1987-04-28 CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1987
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. Pledge of Allegiance
Approve the Minutes of the April 14, 1987 Regular
Meeting.
Pg. 1079-1088
]PUBLIC HEARING.; Delinquent Utility Bills
Pg. 1089
PUBLIC HEARING;
Consider Proposed Watermain Extension
in Vacated Laurel Street Pg. 1090-1101
PUBLIC HEARING - CASE ~87-623: Consider the Issuance
of a Conditional Use Permit for the
Operation of a Fast Food, Convenience,
Drive-In Restaurant (Class II) Located
2330 Wilshire Blvd., Domino's Pizza Pg. 1102-1108
Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present.
Set Date for Public Hearing for Public Input on 1988
Budget (SUGGESTED DATE: MAY 12, 1987)
CASE ~87-620:
CASE ~87-621:
Approval of Resolution Authorizing
a Conditional Use Permit, Lot Size
Variance and Setback Variances for
Grimm's Store located at 3069 Brighton
Blvd., PID ~24-117-24 43 0017
_Msrk_Je.nks~ 4932 Bedford Road, L~ots 16
& 17, Block 38, Wychwood, PID #24-117-24
41 0157
Pg. 1109
Request: Rear Yard Setback Variance
Pg. 1110-1116
10. CASE ~87-625;
James & Josephine Sharp, 4925 Glen Elyn
Road, Lot 22, Block 24, Shadywood Point,
PID #13-117-24 11 0097
Request: Lot Area Variance
Pg. 1117-1123
11. CASE ~87-626;
J. Thomas Lepisto, 5325 Waterbury Rd.
We~t 02 of LOt 54, Whipple Shores,
PID #25-117-24 21 0154
Request: Rear Yard Variance
Pg. 1124-1133
Page 1076
12. .CAS£ ~87-627;
Mik~ & Judy Ga_rdn~j~, 1599 Bluebird Lane,
Lo[--18-& 19,-Bl~ek 6, Woodland Point,
Request: Variances
13. CASE ~87-628;
Neil & Linda Schoenhofen~ 6116 Bartlett
~lvd.', Metes & Bobnds Description, PID
#23-117-24 31 0002
Request: Minor Subdivision
14. CASE ~87-629:
15.
16.
17.
19.
20.
Pg. 1134-1141
21.
Pg. 1142-1150
22.
23.
24.
Dayton &Margaret Williamson,
2012 Villa Lane, Lo'ts 1 & z,'"'~lock 5,
Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside
Park, PID #13-117-24 31 0023
Request: Front Yard Setback Variance
Extension of R~solution #85-59
Pg. 1151-1159
Pg. 1160-1162
Resolution Authorizing Application for Conveyance from
the State of Certain Tax Forfeit Lands Pg. 1163-1164
Resolution Releasing Certain Tax Forfeit Lands to
Hennepin County for Public Auction and Certifying
the Special Assessments
Pg. 1165-1168
Resolution Reconveying (if necessary) Certain Tax
Forfeit Lands Back to the State and Requesting the
County Board to Impose Conditions on the Sale of Said
Tax Forfeit Lands and to Restrict the Sale to Owners
of Adjoining Lands
Pg. 1169-1176
An Ordinance Adding Section 206 to the City Code
Providing for the Defense and Indemnification of
Officers and Employees of the City
Pg. 1177-1178
Presentation of Financial Audit for Year Ended December
31, 1986 - Gary Groen, Abdo, Abdo & Eick
John Norman, Finance Director
Recommendations from the Planning Commission
RE: Lost Lake
Pg. 1179-1181
New Licenses & License Renewals
Pg. 1182-1183
Payment of Bills
Pg. 1184-1195
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
Ae
March 1987, Financial Report as Prepared by John
Norman, Finance Director
Pg. 1196-1198
Page 1077
Be
Ce
De
Fe
Ge
Preliminary Program for the Annual League of
Minnesota Cities Conference to be held June 9-12
in Rochester. (This is the week of our 75th
Anniversary/Mound City Days Celebration.) If you
are interested in attending, please let me know
as soon as possible.
Proposed rate change being filed on interexchange
services in Minnesota by AT&T Communications of
the Midwest, Inc. The filing represents a restruC-
turing of the long distance service schedule
price increases in Channel Services and an overall
reduction in WATS prices.
Planning Commission Minutes of April 13, 1987
City Attorney's previous correspondence setting
forth the difference between motions, resolutions
and ordinances. I think this information will be
useful.
Letter from Joyce Clark, Bartlett Blvd. resident,
re: Bass Fishing Contest at Mound Bay Park
REMINDER: Work Session, Saturday, April 25th,
8:30 A.M., City Council Chambers
Copy of LMC ACTION ALERT, re: Three Percent Levy
Limit and LGA Cuts. I have already informed
Senator Gen Olson and Representative John Burger
of our opposition to any reduction or elimination
of LGA. This alert from the League is a new
"twist" and I will be contacting Olson and
Burger again. This would be devastating for
all cities.
Pg. 1199-1206
Pg. 1207-1221
Pg. 1222-1228
Pg. 1229-1233
Pg. 1234
Pg. 1235
Page 1078
Ap!il 14, 19B7
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 14, 1987
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in
regular session on Tuesday, April 14, 1987, at 7:30 P.M. in the
Council Chambers at 5341Maywood Road, in said City.
Those present were: Mayor Steve Smith, Councllmembers Don Abel,
Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Skip Johnson. Also present were:
City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, City
Attorney Curt Pearson, Building Official Jan Bertrand, City
Engineer John Cameron, City Planner Mark Koegler and the
following interested citizens: Devlin Gleason, Jim Wilson, Nancy
Clough, Frank Nissen, Jules Illies, Ann Eberhart, Bob Brown.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in
attendance. The 'Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
MOTION made by Able, seconded by Jensen to approve the
Minutes of the March 24, 1987, Regular Meeting, as submitted.
The vOte Was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
,CASE 187-620: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LOT SIZE
& SETBACK VARIANCES, FOR GROCERY STORE (G~IMM'$
STORE), AT 3069,BRIGHTON BLVD., DEVLIN GLEASON
The City Planner reviewed his written report and recommendations
on Pages 907 and 908 of the Council Packet.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
The Mayor closed the public hearing.
There were no comments.
Johnson moved and Abel seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~87-65 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE LOT SIZE AND SETBACK
VARIANCES AND ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR A GROCERY 'STORE (GRIMM'S
STORE) AT S069 BRIGHTON BLVD., DEYLIN
GLEASON, P & Z CASE ~87-620
There was discussion on perpetuating a nonconforming use.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
RESET PUBLIC HEARING DATE
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Abel to reset a public
hearing to consider amending the Zoning Map to change the
zoning of a portion of property along Northern Road from B-2,
April lq, 1987
General Business to R-2, Single Family Residential for Hay
12, 1987, at 7:30 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Motion carried.
PROCI-AM~TION FOR ANNUAL SALE OF BUDDY POPPIES BY THE VFW
Johnson moved and Smith seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~87-66 RESOLUTION PROCLAIHING THE ANNUAL SALE OF
BUDDY POPPIES BY THE VFW
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
~MENDMENT TO RESOLUTION 87-59, VFW POST 5113, P & Z CASE #86-558
The City Engineer explained the proposed amendments to the
resolution of approval.
The Council discussed a schedule for the completion of the
parking lot. The City Attorney suggested that a completion
schedule and completion date of July 1, 1988, be added to the
proposed resolution. Also that the Letter of Credit be extended
to July 1, 1988. Mr. Jules lilies was present and stated that
the entire parking lot except parking spaces 1-10 would be
curbed, guttered and blacktopped. They would like to let spaces
1-10. settle because of poor soil before completing that area.
The Council agreed.
Abel moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~87-67
RESOLUTION AHENDING RESOLUTION ~87-59,
HOUND V.F.I/. POST 5113, COHHERCE BLVD.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
STREET LIGHT REQUEST - OAKLAWN LANE
The City Manager presented the petition and explained the
kequest. The Staff recommended approval.
Johnson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION t87-68 RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INSTALLATION OF A
STREET LIGHT IN THE 2900 BLOCK OF OAKLAWN
LANE BETWEEN IDLEWOOD ROAD AND COUNTY ROAD
110
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
~TREET LIGHT REQUEST - THREE POINTS BLVD. & DOVE LANE
The City Manager presented the petition and explained the
request. The Staff recommended approval.
/0 o
51
April 14, 1987
Abel moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION {87-69
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INSTALLATION OF A
STREET LIGHT AT THE CORNER OF THREE POINTS
BLVD. AND DOVE LANE, 511§ THREE ?OINT~
BLVD.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
gOMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
Ann Eberhart, 1708 Dove Lane, thanked the Council for their quick
action on the authorization for the installation of a street
light.
LABOR AGREEMENT, LOCAL ~320, PUBLIC WORKS
The City Manager explained that he has negotiated a tentative
agreement with Local 320, Public Works Employees. He then
explained the changes as outlined on page 934. He further
explained that the amount is within the 1987 Budget as adopted.
Johnson moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION {87-70 RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY
MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A LABOR AGREEMENT
WITH THE MINNESOTA TEAMSTERS PUBLIC AND
LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL
320, PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEES CONTRACT
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
BID AWARD: 1987 SEAL COAT PROGRAM
The City Engineer explained that the three bids received were as
follows:
Aliied Blacktop $33,240.00
Bituminous Roadways $41,800.00
Buffalo Bituminous $36,900.00
He is recommending Aliied Blacktop.
Abel moved and Johnson seconded the foIlowing resolution:
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BID FOR THE 1987
SEAL COAT PROGRAM TO ALLIED BLACKTOP IN
THE AMOUNT OF $33,2~0.00
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Ap. ril 14, 1987
Abel moved and Jensen seconded the-following resolution:
RESOLUTION #87-6~ RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INSTALLATIQN OF A
STREET LIGHT AT THE CORNER OF THR~E~ POINTS
BLVD. AND DOVE LANE, 5118 THR~E POINTS
BLVD. ~
The vote was ~animously in favor. Motion carrie~.
lnn ~berh~rg, 17 ye Lane, ~hanked ~he COuncil for ~helr qu~ek
action on the authorization for the installation of a street
light, ~ ~
LABOR AGREEMENT, LOCAL~'3~O.,.,,~UB~IC 'O~$
The Cit~ ~ana~er expla~d that he'has negotiated a tentative
a~reement with Looal3~0, Publi~' Works EmPloyees. He then
explained the chan~es a~ outlined on pa~e 93~. He ~urther
explained tha~ the amount i~ with~,n the 1987 Budget as adopted.
Johnson moved and Jessen seconded ~he followin~ resolution:
RESOLUTION ~8Y-YO RESOLUT~N TO AUTHORIZE THE MA~OR AND CIT~
MANAGER ~0 ENTER INTO A LABOR AGREEMENT
~ITH ~HE ~INNE$OTA TEAMSTERS PUBLIC AND
LAW ~NFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES UNION, LOCAL
~207 PUBLIC~RKS EMPLOYEES CONTRACT
The vote was unanimousl~ X~ favor. M~tion oarried.
BID ANARD: 1987 SEAL C~T PROGRAM
The Ctg~ ~ngtneer exp~tned ~h~ ghe g b~d~ received ~ere a~
Allied Blacktop/ $33,2~0.00 ~
Bituminous Roa~ays $~1,800.00 ~ ~
Buffalo Bitum~ous $36,900.00 ~
He ls recommendi~ Allied Blacktop.
/
Abel moved and ~hnson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~87-71
RESOLUTION AWARDING THE BID FOR THE 1987
SEAL COAT PROGRAM TO ALLIED BLACKTOP IN
THE AMOUNT OF $33,240.00
The vote .was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
52
~OUEST TO USE t~UNCHING FACILITIES AT MOUND BAY PARK - MINNESOTA
OPEN BASS CLASSICS
The City Manager explained the request. There was discussion on
the early morning noise of racfng boats, the parking of trailers
on side streets, litter left behind, granting permission for the
July dates requested contingent on how the June 7th tournament is
handled.
MOTION by Smith, seconded by Johnson to approve the three
dates (June 7, July 18 and 19, 1987), asking that the City
Manager write a letter welcoming the tournament but
expressing the concerns addressed above. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
DISCUSSION: EXTERIOR STORAGE
The City Manager explained that at the last work session he was
asked to put this back on the Agenda. He included in the packet
the descriptions of the slides shown at the work session, three
years of complaints, the old ordinance, the new ordinance, and
the Planner's report on what other cities, have for recreational
storage ordinances.
The Mayor stated he was glad this was back on the Agenda and
unless he hears from the public otherwise, he would like to see a
lot 6f the language relating to storage of recreational vehicles
deleted from the current ordinance.
The City Attorney stated that because this would be an amendment
to the Zoning Ordinance it has to go to the Planning Commission
to solicit their advice and recommendations.
MOTION made by Smith, Seconded by Abel to send Ordinance 1488
back to the Planning Commission to hold public hearings on it
and then return it to the City Council.
Discussion: Councllm~mber Johnson suggested giving the
Planning Commission some direction· He feels the ordinance
is too restrictive in that a 55 foot boat is legal on the
lake, but it is illegal to store it in your yard. He would
also like to know what is "storage"? Is "storage" when you
store a boat over winter and launch it next Spring or is
storage when a boat sits there for years? He asked'for a
definition of "storage" for recreational vehicles. (He
cited a person with a recreation vehicle who travels every
other weekend. Is the vehicle "stored" on the weekends he is
not traveling or is it "parked" on those weekends?)
The Council agreed that there should be sufficient notice
given to the public of the Planning Commission hearings and
the issues are and what kind of input they are looking
53
April 14, 1987
for on the subject.
Couneilmember Jessen stated that she has had some complaints
on exterior storage because of aesthetics and she would also
like to see this faction of the public represented at these
hearings.
Requesting that the Planning Commission consider the items
that have been discussed tonight giving this item their
full attention and thought and return it to the City Council
by the first meeting in August. The vote was unanimously in
favor. Motion carried.
HENNEPIN COUNTY ROAD 15 PROJECT
The City Engineer gave the preliminary cost estimate of what
Mound's participation would be in this project. He then reviewed
a very preliminary cost estimate for adding new street lights to
the project from Commerce Blvd. to Fairview Lane and the
replacement of watermain from Fairview Lane to Fernside Lane,
curb and gutter and concrete apron, storm sewer and sidewalks.
There was discussion on the amount to be assessed private
property for the added improvements.
The City Engineer explained that a decision on the new street
lights and/or watermain replacement must be made by the City soon
because Hennepin County would like final plans to them by the
first part of June, if we are to have this included in the
County's plans for construction.
The City Attorney suggested that the next step would be for the
Council to order the preparation of a feasibility report.
Jessen moved and Abel seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~87-72 RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF A
REPORT ON IMPROVEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH
THE COUNTY ROAD 15 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
GARDEN LEASES
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Johnson to authorize the
Mayor and City Manager to enter into leases with Herman
..Schrupp, Ray Kramer and Leo Wallis to lease certain lots for
garden plots. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
5B
for on the subject.
Councilmember Jessen stated that she has had some com~faints
on exterior storage because of aesthetics and she wg~ld also
like to see this faction of the public represente/gat these
hearings.
Requesting ~hat the Planning Commission con~Lder the items
that have b~en discussed tonight giving /t~his item their
full attention~and thought and return it t~the City Council
by the first metering in August. The vote/was unanimously in
favor. Motion ~arried.
The City Engineer ga the prelimina cost estimate of what
Mound's participation uld be in this ect. He then reviewed
a very preliminary cost Lmate for
the project from C rce Blvd.
replacement of watermai from Fai
curb and gutter and conc ,e apro
There was discussion on
property for the added im~ s.
ing new street lights to
o Fairview Lane and the
Jew Lane to Fernside Lane,
storm sewer and sidewalks.
t to be assessed private
Jessen moved and Abel
RESOLUTION ~87-72
The City Engineer explained at a decision on the new street
lights and/or watermain re must be made by the City soon
because Hennepin County final plans to them by the
first part of June, if we are ~to have this included in the
County's plans for construc' \
The City Attorney sugges d that the next step would be for the
Council to order the pre ~ration of a",,feasibility report.
the following resolution:
\
\
RESOLUTION ORDERING THE PREPARATION OF A
REPORT ON NEW STREET LIGHTS AND/OR
WATERMAIN EXTENSION IMPROVEMENT IN
/ CONNECTION WITH ~HE COUNTY ROAD ~S
/ IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ·
The vote was una~mously in favor. Motion carried.
/
GARDEN LEASES /
MOTION madi by Smith, seconded by Johnson to authorize the
Mayor and City Manager to enter into leases with Herman
Schrupp, Ray Kramer and Leo Wallis to lease certain lots for
garden plots. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
April 14, 1987
AUTHORIZE SELLING CITY PROPERTY
The City Clerk explained that a property owner has requested that
the City sell him part of the Southwest 1/2 of Lot 16, Block 14,
Arden, which will be combine with adjacent property to make the
resident's property more conforming. The recommended selling
price is $400.00.
Johnson moved and Abel seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #87-73
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY
MANAGER TO EXECUTE A OUIT CLAIM DEED TO
SELL THE PART OF LOT 16. BLOCK 1~. ARDEN
The vo~e was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
The City Clerk explained that selling.Lots in Block 11 and part
of Lots in Block 10, Whipple will enable the owner of Blocks 15
and 16, Whipple to have access on an improved right-of-way, thus
allowing him to develop those blocks. The recommended selling
price is $2,482.72. The remaining special assessments will be
assessed over the nine remaining years of the assessment at 8~
interest on the unpaid balance, per year.
Abel moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~87-74
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY
HANAGER TO EXECUTE OUIT CLAIM DEED SELLING
CITY PROPERTY~ PID t25-117-24 12 0225
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
The City Clerk explained that an adjoining property owner is
interested in purchasing Lot 2, Block 13, Avalon. The City only
needs an utility easement on this property and it could be
reconveyed back to the State for sale to adjoining property
owners only. That is the recommendation.
· Jessen moved and Jansen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~87-75 RESOLUTION RECONVEYING (IF NECESSARY)
CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LANDS BACK TO THE
STATE AND REOUESTING THE COUNTY BOARD TO.
IMPOSE'CONDITIONS ON THE SALE OF SAID TAX
FORFEIT LANDS AND TO RESTRICT THE SALE TO
OWNERS OF ADJOINING LANDS
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
CITY ATTORNEY & PROSECUTING ATTORNEY ANNUAL REPORTS
The written reports were presented in the Council packet.
55
April 14, 1987
GAMBLING LICENSE. - VFW POST. #~113
The City Clerk explained that this license is issued by the State
and if there are no objections to the State issuing this license,
no action is necessary. No action was taken.
NO SMOKING POLICY
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Abel to designate "No
Smoking" in the City Council Chambers during public meeting~
except at the back conference table. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
DEFENSE & INDEMNITY OF CITY, COUNCIL MEMBERS, EMPLOYEES,
APPOINTED, OFFICIALS
The City Attornep explained the ordinance that he had written to
cover another municipality to relieve a major concern of many
commissioners (Park, Planning, etc.) and elected or appointed
officials that the City will defend, save harmless and indemnify
these people against any tort, claims, demand, whether groundless
or otherwise, arising out of an alleged act of omission occurring
in the performance of their duties. The Council discussed
Subdivision 4, Right to Personal Counsel.
The City Attorney suggested that he put the proposed ordinance in
formal form for Mound's Code and bring it back to the next
meeting for formal adoption. The Council agreed.
CDBG FUNDING REQUEST (YEAR XII FUNDS) FROM. WEST.ONKA INTERVENTION
The City Manager explained that he has received a proposal from
Westonka Intervention Project and has reviewed this with Hennepin
County CDBG. Larry Blackstad from Hennepin County stated that
this money would come from reallocated funds of Year XII but if
the City wanted to use more than $2,000 for this project, a
public hearing would be required. The City Manager recommended
that funding either stay at last year's level of $1,000 or be
increased to $2,000.
Jensen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~87-76
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ALLOCATION OF
$2,000 IN CDBG FUNDS FROM YEAR XII FOR
WESTONKA INTERVENTION PROJECT
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
They asked that Westonka Intervention present the Council with
semiannual verbal reports.
56
April 14, 1987
PAYMENT, OF B~LLS
MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jensen to approve the
payment of bills as presented on the pre-list, in the amount
of $129,369.73, when funds are available. A roll call vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
SET. PUBLIC HEARING, DATE
MOTION by Smith, seconded by Abel to set April 28, 1987, at
7:30 P.M. for a public hearing to consider the issuance of a
Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a fast food,
convenience, drive-in restautrant (Class II) located at 2330
Wllshire Blvd. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
March 1987, Monthly Reports as Prepared by the Department
Heads.
Be
Minnetrista's response to City Manager's letter of March 31,
1987, regarding Proposed Lake Minnetonka Regional Park.
Action Alert from the League of Minnesota Cities Regarding
and Election'Bill in the Legislature, Senate File #1341,
which everyone should oppose.
De
Another thank you letter to Ms. Grace Brunner and Ms. Eugenia
Petersen for their $50.00 donation for the purchase of
bullet-proof vests for the Police Dept.
An invitation to the next Mound City Days Meeting to be held,
Wednesday, April 22, 1987, at 7:30 P.M. Mound City Hall.
F. L.M.C.D. 1986 Financial Statement.
EXECUTIVe, S~S$ION
The City Council went into Executive Session at 9:35 P.M. to
discuss labor negotiations. They returned at 10:10 P.M.
UNION CONTRACTS
The City Manager explained that the other two labor contracts are
ready for the Council to consider for approval·
Abel moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~87-77
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND THE
CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A LABOR
AGREEMENT WITH THE MINNESOTA TEAMSTERS
PUBLIC AND LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES
57
April 14, 1987
UNION, LOCAL 320 - POLICE PATROLMEN
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Jensen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~87-78
RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY
MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A LABOR AGREEMENT
WITH THE LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICE,
INC., LOCAL 35 - LELS POLICE
SUPERVISOR/SERGEANTS
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Abel to adjourn at 10:20
P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried,
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Fran Clark, CMC, City Clerk
55
GAMBLING LICENSE - VFW PO,ST #5113
April 1~, 1987
The City Clerk explained that this license is issued.~by the State
and if there are no objections to the State issuin~'%Uis license,
no action is necessary· No action was taken·
NO SMOKIN~ POLICY ~ '/
MOTION made by Jen_~en, seconded by Abel to designate 'No
Smokingw in the City !Council Chambers ~during public meetings
except at the back conference 2~ble. The vote was
unanimously in favor. :~ Motion carrie~.
DEFENSE & INDEMNI~ OF CIT~ COUNCIL MEMBERS, EMPLO~,~ES, ~
APPOINTED OFFICIALS :~,
The City Attorney explained~he
cover another municipality~to
commissioners (Park, Planning
officials that the City will
these people against any tort,
or otherwise, arising out of a
in the performance of
Subdivision 4, Right to Pers,
The City Attorney suggeste
formal form for' Mound'
meeting for formal adopt
or, ~ce that he had written to
ieve a major concern of many
and elected or appointed
nd, save harmless and indemnify
aims, demand, whether'groundless
alleged act of omission occurring
duties. The Council discussed
Counsel.
that'~he put the proposed ordinance in
Code a~d bring it back to the next
· The"~ouncll agreed·
The City Manager ex
Westonka Interventi¢
County CDBG. Larr
this money would
the City wanted'
public hearing we
that funding ei
increased to $2
that he ~as received a proposal from
Project and has'reviewed this with Hennepin
Blackstad from R~nnepin County stated that
from reallocate~ funds of Year XII but if
use more than $2,000 for this project, a
d be required· Th~ City Manager recommended
r stay at last year's level of $1,000 or be
Jensen moved Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~87-7,7/ RESOLUTION APPRO~NG THE ALLOCATION OF ~; $2,000 IN CDBG FU~DS FROM YEAR XII FOR
~ WESTONKA INTERVENTI~ PROJECT
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
They asked that Westonka Intervention present the Council with
semiannual verbal reports.
56
April lq, 1987
PAYMENT,,,.,,,0F BILLS
MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jenson to approve the
payment of bills as presented on the pre-list, in the amount
of $129,369.73, when funds are available. A to, Ii, call vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
SET PUBLIC HEARING DATE /
MOTION by Smith, seconded by Abel to set April/28, 1987, at
7:30 P.M. for a public hearin5 to consider the/issuance of a
Conditional Use Permit for the operation df a fast food;
convenience, drive-inF_estautrant (Class II)/located at 2330
Wilshire Blvd. The v~te was unanimously ~n flavor. Motion
carried. ' \ //~
INFORMaTION/HISCELLANEOUS:~~ . // '
A. March 1987, Monthly Re~orts as Preps by the Department
Heads.
B. Mtnnetrista's response to~Clty Mans ~r's letter of March
1987, regarding Proposed L~e Minne Regional Park.
C. Action Alert from the Lea, nnesota Cities Regarding
and Election Bill in the ature, Senate File 113ql,
Which everyone should oppose.
Another thank you letter to
Petersen for their $50.00
bullet-proof vests for the Po
;race Brunner and Ms. Eugenia
ion for the purchase of
Em
EXECUTIVE SESSION
The City Council went into
discuss labor negotiations.
UNION CONTRACTS
An invitation to the next Mo
Wednesday, April 22, 1'987,
L.M.C.D. 1986 Financial St~
Cit~Days Meeting to be held,
7:30 ~,.M. Mound City Hall.
Executive SeSSion at
They returned a~lO:lO
9:35 P.M. to
P.M.
