall with those. Ne stated
that as main concern of City'seems to be maintenance of.the wall, his solution
would be to have owner sign a perpetual maintenance agreement for the wall on
City property. The Commission discussed the request.'
Ken Smith moved to grant a variance with condition that there be a perpetual
maintenance agreement drafted and' have owner record on his deed with a copy of
the registered document sent to the Ci~ty. Meyer seconded the motion. The
· vote was unanimous]y in favor.
This wil'l be on the'City'CoUncil agenda of November 25, 1986.
Case No. 86-556 Variance to recognize an existing undersized lot and setbacks
to property line; Lot 39'and Lot 6, Block ll, Seton
Gordon Wolf was present.
The City Planner reviewed the:background of this'case as outlined in his report;
the end result of prevlous applicatlons,.etc~ was that' there was no positive
action taken. Mr. Wolf is back before the City applying for a variance. He
wants to conduct improvements to the existing house'; the house presently has
nonconforming setbacks-and is on an undersized'lot. The Planner assumed the
proposed modification to be the same as originally proposed as he was unable to
contact applicant. He stated the setback variances requested seem to be the
minimum to make the property usable; however, he is recommending that Lots 6
and 39 be combined so lot area would be conforming'and no lot size variance
would be required. Staff is recommending approval of a variance recognizing
the existing setbacks and allowing improvments to the property subject to the
4 conditions outlined in his report.
Plannin9 C6mmission Minutes
November 10, 1986 - P~ge 5
The applicant questioned Item 4 "shall post a bond" and was not in favor of
combining Lots 6 and 39.
Wei. land moved the staff recommendation of the 4 points set down. Thal
seconded the motion.
The Commission had questions on the bond and Ken Smith stated only a licensed
contractor with a good track record Could purchase such a bond. Wolf stated
it Was not his intention to hire a contractor. The Commission discussed the
matter and that the'City needs an ordinance.to' protect future buyers requiring
inspect)ohs of residential properties that would state certain things that have
to be corrected. The Commission agreed Item 4 should be left in conditions to
guarantee work will be done and according to. code.
The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor.
This will be on the' City Council agenda of November 25, 1986.
Case No. 86-557 Approval for Comprehensive Sign Plan for Commerce Square
Saul Smiley was present.
The Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed his'report and noted a couple of corrections
that should be made. Commerce Place should read Commerce SQuare and in Para-
graph 2 on the first page, 15 feet in height should read 25 feet in height;.
also the last recommendation should have the 15 feet changed to 25 feet and the_
last sentence' deleted as.it is not applicable.
The Planning Commission discussed the signage briefly including the proposed
electronic message center sign for the Bank. Weiland questioned if any sign-
age would be on the east side of the building (none planned).
Weiland moved and Steve Smith seconded a motion to accept the staff recommenda-
tions approving the signage with the corrections in Item 3 "not to exceed 25
feet in' height" and striking the last sentence. The vote was all in favor
~xcept Vern Andersen who abstained.
This will be on the City Cobncil agenda of November 25, 1986.
Case No. 86-558 Parking Variances for new V'.F.W. Building at 2544 Commerce
Boulevard; Lots 26-30, 32 and Part of 33, Auditor's Subdivislon # 167
Mr. Roy Westergaard was present;
Mark Koegler reviewed his report on the plans for the new V.F.W. Post 5113
and commented on the parking variances-reqblred. On Item 2, he stated City
does not advocate there should be a fence, but Ordinance requires one so a
variance is needed for there not to be; on Item 4, he suggested applicant
shift the parking lot slightly to allow a 3 foot setback to conform with
ordinance. He is recommending other three variances be granted. The
Building Official added a condition that City Engineer approve site plan
grading and drainage. She also explained the ratio of parking is tied to
the occupant load of the building which is 261 people and parking limits the
number of people (amount of available parking). She stated occupant load will
be posted in the building. ,
Planning Commission Min_utes
November ]0, 1.986 - Page 6
The CommiSsion discussed how the lot would be marked, curb cuts, entrances, etc.
Weiland moved to approve the parking variances according to the s~aff recom-
mendations (Items 1 through 3). Ken Smith seconded the motion. The vote wa's
unanimously in favor;
lO.