The City Manager explained that the other two l~bor contracts are
ready for the Council to consider for approval.~
Abel moved and Johnson seconded the following res~ution:
RESOLUTION ~87-7~ RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE ]4AYOR AND THE
CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A LABOR
~ AGREEMENT WITH THE MINNESOTA TEAMSTERS
PUBLIC AND LAW ENFORCEMENT EMPLOYEES
UNION, LOCAL 320 - POLICE PATROLMEN
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Jensen moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION {87-7~ RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY
~ MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A LABOR AGREEMENT
W~TH THE LAW ~NFORCEMENT LABOR SERVICE,
' IN~Q., LOCAL B5 - LELS POLICE
SUPE~SOR/S~GEANTS .
MOTION made by Jessen, seco~d by Abel to adjourn at 10:20
P.M. The vote was unanimousl~ in fays. Motion carried.
_
EdWard J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Fran ~Clark, CMC, .City Clerk
BILLS APRIL lq, 1987
Batch 87q033
Batch 87qO3q
Computer Run dated q/3/87
Computer Run dated q/9/87
33,715.q3
92,~8.97
Brad Landsman Reimb for hd~e-flre dept
First Trust St. Paul Bank Bond fee
Hartins 66 Auction proceeds
Reserves I~tg costs
13.92
q38.75
172.20
30.q6
TOTAL B ILLS
12~,369.73
Delinquent Water and Sewer
4-Z2-87
33 406 2700 32
33 439 2431 61
33 463 4725 91
33 463 4840 61
33 472 4543 73
33 472 4570 02
33 484 3113 51
33 487 4873 61
33 506 3135 82
33 518 4660 92
33 518 4709 41
33 518 4725 02
33 530 3137 44
33 530 4810 51
33 551 3087 71
33 554 3033 51
33 566 2914 11
33 569 4876 41
33 572 4864 41
33 ~75 4900 91
33 581 2873 81
33 587 4951 71
33 590 5125 11
33 593 4866 53
33 599 4535 31
33 599 4580 94
33 605 3235 66
33 608 3207 91
33 620 3105 O1
33 620 4556 32
33 623 5313 22
33 641 5226 82
33 647 5217 41
$100.99
91.74
72.84
125.54
101.41
80.59
228.62
123.47
138.61
92.88
90.27
117.79
103.71
89.72
110.56
115.33
115.40
98.24
153.69
110.34
72.85
110.49
74.78
143.04
72.84
59.50
117.50
118.29
157.31
115.51
97.76
89.OO
122.29
$3612.90
75 YEARS
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155
NOTICE OF HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT
TO WHOM IT HAY-CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Hound
will hold a public hearing 'in the Council Chambers'of the City Hall,
5341Maywood Road, at 7:30.P'M. on Tuesday~'April 28, 1987, t° conslder
extension of a.watermain in'vacated Laurel:Street located, in Rearrangement
of Block 10, Abraham Lincotn Addition to. Lakeside Park, pursuant, to
Minnesota Statutes, Section q19.Oll to q2~.111. The area proposed to
be assessed for such improvements is the property abutting the private
driveway easement located in'vacated Laurel Street (Lots 2 through 8,
Block 1 and L~ts 1 through 9, Block 2, Rearrangement of Block 10,
Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeslde Park). The estimated cost of such
improvement is $9,400.00. Such.pe~s°ns as desire to be heard with
reference to the proposed improvement will be heard at this meeting.
F. rancene C. Clark, CMC, City Clerk
Publish'in The Laker April'13 and'April 20, i987.
PID #
AMOUNT PROPOSED TO BE ASSESSED:
/0 'o
D
PRol=,o.~l= D 42'
C
/
/
/
/
/
/
I
SCALE I
/" = 50
FILE NO.
1~8'; Aerial P/~ofo
lC>q,?-.,
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOC., INC..
PROPOSED WATERMAIN EXTENSION
VACATED LAUREL STREET
MARCH,. 1987'
~~. McCombS-Knutson Associates, Inc.
12800 Industrial Park Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55441
612/559-3700
1-800-328-8,322 Ex1784
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
March 18, 1987
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
City of Mound
5~41 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
SUB3ECT:
Proposed Watermain Extension
Vacated Laurel Street
M<A #8234
Dear Council Members:
As requested, we are submitting a Preliminary Engineerin9 Report for the
extension of a watermain in vacated Laurel Street.
If you have any questions, or need any additional.information on anythin9
in this report, we will/be pleased to discuss this further with you at your
convenience.
Very truly yours,
McCOIV~S--KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Oohn Cameron
3C:jmj
Enclosure
~ENERAL
The City Council, on November'25, 1986, approved a variance to establish a
buildable parcel for par£ o? Lots 1, 2, 3, and ~, Blocks 1 and 2, ~earrangemen~
o? Block 10, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park (P.I.D. 13-117-24 ~l
0070). A copy o? the resolution is attached at the end o? this report. This
approval was subject to the condition that Public Works approve the utility
connections. Sanitary sewer service is no problem, because a main already
exists with a service ?or the property at the south lot line. Water service is
an entirely di??erent situation.
The only city waterm~in available to serve this parcel is located
approximately 300 feet to the south in Lynwood Boulevard. The two.existing
homes located on this private driveway are presently served by individual
copper lines. Public Works and ourselves are recommending that the City
install a city watermain parallel to the existing sanitary sewer main to not
serve, the parcel under question, but also two other builOable landlocked
parcels. These parcels all gain access to Lynwood Boulevard by way of private
driveway easements.
WATERMAIN
The proposed wate~main extension would be 4" minimum in size extended
parallel to the existin9 sanitary sewer, terminating with a hydrant at the most
northerly parcel. Individual services would be provided for Parcels B and D,
as identified on the enclosed drawing. Parcel E would receive two services
since this parcel is zoned R-~ and the Owner has expressed an interest in
building a duplex or twin home. The existing house located on Parcel C should
also be connected to the new main upon completion, thus eliminating a need for
the existing long copper service to Lynwood Boulevard. The home on Parcel F is
presently connected directly to the City Watermain in Lynwood Boulevard. The
addition of a hydrant would also enable the fire department to more adequately
provide fire protection for this area. Parcel A, which is also vacant, should
have a water service from the main in Lynwood Boulevard, but the records do not
indicate such. If no service exists, then this parcel should also be served
from the new main.
EASEMENTS
Easements across Parcels A, B, C, and E are necessary if this project is to
proceed as suggested. At the present time, the existing sanitary sewer is
centered in a 15 foot wide easement, which is not of sufficient size to
construct the watermain extension.
COSTS
The estimated cost of the proposed watermain extension as described herein
is $9,400.00. This cost is based on estimated 1987 construction cost, plus
for Engineering, legal, fiscal, and administrative costs. A detailed breakdown
of the cost is attached to this report. We have estimated it would cost
approximately $8,400.00, if the vacant parcels were served with individual 1"
copper services. To keep the cost of the proposed project in line with what 4
individual services would cost, we are proposing that the City pay any expenses
incurred over $8,400.00, which is approximately the cost of a hydrant.
/Oq ,
ASSESSMENTS
The total cost of the improvements (not to exceed $8,400.00) should be paid
by the properties benefitting from the improvement, therefore, it is proposed
that.Parceis B, D, and E be assessed this cost. It is suggested that Parceis B
and D each pay 25% of the cost or approximateiy $2,i00.00 each and Parcel E pay
50% or approximately $4,200.00. If Parcei A does not have an existing water
service and one is instalied under this project, then that cost shouid be
charged to Parcei Ao These costs could either be assessed at compIetion of the
project or deferred untii such time the parceis are buiit on and a service
connection permit requested.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
The estimated cost for this project is comparable to the combined cost of
four separate services. In addition to providing one city watermain resulting
in more economical maintenance and a better supply, a hydrant would be
included, which benefits both the property owners and the fire department;
therefore, we believe this project is feasible can best be completed as
described herein.
ESTIMATED COST
VACATED LAUREL STREET WATERMAIN EXTENSION
ITEH
4" D.I.P. Wate~main
4" Gate Valve
Tap Existing Wate~main
l" Water Service Groups
1" Copper Service Pipe
Hydrants
Restoration
Gram Found. ~4ateriai
Contingencies
ESTIMATED
QUANTITY UNIT PRICE
280 L.F. $ IO.O0/L.F.
2 EACH $~00. O0/EACH
LUM: SUM
5 EACH $ 60.O0/EACH
7.5 L,F, $ 7,00/L,F,
1 EACH $~00, O0/EACH
LUI~ SUM
50 TON $ 8.00/TON
Totai Estimated Construction Cost
Engineering, Legal, FiscaI and
Administrative Cost
Totai Estimated Cost
TOTAL
$2,800.00
$ ~oo.oo
$ ~oo. oo
$ ~oo.oo
$ ~2s.oo
$ ~oo.oo
$1,000.00
$ 4oo.oo
$ 67~.oo
$7,500.00
$i~00.00
$~,400.00
ioqf
C
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
--I
B ~ ~I~McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
' " 271 · .. November 25, 1
_
RESOLUTION NO.' 86 173 '..'
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE ~ VARIANCE TO' '
ESTABLISH A. BUIL~ABLE LOT FOR PART OF
, LOTS 1,2",3 ;;'q, IN BLOCKS 1.AND 2, ' .
· REARRANGEHENT OF BLOCK 10; ABRAHA~ ·
LINCOLN AOOITION TO LAKESIDE PARK.
PI0 # 13-117-2~'31 0070 ' "
-. '.' P & Z CASE NO. 8~-55q · '
!
i WHEREAS!'Jea~'-Graff, o~ner of property described as a lot In Bl.o..r~...1
and 2, Rearrangement.of Block 10,.Abraham Llncoln Addltlom_ to Lakesl. ee' rsrK,.
has ap~l led' for a va'rtan~e'to"'.estsbllsh a i4,000+_ square foot parcel as a
b, ul!.dable, lo.t' since the parc~el currently does not front om a.publlc .right-of-
way, and' · : ' " '.. " ' ' .'
· ; . ' ' : -
W~EREAS; the Hound City C'pde requires all to .
lots
contain
frontage
· ' ..leiERE/~S,'the Planning Commtsslon.'revle~ed..the re_quest :and re. co,~a, nded .
'granting the :' va r'I ance due to the 'fact 'that the City of I~o'und prewousW.
vacated Lau~;el ~;tree.t'~hlch pro'~ld~'d acces~ to the p~rcel thereby.establishing..
hardship under."Sectlon 23.506.1 of the l~ound .Zoning :ode:. ..
.'. ' NOW, THEE~F~RE, B~' IT RE$OLYEO, tls co .cl; of the Clty ~f ~k~und' l~lnne~
sota~ does 'hereby g~ant tl~i varlance 's~'bJect' to revle~ o.f 'the proposed ease
ment 'by the City Attorney to'provide access-to City utll~t'les f6r:
oar o£ aote 1 2, 2, z,o,ts 3 et'.
· vacated Laurel Street, ane or the vacated 12-£oot .a~le~ as. platted
bet~wen Lots 1, 2, 3, 4,.and 12 of said Block 1, Rearrangement of . ..
~loch 10,' ABraham Lincoln ~ddition to ~.akeside Pa~.k, desc~Abed aa
'follows; Beginning at the poizt of i~tersection of the' Eorth~e"sterly
line of said Lot- 2; .'Block 2, with a li~a dra~,~ parallel ~rlth and 75
feet Nor'.h of the l~or~h line of' Lot 4 o'f sate Block 2, as measures at..
· right azglos to sgid Eor~h lin'e; thence running ~ortheasterly'along :
the Nort~wbster. ly line of said .Lots 2 amd 1, B~o. ch. 2, to
~ortherly'corn~r of ~aid Lot 'll, thence rvnr. ing SoUtheasterly along
the Northeasterly line of said ~.o.t 1, Elook 2, and its' ext~ion
thereof to the most. Northerly corner, of 3,
Lot
?Lock
lI
thence"
.. continuing Southeasterly' along the. ~ortheasterly line of Said Lot 3,
BlocE.I~ to a point ~hich, is 82.~ fe~st'Soutbe~st,~r!y fro~ the.m~st
· :{orth. erX~ corner of said.. ~ot 1, Plo.k 2, -as :mas,red along th~ Eorth-.
easterly lines of said Lot 1, ELock 2, ard Lot 3, Bloc~ 1; thence
running Southwesterly 1~6 feet more or less to a .~oin% in a line
. ' dra~m parallel with a~d 7~ feet t~ortb of +.be Eorth ~ of Lot 4,
Block 2, extendod~ as measured at right an~lea t-~ said ~crth line~
' said point, also '~eing ~ feet Fagt as measured at right angles from
the East line of Laurel Street; thence running West parallel with
the Eorth line of 'said Lot 4, Elock 2, to the point of begin~Lng,
with a 50 foot Setback at ~est, 50 foot setback at north, 10 foot setbacks at
east and south property 11nBs from the pr;~cipal structure providing t~o
off street parking stalls. Public Works shall approve utility connections..
//OC ·
272
November
The foregoing resolution was moved 'by Councilmembe'r Smith and
seconded bY Councl 1.member Paulsen.
The following C6uncllme~bers voted In the affirmative:'
dessen, PaulSen, Peterson,. Polston and Smith.
The following Coun¢llmembers voted I~ the negative:
none,
Attest:
I101
RESOLUTION NO. 87-
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF A CLASS II RESTAURANT IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS
(B-l) DISTRICT AT 2330 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD (PID % 13 117 24 34
0072)
~AS, the City Council held a public hearing on April 28, 1987,
pursuant to Section 23.505 of the Mound Code of Ordinances 'to consider the
issuance of a conditional use permit for the installation of a Class II
restaurant (Domino's Pizza) at 2330 Wilshire Boulevard; and
WHEREAS, the proposed conditional use permit satisfies the criteria for
grantir~ conditional use permits as stated in Section 23.505.1 of the Mound
Code of Ordinances; .and
~EREAS, all persons wishing to be heard were heard; and
$~EAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does
recommend approval,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, that the conditional use permit is granted for the Class II
restaurant subject to the following condition:
· The restaurant shall secure all .appropriate licenses from the State Health
Department;
C ]'l'V OF HOUND
Hound, Ftl nnesota
CASE NO.
87-6Z~
NOTICE OF PUBLIC'HEARING TO CONSIDER'THE ISSUANCE OF
A CONDITIONAL USE PERFtlT FOR THE OPERATION
OF A FAST FOOD, CONVENIENCE,. DRIVE-IN RESTAURANT '(CLASS II)
LOCATED AT 2330 NIL SHIRE BOULEVARD
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that.on T~eadqy, Apri! 28, 1987, at 7:30 P.M. at
the City Ha11; $3ql Ha3nvood .Road,.'Hound, Hinnesota,-a hearing will be
held on the issuance'of a conditional, use. permit for the establishment
of a Class I! .restaurant-at 2330 Nllshire Boulevard..The proposed Use
~consis~s of a Dom!no~s Pizza, Inc. restaurant offering deliverY and
take-out food~.
All persons.appearing'at said hearing wi'l:1 be given the opportunity to
be heard. .'
Francene C. Clark, Cil:f Clerk
' //
3030 Harbor Lane North,
Suite 104
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441
612/553-1950
Planning Cc~nissicn and Staff
Y~rk Koegler, City Planner
Aprll 8, 1987
Oa~ditiofml Use Permit - Domino's Pizza
APPLZ~= Mark A. Saliterman
CASE NO= 87-623
V~S P~LE ~0= 87-310-A16-ZO
LOCATIOn= 2330 Wilshire Boulevard
~ ZOHIR~= Central Business (B-l)
(~ P~= O°mmercial
PROPOSAL= The applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to install a
Domino's Pizza Restaurant. Under a recent zoning ordinance change, fast food
restaurants (C/ass II) are allowed in the B-1 zone by Conditional Use Permit.
Domino's is proposing to locate in the Shoreline Plaza Center in the space
recently vacated by the Alpha Hair Center. The restaurant will employ 3 - 12
people during normal business hours and of this total, delivery drivers will
account for 2 - 7 people. Domino"s has indicated that 95% of their business is
from home delivery. They are not proposing tables for in-store consumption.
CO~TS= Shoreline Plaza contains adequate parking for both delivery vehicles
and customer usage. The proposed use is consistent with the criteria for
granting Conditional Use Permits and approval is recommended subject .to the
followin~ conditions=
1. All required county permits shall be obtained from the Health
Del~rtment.
2. Ail signage shall conform to the Mound Sign Ordinance.
I/o.I
The applicant shall identify the location for a screened trash
dumpster for review and approval by the Mound Building Official.
PLANNING COHHISSI~N HINUTES
Aprll 13, lg87
Case No. 87-623 Public Hearing for Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a
fast food,'convenience, drive-in restaurant (Class Il) at 2330 Wilshire Boulevard;
Lots 7-20 &.'26-35, ·including vacated alley, parking lot. and park; Block l, Shirley
Hills Unit F; PlO No. 13-117-2q 3q 0072 ..
Scott A..Thomson.of Oominoms Pizza was present.
Hark Koegler~, City Planner,.reviewed his.report which 'recommends granting .approval
Subject to-the three conditions he'lists. ·
The Commission questiOned.whether overnight parking should be allowed ~inCe there
was no.mention'of it-in the report. Hr. Thomson stated there would be one Company
vehicle left overnight. The drivers doing delivery use their own vehicles. The
Planner stated this a-rea was-more.auto oriented than downtown Commerce Square.
.He also stated that parking space in this.area has not 'been a problem. Smith
stated that parki. 6g lot should be lookedlat as people can't figure out hOW to park:
no striping or design for parking; Koegler stated our Ordinance does not require
that and perhaps, Since Domino's.are a tenant, Commission should address this to
the owner of the Shopping Center.
The.Chairman opened the public hearing; there was no.one present Who had comments
or questions; he closed the pu511c hearing.'
Heyer moved and Welland seconded a motion to recommend'to the' Council. staff
recorr~endations for approvat of the conditional.use.permit for'Domino~s Pizza.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
The public hearing by the Cbuncll will be set.for April 28, '1987.'
CITY OF HOUND
ION TO PLANNING & ZONING COHHISSION
· type the following information) '
1. Street Address of Property
2. Legal Description of Property:
AdditiOn Shirly Hills Unit F
3. Owner's Name ~rk A Saliterman
Case No. ~? ""1...~,,)
Fee Pald ~ ~ --
O~te FI led
2330 Wilshire Blvd
Lot 13-20:26-35
Uound. MN ~R6q
Block 1
PID No. 13-117-24-34-~h7~
Day Phone No.. 544-9603
Address 14001Ridgdale Drive Suite 200 Minnetonka~ MN 55343
Applicant (If other than owner):
Name. Domino's Pizza Inc.
Add)~ 3800 WlaOth Street Suite 1250
Type of Request:
Day Phone No. 896-3030
Bloomington, MN 55431
( ) Varlance (X) Conditional Use' Permit
( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review
( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.O.
( ) Amendment
( ) Sign Permit
( )*Other
*If other, specify:
Present Zoning District
B-1
7.' Existing Use(s) of Property'
l~aiJty Parlnr
Se
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? j~[$ If so, list date(s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken and ~rovi&e Resolution No.(s)
Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request.
I certify that a11'.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 offlclal of the City
of Hound for the purpose of Inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such
notices as may be'requiredlby
'.. "
: Signature Of Applicant . Date~'
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Date
Council Action:
IIO
Resolution No.
Date*
Procedure for Conditlonal Use Permit (2) Case # ~?-.j~
D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilltles, etc.
E. Indlcate North compass direction. ·
F. Any additlonal information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
III ,Request for a Condltlonal Use
A. All information requested below, a site plan as described' in Part II, and
a development schedule providing reasonable guarantees for the completlon
of the constructlon must be provided before a hearing ~111 be scheduled.
B. Type of 'development for ~vhich a Condltlonal. Use Permit Is requested:
1. Conditional Use (Specify): Pizza resturant, carry out and d~liwrv
~ only
2. 'Current Zonlng and Designation in. the' future Land Use Plan for Hound
Co Development Schedule:
1. A development schedule shall be attached to this appllcatlon providing
reasonable guarantees fo~ the completion of the proposed development.
2. Estimate Of cost of'the project: $. --55,000.00
O. DenSity (fOr residential developments only):
J. Number of structures:
2..Dwelling Units Per Structure:
a. Number of type:
Efficiency. '
2 Bedroom
3. Lot area per dwelling, unit:
4. Total lot area:
IV. Effects of the Proposed Use
! Bedroom
3 Bedroom
List impacts the proposed use will have on property.in the vlci~lty,
cluding, but not limited to traffic, noise, light, smoke/odor, parking,
and, describe the steps taken to mitigate or eliminate the impacts.
RESOLUTION NO. 87-
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A GONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, DOT SIZE VARIANCE
AND SETBACK VARIANCES FOR GRIMM'S STORE LOCATED AT 3069 BRIGHTON
BOULEVARD, PID NO. 24-117-24 430017.
WHEREAS, the City Council on April 14, 1987, held a public hearing
pursuant to Section 23.505 of the Mound Code of Ordinances, to consider the
issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a grocery store and
issuance of lot siz~ and setback variances for Grimm's Store; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is within the B-3, Neighborhood Business
Zone which allows ~rocery stores by Conditional Use Permit; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for recognition of existing lot size
and setback variances; and
WHEREAS, proposed improvements to the building will restore the building
to a safe condition and will not increase the bulk of the structure thereby
~complyinG with Section 23.404 of the Mound Code of Ordinances; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request; and
WHEREAS, all persons wishinG to be heard were heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVHD by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, that the Conditional Use Permit and the followinG variances are
hereby approved subject to a review by the City Engineer of the existinG
parkin~ area to ensure adequate inGress/e~ress.
Lot Area Variance - 7,000 square feet
Setback Variances:
North- 49 feet
South- 13 feet
East - 24 feet
West - 40 feet, 2 inches
Parking Stall Variance - 2 spaces
I/Oq
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 87-621
RESOLUTION 87-
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AND APPROVE A REAR YARD VARIANCE AND RECOGNIZE AN
EXISTING NONCONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR LOTS
16 AND 17, BLOCK 38, WYCHWOOD; PID #24-117-24 41 O157
(4932 Bedford Road)
WHEREAS, Mark Steven Jenks, owner of the property, has requested a
13 foot rear yard variance to allow .the construction of a 3 foot walkway to
an elevated 15.8 foot by 7.6 foot unenc.losed deck, add an addition to the
northeast side of the structure of~24 by 22 foot, recognize an existing non-
conforming 4.8 foot rear yard, . '.". --.and a 15.1 foot front yard set-
back to Bedford Road; and
WHEREAS, the City Code requires a 6,000 square foot lot area, a
15 foot rear yard, 30 foot front yard to Bedfprd Road, and 30 foot front
yard to Brighton Boulevard and a 10 foot side yard to the north in the R-3
two family residential district; and
WHEREAS, the property described has an existing 4.8 foot rear
yard, a 15.1 front yard adjacent to Bedford Road; and
WHEREAS, the P.lanning Commission has reviewed the request and does
recommend recognizing the existing nonconforming front yard setback and rear
yard setback upon the condition that the walkway, be elevated only to 30 inches
above grade within five feet of the'Property line and that the elevated deck
remain in line With the'existing'structure, and does recommend the proposed
'24 by 22'foot.addition with Conforming setbacks to the property line.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED. that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota., does'hereby approve the recognition of the 15.1 foot front
yard setback,.the]4,8 foot rear yard setback, to allow a variance for con-
struction of a 12.8 foot by 7.6. foot elevated unenclosed deck within 5 feet
of the west property line.,'and a 24 by 22 foot addition to the dwelling with
conforming setbacks to the Property lines for Lots 16 and 17, Block 38, Wych-
wood; PJD No, 24-117-24 41 O157 (4932 Bedford Road).
CASE NO. 87-621
TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official ~
Planning Commission Agenda of April 13, 19
CASE NO. 87-621
APPLICANT: Mark Steven Jenks
LOCATION: 4932 Bedford Road
LEGAL DESC.: Lots 16 & 17, Block 38, Wychwood; PID No. 24-117-24 41 0157
SUBJECT: Rear Yard Setback Variance
EXISTING ZONING: R-3 Two Family Residential
The applicant, Hr. Jerks, is requesting a variance to allow an attached deck with
walkway 15.8 feet by 7.~ feet and a proposed 22 by 24 foot addition to the east and west
side of the existing dwelling.
The R-3 Zoning District requires 6,000 square foot lot area for a single family
home. The lot area for his parcel is 8,250 square feet+. Even though the struc-
ture is addressed off of Bedford Road, Brighton Boulevar'-d is the shortest dimen-
sion on the two abutting right-of-ways. Brighton Boulevard, therefore, is the
designated front yard for Lots 16 and 17. Therefore, the front yard setback from
BrightOn Boulevard. is required to be 30 feet, the front, yard setback from Bedford
Road is to be 30 feet, the rear. yard. to the West is required to be 15 feet, and
the side yard to the north is required to be 10 feet. The existing structure has
a 4.8 foot rear yard and the required is 15 feet. The south Bedford setback is
~5.1 feet and the required is 30 feet.
The applicant, has started construction on a walkway and deck prior to the appli-
cation for the variance. Adeck may be constructed within ten feet of the rear
lot line and the proposed deck would be two feet+ from the rear lot line. How-
ever, Zoning Code Section 23.408(3)b allows terra'-ces, steps, and uncovered
porches, stoops and similar structures, which do not extend in elevation above
the height of the ground floor elevation of the principal building and do not
extend a distance of less than 2 feet from any lot line. Possibly the applicant
could construct the walkway at grade into the hill going to the north within two
feet of the lot line and than have a stairway from grade up to an elevated deck
stepped back ten feet from the property line at the west. The proposed addition
to the structure of 22 by 24 for livi.ng space will have conforming setbacks to
the Zoning Ordinance. The addition and the existing house would bring the struc-
ture to a conforming 928 square feet of floor area. The minimum floor area re-
quirement is 840 square feet for single family home.
RECOMMENDATION: The staff recommends approval of the proposed 22 by 24 foot addi-
tion to bring the structure to minimum floor area requirements, recognize the
existing 15.1 foot front yard setback and 4.8 foot rear yard setback. Staff
recommends that the deck walkway be reduced to 30 inches or less from the existing
grade within 4.8 feet to 10 feet from property line allowing a stairway to a
raised deck 10 feet from the rear lot line or west side of the property.
The abutting neighbors have been notified.
This will be referred to the City Council on April 28, 1987.
IIII
PLANNING COHHISSlON HINUTES
April 13, 1987
BOARD OF APPEALS
1. Case No. 87-621 Rea.r yard setback.variance'for 4932'Bedford Road
Lots 16 and-17,'Block. 38, Wychwood'
Hark Jenks was present.
The Building 0fflclal,.J~n'Bertrand, reviewed'the request for a variance to
allow Hr~ .denks to construct an attached, deck t5.8 feet by 7.6 feet with walk-
way and a.proposed'addl.t!on22 by 24 feet.to the east and west sides of the
existing dwelling. Brighton BOulevard Is.the.front of the existing 'dwelling
because It ls the narrowest side of. the.lot..The.Bedford'street setback is .15.1
feet and the required setback'ln, the.-R-3 District is 30 feet to both streets.
A deck ls~11owed to be.within ten-feet, of' the rear lot line (west). 'The pres~
ent deck l.s.bel.ng.constructed at .1.8 feet to,the rear 'llne.. She commented the
2oning Code al~'ows uncovered .terraces, porches,.stoops notextending above"
height of princlpai building ground floor to *be within 2.feet of the lot llne.
She stated possibly appl-icant could..con~truct walkway at grade level Into hill
and than have.a stairway up to'.the elevated deck .10 feet back from.the west prop-
erty llne,.. Staff Is.recon~ending'approval of a 22-by 24 foot addltion wlth con-
.forming setbacks (.this would bring dwelling to over the' min[mum 840 square fOOt
floor area) and recognize the existing 15.1 foot front yard setback to Bedford
and the 4.8 foot.rear yard setback upon the condition walkway be constructed
within 30 inches of grade with'a stairway 'to a raised deck 10 feet from the
west lot line.
The Commission discussed t'he proposal and that the proposed Walkway and deck
was intensifying the nonconformity and that a portion of the deck would have to
be moved and walkway, would not be. leve! wlth deck if staff's recommendation
approved.' It was suggested the best solution would be for applicant to approach
neighbor to purchase.part of Lot'l$.
Hr. Jenks stated his house was. buitt in 1950 and there had been a step for this
door which extended out a couple of feet. He didn't think' he could purchase
more land; he needed his money to complete the addition. The CommiSsion asked
him if he would be Inclined to have walkway at grade (30 inches or"less) and
have steps'going up to deck? The Building Offlcial stated steps could be in the
setback space, but not c'lose~ than'2 feet to line. Jenks said it would be a lot
of work, but was agreeable.
Michael'moved and Welland seconded a motion to recommend to the Council approv-
Ing with the staf-f recommendatlon the.proposed 22 by 24 foot addition to bring
· the structure to minimum floorarea requirements, recognize the existing 15.1
foot front yard'setback and.4.8 foot rear yard setback; staff recommends that
the' deck walkway-be reduced to' 30 inches or less from the existing grade.
The vote'was unanimouslY in favor. ·
Thls will be referred to the Councll for the April 28, 1987 meeting.
CITY OF HOUND
APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COHMISSION
(Please type the following Information)
Case'No.
Fee'Paid ..5"~. ~ a
Date Flled~~7
1. Street Address of Property 4932 Bedford rd.
2. Legal Description of Property: Lot 16 &17 '
Block ~8
Add i t I on Wychwood
PID No. 24-117-24410157
3. Owner's Name Mark Steven Jenks
Address 4932 Bedford Rd.
Day Phone No. 472-7857
Applicant (if other than owner):
Name
Address
Day Phone No.
Type of Request:
(X) Variance ( ) ConditiOnal Use Permit
( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review
( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D.
(.) Amendment
( ) Sign Permit
( )*Other .'
e
*If other., specify: .
Present ~:oning District 'R3 2 family'
Exlstlng Use(s) of Property. s:Lngle £a~±ly home
8. Has an application ever been made for zoning6 variance, or conditional use permit or
.other zoning procedure for thls property? If so, llst date(s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s)
Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request.
I certify that ali of the ~bove 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, or of posting, maintaining and removing such~
notices as may be required by law.
· Signature of Appllcant
Date
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Date
Councll Action:
Resolution No.
,
Date
, (2) Case
Request for Zoni.ng Variance 'Procedure
D.
E.
.Fo
Location of: Signs, easements; underground, utilities, etc.
indicate North compass direction
Any addltlonal Information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
'and applicable Sectlons of the Zoning Ordinance.
III. Request for a*Zonln9 Variance* ~
A. All...informat10n. below~'a site plan, as described. in Part II, ana' general
ppplicatlog, mus~ be pro¥lded before a hearing w111 be scheduled.
B. Does' the* pr~nt ~s' of'. ~he ~rop~rt~· c~nfor~ to all '~e' ;eg~lations .for
the zone dlst~l*c~In'which'It Is located? Yes (z) 'No (...)** - ~'
If !'no", specify each ~on-conformlng use:'
because I have asingle family home.
C0
for the zone district in which l't Is.located? Yes ( ) No (x)
I f "no", specl fy 'each non-conforming use:
The house ~as onl? ~00 so. ft. of 1~*~_~ ~_~.~._
D.' Which unique physical characteristics of the sub~ect property prevent Its
reasonable use for any of the .uses .permitted In that zoning district?
( ) .Too narrow (x.) Topography ' ( ) Soil
( ) 'Too. small .. ( ) Drainage. ( ) Sub-surface
( ) Too shall.o~. (x) Shape ( . ) Other.' Specify--
Twoh~l~o~et~a~l~l~l~.c~lose to ~he property line and .~he deck
Do the existing structures comply with all area' height and bulk regulatlons
E®
Was the hardship d~scribed'ab°ve created by the action of ~nyone having
property.Interests In the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted2
Yes ( ) No (z) If yes, explain:
F. Was the hardship created by'any"other man-made change, such as the reloca-
tlon of a road? Yes (.) No (z) 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 (z) No ( )
If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? ,
He
What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations'
that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, uslng
maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanatlon. Attach additional
sheets, if necessary.)
answer on the '.'other. side
Will granting'of the varlance be materially detrimental to property in the
same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
no
Certificate of Survey for
MarkS. Jenks
of Lots 16 and 17, Block 38, WYCHWOOD
Hennepin County, Minnesota
,¢
I hereby certify that.this is a true and correct '
representation of a survey of the boundaries of
Lots 16 and 17, Block 38, WYCHWOOD, and Of:the'location of all existing
buildings, if any, thereon, It does not purport to show any other improvements
or encroachments.
COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC.
Scale:
Date ·
0 ' '
Datum:
1 inch : 30 feet
February 18, 1987
Iron marker
Spot elevation
Mean sea level
(Mound City sewer)
Mark S. Gronberg MN. Lic. No. 12755
Gordon R. Coffin MN. Lic. No. 6064
Engineers, Land Surveyors, Planners
Long Lake, Minnesota
.!
.%
COMMON
· CASE N0..87;621: ' "
I~I:taOB~LA
LA ~..
3030 Harbor Lane North,
Suite 104
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441
612/553-1950
d.,-.-- /7- 4 ,%,c'
TO: Planning Co~missicn and Staff.//
PROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner ~-
DATE: April 8, 1989
SUBJ: Lot Area Variance Request
AP[~ICANT: James J. and Josephine Sharp
CASE NO: 87-625
V~S FILE NO: 87-610-A19-ZO
IDCATION: Glen Flyn Road
EXIST]/9~ ZONING: Single' Family Residential (R-l)
~SIVE PLAN: Residential
PROPOSAL: The applicant is seekin~ a variance from the lot area requirements of
the R-1 zone. Lot 22 contains approximately 5120 square feet and Section
23.604.5 of the Mound Zoning Code requires 10,000 square feet of lot area.
OOMMENTS: Lot 22, Block 4, is located in the Three Points area which was
analyzed in September of 1985 as a part of the zoning review in the Shadywood
Point area. As the enclosed map indicates, approximately 44% of the parcels
within the Three Points area are non-conforming. After discussion, the City
Council decided tm review variances' within this area on a case by case basis.
The applicant stated that the lot was originally acquired through tax forfeiture
in 1960. Zoning of the lot at that time is unknown despite a review of Mound's
records and investigation by Orono city staff. (The Shadywood Point/1~
Points area was part of Orono prior to annexation in December of 1963.) Despite
the fact that the history is unknown, Lot 22 is classified as a Lot of Record.
Under Section 23.403 of the Code, "a Lot of Record in a residential development
may be used for single family detached dwelling purposes provided the area
thereof meets al/ setback and minimum lot area requirements." Lot 22 does not
meet the area requirements.
///'/
Based upon strict application of the zoning ordinance, staff does not feel that
this request presents a legitimate case for granting a variance. If a variance
is not granted, the only potential use of the lot is to combine it with one of
the adjacent [~rcels. Most of the surrounding parcels either presently contain
existing homes or are planned for future home construction. Lot 5, which is
imediately south of Lot 22, c~oes not present/y contain a structure and is also
undersized. The combination of Lots 5 and 22 would result in a parcel which
would .satisfy the lot area requirements of the zoning code.
RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the fact that the subject request does not meet the
ordinance criteria for the issuance of variances, staff recommends denial. The
Planning Commission may want to again, address possible comprehensive measures
of alleviating this and similar variance requests in the future.
PLANNING COHMISSION MINUTES
April 13, 1987
Case. No. 87-625 Lot size vQriance, for 4925 Glen 'Elyn Road
Lot 22,.B1oqk 24; ShadywoodPoint; PID No..13-117,24 11 0097
Paul Larson, Merrill Lynch..Real~Y, was present for Mr. & Mrs.' Sharp"
Mark'Koegler reviewed his.¥eport on this request for a lot size.-~ariance;..Lot
22 contains approximately 5120 squaTe'feet o~ about SlX'of the lot area ~equire-
merit. C!ty Code al.lows lots of.record to be used for single family d~elling pur-
poses providing, area .meets all setback and minimum lot area requirements. In r
1985, Council Studied non-conforming:parcels.wi, thin Three Points and decided to
review var]adces On a case by case basis.. Staff is recommending denial of the -.
variance.
The following persons wholare'o~ners of abUtting properties were opposed to
"shoehorning a.house.into that 'lot"': Bill Carrow, Gerald Tasa,.Ernle Strong
and Richard DeGuise.
The COmmission'discussed and had various questions on setbacks, etc.. 'The-Plan-
ner had Commented that Lot 5 might be availab)e to be combined with Lot 22 to
meet the area requirementJ Mr. Strong stated that the same person o~ed Lots
5 and 6 and if Lot 5 went with Lot 22, than Lot 6 would be undersized.
Smith moved and Sohns seconded a motion mo~ing the staff recommendation for
denial. The vote was unanimously, in favor. It's not a hardship as has no home.
This will be on the Council agenda of April 28, .1987.'
II
I
· Three Poin:[s
- Area 2
Total Parcels - 110'
Conforming Parcels - 62 - 56%
~Non-conforming Parcels - 48 - 44%
/4~25 Glen' Elyn Road
1. Street Address of Property,,
2. Legal Description of prOperty.· Lot
Addition S~OO~ POI~ ~e~e~tn ~ouBg7 PI~ No.
CITY OF HOUHD.
APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZOXING COHHISSIOX
{Please type the follo~|ng Information)
Los Angeles,
Address 1200 North Avenue
Applleant (if other 'than owner):
Name - -
Address
Case
~ Block 24
13-117=2~ 11 0097.
Day Phone No~_21.3) L:~,~. 0088
Calif.- 90011~
Day Phone No.
Type of R~quest:
(
*If other, specify:
6, .Present Zoning District
7.
8.
Zone
(X) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit
( ) Zoning Interpretation S Review
· ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D.
( ) Amendmen{
.( ) Sign Permit
)*Other
R-1 (Thru the grapevine, w e hear that this is an
· "UNBUILDABLE LOT) Never had any official Notice
Existing Use(s) of Property to this e~fect and have been paTin~ TAXES fo~-a !
' improvements since acquri.n.g. DEED July 1~1~60.
Has an application ever been made f'or zoning, variance, or conditional u~e permit or
· other zoning procedure for this property? ~TO If so, list date(s) of
list date(s) of'application, act[on taken and provide Resolution No.(s)
Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request.
notices as may be required by law. _ .
.Signature of Applican~ ~TT/JFSHA~'~L'~JO~~P~i~": ~tigtL~ ~
Planning Commission Re'Rginn~'nd~a..L[en~
I certify that all of the-above statementsand the statements contained ~n 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 appllcatlon by any authorized officlal of the City
of Hound for the purpose of Inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such
Date
Date q-13-87
Council Action:
,Resolution No.
II,,).t
Date
R E C E i V E D~;AR 3 4 1987
1200 N. AvaNu~ ~4 · Los ANG~Li~$~ C~LI~. 90042 · CLmTO~ ~-3~28
CL~TO~ ~-6088
March 19, 1987
OUR SPECIALTY:
COMPLETE I~PAIE DEPT.
CO~~G ~ )OBB~G
Rt~idv~li~
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minn. 55364-1687
Atten~X~nt
Jan Bertrand
Building Official
Dear Ms Bertrand:
RE: Lot 22, Block 2~
Shadywood Point;
PID #13-117-2~11 0097
Cit~ of Mound, Minn..
Thank you for your enclosures of 2/~/87 and we now attach
completed and signed APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING
COMMISSION, together with our checkfor $50.00, the required
fee for a Zone Variance.
Please keep us informed and for your information, we expect
to be in Minneapolis on April 6 and 7th, and if necessary
we can arrange an appointment with your Department.
Eours truly,
JJS:jas ~
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 87-626
RESOLUTION NO. 87-
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO APPROVE A 9 FOOT REAR YARD VARIANCE FOR WEST 1/2
OF LOT 54, WHIPPLE SHORES, PID # 25-117-24 21 OI54
WHEREAS, Mr. J. Thomas Lepisto, owner of property described as
that part of Lot 54, WhiPple Shgres, which lies westerly of a line drawn
southeasterly from a. point on,the northerly line of said Lot 54 to a point
in the souther]y line of said Lot 54 distant 83. l feet westerly of the
southeast corner of said Lot 54, PID#25-117-24 21 O154 has applied for a
variance in rear yard setback in order to construct a new dwelling; and
WHEREAS, Exhibit "B'Lhas also been submitted to indicate the
requested setbacks to lakeshore of plus 50 feet, 20 feet to the improved
right-of-way known as Waterbury Road, 6feet to the south rear yard, and
50.to 65 feet setback from the east side property line; and
WHEREAS,~the City Code requires a 50 foot lakeshore setback, 15
foOt rear yard setback,.20 foot front yard setback for lots of record in the
R-1 district with lot'depths from 60 feet or less,-and side yards of 10 feet;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning COmmission has reviewed the request and does
recommend approval due to~.the shallowness and topography of the property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE ~T RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the requested rear yard 9 foot vari-
ance as shown on Exhibit "B" for that part of Lot 54, Whipple 'Shores which
lies westerly of a line drawn Southeasterly. from a point on the northerly
)ine of said Lot 54 to a. point in the souther]'y line of said Lot 54 distant
83.1 feet westerly of the southeast corner of said Lot 54, PID # 25-117-24
21 0154.
TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
FROM: Jan Bertrand, Bui]ding Official
Planning Commission Agenda of April 13, 1987
CAS[ NO. 87-6Z6
CASE NO. 87-626
APPLICANT: J. Thomas Lepisto
LOCATION: 5325 Waterbury Road
LEGAL DESC.: West I/2 of Lot 5q,'Whipple Shores; PID # 25-117-2~ 21 01~q
SUBJECT: Rear Yard Variance
'EXISTING ZONING: R-1 Single Family
The applicant is requesting 'to construct a dwelling within 20 feet of Waterbury
street f~ont; 6 foot rear yard on ~outh side; plus 50 feet to lakeshore west.side;.
and plus 10 foot side yard on east side.
The Zoning Code Section 23.301(65) defines the Lot Line FrOnt as abutting on
existlng or dedicated public street and (63) defines Lot Depth as the mean hori-
zontal distance between front lot line and rear lot line of a lot.
The R-T-Zoning District allows a front yard for lots of reco~d, with a lot depth
from 60 feet or less,..of 20 feet, a rear.yard of 15 feet, lakeshore setback.of
50 feet and side yard of 10 feet.
COMMENTS: In 1981, the approved subdivision, Resolution No. 81-127, created one
parcel of 8,082 square feet+_, and one parcel of 10,092 square feet+.
In 1985, this same rear yard setback'request was approved by the City'Council~
The attached site plan marked "Exhibit A" shows how a structure could be placed
on the property. .
The app]icant is showing a 50 to 65.foot'-setback from the east si'de property line,
20 feet to the north at Waterbury, and-a 6 foot setback to the south.
RECOMMENDATION: Due to topographY and shallowness of the lot,' a 9 foot rear yard
variance, could be approved subject to the City Engineer's approval of site grading
and Watershed District permits.
The abutting neighbors have been notified.
This will be referred to the City Council on April 28, 1987.
JB/ms
PLANNING COHHISSlON MINUTES
April 13, 1987
Case No. 87-626. Rear yard.~ariance for 5325 Waterbury Road
West 1/2 of Lot 5~,.Whipple. Shoresi PIO.25-117-2~ 21015~
Applicant,' J. Thomas Lepjsto, was present.:
The Bu|lding Offlc~.al.revlewed'her'report. on this request stating the Commission
has seen it before. .The'lot was subdivided'in 1981'and In 1.985, the Councll ap-
proved ~the same rear yard variance· Of 9 feet'to, allow dwelling. 6 feet to the south
lot line,' That applicant ha~'slnce Passed away. The'attached ~'Exhibit A" site
plan shows how'a s-tructure~.co~ld'be placed'on the property..' Due to the topography
and 'shallowness. of lot, a 9 foot rear yard variance could be approved subject to
the City Engineer's approval of site grading and Watershed District permits.
The Commission questioned, if our present ordinance Was in effect when this was
subdivided (it was done before), .The Building Official stated that·because of
the ~teepness of Waterbury., her suggestion ls to grant, the variance to get the
home a little farther from the street~ Neighbor to.th~ south has no objections
to t.he variance.
Jensen moved and Andersen'secondedrecommending granting the Staff recommenda-
tion. The vote Was unanlmously in favor.
This will. be referred to-the Councll April 28, 1987.
~<~~~?~TO PLANNING S ZONING COHHISSlON '
(Please type the fo116wlng lnfor~tlon)
Street Address of Property ~ ~~~~ ~o~ , ,
Applicant (if other than owner):
Case'No. ~7 -" ~G
Type of Request:
(~) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit
( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review
( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D.
(') Amendment
( ) Sign Permit
( )*Other
*If.other~, specify:
Present Zoning District
.Existing Use(s) Of Property
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property7 ~E~' If so, list da__te(s) of
l is/~: date(s) of application, action taken and provide. Resolution No.(s) )r.~-~.
ff' ' - '
Copies of previous resoluttons 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 descr'ibed In this application by any authorized official of the City
of Hound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such
notices as may be required b' law.
Signature 6f Appl
Date
Planning Commission R&commendation:
Date
Council Action:
Resolut Ion No.
Date '
Request for Zoning Variance Procedure
(2) ·
D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
E. Indicate North compass dlrectlon
.F.' Any addltlonal information as may reasonably be required by the Clty 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 '11, and general
.application must be provided before a hearing wi11 be scheduled.
B. ODes 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 n~n-conforming use:
Ce
OD the existing structures comply wlth all area height and bulk regulatlqns
for the zone district In which l't Is.located? Yes ( ) No'( )(Y./a'r- ~l~/aLic~
If ""no', specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physlcal characteristics of the subject property prevent its
reasonable use for any of the.uses.permitted In that zoning district?
( ) .Too narrow ()~) Topography ( ) Soil
( ) Too. small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface
.(;;~ Too shallow (.) Shape. ( ) Other: Specify:
E..Was the hardship d~scribed above created by the action of anyone having
property Interests in the land after 'the Zoning Ordinance was adopted?
Yes (~) No ( ) If yes, explaln: F~PS~r~ /-~(~4~ ~ --
F. Was the hardship created by'any'other man-made change, such as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes ( ) No ~-%,) If yes, explain:
G®
Are the conditions of hardship for'which you request a variance peculiar
only to the property described In this petition? Yes .'(;)<;} No ( )
If no, how many other properties are similarly affected?
H. What Is the ""minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulatlons
that wlll permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using
maps, site plans wlth dimensions and written explanation. Attach addltlonal
sheets, If necessary.) _
variance-/
I.
same zone, or' to the enforcement of this ordinance?
RESOLUTION NO. 85-23
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR ~ITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO APPROVE A 9 FOOT REAR YARD VARIANCE FOR WEST 1/2
OF LOT 54, WHIPPLE SHORES, PIP #25-117-24 21 0154
WHEREAS, Hr. Ca! Haasken, the owner of property
described as that part of Lot 54, Whipple Shores, which lies
westerly of a line drawn southeasterly from a point on the
norther!y !!ne of said Lot 54 to a point in the southerly line of
said Lot 54 dis'rant 83.1 feet westerly of the southeest corner of
said Lot 53, 'PIP ~25-117-24 21 0154 has applied for a variance in
rear yar setback in .order to construct a new dwelling; and
%'HEREAS, Exhibit "Bi' has also been submitted to indicate
the re. quested setbacks to lakeshore of plus 50 feet, 20 feet to
the improved right-of-way known as Waterbury Road, 6 feet to tko
south rear yard, an.d 50 to 65 feet setback from the east side
property line; and
WHEREAS, the City Code requires a 50 foot lakeshore
setback, 15 foot rear yard setback, 20 foot front ya.rd setback
for lets of record in the R-1 district with lot depths from 60.
feet or ]ess, and side yards of 10 feetl; and
.WHEREAS, the Planning Commission h~s reviewed the
,ue:3~ and does recommend approval due to the shallowness and
topogl apli'y-of the property.
NCW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the C~.ty of' Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the requested
rear :'ard 9 foot variance as shown on Exhibit "B" for .that part
of Lo,: 54, Whipple Shores which lies westerly of a line drawn
south,~aater!y from a point on the northerly line of said Lot 54
· to'a ~.oilt in the southerly line of said Lot 54 distant 83.1 feet
west,?!,., of the southeast corner of said Lot 54, PIP.#25-117-24
2i 0i ~4 .'
The foregoing resolution was moved by Counci!member
Paterson and seconded by Councilmember Paulsen.
The following Couhcilmembers voted in the-affirmative:
Jessen, Paulsen, Paterson, Polston and Smith.
The following Counci!members voted i.n the negative:
none.
Mayor
~.~est: City Clerk
March 21, 1987
To whom it may concern:
After reading the Resolution #85z. 23, I do not have any
objections to the re-approval of the granting of a nine
foot rear-yard variance on the described property at
3301 Warner.
signed
signed
ADDRESS
Date
March 21, 1987
To whom it may concern:
After reading the Resolution #85-23, I do not have any
objections to the re-approval of the granting of a nine
foot rear-yard variance on the described property at
3301 Warner.
signed ~ ~ Date3~ ~~
signed Date
ADDRESS
;"dr
Ideal Home for a Narrow Lot
FRONT VIF ~,'
BEDROOM
,~ r.,, o' $~ BEDROOM
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
· ROOM I I
~:~ ~-. · ·
1FI~v~
PLAN 1427-3A
Plans 1427-3A & 1427-3B
'M
/ Y& ,.,: ..
//~-3
3030 Harbor Lane North,
Suite 104
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441
612/5,53-1950
Planning Cor=ission and Staff
l~rk Koegler~ City Planner
April 8, 1987
Variance Request
APPLI~: Mik~ and Judy Gardner
CASE. No: 87-627
VHS FILE NO:. 87-310-A18-ZO
F~OCATION: 1599 Bluebird Lane
~xT.~C/N~ ~0NING: Single Family Residential (R-2)
(~ PLAN: Residential
PROPOSAl,.- The applicant is proposing to construct a second floor on top of an
existin~ single story residence. The current structure contains 1189 square
feet and the proposed addition will approximately double the existing floor
a~,
The existing structure COntains side yard setbacks of 4 feet and 7 feet, The
'exiSting rear yard setback ranges from 13,5 feet tm 14,7 feet, The Zoning-Code
requires a 15 foot rear..yard setback.; -a ~10- foot-side yard setback along, the_ _..
south and a 6 foot side yard setback along the north. Application of the Zoning
code results in the requested 1,5 foot rear yard variance and a 2 foot side yard
variance along the northern property line and a 3 foot side yard variance along
the southern property line,
COMMENTS: The existing structure is non-conforming due to inadequate side and
rear yard setbacks, The ordinance forbids alteration of non-conforming
residential units when the improvements increase the bulk of the buildi.ng, A
doubling of the floor area obviously increases the bulk of the building,
This property was the subject of a previous variance request in 1975. In that
request, apuroval was sought for a rear yard variance (then referred to as a
front yard variance due to the lake) to construct an addition to the house. The
proposed variance was denied by the City Council due to a lack of hardship due
to the applicant's ability to construct an addition elsewhere on the lot.
RE~~ATION: Based uDon applicatio~ of ordinance criteria, staff recommends
denial of the subject variance request due to the lack of actual hardship.