This will be on ~he City Council agenda ~fNovember 25, 1986.
Case No. 86-559 Fence Height Variance for 4831 Shoreline Boulevard
Lots. 1,2,3~,4,21 and Part of 5 and 20., Block l, Shirley Hills Unit A
Ben Malinski and Tim Bell were Present..
The Building Official explained that there has been a lot of activity through
the P)annlng Commission and City Council on this property; signs and.conditional
use permits. Mr. Malinski wishes to construct a 6'foot high privacy fence
.right up to property line as'shown on~esite plan. She has. issued a partial
bul)ding per, it because of the construction deadline (snow) and is forwarding
this information to ~he Commission tonight. He needs a variance for the portion
to the east of his building line toward Bartlett Boulevard· Applicant had
some pictures and described where fence would go.
Ma)inski stated he wants to get towing contra6t with the City for towing snow
birds and accidents, etc. The Building Official reviewed the conditions.of
the Conditional Use applicable to thls property· The Commission discussed
that they'would not like to grant 'the fence permit if conditional use prohibits_
allowing this use. 'Koegler stated'a variance application is part of it', but
so is conditional Use. You'd have to modify the conditional use to allow this.
The CommiSsion discussed at length· Applicant will have to come back and get
conditional use change,-L.~o allow business that he wants to conduct and it would.
also address the fence A~p~ ................................. '-~ ...........
· ]lcant stated he wants to flnmsh fence whether or not
he gets contract and a change of conditional use.
St~ve-Smith m0~ed and Heyer secOnded a motiOn to approve a f'ence height vari-
ance for h831 Shoreline Boulevard. The vote was unanimously in favor·
This will be on the. City. Council agenda of November· 25, 1986.
Mark Koegler reported there 'is a law in process which will not allow members to serve
on both a Board of Adjustment and a Board of Appeals· A draft of this law should be
out next week and h~ will send members a. copy.
LOST LAKE REPORT
The Commission discussed the'Maxfie'l.d Research Group Report for the Lost Lake prop-
erty briefly and decided they needed more time to go over the study.
Thal moved and Meyer seconded a motion.to table'discusstion of this report
until November 2h, 1986. The vote was unanimously in favor.
ADJOURNMENT
Meyer moved and Jensen seconded a motion to adjourn the. meeting at 10:30 P.M.
in favor, so meeting was adjourned.
All
~'~'~ Ellzabeth Jensen Chair
Attest: '
Office of the Dean
College of Urban and Public Affairs
University of Louisville
Louisville, Kentucky 40292
(502) 588-6561
UN1VE IWof IDUISVILLE
November 21, 1986
Ms. Francene C. Clark
City Manager
c/o Mound Police Dept.
5431 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Ms. Clark:
The faculty of the Southern Police Institute has recommended that academic
excellence be recognized as an integral part of the Administrative
Officers Course.
Academic excellence as defined by the University of Louisville encompasses
many facets. One is a "Dean's Scholar." In order to qualify as a Dean's
Scholar, the student must have an "A" or 4.0 average in all courses.
Chief Leonard Harrell of your agency has achieved and been accorded the
privilege of being considered a Dean's Scholar student. May I
congratulate you on Chief Harrell's outstanding performance as a member of
the.76th Administrative Officers Course.
His transcript will reflect his academic achievement. May I ask that you
present this letter and certificate to Chief Harrell and make it a part of
his personnel record.
It was our pleasure having Chief Harrell as a member of the 76th
Administrative Officers Course, and we look forward to his professional
growth within your organilzation.
Best personal regards.
Cordi al ly,
Dean
mh
Enclosure
THE ADMINISTRATION AND FACULTY
OF THE
SCHOOL OF JUSTICE ADMINISTRATION
COLLEGE OF URBAN AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS
UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE
take pleasure in extending greetings
LEONARD
HARRELL
on the occasion of
YOUR HAVING BEEN NAMED AS A
DEAN'S SCHOLAR
FALL SEMESTER 1986
Signed at Louisville, Kentucky, on
J. PRICE FOSTER, DEAN
COLLEGE OF URBAN AND PUBLI(] AFFAIRS
WILLIAM \ PE~REY DIRECTOR
SCHOOl. OF JI.'STICE Al)MINISTRATION