//35
PLANNING COHHISSION HINUTES
April 13, 1-987
Case no. 87-.627 Variance request for 15~9 Bluebi. rd Lane
Lots 18 and 1~',' Block 6, 14oodland Point; PID No. 13-117-2q 12 0128
Hike Gardner~was present. . . .
The City Planner Hark Koeg'ier- reviewed hls.'report stating the proposed second "
f'loor will approximately double.the existing floor area. He exp.lained the existing
setbacks and the required.setbacks. Application of the Code would result in a
1.5 foot rear yard variance, a 2 foot side yard variance on the north and a 3 foot
side yard variance on the south property iine. The Ordinance forbids the'altera-
tion of nonconforming resldential units when improvements increase the bulk of
the building. .As there is additional space to add onto the front., the staff
recommends denial due to lack of actual hardship.
Hr. Gardner stated' house wou.ld~look-l.lke a barn if addition made on Blueblrd side;
he also wants to add a garage. '.He stated that originally the house had a second
floor'and a former owner tore ir'off. He'thought the home with a second floor
would fit-Into .the neighborhood .and meet his needs best. House has been a rental;
but he is'buying'and wants to fix it up to live in.
Barb Hesserlch, neighbor to the north, stated the house needs improvement. She
thinks if he builds.long way, it would look like a box car. Her concern is having
his eave (comes out about 18+ inches)'.over her flag stone'retaining wall .causing
damage and washing out and eroding the wall away,
The Commission discussed request;'one of the items questioned was whether found'a-.
tion would support proposed addition. Concern was expressed .for the integrity
of the ordinance and that Commlssion'is here to treat everybody the same.
Hlchael ~hought anytime an indiv.idual wants to buy and fix up a house, we ought
to try to work with'him and stated we ought to.look at. the ordinances. Smith
thought fire access should be considered as part of setback which would in essenc~
give him additional 15 feet or 22 feet on the one side and 2 foot variance on
other side. Welland agreed with considering access as part of ~etback; his concern
was for the neighbor on the north, densen has a hard time seeing where the
hardship ls, but stated a recent approval was.given on the basis of "practical
difficulty" (Section 23.506.1 of the Code).
The Chairman stated that if proposal were to be allowed, the property should
be Cleaned up. He.mentioned an unlicensed vehicle, trash,'accessory building.
etc. The staff asked that three issues be addressed if approval were considered:
1) · Overhang situatl, onZdrelnage .run, Offs_has to be' cqntrolle~d; 2)_Structure has
to b~brought uP to ~od~ ahd 3) ~Ppl~cant.has to SUbmit a registered signed l~nd
'~rveY t'hat conformS to--h~s drawing/or th~s has to come back to the Commission..
Smith moved and Heyer seconded a mot.ion to'~ecommend granting variances with.
the three conditions recommended by the staff. Clarification of "up'to code"
was made.to mean to bring structure up to building code and lot up to zoning
'code. The vote was Hayer, H1chael, Smith and: Welland in fav~6-r; and /~de~s~,
e~nsen, Sohns and Reese opposed. Hotion tied.
Weiland gave the reason he decided to' vote in favor was that the neighbors were
in favor of the house being repaired rather than.just left.
This will be referred to the Council on April 28', 1987.
CITY OF HOUND
APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COHHISSION
(Please type the following information)
Street Address of Property
Legal Description of Property: Lot
Addition c~)e o~ L~PG po m ~/'C'
Owner's Name
Case No.
Fee Pald ~-~ ~
Date Filed ,~-~'-~
Address
Appllcant (if other than owner):
Name
Address
Block
Day Phone No.
Day Phone No.
Type of Request:
(,-~/'Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit
( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review
( ) Wetland Permit '(m ) P.U.D.
( ) Amendment
( ) Sign Permit
( )*Other
*If other, specify: .
Present Zoning District R- ~_,
Existing Use(s) of Pro~erty ~.~/ ~.~-~-
Has an application ever been made' for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? ~o I~ so, list date(s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s)
Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request.
I certify that all. of the above statements and the statements contained in any required
papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in
or upon-the.preml-ses described-Jo..:biS aPPlicati°n by any authorized official of the City
of Hound for the purpose of inspecting,.or jf'~o~'~'g,-maintaining and removing such
notices as may be required by law.
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Date
Council Action:
Resolution No.
,/ ."
Date
Request for Zonl.ng Variance Procedure (2)
Case
O. Location of: Signs, easements; underground utllltles, etc.
E. Indicate North compass direction
.F. Any addltlonal Informatlon as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and appllcable Sections of the Zoning Ordlnance.
III. 'Request for a Zoning Variance
~. All. Informer.Ion below, a slte.plan, as'described In Part 11, 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 (/x~) No ( ) ~
If t"no"", ~pecify each ~on-conformlng use:
De
Do the existing structures comply wlth all area height and bulk regulatlons
for the zone district in which It Is.located? Yes ( ) No (~)
· If "no", specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physlcal characteristics of the subject property prevent Its
reasonable use for any of the'uses.permitted in that zoning district?
(X) .Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soll
( ) Too. small ( ) Orainage ( ) Sub-surface
.(. ) Too shallow (-) Shape. ( ) Other: Specify:
Was the hardship d~scrlbed abo~e'created by the action of anyone having
property. Interests In the land after ~he Zoning Ordinance was adopted?
Yes ( ) No (X) If yes, explaln:
F. Was the hardship created by any'other man-made change, such as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (P~/ If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for'~vhlch you request a variance peculiar
only to the property'descrlbed in this petition? Yes '( )~ No ( ) .
If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? ,
Ho .What Is the ""minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations
that wlll permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using
maps, site plans wlth dlmenslons and written explanatlon. Attach addltlonal
sheets, If necessary.)
I. WIll granting 'of the variance be materlally detrimental to property in the
same-zone, or' to the enforcement of this ordinance?
Mike and Judy Gardner want to put on a second story on their home
and we as their neighbors approve.
11,4o
O. 200 400
feet
,r-,"-. <": ~.ti .,'. <::.... ....
; ~:'_,...,..I :'" "r- ' ~* R. """~,
...... )16~,.98 t?es.. .. .:r:::..
VAST OF I~'~7'.24''4-'~'005(~
T ARM)
COMMON
I/q!
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 87-628
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE 'MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR METES
AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION, PID NO. 23-117-24 31 0002
(6116 BARTLETT'BOULEVARD)
WHEREAS, the minor subdivision of the metes and bounds description
has been submitted in the manner required for platting of land under City of
Mound Ordinance Code, 'Section 330 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State
Statute and all-proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder; and
WHEREAS, an application to waive the subdivision requirements con-
tained in Section 330 of the City Code'has been filed with the City of Mound;
and
WHEREAS, said request for waiver has been reviewed by the Planning
Commission and Ci.ty Council; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that there are special circumstances
affecting said property such that the strict application of the ordinance would
deprive the applicant of'.the reasonable use of his land; and that the waiver is
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right;
and that granting the waiver would not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the other property owners.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota:
The request of the applicant for a waiver from the provisions of
Section 330 of the City Code and the request to subdivide property
of less than five acres, described as follows:
That part of the West. 149.7 feet of the East 841 feet of the Northeast
quarter of.the Southwest quarter of Section 23, Township 117 North,
Range 24 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying North of County
Road ]10 and South'of the North 542.9 feet thereof, PID No. 23-117-24
31 0002
It is hereby granted to'permit the subdivision in the following manner
as per Exhibit "A":
Parcel A: That part of'the West 69 feet of the East 841 feet of the
Northeast quarter, of the Southwest quarter of Section 23, Township 117
North, Range 24 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying North of
County Road No. 110 and South of the North 542.9 feet thereof
Parcel B; That part of the West 80.7 feet of the East 772 feet of
the Northeast quarter, of the Southwest quarter of Section 23, Township
117 North, Range 24 West of the 5th Principal Meridian lying Nor(h of
County Road No. 110 and South of the North 542.9 feet thereof
B. Upon the further following conditions:
PROPOSED RESOLUTION (Continued)
CASE NO. 87-628
Co
1. The property owner is to stub into the newly created lot new
services for water and sewer utilities.
2. Park dedication fee shall be collected in ~ccordance with Section
330 of the Mound Subdivision Ordinance, but in no case shall it be
less than $300.
3. Payment for any and all deficient sewer and water unit charges
for ~he additional building site.
4. Driveway and utility entrances from County Road llO will require
Hennepin County approval.
It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a.
desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with
adjacent properties.
The City Clerk is authorized'to'deliver a certified copy of this
resolution to.the applicant for filing in the office of the Register
of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show
compliance with the Subd!¥1sion regulations of the City.
This lot subdivlsion is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of
the'adoption date of thiS resolution.
CASE NO, 87-628
TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff(~
T
FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official
Planning Commission Agenda of April 13, 1987
CASE NO. 87-628
APPLICANT: Nell & Linda Schoenhofen
LOCATION: 6116 Bartlett Boulevard
LEGAL DESC.: Metes & Bounds; PID # 23-117-24 31 0002
SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision
EXISTING ZONING: R-I
The applicant is requesting to subdivide his property at 6116 Bartlett Boule-
vard with a minor subdivision. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the
public hearing requirements, escrow account, and etc. to allow a lot split to
create a new building site.
The R-I Zoning District requires lot area of 10,OOO square feet and lot width
of 60 feet, and frontage on improved public right-of-way.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the requested minor subdivision
and waiver of public hearing, escrow account, etc. for the metes and bounds
described lot as per the attached survey for the proposed legal descriptions
upon the condition that the property owner stub into the lot new services for
sewer and water, and obtain the necessary Hennepin County utility and driveway
permits, and pay for any deficient sewer and water units for the additional
building site~ith park dedication fee which is applicable at the time of
building permit issuance but not less than $300.00.
The abutting neighbors have been notified.
This will be referred to the City Council on April 28, 1987.
JB/ms
PLANNIN~ COMMISSION HINUTES
April 13, 1987
Case No. 87-628 Minor subdivision of land at 6116 Bartlett Boulevard
Metes and bo mds description; PID No. 23-117-24 31 0002
Applicant was not present.
The Building Offici'al reViewed her report dn the minor Subdivision/lot split
to create a new building.site and stated that it meets all requirements in. the
R-1 Residential Zoning District. Staff recommends approval of the subdivision'
requested, waiver'of public hearing, escrow account, etc. for the metes and
bounds described lot as per the survey for the proposed legal descriptions.upon
the condition that.thepropertyowner stub into the lot new sewer and water
services, obtain Hennepin County 6tility and driveway permits, pay any
cient sewer and water un-its for the additional building site with park dedication
fee which'.is applicable at the time ~f building permit issuance(not less than
$3oo..).'
Jensen moved and ~eiJand seconded.a motion to move staff recommendation. The
vote was unanimously in favor.
This.will be referred to the Council on April 28, 1~87o
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF
Sec. 22.03-a
VILLAGE OF MOUND
LAND
FEE OWNER
PARCEL
A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REOUE.S. TE.D..FOR=
From
New Lot.No. ,
Square feet TO Square feet
Reason:
This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of the property, or an explan-
'ation given why this is not the case.
APPL ICANT'~~J ~, (~~J~EL NO y?~-- o~/~'~"0
·
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION.'
DATE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
320 Washington Av. South
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468
935-3381
TTY 935-6433
March 31, 1987
Neil Schoenhofen
6116 Bartlett Boulevard
Mound, Minnesota 55364
Re: Access to Bartlett Boulevard
(CSA~ 110)
Nell:
As we discussed, Hennepin County will permit access to the proposed lot if
and when it's subdivided. The future driveway mustbe located at the new
property line approximately 65 feet east of the west property line. The
lilac shrubs in front of the above address would have to be removed since
they-are on public right-of-way and present an acute visibilityhazard.
will not issue a permit now since the lots are not divided and there is
no specific activityproposed. However, a permit must be processed prior
to any construction.
Thanks for your inquiry and please call if there are further questions.
Sincerely,
David K~.'Zetterstrom
Entrance Permit Coordinator
DKZ: pl
cc: Jan Bertrand, City of Mound
HENNEPIN COUNTY
//'-/7
TO
McCOMBS-KNUTSON
ASSOCIATES INC.
12800 Industrial Park Blvd.
PLYMOUTH, MN 55441
(612) 559-3700
WE ARE SENDING YOU ~' Attached [] Under separate cover
via
the
following
~ems:
[] Shop drawings [] Prints [] Plans [] Samples [] Specifications
[] Copy of letter [] Change order [:]
COPI ES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
r
THESE ARE TRANSMIttED as checked below:
[] For approval
[] For your use
)l~As r~luested
[] For review and comment
[] FOR BIDS DUE
REMARKS ~
[] Approved as submitted
[] Approved as noted
[] Returned for corrections
O Resubmit
[] Submit
[] Return
copies for approval
copies for distribution
corrected prints
19 E] PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER$
COPY TO
SIGNED:
~'3'*,,: W'I 000.~"}3 Z ~' H.
116o
'IViO_UND
75 YEARS
CITY OF MOUHD
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155
TO: Dayton and Hargaret Ni]liamson, City Council, and Staff
FROH: Jan Bertrand, Building Official-- ~~~
DATE: April 20, 1987
To confirm our discussion after the Planning Commission meeting
of April 13, 1987, we affirmed the fact that the site plan
submitted with your building plans included a 20 ft. by 17.0 ft.addition
within 13.5 ft. of your east property line. The addition included
the stairway made mentioned of during the Planning Commission
meeting.
The staff recommendation was'for approval of the variance to
recognize the existing non-conforming setback to the west
property line unless the Planning Commission felt the three
season porch intensified a non-conforming structure.
If I can be of further assistance, please contact me before
the City Council meeting of April 28, 1987.
I1 /.
CASE NO. 87-629
TO: Planning CommisSion, Applicant and Staff '
FROM: Jan 'Bertrand,. Building official
Planning Cdmmission Agenda of April ]3, 1987
CASE NO. 87-629
APPLICANT: Dayton & Margaret Willlamson
LOCATION: 2012 Villa Lane
LEGAL DESC.: Lo~s ! and 2, Block 5, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park · PID # 13-117-24 31 0023
SUBJECT: Front Yard Setback Variance
EXISTING ZONING: R-1 SingleFami.ly Residential
The applicant is'requesting a front yard setback variance from the existing struc-
ture to the unimproved Villa Lane right-of-way (formerly known as Plummet Avenue).
The. applicant wlll be adding an addition to this non-conformi'ng structure on the
east si.de, opposite from the exi.sting non-conforming 6=8~.setback to Villa Road.
.The Zoning Ordinance'for non-conforming structures Under Section 23.40~(7) states,
~Normal maintenance of.a building or structure, containing or related to a lawful
non-conforming use is permitted,-inc]ud].ng necessary non-structural repairs and
incidental alterat'ions.which do not extend 'or intensify the non-conforming use.'~
Section 23.'~08($) states.that lots'of record abutting-on more-than one street
shall provide the required front yard along every street.depending on lot width.
The two lots of' the parcel are 85 feet in width. This would require a 30 foot
setbadk from Pike Road and a 30 foot setback from Villa Lane. The proposed
three season porch is 16 by 17.6 feet and will be added to the.east side of the
structure away from the Villa right-Of-way. The Villa right-of-way, a copy of
the street as-built is enclosed, is only improved to the front of the existing
home.
RECOI~tENDATION: Possibly t.helvariance could be allowed to add onto the structure
as an accessory to the livlngspace of the home with'.the understanding .that the
6 foot side yard to'the unimproved Villa Lane does not pose an obtrustive obstruc-
tion to the area as the open space of the right-of-way allows for separation of
the home to the west. However, the Planning Commission may find that, indeed, a
three, season porch does intensify a non-conforming structure. The building at
the closest point is 6 foot 8 inches to the street right-of-way.
The abutting neighbors have been notified.
This will be referred to.the City Council on April 28, 1987.
JB/ms
PLANNING COMHISSION MINUTES
April 13, 1987
Case No. 87-629 Front yard setback variance for.2012 Villa Lane
Lots 1 and 2, Block 5,.Abraham Lincoin Addition to Lakeside Park; PID No
13-117-2h 31 0023 '
Dayton and Margaret Williamson were present.
The Building Official reviewed her report on request for a front yard setback
variance from the existing structure to the unimproved Villa Lane right-of-way
to allow a conforming addition of a three season porch 16 by 17.6 feet on the
opposite side From the existing nonconforming 6'8" setback to Villa Road.': The
street front requirement is 30 feet.
The Commission discussed request and commented that property seemed overbuilt.
Applicant questioned if~could add about 4 feet to the proposed three season
porch; plan started out'when an inside stairway was proposed to'be changed and
they thought the extra' 4 feet would be'nice on the porch. Stairway change was
dropped, but not the 4'foot extra'porch area.
Weiland moved and Meyer seconded a motion to recognize the existing noncon-
forming setback to unimproved Villa Lane (22.5 feet+) and further stipulate
the addition as approved be not closer than 13.5 to--property line on lakeside
corner and 14.5 feet to land side.
Meyer withdrew hi~ second. No one seconded the motion and it failed for lack
of a second.
Jensen moved that w~ recognize the existing nonconforming setback to Villa
Lane and grant a variance with the stipulation that addition be no closer
than ten feet to the property line. Motion was seconded by Smith. The vote
was Meyer, Michael, Jansen and .Smith in favor and Andersen, Reese, Sohns and
Weilandopposed. Vote was a tie.
Weiland Stated his reason.fOr voting against was that property was overbuilt.
He thought there is no hardship there.
....... Th"is will'be referred to the City Council on April'28, 1~87.
CITY OF MOUND
APPLICATION TO PLANNING 8; ZONING COMMISSION
(Please type the following Information)
Street Address of Property ~{~ /c~ J/////~ /./~r-/~
Case No.
Fee' Pa I d -S-o o o
Dat· Filed '/-'~
Legal Description of Property:
Ad d i t i on/d~//~l/7/q/I/~
Address
4. Applicant (If other than owner):
Nan~
Day Phone No.
Address
Type of Request:
(~() Variance ( ) CondltlOnal Use Permit
( ') Zoning Interpretation & Review
(.) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D.
( .) Amendment
( ) Sign Permit
( )*Other
'6.
7.
8.
*If other~ specify:
Present ~onlng District
Existing Use(s) of Property ~(~/2_ ~L~/~ /
Has an appllcat10'n*ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or
.other zonlng procedure for thls property? If so, llst date(s) of
list date(s) of appllcatlon~ 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 submltted 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 ,ound for ,.he ' ---Da.- -~ .~ - -/.te~C~/~.~-7
purpose of Inspecting, or of posting maintaining and removl.ng such ....
notices as may be required b~h law. ~ ,'~ -- i '
"Signature of Appllca"t - -
Planning Commission Recommend tion:
4-13-87
Oate
Council Action:
Resolution No.
Date 4-28-87
Request for Zoni.ng Variance Procedure (2)
Case # 87-62~
O. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
E. Indicate North compass direction
.F. Any addltlonal Information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
I!1..Request for a Zoning Variance
A. All information below, a site plan, as described in Part '11, and general
.applicatlon must be provided before a hearing.will be scheduled.
B. Does the present use of the property'conform to all use regulations for
the zone district In which it is located? Yes (~') Ho ( ) .
If "no", specify each n~n-conformlng use:
Do the existing structures comply with all area height and bulk regulations
for the zone d~strict in which i't Is.located? Yes (~) No ( )
If "no", specify each non-conforming use:
( ) .Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Sol
( ) Too. small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface
· .( ) Too shallow (. ) Shape . ( ) Other: Specify:
% vii&
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent Its
reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district?
E. Was the hardship d~scrlbed above created by the action of anyone having
property.interests in the land after 'the Zoning Ordinance was adopted?
Yes (~) No ( ) If yes, explain: T~_ d~;~ ~ ~,~.~.'.,z.~',-~,~ a,~:~
F. Was the hardship created by any'other man-made change, such as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (~) If yes, explain:
G®
Are the conditions of hardship for'which you request a variance peculiar
only to the property described In this petition? Yes .( ) No ( )
If no, how many other properties are similarly affected?
H..What Is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations
that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using
maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional
sheets, if necessary.)
I. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the
same zone, or' to the enforcement of this ordinance?
//55
_-,., ..... .,. ........ *.-.. ~ *.. ........... . · . ,., ~. . ~.. ,, ...
! *' . m~. .
',,- ,~.*. - . . , ...: .... - ........ - ..... ..,
.... . ...... ~.*:,d~..~ .... · ... .. . · ..... -~ -. . .::..-
"{I (': ~"' ' · ., -',? .... .: .... .-. .:., .. ...... ' CASE' N0,:,8:7,-629.-' ..... ' .
'-'1,''''~ 'ROBERT G. 'ANDERi'~ON '" · Reel.steWed Civil Engineer& Land Su.rge¥or"' ".
: If '~ .'~,~ ... ' ' "'-~'~" '~'""' ..... :':'" ' : "' "'" ..........
~.{ "-.' ~5 ls~ ~.~ ~ '.~~..~ · .. · . .~ · . . · .,.: :~.:~.'.,:.:..---:.:~e..-~ .~,. :-'..
.. -. .... ~: ~ . . . .... ~ ,. . . . . . ...-,~..~ ~'..**~..
~, ..>.-'.,-., . .. . . ~ . ' :. _.. -... ...., ..... -..~.
:-I, '-.~.:,:...:' '~.''...''~~ OF SURVEY '-...~'. .... .-".,,.
. !~ '.-'.~'~ -- : : · ' .' .. ~.-~ --'- ' ~. ~ '.' "~ I~ /
'~l~"?.;,v .: ~-~ ~ ' ' ~..:--, .' ~:1~- ' ~ f~t *::' ' ~ '! · : '--..'- '*. '
:.('.J1'?:,~>~, ' :.'.'.~'* . -'"'.. ' ' ...'"'.' ' .'.-,".' · ..... .'. . · _.'.~1 :'..':":: '" ...>~." ':."
.~, ~ ~'.:,,'~v ~... . · .... .: ....'.:'.,.. ' .... ' .. - ,.. ,. ...' .' ."~:: .:' .:..~.: :'-..~,~ :~'-.-~:.,- .
:::I',~:~.:L;~-~',~, ver~ ~..;;. ~..-...:-.. · ...:.:~ :. . .-, ..-.. . .:.~..,..-..
'*'1.':~"'~~~~ Lots 1 & ~,. Block 5, Abr~am .L_ncoln &ddt ion to' . .... :..
..... I.":~,~:/..' - '· " ' " ~ : ' ~ ' ' '~' ' t .....
:~J~'~ ..,~...-. ·'. : Lake~l~e ~k,' . Eound, ~t~':. ' --- .~.-~,~... .'.::-'-;'~..:-.'::."
::'.:l ,,, 'L:-~:~,.~.-'. '. . . :,. ', .. ('. ~ '.-- .:* .~..: ..... .... [ %. .',. - ~ -.::.;:."
--- ~." :~'.~..:. ": ' ~. -':.' * . "' "~ ~; . - · -,':~; .,'- ~:'i~:~.. ~ ':* ,- '.: - .- ~..,' ~:~: .'*," .~'."~ '. "" ' "'~.:;~.: -' ~' '.~,~:~",'.
,.-I,...:~-,.~-: ....... .. .... .-- ,. --,. .... - .... ~-~-.~: ...... '.':/.,.-. · / -~- -- ~-.,-. ........
'"/I'-'-~' ~:'. ':':-';' '":..'- '" '::.'." ' ~: :..' ' "."~'-' '" '~:.':.':/::.' ~''' ' -.-"' ,/ ' . -L- ~;'-".' '-,:.':,-~--"~;:~-~.< ::;~-.:~:~::"~"'.,'~.:~
-ll~- -~:~- ~:',-'-~,:':'~'~>~ :.:-' :"";-.' ........ ~,>:~;-' ..'" *:..';:.~:~1 :'L%- ~- : '.'~ -~ * ' ~-~:':' -~ x ~ ' .'.,,~.¢ ~- -~'~'~,/'~s':,:~ , ~.-'~-.~;~%,'* ·
.... ,,.~. :.,,~.,-. ,...- ...... ..:.._~ ........ ~ :.~ .... . , · ..... . ~...* . .~ ......:.
:- I.. - ~ 'k";'~:',.,'....~ ,......~. '.. .' '.'...,..- , '. . -. ..... . . . : ..... ' ,.' % ' ':*'.... ,.'<,~*..; .:.,~' ,:'.. .' ,. "-,v-. .":" ' ' I *: .' ' . .* '*". ~."" ." '~ --~*;. -.--.,,.' . "·.
., . ~.. .~ ..... ~ - ; .... .......... ~ .. . ....= ......... ::.-~-. ~..:- -
· ..,.[I - ..-~ ,?...-~ ..... · ....... Ln~Lc~ted th~' :~:.' ~.:.....~ ,...:_ ~ .~,-,.~,.. ..... ...: .-~ ....... ..~ ?..~:_. ...... .
"<' "" ;~ "' '" '"' ' '""~:" "?~:.~::.,:L ~'':~'' -"'-~ ":' .... "' .... "~ ~ " "~'"<~'"':"~"'""~'; '~-""~"
,..: I.. -,-;:..t. '."'~ ",.' "'- '.:- .... ,' : ...... :;'' .... ',~.;:.,.. · "~ · · .'-- ..' ~. - .,~' .: .;.' ~..~.~;, ,,~.~,-~ ':/.V.." ~*"~;~-
:"il'' :~" '- ',".. '.,' :... '.'~'; '". '. -.:~:-~'~ '.' "/ '- ' ~ ' '- ." ~ ' .;".:' .....'. '~'-'~...~'/.~'-"':.:':..'"'-:~'~.;'
il
.'-. ......... · . -. ~.~.;.'.¢,.:.~,,'..,~...,~;~..,~. .
-"si' ' -',"-~' ' .'~-' .' ~. · '. '-r- :. /~:-:-~;:' ~ ~ ...... · ~' ' ~-'.~-.--'~:,~.'::.~,,:
- I ' ''" ...... : ....... : '" ~ ~:.:~. ....
... ......- .. . . ....... , ...... :. . . .,~.,. ,,. · ; . . . _ ._..
,.t: .':.~..-.:-". .... -'- ' '.'. -.'..: . ..''.: ...... :..:;~. . '.. - :'-: .... :
. ] ~' ' '" ~' ' * ~* -' ~ ,' ""-" .... ~:~. ~.:~~~'"' '. '" . . - ~ ~ , - ~ · ' ~f r'": ' '' " ' ' ' '
,~. .,:' - : ".......... . . -.. : - ... · :..- . .. . .......
:':' t .... *'"" .......... .' : '- . . . - ~ ...... · .... .' *t:x ¢'.~ . .
..... .~- .. ..... . . ..'- ,... .. ~ ~, .. .. . ..... ,~ .... ~ ,..,..,
'.... ' ;.: .... . :. ,' ~x'-. ~. '~.. --. :"-~-:.,, :~' ':: --:'.'. :.-"'.,:'.:.:,
· :,.:>f)~ .;' '.'.':- ' .. · · ~ .': . :*.:" ..' . .' . -:;.'. '"-~-.. . ~'.' ·-'::/ '.'5'.:):' ..:; t.(:::~::_:."
' .'**-**. ~' :. · .... .- / ~. . . -/ . . ,' .. ~' < . .... ~ · ~. :..,r'..:' ~;. -~ :.~:~,;,~.:, ..
:''" '. .... "' ' / ~. ~T /~ ~ .~', ...... / . ~ .~' / ',;'.-"-~Z-~.:-':' u'~'~ii '
-: ':~ .~- -... ~- - .~ : .. . · . ,..':, . ..... - . .. ......,..~.:. ,....:.:.,,..,.~ -: .
~' .... - ~ : .'. ~ ~ .'' I ' ' . ~ ,~' .'- .~*~:, · t~- -~,
....... --.. - . ./~ ' . p~~:.: -..,.~-., . ./ ~.:. :..., -,:~;.:,..::,,,,,_,
-,.,-.: '.-..; ,,~ /~~~- ',t~:, , ~:- '.' . .- .'/-- -'...-'~ '-.',.' ,....~...~.-.-,
: "~'']-'' · "":' "~" ' %"' ""'"' "2' ' ' "~ " * " ' ' '.' '
· .~,,7 . ...-.,. · //~':::,~?' ~:~:' ,-. ,'/'..-..--..-
· ' :.::::;- : ' ", :'.'.~ ./t;,' :. / /> ~-'.~:-. L / ' ~ . ~ ' -- f/: :.,~ ..-.- .~"".": i~'i;.~:::~:,~,~'~Jl .
.. '.,:. .... ~'. : - '... / ~'.~' ~ - -... ~ :. / ... ,-', ':'- .-',~:. :,-.' l:~i;~:~~'~.,-.-
:.. ,::' ' . .' ..... / ~~::':"-~ ,' ~ '/-' /',-'-":
.. . '. :' * - ~. .. : '. .... -~ ' ; ' : .... '.?.:J',
. - . · / - . .... , i~ ........ .,...~-~ .,. .
' -~ .... .~x~J'~ ":"';~ ..... '~' ...... "I
.' .. ~ ~': ,. · .-.. -. . . ~, , - ..:. ::j,?~..;:,~.~;,-;:.~.~;:l::'.'.,.'.,~ ":.:',~:,~,:~11:~:
'. ~ -~ . . r~ I J / · ' - - ~'.'-~: t'..~';;-J-' :,~"i:~*t .:' '":~-~':"Jl'5~
" '.. :' .': ~.... ~ -.; _'." ~.:.; :-.; .. ::::~:.:;~>:i...~,s;'~ ':,~'~.,~:~:~]l :.
..... . .' , - .. .- . . .~.~...
· - -- -~. :' ~, / ....
· '., _ · ' ~ ~ I "::~.,-' '..- '. '" ,:..:g'~/-~'l':.~ '-'~,~:~,~':ll,~-
. - ~ ~ ~, ." / ' ' -.'" '~ ,~I" :. ~-~.'.:."~'~1
~ '~' / " ' :'" "'
->.. ::'? ...,.,?
:-.. ', .......'..: ::.....:. .,:
CASE NO. 87-629
N
J
\
/ \
/
· / \
\
t /
/
I
.9.o
V'l
u .LNO~"I38 ~
86
Ma)' 21, 1985
RESOLUTION NO. 85-59
RESOLUTION TO GRANT A VARIANCE FOR BUILDING
A SINGLE FAMILY UNIT ON LOTS 1 AND 9, BLOCK 13,
THE HIGHLANDS, PID #23-117-2~ 31 0050/0056
WHEREAS, Donna Smith and Joanne Gibson, owners of
property described as Lots 1, 2, & 9, Block 13, The Highlands,
have applied to have these lots rezoned to R-2; and
WHEREAS, the reason they have requested the rezoning is
because Lot 1 has 9850 square feet and is zoned R-l; Lot 2 has
9395 squar~ feet and is zoned R-B; and Lot 9 has 7250 square feet
and 1020 square feet is zoned R-3 and 8230 square feet is zoned
R-1; and
WHEREAS,' having R-2 zoning allows building on
square feet; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended zoning the
three lots R-3 to make it consistent with the other 2 corners of
Westedge Blvd. and County Road 110; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on May 14, 1985, and
continued on May 21, 1985, and the Council could not agree on the
zoning to be applied to this property, thus it was decided to
leave the zoning as is and grant a variance to Lots 1 and 9 to
build single family units on those lots because the property was
in one family ownership prior to the enactment of the zoning
ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby grant a variance in
lot area to Lots I and 9,' Block 13, The Highlands, to build
single family units on those lots. The Zoning Ordinance, Section
23.506.2 (5) states, "Variance permits shall expire if they have
not been used within one year after the date of adoption of this
resolution". "
The foregoing resolution was moved by MayOr Polston and
seconded by Councilmember Smith.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson, Polston and Smith.
Atte'st: City C1
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
none. ~~ ~~
Mayor
90
RESOLUTION NO. 86-55
13, 1986
RESOLUTION TO EXTEND RESOLUTION ~85-59, GRANTING
A VARIANCE FOR BUILDING A SINGLE FAMIL~ UNIT ON
LOTS I AND 9~ BLOCK 13, THE HIGHLANDS
PID ~23-117-24 31 0050/0056
.. WHEREAS, on May 21, 1985, the City CounciI approved
Resolution t85-59, entitled, "Resolution to Grant a Variance for
Building a Single Family Unit on Lots 1 & 9, Block 13, The
Highlands, PID #23-117-E4 31 0050/0056"; and
WHEREAS, the owner of the property, Gary Heines,
purchased thi~ property from the Smith's in the winter and as yet ..
he has not been able to start building and is requesting that
this variance resolution be granted an extension of 1 year; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby grant an additional 1
year extension of Resolution 185-5~ until May 13, 1987.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Mayor Polston and
seconded by Councilmember Smith.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:.
Je~sen, P.aulsen,'Peterson, Polston and Smith.
'The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
none.
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 87-
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR CONVEYANCE
FROM THE STATE OF CERTAIN TAX-FORFEIT LANDS
WHEREAS, there.are certain lots in the City of Mound
which are tax forfeit; and
WHEREAS, the County has requested that the City Council
either release these lots for public auction; release for private
sale to adjacent owners if the parcels cannot be improved because
of non-compliance with local ordinances; or request conveyance;
and
WHEREAS, it appears in the best interest of the City to
obtain certain lots for various reasons, i.e. wetlands, storm
sewer drainage,.street or park purposes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby:
1. Authorizes the Mayor and City Clerk to make application
to the State of Minnesota for conveyance of the lot
listed below for the public purpose listed.
PARCEL ~EGAL DESCRIPTION pURPOSE
19-117-23 23 0037 Lot q, Block 17, Seton Park & Wetlands
2. Authorizes cancelling the following special assessments
against this property:
LEVY ~ AMOUNT
3180 $ 146.00
3388 $ 361.60
3397 $ 203.41
7514 $ 575.92
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
and seconded-by Councllmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Coun.cilmembers voted in the negative:
Attest: City Clerk
Mayor
1 limb
eSI
· NONNY
April 28, 1987
RESOLUTION NO. 87-
RESOLUTION RELEASING CERTAIN TAX FORFEIT LANDS
TO HENNEPIN COUNTY FOR PUBLIC AUCTION AND
CERTIFYING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
WHEREAS, the City of Mound has been informed by the
Department of Property Taxation of Hennepin County that certain
lands within the City have been forfeited for non-payment of real
estate taxes; and
WHEREAS, the parcels do comply with the City's zoning
ordinance or building codes and are not adverse to the health.,
safety and general welfare of residents of this City; and
WHEREAS, all special assessments were cancelled at the
time of forfeiture and may be reassessed after the property is
returned to private ownership pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
282.02 (also note: M.S. 429.07, Subd. 4; M.S. 435.23 and M.S.
444.076); and
WHEREAS, all special assessments that have been levied
since forfeiture shall be included as a separate item and added
to the appraised value of any such parcel of land at the time it
is sold (M.S. 282.01, Subd. 3);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota:
That the following parcels of tax forfeited land are
released to the. County of Hennepin for public
auction and the City hereby certifies the following
special assessments:
PAR,CgL (PID)
AMOUNT BEFORE
FORFEITURE
~EV~ ~ AMOUNT
AMOUNT AFTER
FORFEITURE
LEV~ ~ AMOUNT
~19-117-23 33 0192 NONE 7928 $ 3,856.25
(Lot 43 and the W 10 ft
of Lot 44 also all that part of vac st lying between the Wly
extensions across it of the N and S lines of said Lot 44)
~30-117-23 22 0021
(Lots 3 and 4, Block
Devon)
8297 $ 3,415.03 NONE
The Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized
and directed to release the aforementioned lands for
sale at public auction subject to the County
imposing the lien of special assessments on said
lands.
April 28, 1987
4o The City of Mound is releasing the above properties
subject to street and utility easements being
retained by the City of Mound.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
and seconded by Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Counci[members voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
i !
· &
C'
Z
G
I-G. L' ~_-!
DF.,VON,, LA
KE LA
Apr, il 28, 1987
RESOLUTION NO. 87-
RESOLUTION RECONVEYING (IF NECESSARY) CERTAIN
TAX FORFEIT LANDS BACK TO THE STATE AND REQUESTING
THE COUNTY BOARD TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON THE SALE
OF SAID TAX FORFEIT LANDS AND TO RESTRICT THE SALE
TO OWNERS OF ADJOINING LANDS
WHEREAS, the City of Mound has been informed by the
Department of Property Taxation of Hennepin County that certain
lands within the City have been forfeited for non-payment of real
estate taxes; and
WHEREAS, the City of Mound has a number of tax parcels which
do not comply with the City's zoning ordinance and building codes
because of a lack of minimum area, shape, frontage, access prob-
lems, or the parcels contain nuisances or dangerous conditions
which are adverse to the health, safety and general welfare of
residents of this City; and
WHEREAS, the City was instrumental in obtaining legislation
which would allow said parcels to be withheld from public-sale
and sold at a non-public sale to eliminate nuisances and
dangerous conditions and to increase compliance with land use
ordinances and Minnesota Laws of 1982, Chapter 523, Article 39,
Sect.-'6 was adopted to provide said authority to the City and the
County; and
WHEREAS, a specific list of tax forfeited lands has been
provided the City and the City wishes to restrict and
condition the sale of certain lands to bring them into
conformance with City ordinances and land use goals; and
WHEREAS, all special assessments were cancelled at the
time of forfeiture and may be reassessed after the property is
returned to private ownership pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
282.02 (also note: M.S. 429.07, Subd. 4; M.S. 435.23 and M.S.
444.076); and
WHEREAS, all special assessments that have been levied since
forfeiture shall be included as a separate item and added to the
appraised value of any such parcel of land at the time it is sold
(M.S. 282.01, Subd. 3).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the
City of Mound, Minnesota:
The County Board is hereby requested to impose condi-
tions on the sale of the following described lands, and
is further requested to sell such lands only to owners
of lands adjoining at a non-public sale so that said
lands will be combined for tax and land use purposes and
will comply with City ordinances and regulations:
April 28, 1987
PARCEL (PID)
REASON FOR
AND CONDITIONS
SPECIALS LEVIED
BEFORE
FORFEITURE
LEV t AMOUNT
SPECIALS LEV; ~
SINCE
FORFEITURE
.~E~r~t AMOUNT
~19-117-23 33 0168 Lot does not front on
(Lot 21, a improved street and
Block' lq, OO.ls undersized. To
~? ~be sold only to and
Pembroke) ~ combined with adjoining
_properties
NONE
NONE
~25-117-2q 21 0073 Undersized lot to be
(Lot 10, sold only to and
Block 23,~~0 combined with ad-
Whipple)'~ Joining properties
8298 $-1,511.55
NONE
~25-117-2q 21 0135 Undersized lot to be 8297 $ 3,288.50 NONE
(Lot 12 and N sold only to and 8298 $ 1,13q.90
10 feet of Lot combined with ad-
13, subject to Joining properties
road, Block 20, 5~00
Whipple)
NOTE: PLEASE PUT THE FOLLOWING PERMANENT EASEMENT FOR STREET AND UTILITY
PURPOSES ON THIS PROPERTY:
"A perpetual easement for utility and street purposes over, under an
across that part of Lot'12, Block 20, Whipple, lying northwesterly
the following described line:
Beginning at a point on the southwesterly line of said Lot 12
distant 10.00 feet southeasterly of the northwest corner of said
Lot 12; thence northeasterly to a point on the northerly line of
said Lo~ 12 distant 10.00 feet easterly of the northwest corner of
said Lot 12 and there .terminating." (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT "A")
NONE NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
NONE
~13-117-24 11 0058 Undersized lot to be
(Lot 16, Block sold only to and
16, Shadywood combined with ad-
Point) - Joining properties
G13-1~7-2~ 12 0026 Undersized lot to
be
(Lot 22, Block sold only to and
2, Dreamwood) combined with ad-
Joining properties
'13-117-24 Undersized lot to be
0055
(Lot 11, Block sold only to and
5, Dreamwood) combined with ad-
Joining properties
117o
April 28, 1987
-117-24 44 0148 Lot does not front
Lot 2B, Block on a improved street
12, Arden) and is undersized.
To be sold only to
and combine with ad-
joining properties
25-117-24 11 0136 Undersized lot to be
(That part of sold only to and
Lot 8, Block combine with ad-
10 Devon lying -Joining properties
S of the N 15
ft thor also
all of Lot 13
said Block 10,
Devon)
NONE
NONE
The Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized and
directed to release the aforementioned lands for sale,
subject to the County imposing the aforestated condi-
tions and the lien of special assessments on said
lands·
The City of Mound is releasing the above properties
subject to street and utility easements being retained
bY the City of Mound.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
and seconded by Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
NONE
NONE
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
BLVD
//7~,
~HTON
I
X~IIgBXOB ~
OaDINANCE NO. ~f~
AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 206
TO THE CITY CODE PROVIDING FOR
THE DEFENSE AND INDEMNIFICATION
OF OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY
The City of Mound does ordain:
Section 206 is hereby added to the City Code and shall read as follows:
Section 206 - Defense and Indemnification of Q~ and ~
Section 206:00. Defense ~nd Indemnification of Q~and ~of
the ~. ..
Subd. 1. Purpose. In recent years there has been a loss of
sovereign immunity for municipal functions and employees and a
trend has developed wherein municipalities, their officers,
employees and agents have been joined in litigation and a number of
these lawsuits have been filed naming officers, employees and
agents individually in lawsuits. As a result of this trend in the
law, it becomes more difficult to obtain the services of citizens
who are reluctant to volunteer for service in municipal government
and to assume individual liability when acting in behalf of the
City. City council members, employees and officers are in the
normal course of events participants in many controversial
decisions which result in litigation and subject the individuals
to concern regarding personal liability.
It is the purpose of this ordinance to unequivocally state that the
City of Mound will protect its City officials elected or appointed,
including members of the Planning Commission, Board of Zoning
Appeals, Park Commission and other Commissions. appointed ty the
City Council in performing their duties to promote the public
health, safety and general welfare. Public officials must be in a
~osition to make decisions when they are needed and ~o act to
implement decisions of the City Council. Action on co~oversial
subjects and implementing policy decisions can and will result in
errors on the part of.an employee or an elected or appointed
official, and it is determined that it is better that said
officials act and risk some error and possible injury from such
actions rather than not to act at all.
The public health, safety and general welfare will be promoted and
preserved by providing assurances to these individuals that they
will be supported by the municipality in carrying out their
o'fficial duties.
Subd. 2. D_9_~ and Indemnification. The City shall defend,
save harmless and indemnify any of its officers and employees,
whether elected or appointed, and specifically inlcuding members
11'2'1
of its advisory commissions, against any tort, claim or demand,
whether groundless or otherwise, arising out of an alleged act or
omission occurring in the performance of their duty. This
responsibility to defend and indemnify does not apply in cases of
malfeasance in office or willful or wanton neglect of duty.
Subd. 3. Defense Counsel. The City Council will designate the
City Attorney or legal counsel representingma insurance carrier
for the City to defend the City's employees and officers against
all such lawsuits wherein the employee or officer is individually
named-as a defendant. The City shall continue to represent the
employee or officer if the decision is appealed to a higher court,
or the City .Council may authorize the appeal of any decision
against the officer or employee to a higher court.
Subd. 4. ~ to ~_~ Counsel. The provisions of this
section of the Code shall not supers~9 or preclud~e officer's
or employee's right to retain at4~~expense4~rsonal legal
counsel to provide for this defense. The determination as to
whether to use the City's legal counsel, for whi6h the City shall be
responsible for de~gnse costs, or whether t~e.o.~)cer or employee
chooses t~_~se~wnindividual counsel at~~nexpense, sha%l
be at--ion, and if the official selects~5~nattorney, this
shall relieve the City from all present and future obligations as
they relate to any defense or indemnification of the officer or
employee for the alleged tort, claim or demand.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Adopted by City Council
Published Official Newspaper
117 /
75 YEARS
April 17, 1987
TO:
FROM:
RE:
HAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
ED 5HUKLE, CITY MANAGER''
PLANNING COMHISSION'S RECOMHENDATION ON LOST LAKE
You may recall that at the City Council work session held February 21, 1987,
that you directed the Planning Commission to conduct a public input meeting
on the possible uses of the Lost Lake property. You had also asked that
the Mound Retail Council and/or the Westonka Chamber of Commerce be con-
tacted regarding their input on the possible uses of the property. Both
of these assignments were carried out. The Mound Retail Council was in-
vited to attend the meeting on March 6th. Over forty invitations were
sent, nineteen persons representing various businesses were present at
the meeting held at Mound City Hall. At this meeting, I explained the
purpose of the meeting and gave background on the property. I presente'd
the concerns of the City with regard to the Public Works facility issue,
and I also presented the recommendations from the Maxfield Research Group
on whether or not the property ought to be used for commercial or resid-
ential activity. The following concerns/ideas were voiced at this meeting:
1. Boat traffic on the Lost Lake channel.
2. Commercial use would be better than residential use.
3. Want development project to tie into wetlands area.
4. Athletic complex (baseball, softball).
5. Walkways along Lost Lake channel. '
6. Use of two acres adjacent to property owned by Balboa, Inc.
7. Need for restaurant/banquet facilities.
8.. Tax generation - commerCi:al/residential.
I felt that the meeting was good. We had as you.can see, a variety of ideas.
I asked each of the participants as well as those that hadn't attended the
meetin9 to submit comments in writing by March 18th.
On March 23rd, the Planning Commission held a public input meeting on the
Lost Lake issue. All but one Planning Commission member was present along
with city staff, mayor and councilmembers and eight interested citizens and
both local newspapers were represented at this meeting. Attached is a copy
of the approved minutes from this meeting.
HEMO TO MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 17, 1987
PAGE 2
I think it will give you some insight into what was talked about at the
meeting.
The Planning'Commission made an excellent effort in attempting to stream-
line all of the comments that had been submitted to date. The major
recommendation was that they support the development of a country inn.
The items related to this development are:
/1.
/4.
Negotiate dock arrangements with the developer of the country inn.
The City would assist in the development of'trails and some kind
of amenity grouping.
The City would consider a tax increment financing approach to the
project.
The City would, consider the issuance of general obligation bonds to
develop the wetlands area for park purposes.
The Planning Commission directed the staff to return at the April 13th
meeting with a summary of components that could be included within a
Request for Proposal (RFP) that could be sent to interested developers
of a country inn.
At the April 13th Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission
reviewed the summary of components and additional comments from interested
citizens regarding the Lost Lake property. They also reviewed a map of
public ownership of the Lost Lake property by the City. Information was
also available to them regarding private properties around the Lost Lake
area. Attached is a memo dated April.8, 1987, from Mark Koegler, City
Planner, to the Planning Commission and staff regarding the components
that could be included within an RFP.
The Planning Commission then came up with the following recommendation for
you to consider at your April 28, 1987 meeting: Chairman Tom Reese moved
and member Ken Smith seconded to recommend'to the City Council that an.
initial attempt should be made to develop the Lost Lake property and that
the recommendation is for a country inn. The City Staff is to draft a
Request for Proposal (RFP) which would'include certain inducements att-
ractive to developers. If the RFP does not draw any interest, the City
should then go back and re-evaluate the issue. No specific time frame is
recommended at this time for completion of this process. The motion was
approved on a five to three vote, with the followi, ng voting in favor:
Reese, Smith, Jensen, Sohns and Andersen. The nays were: Weiland, Michael
and Meyer. Bill Thal was absent from the meeting.
Therefore, this issue is on the Council's agenda for discussion. The
staff is waiting for your direction on this issue. The staff belleves
that the Planning Commission recommendation is a very logical one and
stands ready to prepare a RFP should that be what you desire. We also
believe that the Lost Lake property issue is directly tied to the Public
Works facility issue and we certainly hope that the Public Works facility
issue can be resolved prior to the Lost Lake property being de~eloped.
As you know, we are working diligently on the Public Works facility pro-
blem and hope to resolve it in 1987.
HEHO TO THE HAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
APRIL 17~ 1987
PAGE 3
In addition, we believe that this issue has received a great deal of
public input. It has been discussed for many years and the public has been
given adequate time to submit ideas, reactions, etc., to the future of
this property. We believe that the Councll should accept the recommendation
of the Planning Commission and move forward on this issue at this time.
If you have any questions, p]ease contact me.
ES:ls
Information for April 28, 1987 Council Meeting
April 23, 1987
Mound Volunteer Fire Dept. requests the following Licenses for the
June 13, 1987 Fish Fry.
Charitable Organization 3.2 Beer Permit
Public Dance Permit
Set-Up Permit - Please Waive the Fee
NEW LICENSE APPLICATION
Tree Removal License - License Period 4-1-87 to 3-31-88
Aaspen Tree Service
LICENSE RENEWALS - Expiring April 30, 1987.
Bowling
8 Lanes--Mound Lanes
Games of Skill
I--A1 & Alma's
4--Captain Billy's
5--Donnies on the Lake
Juke Box
1--American Legion
1--Donnies on the Lake
1--VFW #5113
Pool Table
2--Captain Billy's
1--Donnies on the Lake
2--VFW #5113
New License Period 5-1-87 to
4-30-88
Cont'd
Pg. 2 Cont'd
Restaurant
A1 & Alma's
American Legion
Minnetonka Boat Rental
Captain Billy's
Donnies on the Lake
Happy Garden
Hardee's
Hidden Treasures
House of Moy
Mound Lanes
VFW #5113
BILLS ,APRIL 28, 1987
Computer Run dated ~/18/87
Computer Run dated q/23/87
Batch 87~0~1
Batch 87bOq2
71,570.05
4~,~31.77
Dock Refunds
Kimler Roofing
SuperAmerica
Connie Stahlbusch
Loren Koehnen
Reroof fire sta
March gasollne
Reserve Expenses
Plan Reviews
1,861.75
3,352.00
922.02
38.10
255.3q
TOTAL BI LLS
122,b,31.03
7__
0
Ltl
P-i--P'
N
,,~
-J
n
Ltl
1=4
hi
0
.I=
~ZZZZZZ~ZZ
I I I I I
I I I I I
I I [ I I
o o
o o o * o o
C'
I I I
I I I
I I I
ZZZ ZZZZ ZZZZ
LU
~. >-
Z
J
-'r'
Z
0
n
Ltl
0
ii.
Z
0
s"
O0
n., n.'
UJLIJ
ZZ
n.,l~
I
OJO, J
M
Z
Z
0
TTT ? ?
~ o o ooo
~N~ ~ o ooo
I1' -- I III
~ o ~ o~
ooo ~ ~
ooooooo~
n-
._J
-J
oo
c~
4.4.
I
oo
o~0~ ~0 cO o o
~" '~' XI' 'q' ~"
0 0 000
0
ZZZZZZZZZZ
ooooooo~
Z
0
U.
iL.
,0
Z
0
~..J
Z
4
~OtO O0
O0 LI~U~
~ ~o0000o000
iZZ~ZZ ZZZ Z
iU
00000000000000000000000
;Z ~ZZZ ZZ Z ZZZZZZZZ Z ~ Z Z ~ ~~
;00000000000000000000000
oooooooooo
00000000000000000000000
rD
('5
.,-,
Iii
W W
~0000
ZZZZ
0000
,0000
I I I
I I I
o o
rr
u
I
#
I
0
Z
tAU'tO
O0
oO
Z
0
0
~0
v
-r'
Z
UJ
oo
I
1-4
ooooo~ooo
ooooooooo
ooooooooooooo
I-
Z
~=~
Z
0
~ 41, 4[.
· 1~ 4f 41.
Z
0
Z
0
Z
0
0
v~
0
F-
hi
:d
Z
0
I
r
bJ
0
Z
L~
W
~J
I-
I
I
0
n,,
I I
('U '~'
I I
r,-i al
(,,j ,~-
I I
z
hi
ii
Z
Z
oo
oo
ooooo~
oo~oo~o
oo~oo~
ZZZZZ
00000
00000
XXXXX
00000
XXXXX.
I
~0
W I
~0
ooo
IJ't
00000
0
uJ
Z
0
O0 O0
O0
O0
0 0
O0
Z
._l
Z
W;
0
I-.
Z
Iii
I-
-J
iii
X
r~
Z
Z
W
Z
W
_J
0
Z
0
o
I
Z
U1
I
X
UJ
~.j
0
[.3
0
I'-
0
m
CI
_1
Z
0
41.
41'
~Cm
0
0
I-
bJ
/
W
I-
I
#
I
41,
41,
Z
IJ.I
Z
I
c
o
~J
u~
0
k-
Z
Z
>,,.
X
0
>..
Z
D=
0
I-
ra
75 YEARS
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUND, IVtN 55364 (612) 472-1155
April 16, 1987
TO: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER
FROM: JOHN NORMAN, FINANCE DIRECTOR
RE: MARCH 1987 FINANCIAL REPORT
e
The first quarter installment of property and auto insurance from the
League of Minnesota Cities Trust was paid in March. The first half of
Workmen's Comp was also paid in March.
WATER FUND - 28.2% of Budget
$2,054 was spent on continuing cost in the Allied Painting lawsuit.
These costs were not anticipated in the 1987 water fund expenditures
budget.
AREA FIRE SERVICE FUND
Two vehicles (1957 International Pumper Truck and a 1966 Chevrolet
Suburban Rescue Truck) were sold in March to the City of Remer' for
$4,800. The 1966 rescue vehicle was expendable after the purchase of
the new Chevrolet Rescue Vehicle earlier this year. The other truck
was sold to help alleviate the storage space problem at the fire station.
JN:ls
IIq(
CITY OF HOUND
1987 BUDGET REPORT
MARCH 1987
25 ~
of Year
BUDGET
MARCH
REVENUE
YTD
REVENUE
VARIANCE
PER CENT
RECEIVED
GENERAL FUND
Taxes
Intergovernmental
Business Licenses
Non-Business
Licenses and
Permits
General Gov't
Charges
Court Fines
Charges to Other
Departments
Other Revenue
$975,893
771,057
13,000
lO8,100
33,300
94,0o0
20,870
57,500
TOTAL REVENUE
$2,073,720
401
15,554
2,121
8,878
1,394
420
28,768
7,914
12,500
1,224
59,374
7,061
8,878
3,512
66~
101~128
967,979
758,557
11,776
48,726
26,239
85,122
17,358
~6,8~
1~972~5~2
.8
54.9
21.2
9.4
16.8
1.2
LIQUOR FUND
WATER FUND
SEWER FUND
$755,000
$3oo,ooo
$565,0o0
51,800
22,400
48,432
153,274
65,572
142,125
601,726
234,428
422,875
20.3
21.9
25.2
lie7
BUDGET
CITY OF MOUND
1987 BUDGET REPORT
EXPENDITURES
MARCH 1987
March
EXPENSE
YTD
EXPENSE
25 ~ of Year
UNEN-
CUMBERED PER'CENT
EXPENSE EXPENDED
GENERAL FUND
Councl]' ' $50,460
City Manager/Clerk 103,800
Elections 500
Assessing 46,170
Finance 128,880
Legal 83,750
Cable TV 1,490
Recycling 18,320
Police 610,850
Civil Defense 2,300
Plannlng/Inspection 102,120
Streets 385,170
Shop & Store 49,75o
City Property 85,320
Parks 143,920
Commons Docks 54,100
Hound City Days 3,500
Contingencies 60,120
Transfers 145,200
1,384
8,207
7
620
9,971
8,143
223
1,131
68,318
189
10,186
34,681
4,772
3,755
5,451
1,307
971
7,631'
9,767
15,325
22,451
105
2,464
28,175
15,077
268
3,888
151,912
462
23,688
89,262
12,185
8,515
34,965
35,589
238
7,631
29,300
35,135
81,349
395
43,706
100,705
68,673
1,222
14,432
458,938
1,838
78,432
295,908
37.565
76.805
108,955
18,511
3,262
52,489
113,900
30.4
21.6
2t.o
5.3
21.9
18.0
18.0
21.2
24.4
14.9
23.2
23.2
24.5
10.0
24.3
65.8
6.8
12.7
2O.5
GENERAL FUND TOTAL ~2,073,720
175,714
481,500 1,592,220
23.2
Area Fire
Service Fund $223,940
Liquor Fund $147,240
Water Fund $294,140
Sewer Fund $688'220
17,318
12,213
46,263
76,865'
89,762 134,178
30,344 116,'896
82,803 211,337
178,164 510,056
40.1
20.6
28.2
25.9
:-:
<= ,. o ~E-8~ "'"o.= 5-- ...............
::i%iii:;!i;i!:!~ii:~:~::::':............................ ~:,.~, ,=, = o ~',-" = .o ~ ~. ~ .=_. ,~ ~ ~ =~ ~ ~ ,, : ::.:.:.:.:.....:.:.:.:.:.:...
'"" 0 c ~ ,~, ~L ~"t' >. m .__ ================================
=================================== ~ '~ -'-' ~ ~ ~ __ ........................
· .:,:...:.:.::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. _ .~: ,.: ~ ~ ~ ~ =~__.- · .~= .~ ~. o ..............
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: . ~ ~ .~ ~ -r' ,.: ,., ~= ._= ~ :::::::::::::::::::::::::
'"'"'"'""'"'""""'" ~ ~ ~,~ ~, ~,~ --=~_ ~,,~0 E OI ~ -~_~ '-- 1'~'~3 ~ =========================
, .w ,w ,~ ~ X ~ ~ 'D-- '~ ""~ '"'"' .... "'"'"
============================ .s ~ ~ ~ = ~ ~ Zu ~-~ ~ ~s .- [ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~= :":':"':':':':':'"
· .. -.........-.....-.. * ~ ~ 0 ~ '.::]:: ":.:::.:
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:: '- - ~ [ ~.~ ~ ~° ~-u u .s u - = ~' :E ~ - ~ ~ ~" [ ~ ~[ Bo~o~ ~ ~ ""': :":
'-.. · ~
....,..... ~ ~ < . o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"' "" ~
.~-.~ - ~== ~ 8~ ~'~ '- ~ ~ . '-
LMC Annual Conference
June 9-12, 1987
Rochester, Minnesota
"Visions [or
Tomorrow"
Those who care about shaping the
"Visions for Tomorrow" for their city
should plan on attending the LMC
Annual Conference in Rochester, June
9-12, 1987. Appropriately, the confer-
ence will be one of the first in Roches-
ter's new dream building, the Mayor
Civic Center. See for yourself why
many have commented th. at this new
civic center is more than they
imagined.
Noted faculty
The League has invited a roster of
distinguished speakers. Among them is
Layne Longfellow who will speak on
Friday after widely acclaimed presen-
tations at the National League of Cities
conference and the Minnesota Spring
Institute for City and County
Managers.
I, ,oo
Program format
The Conference Planning Committee
has taken great pains in identifying
concerns that are of interest to cities
of every size. There is something for
everyone. The program includes
sessions" and "issue institutes"
throughout the three-and-a-half days of
the conference.
"Skill sessions" are participatory
workshops which enable city officials to
enhance specific leadership abilities and
learn techniques which they can apply
back home in their community. Exam-
ples include:
· Listening for effective leadership
· Fostering innovation
· Future setting
· Teambuilding
· Marketing your city (three sessions)
· Serving your constituents (two
sessions)
· Streamlining council meetings
"Issue institutes" provide up-to-
date information on issues of impor-
tance to cities. On the agenda are many
topics related to economic
development.
· Impact of federal tax reform and the
new EDA law
· What makes sense for your city
· Developing fledgling potential
enterprises
· Cooperative ventures
· Consolidated approaches
· Legislative update
City officials wanting to focus on
personnel concerns can attend sessions
such as:
· Recruiting/retaining volunteers
· Early warning signs of employee
dissatisfaction
· Improving staff morale
· Getting employees back to work
Smaller city topics include:
· How cities have solved practical
problems (two sessions)
· Improving the rural economy
Those interested in professionalizing
city government can pick from three
sessions:
· Elected clerk, appointed clerk,
administrator, strong mayor?
· Council-manager
· Evaluating your city manager or clerk
And finally, tirnely topics such as:
· Reducing your city's liability
exposure
· Asset retention
Short shots
New this year will be "short shots."
As the name implies, these will be
short sessions of an hour each. Short
shots are structured discussions on
topics of special interest which stress
practical experience. Topics include
finding new revenue sources, working
with unions, wastewater treatment,
coping with mandates, preventing sex-
ual harassment, planning for and Using
cable TV, and an introduction to LMC.
This last one should be of special
interest to newly elected officials.
Special Friday program
A delicious finale breakfast will begin
at 8:30 a.m. Following it will be what
many consider the highlight of the
conference. Layne Longfellow will offer
a presentation that is both personally
stimulating and professionally enrich-
ing. Longfellow is a riveting speaker
you can't afford to miss. We saved the
best for last.
Host city spectaculars
Be sure to arrive early on Tuesday,
June 9, to hear some tales of Lake
Wobegon in one of Garrison Keillor's
last performances. Then enjoy an
unparalled taste treat as the "Choco-
late Fantasy" is recreated under the
stars in the breath-taking, glass-
enclosed lobby of the new Mayo Civic.
Center.
Don't plan on going to bed early on
Wednesday. There will be over 30
entertainment events occurring inside
the civic center, to keep you up.
Thursday evening's entertainment
focuses on the Rochester Civic Orches-
tra performing while you dine at the
LMC banquet.
Envision Rochester in
June
Begin your "Visions for Tomorrow"
by seeing yourself at the LMC Confer-
ence this June. From the Tuesday
evening kickoff through the special Fri-
day finale, Rochester has something for
everyone. Through it all you can mar-
vel at the new Mayo Civic Center
which will host this gala event. If you
care about the future of your city, make
plans today. ·
Welcome to Rochester
~pecial Events for Spouses and Children
Complimentary tickets for golf,
tennis, swimming, and the recrea-
tion center wLll be available at the
Rochester City Desk (in the regis-
tration area) throughout the
conference.
Tuesday, June. 9
Golf Tournament, Solc~er's Field
Golf Course
1:oo p.m.
Wednesday,
June 10
7:30-8:30 a.m.
Eye-Opener
ofCOffee and rolls on the Mezzanine
ahler Hotel) Compliments of the city
Rochester.
10:30 a.m.
Plummet House and Mayowood
Tour
Buses leave main entrance of the Mayo
Civic Center for Plummer House and
Mayowood tours. Enjoy the historic
homes of Drs. Charles Mayo and
Henry Plummet. Wine and assorted
cheese will be served.
12:30 p.m.
Shopping
Buses w~l depart from the historic
homes tour for optional lunch and/or
shopping at Apache Mall. Over 90
stores are waiting to serve you. ·
3:00 p.m.
Buses will leave Apache Mall and
return you to the Kahler Hotel.
Thursday,
June 11
8:30-9:30 a.m.
Eye,Opener
(Coffee and rolls on the Mezzanine,
Kahler Hotel) Compliments of the city
of Rochester.
12:00 noon
Luncheon
Enjoy lunch in Heritage Hall, Kahler
Hotel. Musical entertainment, dbor
prizes. Speaker: State Senator, Nancy
Brataas. Don't m/ss this opportunity to
mix and mingle with the added bonus
of hearing an excellent speaker and
enjoying a delightful luncheon.
Children's
Activities
Thursday,
June 11
10:30 a.m.-3i00 p.m.
Mini bus will depart from the west
entrance of the Kahler Hotel for the
Rec Center. Gym activities and ice
skating (skate rentals available) unt~
12:00 noon. Then on to Shakey's Pizza
for lunch and entertainment. Back to
the Rec Center for swimming Coring
your suit) and return to the Kahler by
3:00 p.m.
SPOUSE AND CHILDREN'S ACTIVITIES
REGISTRATION FORM
Tuesday, June 9 -- Golf
Tournament
Wednesday, June 10.Tours/
Shipping
Advance Registration -- $5.00
Thursday, June 11 t Luncheon
Advance Registration -- $10.00
Children's Activities -- $3.00
Name
Address
City Zip
Please check one: include
number of persons participating
Yes # persons
~ Yes # persons
Yes # persons
, Yes # persons
Mail form and advance fees to:
Sue Norris, Room 200
City Hall, Rochester, MN 55902
Checks are payable to:
Mayor's Contingency Fund
1,,!.ol
LMC Annual Conference Preliminary program schedule
Tuesday, June 9
LMC Board of Directors
meeting
1:00-4:00 p.m.
Special Kickoff Program
7:00-9:00 p.m. _.
Garrison Keillor
(Host o[ pubiic radio's "A Prain'e Home
Companion")
"Chocolate Fantasy"
reception
9:00 p.m.
Wednesday,
June 10
Opening session
9:00-10:00 a.m.
Concurrent sessions I
(Choose one)
SKILL SESSION: ORGANIZA-
TIONAL SKILLS
Future Setting
10:15 a.m.-12 noon
SKILL SESSION: LEADERSHIP
Listening £or Effective
Leadership
10:15 a.m.-12 noon
ISSUE INSTITUTE: ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
Economic Development Tools --
An Update
10:15 a.m.-12 noon
ISSUE INSTITUTE: PERSONNEL
Recruiting/Retaining Volunteers
10:15 a.m.-12 noon
ISSUE INSTITUTE: TIMELY TOPIC
Reducing Your City's Liability
Exposure
10:15 a.m.-12 noon
Exhibitor's lunch
12:00-1:30 p.m.
Concurrent sessions H
'(Choose one)
SKILL SESSION: ORGANIZA-
TIONAL SKILLS
.Tearabuilding
1:30-3:15 p.m.
SKILL SESSION: LEADERSHIP
Fostering Innovation in Your
City
1:30-3:15 p.m.
ISSUE INSTITUTE: ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
What Makes Sense For Your
City?
1:30-3:15 p.m.
ISSUE INSTITUTE: PERSONNEL
Appropriate Personnel
Procedures inPublic Safety
Departments
1:30-3:15 p.m.
ISSUE INSTITUTE: TIMELY TOPIC
Asset Retention -- How to Plan
[or Repair, Replacement, and
Maintenance o[ Irdras~c~e
1:30-3:15 p.m.
ISSUE INSTITUTE: TIMELY TOPIC
Legislative Update
1:30.3:15 p.m.
Short shots
(city strategies for practical problem
solving)
Finding new revenue sources
3:25-4:25 p.m.
Working with unions
3:25-4:25 p.m.
Waste water ~reatment and
facility construction
3:25-4:25 p.m.
Coping with mandates
3:25-4:25 p.m.
Preventing sexual harassment
3:25-4.25 p.m.
Planning for and using cable TV
3:25-4:25 p.m.
LMC policy committee
meetings
Development Strategies
3:25-4:25 p.m.
General Legislation and Personnel
3:354:25 p.m.
Exhibitors' open house
4:30-5:00 p.m.
City night
Evening
Thursday,
June 11
LMC policy committee
meetings
Revenue Sources
8:30-9:30 a.m.
Elections ~md Ethics
8:30-9:30 p.m.
Land Use, Enwronment,
Energy, and Transportation
8:30-9:30 a.m.
~l~oncurrent sessions III
(choose one}
SKILL SESSION: INFLUENCE
SKILLS
Marketin~ Your City --
Overview
9:30-10:45
SKILL SESSION: LEADERSHIP
ServinE Your Constituents --
Patti
9:30-10:45 a.m.
ISSUE INSTITUTE: PROFESSION-
ALIZING CITY GOVERNMENT
Optional City Structures --
Patti
9:30.10:45 a.m.
ISSUE INSTITUTE: PERSONNEL
]floyewaming Signs °£
e Dissatisfaction '
9:30-10:45 a.m.
ISSUE INSTITUTE: ESPECIALLY
FOR SMALL CITIES
How Cities Have Solved
Practical
Problems - Part I
9:30.10:45 a.m.
ISSUE INSTITUTE: ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT -
Economic Development
Im'tJatives -- Developiag
Fledgling/Potential Enterprises
9:3O-lO:45 a.m.
Concurrent sessions IV
(choose one)
gKILL SESSION: INFLUENCE
SKILLS
Marketing- International
Strategies
11:00.12:30 p.m.
SKILL SESSION: LEADERSHIP
Serving Your Constituents --
Par-tH
11:oo-12:3o p.m.
ISSUE INSTITUTE: PROFESSION-
· ALIZING CITY GOVERNMENT
Optional City Structures --
Part II, Council-Manager
11:00 a.rn.-l~-:30 p.m.
ISSUE INSTITUTE: PERSONNEL
Improving St~ff Morale
11:oo-12:3o p.m.
ISSUE INSTITUTE: ESPECIALLY
FOR SMALL CITIES
How Cities Have Solved
Practical Problems -- Part fi
11:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m.
ISSUE INSTITUTE: ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
Economic Development
Initiatives -- Cooperative
Ventures, Consolidated
Approaches
11:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m.
Mayor's Association/
Mini Conference Lunch
12:30-2:00 p.m.
Concurrent sessions V
(choose one)
SKILL SESSION:
INFLUENCE SKILLS
Marketing- External Strategies
(Enhancing communications with the
public)
2:30.3:45 p.m.
SKILL SESSION: LEADERSHIP
Stre~ Council Meetings.
2:30.3:45 p.m.
ISSUE INSTITUTE: PROFESSION-
ALIZING CITY GOVERNMENT '
Evaluating Your City Manager or
Clerk
2:30.3:45 p.m.
ISSUE INSTITUTE: PERSONNEL
Getting Empbyees Back to
Work
2:30.3:45 p.m.
ISSUE INSTITUTE: ESPECIALLY
FOR SMALL CITIES
Improving ~e Rural Economy
2:30-3:45 p.m.
League annual meeting
4:00-5:00 p.m.
IMC reception/banquet
6:30-9:00 p.m.
Break
10:45-11:00 a.m.
/&oS
Friday, June 12
Finale breakfast
(coffee & rolls)
8:30-9:00 a.m.
General session
9:00-10:30 a.m.
Layne Longfellow
(Psychologist, lbcturer, and consultan-
ton leadership and productivity)
Visions
£or
Tomorrow
1987
League of Minnesota
Cities
Annual Conference
1987 LMC ANNUAL CONFE NCE HOUSING
}USING INFORMATION
Kahler Hotel, 20 Second Ave. N.W .................
Holiday Inn Downtown, 220 South Broadway ........
Midway Motor Lodge, 1517 16th Street S.W .........
Ramada Inn, 1625 South Broadway .................
Holiday Inn South, 1630 South Broadway ............
NOTE: The Kahler Hotel is the Headquarters Hotel.
FLAT RATE
$59.00
$55.00
SINGLE DOUBLE
$44.00 $52.00 + 5.00 Poolside
$42.00 $44.oo
$40.00 $47.00 +9.00 Poolside
EARLY BIRD SPECIAL
For member city officials only. The Kahler Hotel, Holiday Inn Downtown, Midway Motor Lodge, Ramada Inn, and Holiday Inn
South will each provide one complimentary weekend for two at their facilities, excluding meals, as an early bird special prize.
Only delegates sending in their housing registration form by May 1, 1987 will be eligible. The winner must pay the room tax
and all incidental charges.
IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS
Rooms w~l be reserved on a first-come, first-served basis. The earlier you make your reservations, the better the chance you
will have of getting your first choice hotel. The hotels will hold room blocks only until May 29, 1987, after which regular room
rates will be in effect on an as available basis.
A deposit equal to one night's lodging per room must accompany this housing form. Credit card preferred. Checks must be
payable to LMC Housing.
You will receive an acknowledgement of your reservation from the assigned hotel.
All changes in reservations or cancellations must be made through the Housing Bureau in writing.
;lNG RESERVATION
Name: Title:
City or Organization:
Address:
City: State: Zip:
Arrival Date: Arrival Time: Departure Date:
Hotel Preference
First: Second: Third:
Special Requirements:
Names of All Occupants:'
Do you wish to guarantee payment
for arrival after 6:00 p.m.?
Yes ~ No ~
Enclosed is deposit equal to one night's lodging per room.
· (Credit Card Preferred)
League of Minnesota Cities Housing Bureau
Rochester Convention & Visitors Bureau
220 South Broadway, Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55904
Pam Wilson
IF PAYING BY CHECK MAKE PAYABLE TO:
LMC HOUSING
Credit Card Preferred
Credit Card Company
Card Number
Expiration Date
The LMC Housing Bureau is authorized to use
the above card to guarantee my hotel
reservations reserved by me. I understand that
one night's room will be billed through this card
if I fail to show up for my assigned housing ~n
the confirmed date unless I have cancelled my
reservations with the hotel at least 24 hours in
advance.
Ca.-dl~,der s*gnatu~e Date
1987 LMC ANNUAL CONFERENCE
REGISTRATION FORM
GENERAL DELEGATE REGISTRATION JUNE 9-12, 1987
number
Advance registration (before June 5) ....................... $130.00
Registration at Conference ............................... $155.00
total
Registration fee includes badge, admission to all general sessions/workshops, and tickets for meal functions on the general program: Wednesday and
Thursday coffee in exhibit area. Wednesday and Thursday lunch. Thursday banquet. Friday coffee and rolls. This registration DOES... REPEAT ....
DOES... INCLUDE MAYORS~MINI CONFERENCE LUNCHEON on Thursday. T/us is a change fi'om previous years. If your spouse attends, that
registration is complimentary, but you must purchase meal tickets for your spouse. You may do so in the EXTRA CONFERENCE MEAL TICKETS section
below, ff you pre-register you'll receive a postcard acknowledgement to be presented at the advance registration desk to facilitate speedy registration.
City: Contact Person:
P
R
I
N
T
Fuji Nme NicJamme Title
(e.g. WilUim) (e.I. Bm)
MINI-CONFERENCE REGISTRATION THURSDAY, JUNE 11
Daytime
Telephone #
A.C.
total
number
Advance registration (before June 5) ........................ $60.00
Registration at Conference ................................ $70.00
Mini-Conference registration fee includes badge, registration, coffee, and luncheon. If you pre-register, you will receive a postcard acknowledgement to be
presented at the prepaid registration desk to facilitate speedy registration. Mini-Conference delegates who plan to attend the Thursday banquet should purchase
tickets below.
Reghtered delegates to the General Conference are welcome to attend Mini-Conference sessions and do not need to purchase spec~ registrations.
City: Contact Person:
P
L
E
A
S
E
P
R
I
N
T
Da.v~drae
Telephone #
A.C.
Full Name ITr. kname Title Spouse
(e.g. W~lliam) (e.g. BilD
EXTRA CONFERENCE MEAL TICKETS
Order extra meal tickets below. Be sure to indicate the name of the person(s) for whom you order the tickets, or the name of
the delegate who should receive the extra tickets. Spouses' complimentary registration does not include m~al tickets. Order
below. Mini-Conference registration does not include any meals except the Thursday luncheon.
Number Total
Luncheon Wednesday ............................................ $ 8.00
for whom
Mayors' LuncheoniMini-Conference Luncheon Thursday ............... $11.25
for whom
Banquet Thursday ............................................... $21.75
for whom
TOTAL ADVANCE REGISTRATION $
Send registration and payment to Gayle Brodt, League of Minnesota Cities, 183 University Ave. East, St. Paul,
~'vLN 55101. Make checks payable to: League of Minnesota Cities
RATE CHANGE N(~FICE
AT&T Ccm~nunicatlons of the Midwest, Inc. ("AT&T") has filed a Petition to
restructure its rates for interexchange services in Minnesota. This filing.
has been assigned to Docket No. P-442/M-87-54, and is made in compliance with
the following Minnesota Public Utilities Cc~nission Orders:
Docket Nos. P-442/M-85-408 and M-85-583, AT&T°s Operator and Credit Card
Surcharges and its Evening and Night/Weekend Discount cases, and
Docket No. P-442, P-421/CI-85-454, the Co,,,ission Investigation into the
Provision of and Billing of Wide Area Telecommunications Service (~ATS).
This filing represents a restructuring of the long distance service schedule,
price increases in Channel Services, and an overall ~eduction in WATS prices.
The results of Docket No. P-421/CI-85-352, where Northwestern Bell lowered the
per minute price of WATS access it charged to AT&T, allow this reduction in
prices.
Examples of AT&T's present rates and the proposed restructured rates for
WATS, and Channel Services are shown below.
Five Minute MTS Calls:
Mile Band 1-20 miles (Short Haul)
Present Rate:
$0.56 Day .38 Evening (32% Discount)
.28 Night/Weekend (50% Discount)
Proposed Rate:
$1.12 Day .72 Evening (35% Discount)
.6l Night/Weekend (45% Discount)
Mile Band 101-124 miles (Medi~ Haul)
Present Rate:
$2.05 Day
1.39 Evening. (32% Discount)
1.02 Night/Weokend (50% Discount)
Proposed Rate:
$2.02 Day
1.31 Evening (35% Discount)
1.11 Night/Weekend (45% Discount)
Mile Band 197-475 miles (r~ong Haul)
Present Rate:
$2.83 Day
1.92 Evening (32% Discount)
1.41 Night/Weekend (50% Discount)
Proposed Rate:
$2.47 Day
1.60 Evening (35% Discount)
1.35 Night/Weekend (45% Discount)
Wide Area Telephone Service (k%TS) at 30 hours of use per month
AT&T Outward WATS
Present Rate:
Proposed Rate:
$450.00 per month
348.00 per month
AT&T 800 Service:
Present Rate:
Proposed Rate:
AT&T Two-Way WATS
Present Rate:
Proposed Rate:
$502.50 per month
377.25 per month
$552.75 per month
411.00 per month
AT&T Channel Services:
Local Channel~--
Series 2000 Voice Grade
Present Rate:
Proposed Rate:
Series 3000 Data Grade
Present Rate:
Proposed Rate:
$ 12.90 per month
121.50 per month
$ 19.75 per month
121.50 per month
- Interexchange Mileage (Voice and Data)
Present Rate'@ 60 miles $286.65
Proposed Rate @ 60 miles: 209.90
Present Rate @ 200 miles:
Proposed Rate @ 200 miles:
$706.65
454.90
Nonrecurring Channel Connection Charge:
Present Rate Voice Grade: $196.20
Proposed Rate Voice Grade: 532.80
Present Rate Data Grade:
Proposed Rate Data Grade:
$236.50
532.80
AT&T is not proposing an overall revenue increase.
On March 30, 1987, the Minnesota Public Utilities C~ission ("M~]C#) issued
its Order accepting the filing and ordering a ~)ntested case hearing, on the
matter. The hearing.will commence with a Preheating Conference to be held at
9:30 a.m. on April 23, 1987, in the Large Hearing. Ro~, 715 American Center
Building, 160 East Kellogg Boulevard, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101. ~earing
dates for public and evidentiary hearings will be. set by Order of
Administrative Law Judge Richard DeIx)ng, to whom the case has been assigned.
A Noticeof the public and evidentiary hearings will be published at a later
date.
The MPUC's March 30 Order autho~.]zes AT&T to put- interim Fates into effect to
reflect a $4.543 million reduction frcm current cares, to be applied solely to
WATS rates. WATS rates will therefore be restr~Jctu~ as follows:
(more)
Full Time Service..
AT&T Outward WATS
Present Rate:
Interim Rate:
$974.00 per month
$849.85 per month
AT&T 800 Service:
Present Rate:
Interim Rate:
$869.00 per month
$758,25 per month
Tapered Service~
Hour Groups
0-15 15-40
40-80 Over 80
AT&TWATS
Present Rates: $15.25
Interim Rates: 13.30
$14.75 $13.75 $11.75
12.85 12.00. 10.25
AT&T 800 Service
Present Rates: $17.00
Interim Rates: 14.85
$16.50 $15.50 $14.00
14.40 13.50 12.20
Two-Way WATS
Present Rates: $18.70
Interim Rates: 16.30
$18.15 $17.05 $15.95
15.85 14.90 13.90
The effective date of the above interim rates is May 1, 1987.
A copy of the company's requested restructured rates is on file and is open to
public inspection during normal business hours at the offices of the Minnesota
Department of Public Service, 790 American Center Building, 160 East Kellogg
Boulevard, St. Paul, Minnesota. A copy is also available for public
inspection at the company's office located at 8300 Norman Center Drive, 9th
Floor, Blocmington, Minnesota.
AT&T ~[~ICATIONS OF THE M[DWEST, INC.
BEFORE THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
Barbara Beerhalter
Harry Seymour Crump
Cynthia A. Kitlinski
Robert J. O'Keefe
Darrel L. Peterson
Chair
Commiss~.oner
Commissioner
Co~issioner
Commissioner
In the Matter of A Request By AT&T
Communications of the Midwest, Inc.
to Change Its Rates for Telephone
Service Offered Within the State of
Minnesota
ISSUE DATE: MAR 3 0 1987
Docket No. P-442/M-87-S4
ORDER ACCEPTING FILING AND
SUSPENDING RATES, NOTICE AND
ORDER FOR HEARING, AND ORDER
SETTING INTERIM RATES
BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On January 30, 1987, AT&T Communications of the Midwest (AT&T/MW or the
Company) gave notice to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (the
Commission), pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 237.075, of a change in rates for
[nterexchange telephone service furnished to customers within the State
of Minnesota. In its notice of rate change, AT&T/MW proposed a $4.543
million overall decrease in rates (with some rates increasing and others
decreasing). AT&T/HW's proposed revenue decrease was based upon a
proposed rate base of $19.2 million and an overall rate of retut-n of
12.60% and a 15.O0% return on equity. AT&T/MW requested that the
proposed rates become effective on April 1, 1987.
AT&T/MW's notice of rate change was filed in combination with two
compliance filings from previous AT&T/MW proceedings before the
Commission: Docket Nos. P-442/M-85-408 and 583 required the filing of
significant amounts of financial, cost and contribution data.. Docket
Nos. P-a42, P-421/CI-84-454 and P-442/M-84-579 required a filing setting
forth proposed WATS rates, in response to any significant change in
access charges (in this instance, rate changes are in response to NWB's
final access tariff in Docket P-421/M-85-352).
AT&T/MW's proposed rate changes included a decrease in intrastate WATS
and 800 rates; increases and decreases in Messag~ Toll Service (MTS),
depending upon the mileage; increases, decreases and proposals to
discontinue some services in Channel Services, includin~ an increase for
TELPAK and the proposal that after six months it be discontinued; and a
proposal that the community calling plan and the circle rate break plan
be discontinued. AT&T/MW also requested that the Commission authorize an
immediate flow-through of any increase in Continental Telephone Company's
access charges that may result from the Commission's decision in Docket
No. P-407/M-86-642.
On ~eb~]ary 4, 1987, the Commission sJnt a letter to interested persons
requesti[%~ comments on the AT6T/MW filing. Interested persons were asked
rejected, suspended, o= subjected to further [nvest[§at[on. -'
Fiv~ interested persons responded tc the Commission's letter. The
Department of ~ubl[c Service (the DPS) recommen4ed [hat the Commission
allow the rates to 5o into effect pe~dinS an investigation an¢ that a
hearinsmay become necessary as a result of the invest[sat[on. The D?$
also recommende4 that AT&T/~s ~equest £o~ an automatic flow-through o~
access charse increases be rejected.
The Department of Administration (the DOA) recommended that the
Commission accept AT&T/MW's WATS proposal without delay, set the channel
services portions of the filins for contested case hearinS and suspend
the rates. The DOA stated that if the TELPAK rates were accepted, the
DOA would incur an annual two million dollar increase in expenses. The
DOA said that this was an amount which had not been budgeted for nor had
DOA been prepared for it. The Hinnesota Business Utility Users Council
(the HBUUC) recommended that the Commission accept the WATS rates but
subject the proposal to further investisatlon. The HBUUC arsued that the
reasonableness of the private line and ETS rates should be set for
contested case hearins.
US Sprint recommended that the rates be suspended pendins further
investigation. It had no position on a contested case hearins. The
Attorney General's Office, Residential Utilities Division recommended
that the Commission allow the rates to 5o into effect subject to further
investisation and that no contetsed case be held unless the investisation
warrants one.
The Commission also received numerous letters from educational
orsanizations which use channel services and would be affected by
AT&T/Iil4's proposed increases in those se~vlces. Amons them was a letter
from the Southwest/~est Central Educational Cooperative Se=vice Unit
(ECSU). This or$anization provides manasement data processin~ services
to 85 public school districts, in Southwest Einnesota. Accordin& to the
ECSU, the proposed tariff would increase the data transmission costs of
the southwest district 75~ or $35,000 per year. The letter also stated
that this increase would be repeated in the four other outstate resions.
ECSU requested that the Commission hold hearin$s on the tariff.
COMMISSION FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
AT&T/HW's rate chanse notice is the first filins of a "dominant carrier"
to. come before the Commission under the procedures set out in the
Commission's final order in its intrastate intercity telecommunications
invest[sation (Findinss of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order, Docket No.
P-~a2, P-aa3, p-aaa, P-a21, P-a33/NA-Sa-212, issued on October 15, 1985,
referred to hereinafter as the "212" Order). AT&T/IiW's rate chanie
notice is also the first time in recent Commission memory that a companF
has requested an overall rate decrease, Both of these facts make
AT&T/~'s f[lin$ out of the ordinary. As such, the filin& requires
careful consideration by the Commission.
In the "212" Order, the Commission authorized competition in both the
in~.raLATA and interLATA long distance markets in Minnesota. Regulatory
review procedures were set up such that the more dominant carriers (those
with ~ueat~r market powa& -- as discussed in ~he "212" Order,
Noc~.hweste~ Bell Telephone Co,~0~ny and AT&T/I~ fall into this category).
could file rate change~ to be e~fectivt in 21 day~, ir a rate decrease;
60 days, if a rate increase. The proposed rate chan~es would be
reviewed under the Commission's existing miscellaneous rate change
process.
Under the Commission's miscellaneous rate change process, as described in
the "212" Order, the Commission would review rate chan~es within the 21
or 60 day period to determine whether the new rates may be accepted, or
must be rejected or subjected to further investigation. Because
AT&T/H~'s filing contained proposals for rate increases and because
AT&T/~ requested a 60 day effective date, the Commission has reviewed
the rates under the 60 day time period.
Under the procedures established in the "212" Order, "if the new rates
appear unreasonable or discriminatory on their face, the Commission can
either suspend or reject the tariff. If the Commission chooses to
suspend and investigate the tariff, a hearing on the matter is likely to
be ordered. Even where a new rate appears reasonable and
nondiscriminatory on its face, the Commission may order further
investigation while allowing the new rate to go into effect." ("212"
Order at page 20.) The Commission said in its "212" Order that this
process recognizes that all questions regarding the new rates may not be
resolved within the 21 or 60 day time period, but that a basic
determination of how to proceed can be made.
The Commission finds that all questions_regarding the rate changes
proposed by AT&T/MW cannot be resolved within the 60 day time period.
Further investigation and a contested case proceeding is required to
determine the reasonableness of the rates being proposed. A contested
case proceeding is required for several reasons. First, the Commission
finds that several of the individual rate change proposals are of such
significance as to generate dispute among the interested persons who
filed comments. Second, the Commission is concerned about several
unresolved financial issues. These include the following: the
significant change proposed in uncollectible expense ($4.6 million
dollars, a 608~ increase over previous figures), whether elements of the
1986 Tax Reform Act, Public Law Number 99-51~, have been interpreted
appropriately for ratemaking (AT&T/IiW based its tax calculations on the
40% blended rate, rather than the 3~% rate which will be effective
July l, 1987), and expense allocations, advertising, cash working capital
and litigation expense to name a few. Third, the Commission is concerned
with AT&T/H~'s proposed rate of return and the proposal that the
Commission adopt a range of rates of return around the best point
estimate established by the Commission.
A contested case hearing will also give the Commission and interested
persons the opportunity to conduct a comprehensive review of AT&T/I~4.
AT&T/IiW has never had a general rate case before the Commission. Past
proceedings involving AT&T/~%~ were of a limited nature and only permitted
a cursory review of the Company's books and records.
The Commission finds that AT&T/MW's proposed rate chan§e filfn is
sufficiently complete to begin an investigatlqn of the reasonableness of
the requested change {n rates pursuant to Minn. Stat. ~ 237.075 (1986).
The Commission will accept the filing as a rate chanK- unde~ Minn. Stat.
S 237.075 (1986).
The Commission will suspend AT&T/HW's proposed rate chan~es as filed on
January 30, 1987 for a per{od o~ ten months ~rom the f{l{n~ date while an
investigation into the reasonableness of the rates is conducted. Because
.of the significance and potential impact of the rate changes proposed in
the Company's filing, the Commission concludes that it is in the public
interest to suspend the proposed rates.
~inn. Stat. ~ 237.075, subd. 2 (1986) authorizes the Commission to
determine all questions of reasonableness of the proposed rates before
it. If the Commission cannot resolve all significant issues to its
satisfaction, the statute directs the Commission to refer the matter to
the Office of Administrative HearinSs to conduct a public hearing and a
contested case pursuant to Minn. Stat. Chapter l~. Pursuant to Minn.
Stat. ~ 237.075 subd.la (1986), a contested case hearins may become
unnecessary if the applicant and all interested parties agree to a
stipulated settlement of the case and the settlement is supported by
substantial evidence. In that event, the stipulated settlement shall be
referred to the Commission who shall accept or reject the settlement in
its entirety. If the Commission rejects the settlement, a contested case
hearins will be held.
The Commission finds that it cannot resolve all questions of
reasonableness of the proposed rates to its satisfaction and that a
contested case hearins is necessary to determine whether the proposed
rates are ~ust and reasonable or would result in excessive and
unreasonable earnin~s for the Company. Pursuant to the authority in
Minn. Stat. ~ 23?.0?5 (1986), the Oommission will order that a contested
case hearin~ be scheduled in this matter. The hearin~ shall be conducted
in such a manner that the Commission may issue its initial decision
within ten months of January 30, 1987, or if a stipulated settlement is
filed with the Commission, within twelve months of January 30, ~987.
The Commission must set interim rates when it has suspended the proposed
rate change filing. Minn. Stat. ~ 237.075, subd. 3 (1986). Interim
rates are to be based upon the Company's proposed rate base and operatin~
income statement, including items the same nature and kind as those
allowed in the Company's most recent rate case. The Commission has not
applied this interim rate law to a decrease before this case. In
addition, AT&T/MW has never had a general rate case before the Commission
so no previously Commission approved rate base, income statement and rate
of return on equity exist for AT&T/MW. However, the Commission finds
that the rate base and income statement include items the same nature and
kind as those reviewed by the Commission and used to set rates in Docket
No. P-~42/M-85-~08 and P-~2/M-85-583. These two dockets were a
consolidated proceeding to examine proposed chan~es in operator services,
credit card surcharges, and evening, night and weekend long distance
rates. The proceeding was not a ~enera~ rate case; no rate base and
income statement was approved by the Commission, and no rate of return on
equity or overall rate of return was adopted.
The Commission finds that interim rates should reflect the reduced costs
in the Company's filing but that further adjustments should not be made
because the statute provides no means such as surcharge to restore the
funds to the Company at the end of the case if the Company proves its
case. Therefore, the Commission will set the interim revanue re,~-~icement
to reflect a $~.543 million re,tuction from current rates.
The Commission finds that exigent circumstances exist to warrant the use
of AT&T/MW's proposed rate of return for the purposes of settin~ interim
rates. There are two exigent circumstances. The first is that AT&T/H~
does not have a previously approved rate of return because it has never
filed a general rate case before the Commission. Second, no company with
characteristics similar to AT&T/M~ has come before the Commission for a
$eneral rate adjustment. Thus, the Commission cannot use the rate of
return on equity for a similar company to apply to AT&TH~.
MLnn. Stat. S 237.075, subd. 3 (1986) also provides that the interim rate
design should not be changed from present rates. A~ain, the Commission
has not been calle~ upon to apply this in the case of a decrease. Here,
much of the decreased costs are due to reductions in WATS llne access
charges, which AT&T/H~was previously ordered to flow through to WATS
customers. Additional proposed decreases in WATS and other services are
made possible by offsetting rate increases. These latter increases and
decreases reflect changes in rate design. In order to implement the WATS
compliance filing and to avoid further chan~es in rate desi§n until the
end of this case, the Commission will direct that AT&T/H~ apply any
reduction in the interim revenue requirement to WATS rates.
While the contested case proceeding is being conducted and during the
suspensidn of the proposed rates, the Commission will authorize the
Company to collect interim rates such that ratepayers may receive the
benefit of the proposed overall revenue decrease and the Company is not
burdened. The Commission will order that interim rates be set such that
AT&T/HW's WATS rates are reduced by $4.543 million and all other services
remain priced and structured at current, not proposed, levels and design.
The Commission finds that this interim rate schedule complies with the
requirements of Minn. Stat. S 237.075, subd. 3. The interim rate
schedule affords the Company the opportunity to generate its proposed
revenue requirement without subjectins the Company to excess loss of
revenues during the period rates are suspended.
PROCEDURAL OUTLINE
The public and evidentiary hearlnis on the Company's petition will be
conducted by an Administrative Law Judge appointed by the Chief
Administrative Law Judge of the State of Minnesota and will be held in
compliance with the applicable laws relating to the Public Utilities
Commission, the contested case provisions of the Administrative Procedure
Act (Minn. Stat. Ch. 14), the Rules o the Office of Administrative
Hearings, Minnesota Rules, parts 1400.5100 - 1400.8400, and the Rules of
Practice of the Public Utilities Commission, Minnesota Rules,,parts
7630.0100 - 7830.4400, to the extent that they have not been superseded
by the Rules of the 0~ice of Admlnlstcat~ve Heac~ngs.
These statutes and rules may be purchased from the Documents Section of
the Department of Administration, 117 University Avenue, Sro Paul,
Minnesota 55155, 612/297-3000.
The rules provide generally for the procedural rights of the parties
includin$: rights to advance notice of witnesses and evidence, right to
a prehearin~ conference, rights to present evidence and cross examine
witnesses, and rights to purchase a record or transcript. Parties are
entitled to issuance of subpoenas to compel witnesses to attend and
produce documents and other evidence pursuant to Minnesota Rules, part
1400.7000.
Interested persons or groups may petition to intervene as formml parties
in the case to present expert testimony and submit briefs. The
Administrative Law Judge will hold evidentiary hearings for the
presentation of expert testimony by the Company, the Minnesota Department
of Public Service, and other agencies, persons, or groups who have
formally intervened. Parties are advised to bring to the hearing all
documents, records and witnesses they need to support their position.
During the evidentiary hearings, all parties may present evidence and
argument re~arding the issues and may cross-examine witnesses.
Any person intendi~ to intervene as a formal party to these hearings
must submit a Petition for Leave to Intervene to the Administrative Law
Judge and serve the petition on all exlstin~ patties. The petition must
state how the Petitioner's legal rights, duties or privileges may be
determined or affected by the Commission's decision in the matter and
shall set forth the ~rounds and purposes for which intervention is
sought, and shall ~ndicate the Petitioner's statutory right to intervene,
~f one exists. All parties have the right to be represented by an
attorney, by themselves, or by a person of their choice if not otherwise
prohibited as the unauthorized practice of law.
A Notice of Appearance (ATTACHMENT A) must be filed with the
Administrative Law Judge within 20 days of the date of service of this
Order if. any party intends to appear at the hearing. The Notice of
Appearance is not required if the hearin~ date is less than 20 days from
the issuance of this Order.
The time, date, and place of the contested case hearing shall be set by
order of ihe Administrative Law Judge after consultation with the
Commission and intervening parties. Unless approved by the Chief
Administrative Law Judge, the contested case hearings shall not be
scheduled to begin less than 30 days from service of this Notice and
Order for Hearing. The Chief Administrative Law Judge may shorten the 30
day period if shown that a shorter time is in the public interest and
that interested persons are not likely to be prejudiced by this action.
A preheating conference shall be held at 9:30 a.m. on April 23, 1987, in
the Lar§e Hearing Room, 715 American Center Building, 150 East
Boulevard, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101. Potential interveno=s shall attend
the preheating conference with information which will facilitate the
I.I..15
schedulin~ of hearings pecmittin$ all of the parties to present their
evidentiary views in a manner and within a time frame which would be as
fair and expeditious as possible. Hatters which may be discussed
include: the reasonable time period required to prepare direct testimony
for ~ilin~ on all issues; recommended locations for hearings to receive
public input re~ardin~ the petition; time required for parties to prepare
for depositions and other discovery; and other matters that will
facilitate full and fair hearings on the petition.
If persons have ~ood reason for requestin~ a delay of any hearing, the
request must be made in w~itin~ to the Administrative Law Judge at least
five days prior to the hearing. A copy of the request must be served on
the Commission and all parties.
Failure by the petitioner to appear at the hearin§ may result in the rate
chan~e bein~ denied. If no interested person appears and contests the
proposed rate chan~e at the hearing, the rates may be approved as
proposed.
Followin~ the congested case hearing, the Commission may approve any or
all of the proposed rates. The Commission may adjust rates for classes
of customers to levels ~reater than those proposed by the Company and
make other rate adjustments.
Parties are advised that if data classified as not public are admitted
into evidence, they may become public data unless a party objects and
asks for relief under Hinn. Stat. S 14.60, subd. 2 (1984).
Any question conce=nin~ infotmml disposition of this matter pursuant to
Hinnesota Rules, part 1400.5900 or discovery of information pursuant to
Hinnesota Rules, parts 1400.6700 and 1400.6800, should be addressed to
Karl Sonneman, Special Assistant Atto=ney General, 780 American Center
Building, St. Paul, Hinnesota 55101, 612/296-0410.
All other questions conce=nin~ this hearin~ should be addressed to the
Administrative Law Judge assigned:
Richard DeLon~
Office of Administrative Hearings
400 Summit Bank Buildin~
310 South 4th Avenue
Hinneapolis, Hinnesota 55~15
612/341-7604
The lobbyin~ provisions of Hinn. 'Stat. Chapter IOA apply to general rate
cases. ~f the document that a person files pertains to ratemakin~,
~ulemakln~, certificates of need for large energy facilities or contested
case cate proceedings, the person may be required to re~ister with the
Hinnesota Ethical Practices Board under the lobbyin~ provisions of Hinn.
Stat. Ch. 10A. Lobbyin~ includes attemptin~ to influence administrative
action in rulemakin~ proceedin§s, certificate of need cases or contested
ratemakin~ cases. An individual who is en~a&ed for pay or authorized by
anotheu individual or association to spend money and who spends more than
~ive hours in any month or more than $250 in a year to influence
admi~i~trative action must re~ister with the 8o~d and ~eport,
for obb¥ ns pu pos s nclud ns pceparat on and
distribution of lobbyin~ materials, telephone, postaze, media-.
~dvert[s{n~ travel and lodging. The statute provides certain
~empti. ons, includin$ an exception applicable to expert witnesses
deliveri~ testimony. Persons are encouraged to telephon- the Board at
&12/296-1720 for' additional informat{on.
ORDER
The notice_of rate change as filed by AT&T Con~unications of the Midwest,
Inc. on January 30, 1987 is accepted. The operation of the proposed
schedule of rates is suspended until the Commission reaches a
determination as to Whether the rates are just and reasonable or until
November 30, 1987, whichever occurs first.
A contested case hearing concerninz this matter shall be held commencin§
with a Prehearin~ Conference at 9:30 am, on April 23, 1987 in the Large
Hearin~ Room, ?15 American Center Building, 150 East Kello~ Boulevard,
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101. Hearin~ dates will be set by=Order of the
Administrative Law Judge.
AT&T Communications of the Midwest, Inc. is hereby authorized interim
rates to reflect a reduction in annual revenues of $~,5~3,O00.
Within 10 days of the service date of this Order, the Company shall file
with the Commission and the Department of Public Service, interim tariff
sheets reflectln~ the decisions herein and indicatinz an effective date'
for the new rates.
This Order shall be served on the Company who shall mail copies of the
same to all municipalities and counties in its service area and to such
other persons as the Department of Public Service may request.
6. Public Hearinss shall be held at locations within the service area of the
Company.
7. The Department of Public Service shall conduct an investigation to
determine the reasonableness of the proposed change in rates.
o
Information requests may be issued by the Department of Public Service and
any other party when requestinz supplemental information. Such requests
shall be answered by the Company or other party within lO days of receipt
of the request·
9..'.The Company shall ~ive written not[ce, as approved by the Commission, of
the proposed chan&e in rates to the ~overnin§ body of each municipality
and county in the areas affected and shall submit an affidavit of such
service to the Commission within 45 days of the service date of this
Order.
10. The Company shall ~ive notice to all customers of the prehearin~
conference, the proposed rates and the interim rates by publication at
Iol1'7
least lO days prior to the date of the preheating conference, in the legal
newpapers of the county seat towns in the counties in the service ace,s o~
the Co~pan¥. Th~s notice must be submitted loc Co~ission approval w~thin
7 days of the service date of t.his Orde~
~1. In addition Co the notices required above by ordering paragraphs 9 and lO,
the Company shall give the following notices of the evidentiary and public
hearings:
a) Written notice to the severing bodies of each municipality and county
in the areas affected and to parties on the official service list and
any additional persons found on the service list attached to this Order
shall-be mailed at least ten days prior to the start of the hearings;
and
b) Display ads in the legal newspapers of the affected counties and other'
newspapers of general circulation in towns in the Company's service
area shall be published at least ten days prior to the start of the
hearings. .The heading on the display ad, RATE CHANGE NOTICE, must be
set in 30 point, or larger, bold face type.
These noticies shall contain the information required in Minnesota
Rules part 7830.3200, subpart 2. These notices must be submitted for
Commission approval prior to publication and within 15 days after the
date of the Adminstrative Law Judge's pre-hearin~ order which states
the time, date and place of the evidentiary and public hearings.
12.'The Commission authorizes the Executive Secretary of the Minnesota Public
Utilities Commission to enter orders on behalf of the Commission varying
time requirements for the filing of pleadings and other documents and
determining the conduct of this proceeding before the Commission according
to the standards set forth in Minnesota Rules, part 7830.~00. Any party
adversely affected by any Order issued by the Executive Secretary varying
such filing requirements or regarding other matters may file a motion to
reconsider, vacate, or modify the Order within ten days after its entry or
one day prior to the filing deadline or occurence of an act directed by
the Order. Any motion for reconsideration, vacation, or modification
shall be heard by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.
13. This Order shall become effective immediately.
BY ORDER OF THE CO~94ISSION
Mary Ell~nHennen "'
Executive Secretary
SERVICE DATE:
(SEAL)
0956C
ATTACHMENT A
BEFO£E THE MINNESOTA OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
600 Su~it Bank Building
310 South Fourth Avenue
Mfnneapolis, Minnesota $5415
FO£ THE MINNESOTA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
780 American Center Building
160 East Kellog~ Boulevard
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
In the Matter of A Request By AT&T
Co~=~unications of the Midwest, Inc.
to Chanie Its Rates for Telephone
Service Offered Within the State of
M~nnesota '
MPUC Docket No. P-a~2/M-87-5~
OAR Docket No.
NOTICE OF APPEARANCE
Date of Mearin&:
Name and Telephone Number of Administrative Law Judge:
Richard DeLonl~
612/311-760t
TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE:
You are advised that the party named below will appear at the above hearin$.
NAME OF PARTY:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE'NUHBER:
PARTY'S ATTORNEE OR OTHER REPRESENTATIVE:
OFFICE ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
SIGNATURE OF PARTY OR ATTORNEY:
DATE:
COMMISSION'S SERVICE LIST
AT&T Communications
(Notice of Rate Change)
Docket No. P-442/M-87-54
Mary Ellen Hennen
Executive Secretary
MN Public Utilities Commission
780 American Center
150 E. Kellogg-Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55101
James Jarvis
Special Assistant Attorney General
Department of Public Service
llO0 Bremer Tower '
7th Place and Minnesota Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
LinOa Anthony
Dept. of Public Service
790 American Center Building
150 E. Kellogg Boulevard
St. P.aul, MN 55101
· James A. Gallagher
Maun, Green, Hayes, Simon,
Johanneson & Brehl
Suite 332, Hamm Building
St. Paul, MN 55102
Dennis D. Ahlers
Thomas M. O'Hern, Jr.
Special Assts. Attorney General
340 Bremer Tower
7th Place ano Minnesota Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
John B. Van de North, Jr.
Ann Huntroos
Briggs and Morgan .
2200 First National Bank Bldg.
St. Paul, MN 55101
William E. Flynn
Atty. for Minn. Business
Utility Users Council
3800 IDS Tower
80 South Eighth Street
Minneapolis, Mk 55402
John F. Ward, Jr.
U.S. Telephone, Inc.
Suite 5100
First National Plaza
Chicago, IL 60603
Erica Jacobson
Special Assistant Attorney General
204 Administration Building
50 Sherburne Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55155
W. Richard Morris,
Mark E. Belmont
Attorneys
AT&T Communications
10825 Old Mill Road, 2nd Floor
Omaha, Nebraska 68154
Joann Anderson
AT&T Communications
400 North Robert, Suite 950
St. Paul, MN 55101
Stephen T. Refsell
Attorney at Law
Northwestern Bell Telephone Company
200 South 5th Street, Rm. 1800
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Scott Eckmann
Department of Public Service
790 American Center Building
160 E. Kellogg Boulevard
St. Paul, MN 55101
Carla Kjellberg
Minnesota Publ'ic Interest
Research Group
2412 University Avenue SE
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Richard J. Johnson, Esq.
Moss & Barnett, P.A.
1200 Pillsbury Center
200 South Sixth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Robert W. Nichols
Attorney at Law
MCI Telecommunications Corporation
Suite 4200
707 -17th Street
Denver, CO 80202
Terry J. Kolp
Attorney at Law
Regulatory Law Office
JALS-RL, Nassiff Building
5611 Columbia Pike
Falls Church, VA 22041-5013
Richard DeLong
Aoministrative Law Judge
Office of Administra%ive Hearings
400 Summit Bank B1U~.
310 Fourth Ave. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Thomas Bystrzycki
Assistant Vice President-
Government Relations/Regulatory
c/o Keren Fisher'
Northwestern Bell Telephone Co.
Rm. 3A75, 200 South Fifth Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Warren R. Spannaus
Mark B. Rotenberg
Dorsey & Whitney
2200 First Bank Place East
Minneapolis, MN 55402
David L. Sasseville
U.S. Sprint Communications Company
West Division
Tower I, Suite 3400
999 - 18th Street
Denver, Colorado 80202
Ms. Susan J. Burke
Network Coordinator
American Sharecom, Inc.
Suite 218
1300'Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, MN 55403
McKunzie Whitaker
Trial Atto6ney
Defense Communications Agency
ATTN: Cooe ll5
Washington,.D.C. 20305-2~00
Karl Sonneman
Special Assistant Attorney General
MN Public Utilities Commission
78D American Center Building
150 E. Kellogg Blvd.
St. Paul, MN 55101
Mr. Sherman Holbert
Fort Mille Lacs Village
Mille Lacs Lake
Onamia, MN 56359
Lee E. Whitcraft
Director, Operations
Technology & Information EOuc. SerVices
1925 W. County Road B2
Roseville, MN 55113
Robert J. Wedl
Executive Director
ESV Computer Council.
849 Capitol Square Building
550 Cedar Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
Burdette V. Clifford
Executive Director
Region I - ESV
810 South 4th Avenue
P.O. Box 1178
Moorhead, MN 56560
Beverly Philliber
ESV Region IV MIS Advisory Committee
Ind. School District ~409
P.O. Box 659
Tyler, MN 56178
J. Foecke
Executive Director
EXV Region III
570 First Street S.E.
..... St. Clou~, MN 56301
Sally Tobey
Director of Admin. Services
Southwest/West Central ECSU
Southwest State University
P.O. Box 547
Marshall, MN 56258
MINUTES OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Aprll 13, 1987
Present were: Chairman Thomas Reese; Commissioners' Vern Andersen, William Meyer,
Geoff Michael, Kenneth Smith, Brad SOhns and Frank Wei. land; Council Representative
Elizabeth Jansen; City Manager Edward Shukle; City Planner Mark Koegler; Building
Official Jan.Bertrand and Secretary Marjorie Stutsman. Absent and excused was Com-
missioner William Thai... Also'present were.the following interested persons: John
Weber, Joel Krueger, Scott. Thomson, Mark Jenks, William Carrow, Dorothy Nitchings,
Beatrice.Tangen, Elliot. Hlllqulst,.Jerry Tasa, Merle L. Eisert, Dorothy Hallin,
Jerry Hallin, Richard DeGulse, Rosemary. DeGulse, Ernie Strong, Dayton D. Wiliiamson,
Margaret W.illlamson, Paul:Larson representing. Mr. S MrS. Sharp, J. Thomas Leplsto,'
Mike Gardner and Barb Messerich. '.
MINUTES
The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of March 9, 1987 were presented for
conslderati, on; Welland moved and Jensen seconded a motion that they be approved as
publ|shed. .The vote was unanimously in favor.
The minutes of the Planning Commi. sslon meeting of March 23, 1987 were presented for
consideration; Jensen moved and Welland seconded a motion that the minutes of
March 23,'1987 be approved.as submitted. The vote was unanlmously in.favor.
BOARD OF APPEALS
1. Case No. 87-621 Rear'Yard setbackvariance for q932'Bedford Road
Lots 16 and'17,'Block. 38, Wychwood
Hark Jenks was present.
The Building Offlclal,.Jan'Bertrand, reviewed'the request for a variance to
allow Mr~ .Jenks.to construct an attacheddeck 15.8 feet by 7.6 feet with walk-
way and a,proposed'addition.22 by 2q feet.to the east and west sides of the
existing dwelling. Brighton BOulevard Is.the-front of the existing 'cl~elling
because it' ls the narrowest side of. the.lot..The.Bedfordstreet setback is 15.1
feet and the required setback'ln, th&.R-3 District is 30 feet to both streets.
A deck is'~llowed to be within'.ten'feet, of, the'rear lot line (west). The pres-
ent deck l.s.belng..constructed at .1.8 feet to,the rear line.. She commented the
Zoning Code alJ-o~s uncovered terraces, porches,.stoops not.extending above-
height of principal bulldlng ground floor to be within 2 feet of the lot line.
She stated possibly' appl.icant could.'con~truct wall~vay at grade level Into hill
and than have a stairway up to.the elevated deck.lO feet back from the west prop-
erty line,.. Staff is.recommending'approvq] of a 22-bY 2q foot addition with con-
.forming setbacks ('this would br, ing dwelling to over the' mini'mum 840 square foot
floor area) and recognize the existing 15.1 foot front yard setback to Bedford
and.the 4.8 foot.rear yard setback Upon the condition walkway be constructed ..
within 30 Inches of grade with a stair~ay 'to a raised deck 10 feet from the
west lot line.
The Commission discussed the proposal and that the proposed Walkway and deck
was intensifying the nonconformity and that a portion of the deck~vould have to
be moved and walkway, would not be 1eve! wlth deck if staff's recommendation
approved.' It was suggested the best solution would be for applicant to approach
neighbor to purchase.part of Lot'l$.
Mr. Jenks stated his house was built in 1950 and there had been. a step for this
door which extended out a couple of feet. He didn't think he could purchase
Planning Commission Pilnutes
'~prii 1~ 1~87 - Page 2.
more land; he needed bls money to complete the addition. The CommisSion asked
him if he would be incllned to have walkway at grade (30 inches or'less) and
have stepsgolng up to deck? The Bu~ldlng 0fflclal stated steps could be in the
setback'space, but not closer t.han'2 feet to line. denks said it ~ould be a lot
of work, but was agreeable.
Hichael moved and Welland seconded a motion to recommend to the Councll approv-
ing with the staf.f recommendation'the.proposed 22 by 2q foot addition to bring
.the structure to minimum floor'.area requirements, recognize the existing 15.1
foot front yard'setback and .~.8 foot rear yard setback; staff recommends that
the'deck walkway .be reduced to 30 inches or less from the existing grade.
The vote'was unanimously in favor.
This will be referred to the council for the April 28, lp87 meeting.
Case No. 87-622 Lot width variance ahd subdivision - 5950 Bartlett Boulevard
Lot $5, Auditor's SUbdivision No.'168; PID No.'23-117-2~ 13 0032
As no one'was present from Roco Investment, the Commission proposed tabling.
Dorothy Hallin.who lives on.east side of'the property wished to be heard so
the Chairman asked the staff to review the request first.
The Building Offlcial reviewed her report on the lot width variance and. the
minor-subdivision; noting .1.) the nonconforming front yard setback and rear yard
setback (as drawn), on parcel shown as 2; 2) the' new sewer and water services
that would.be required to serve dwe]li.ng"on parcel I in the dedicated 25 foot
strip with the condition that grades be. added to'. the survey and the drainage ease-
ment may have to be included.and approved by the City Engineer to assure'drainage
from 'the lot in rear :to Bartlett'Boulevard. · There may be a problem servicing lot
for sewer :by gravity. Staff does recommend the waiver of a public hearing for
the subdivision with the conditions listed in her report.
The Commission discussed'and had various questions.' Dorothy Hall in expressed con-
cern that it would not conform, to.the 'rest of the neighborhood; doesn't understand
how utillties will come'all the'way back there to.service one property; she thinks
they'll w~nt to'subdLvide'back.lot again. She also brought in.a letter from James
and Harylan Lewis, $921 Beachwood, which .mentioned the same concerns. The Commis-
sion discussed that they.might request more building sites to the rear; they did
not feel there was a hardship; also discussed condition of the house at 5950 and
the possibility of dividing parcel't° make two more or less conforming sites by
splitting off westerl.y portion-of the parcel. Commission did not want to take any
action without input from applicant.
Andersen moved and Heyer seconded a motion t° table pending applicant be. lng
present.. The vote was.unanimously in favor.
The"Chairman directed .that' Pis. Hallin be notified when case will be heard.
Case No. 87-623 Public Hearing for Conditional Use Permit for the operatTon of a
fast food, convenience, drive-in restaurant (Class I!) at 2330 Wilshire Boulevard;
Lots 7-20 & 26-35, including vacated alley, parking lot and park; Block 1, Shirley
Hills Unit F; PID No. 13-117-2q 3~ 0072 ..
Scott A. Thomson of Domino~s Pizza was present.
/;-;-3
Planning Commission Hinutes .
.. April 13, 1987 - Page 3 ~ "
Hark Koegler~, City' Planner, .reviewed his.report which recommends granting .approv~
Subject to.the three conditions he ilsts.
The Commission questioned.whether overnight parking should be allowed Since there
was no.mentlon'of it-in the report. Hr. Thomson stated there would be one Company
vehicle left overnight. The drlvers doing delivery use their own vehicles. The
Planner stated this area was'more auto oriented than downtown Commerce Square.
.He also stated that parking space in this.area'has not been a problem. Smith
stated t~at parkl, hg lot should be looked, at as people canlt flgure out h°w to park:
no striping or'design for parking. Koegler stated our Ordinance does not require
that and perhaps, Since Oomino~s.are a tenant, Commission should address this~to
the owner of the Shopping Center.
The..Chalrman opened the public hearing; there'was no'.one present Who had comments
or questions;, he closed the public hearing.
Heyer moved.and l~elland seconded a motion to recommend':o the' Council. staff
recommendations for approval of the conditional.use.permit for'Domino~s Pizza.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
The public hearing by the Cbunci1 will be set.for April 28, '1987.
Case No. 87-$2Zt Sign varlance.'for: Shoreline Plaza Shopping Centerl
Lots 7-20~& 26-35 including va(:ated alley.; parking are and park; P1D 13,117-2~
3a 0072
AppllCant could'n°l~' be present at this meeting'and asked this to be tabled to
a subsequent' meeting.
Jengen moved and ~/ei'land Seconded a m0. tion to tab1e. A!1 voted in favor.
Case. No. 87~625 Lot size variance.: for q. 925 Glen 'Elyn Road
Lot 22,. Bloc.k 2q; Shadywood:Point; PID No.. 13-117~2q 11 00~7
Paul Larson, Herri11 Lynch .'Real ty ,. was present for Hr. & Hrs. Sharp
Hark'Koegler reviewed hls."report on this request for a lot size-- ~arlance; Lot
22 contains approximately $120 square' feet or' about SlX'of the lot ar.ea r'equire-
ment. C!.ty Code al.lows lots of.record to be used for slngle family dwelling pur-
poses p'rovldlng.area .meets all setback a. nd minimum lot area requirements, In
1985, Council Studied non-conforming; parcels ~i.thin Three points and decided to
review variances On a case by case basis.. Staff is recommending denlal of the -
variance.
The following persons wholare owners of abUtting properties were opposed to
"shoehorning a·house lnto that tot"': .B~11 Carrow, Gerald Tasa, Ernie Strong
and Richard OeGulse.
The COmmission'dlscussed and had various questions on setbacks, etc. 'The. Plan-
ner had commented that Lot $ might be available to be combined with Lot 22 to
meet the area requirement. Hr. Strong stated that the same person owned.Lots
$ and 6 and if Lot 5 went wlth Lot 22, than Lot ~ would be underslzed.
Smith move.d and Sohns seconded a motion moving the staff recbmmendation for
denlal. The vote was unanimously in favor. It's not a hardship as has no home.
This will be on the Council agenda of April 28,'.1987.
Planning Commission Hinutes
Aprll 13, 1987 - Page
Ge
Case No. 87-626. Rear yard. variance for 5325 Waterbury Road
West 1/2 of Lot 54,.Whipple Shores~ PID 25-137-2~ 21 0154
Applicant,' J. Thomas Lepisto, was present..
The Building Offic-ial.reviewed'he~"repbrt. on this request stating the Commission
has seen it before..The'lot was subdi.vided in 1981'and in 1.985, the Council ap-
proved..the same rear yard variance Of 9 feet'to..allow dwelling 6 feet to the south
lot line. That applicant has'since passed'away. The'attached "Exhibit A" site
plan shows howe s-tructure'.could'be Placed on the property.. Due .to the topography
and Shallowness. of lot, a 9 foot rear yard variance could be approved subject to
the City Engineer's approval of site grading and Watershed District permits.
oo
The Commission questioned, if our present ordinance Was in effect when this was
subdivided (it was done before). .The Bui'lding Official stated that because of
the steepness of Waterbury, her suggest)on is to grant..~he variance to get the-
home a litt]e farther from the street; Neighbor to.the south has no objections
to t.he variance.
Jansen moved and AnderSen'seconded recommending granting the Staff recommenda-
tion. The vote Was unanimously in favor.
This will be referred to .the Council April 28, 1987.
Case no. 87~627 Variance request for t599 Bluebird Lane
Lots 18 and 19;' Block 6, WoodlandPoint; PID No.' 13-117-2q 12 0128
Hike. Gardner'was present. ~
· ' ' ' second ':'
The City Planner Hark Koegler reviewed his report stating the Proposed
floor will approximately double.the existing f]oor area. He explained the existing
setbacks and the required.setbacks. Application of the Code would result in a
1.5 foot rear ?ard variance, a 2 foot side yard variance on the north and a 3 foot
side yard variance on the south proPerty iine. The Ordinance forbids the'altera-
tion of nonconforming residential units when improvements increase the bulk of
the building. .As there is additional space to add onto the front, the staff
recommends denial due to ]ack of actual hardship.
Hr. Gardner stated'house wou)d'look l.ike a barn if addition made on Blue'bird side;
he also wants to add a garage. 'He stated that originally the house had a second
floor and a former owner tore it'off. He'thought the home' with a second floor
would fit.into.the neighborhood-and meet his needs best. House has been a rental;
but he is'buying'and wants to fix it up to live in.
Barb Hesserich, neighbor to the north, stated the house needs improvement. She
thinks if he bui)ds.long way, it would look ]ike a box car. Her concern is having
his eave (comes out about ]8+ inches)'.over her flag stone'retaining wa]l causing
damage and washing out and eroding the wa1) away.
The Commission discussed request;'one of the items questioned was whether founda-
tion would support proposed addition. Concern was expressed .for the integrity
of the ordinance and that Commission is here to treat everybody the same~
Hichael [bought anytime an individual wants to buy and fix up a house, we ought
1
to try to work with him and stated we ought to.]ook at. the ordinances. Smith
thought fire access should be considered as part of setback which wou)d in essence
glve him additional 15 feet or 22 feet on the one side and 2 foot variance on
other side. Weiland agreed with considering access as part of §etback; his concert
Plannlng Commission HjnuteS
. April 13, 1987 - Page 5
was for the neighbor on the north. Jansen has a hard time seeing where the
hardship is, but stated a recent approval was given on the basis of "practical
difficulty" (Section 23.506.1 of the Code).
The Chairman stated that if proposal were to be allowed, the property should
be cleaned up. He.mentioned an unlicensed vehicle, trash, accessory building
etc. The.staff asked that three issues be addressed if approval were considered:
· 1) Overhang situation/drainage.runoff'has to be'controlled; 2) Structure has
to be brought up tb code ahd 3) Applicant has to submit a registered signed land
survey that conforms to his drawing/or this has to come back to the Commisslon.
Smith moved ~nd Heyer seconded a mot.ion to' ~ecommend granting variances ~ith.
the three conditions recommended by the staff. Clarification of "up'to code"
was made.to mean to bring structure up ~to building code and lot up to zoning.
code. The vote was Hey, r, Hlchael, Smith and. Weiland in favor; and Andersen,
Jensen, Sohns and Reese opposed. Hotion tied.
Weiland gave the r~ason he decided to' vote in favor was that the neighbors were
in favor of the house being ~epalred rather.than.just left.
This'will be referred to the Council on April 28, 1987.
Case No. 87-628 Hinor subdivision of land at 6116 Bartlett Boulevard
Metes and bo mds description; PID No. 23-117-24 31 0002
Applicant was not present.
The Buildlng 0ffici'al revi.ewed her report dn the minor Subd~vlslon/lot spllt
'to create a new bulldlng.site and stated that it meets all requirements in. the
R-i Residential Zoning District. Staff recommends approval of the subdivision
requested, waiver'of public hearing, escrow account, etc. for the metes and.
bounds described lot as per the.survey for the proposed legal descriptions.upon
the condition that the.propertyo~ner stub into the lot new sewer and water
services, obtain Hennepin County utility and driveway permits, pay any dell-'
clent sewer and water un.its for the additional building site with park dedication
fee whlch'.is applicable at the t'ime'~f building permit issuance(not less than
$300.).' ·
Jensen .mOved and ~elland seconded a motion to move staff recommendation. The
vote wbs unanimously in favor.
This will be referred to the Council on April 28, 1987.
Case No. 87-629 Front yard setback variance for.2012 Villa Lane
Lots 1 and 2, Block 5,.Abraham Llncoln Addition to Lakeside Park; PlO No."
13-117-24 31 0023
Dayton and Hargaret ~llliamson were present.
T~e'Building Official reviewed her report on request for a front yard setback
variance from the existing structure to the unimproved Villa Lane right-of-way
to allow a conforming addition of a three season porch 16 by 17.6 feet on the
opposite side from the existing nonconforming 6'8" setback to Villa Road.- The
street front requirement is 30 feet.
The Commission discussed request and commented that property seemed overbuilt.
Applicant questioned if~could add about 4 feet to the proposed three season
,Planning Commission Minutes
April 13, 1987 - Page 6
porch; plan started out' when'an inside stairway was proposed to'be changed and
they thought the extra 4 feet would be nice on the porch. Stairway change was
dropped, but not the 4 foot extra porch area.
Weiland moved and Meyer seconded a motion to recognize the existing noncon-
forming setback to unimproved Villa Lane (22.5 feet+_) and fbrther stipulate
the addition as approved be not closer than 13.5 to propertyline on lakeside
corner and 14.5 feet to land side.
Meyer withdrew his second.
of a second.
No one seconded the motion and it failed for lack
Jensen moved that we recognize the existing nonconforming setback to Villa
Lane and grant a variance with the stipulation that addition be no closer
than ten feet to the property line. Motion was seconded by Smith. The vote
was Meyer, Michael, Jensen.and Smith in favor and Andersen, Reese, Sohns and
Weiland'opposed. Vote was a tie.
Weiland Stated his reason for voting against was that property was overbuilt.
He thought there is no hardship there.
This will be referred to the City Council on April 28, 1987.
Note:
Items 2 and 4, both tabled tonight, will be heard at the April 27th meeting.
Chairman asked that the applicants and Ms. Hallin be notified of the date of
the meeting.
LOST LAKE
The City Manager, Ed Shukle, explained that at the March 23rd meeting they had reviewed
the recommendations and old discussion concerning Lost Lake and the Planning Commission
made a good effort to try to streamline what the possible uses of the property could be.
Out of that meeting came 5 items the Planning Commission recommended/proposed. He
stated the Planning Commission instructed the staff to come back with a map showing
public ownership of the property and a summary of the components that would be included
in an*RFP; also. some citizens' comments regarding the possible use of the property that
were not submitted at the meeting were included with agenda. The staff is in a posi-
tion now to answer any question that you may have concerning the Lost Lake issues and
is prepared to accept and 'take this on to ~he Council April 28th.
The City Planner, in answer to a question on requesting public and private ownership
of land, stated that information is complied if you have a question about a specific
parcel. There are lots of parcels and showing' them would be cumbersome. Chair stated
the concern was about looped trails so you didn't have a dead end. Koegler stated
there are certain portions of a trail that would have to be floating and some would
be wood chip, some might be able to be hard surface; but a looped pedestrian trail
is verY possible. Commission commented the cost of trails/walkway would be tremen-
dous;'li't was questioned how you would police; possible fire dangers and the subject
of liability were brought up. It was questioned whether development of the 3.1
acres was tied to development of trail and if an appraisal done.
The City Planner stated concerns were valid; but there are cities where these'things
work beautifully. He stated a plan was put together at the request of the former
City Manager and they put together a grant application to put the park in, but grant
application n~ver submitted. It was about the time all the soil borings were going on
* Request for proposal JO~-7
Planning Commission Minutes
April 13, 1987 - Page 7
and the City was fighti~g wlth PCA over whether this was a toxic waste dump, etc.
The trails came up as part of the public input you' got. It might be this or some-
thing totally different that becomes part of the negotiation process that u)timate-
)y gets to the RFP stage you may be going through with the deve)oper. Maybe one
of the promises the City makes is that we will develop a passive recreational
facility with some kind of trail network and than you'll have to work with developer
in how that fits wi'th the 3.)$ acres. It doesn't change what you'll do with the
acres. Hopefully it will be a. country inn. This becomes part of-an amenity that
wi1) fit. When it gets to what trai'), etc. is going to look. llke, the prime responsi-
bility will fa)l back to the Park Commission and.they will be. charge with making a
recommendation to the Council on any park improvements; the developmenta] part wl])
come back to the Planning Commission.
The Commission thought they should go forward to the Council with one recommendation
and the country inn was top choice. They think we should clean up the area and. wai~
until Advance Machine.. )eaves,the.area and see what the market Is. It was thought
this site and Advance Machine site would, be competing for different markets. Various
opinions were offered un. the development of area. We iland.[hought possibly a Balboa
type person should get the property if they would guarantee i.mproving property. It
was discussed what.if they want to develop another shopping center? Sohns asked if
we had to openl'mfor sale" or if we can.control use with the RFP.
Reese.moved a motion that we recommend to the Counci) that an initial attempt be
made to utilize the land for a country inn and that an RFP be developed along the
lines as outlined by the Planner and that in drafting of the RFP, that certain
inducements be included in the write up to make it more attractive to developer.
This i's our first recommendation and we recommend they try this first to see if --
it flies and if it has no takers, go back and look at another plan. Smith seconded
the motion.
It was discussed if a time frame was needed and also havi.ng 'site cleaned up. The
City Planner explained the process including that normally with.an RFP you would
give developer 90 days for them to respond. He.stated you should know within 3
months or so Whether you've any interest; Otherwise, you will have to. develop a
slightly different RFP or target"it through a.different group or something. He
suggested the City might tap some of the Maxfield files to get a list of potential
developers and you.might also publish RFP in the Minnesota Real Estate Journal as
well.
The City Manager stated the Park Commission 'is Very interested.in what happens with
the wetlands and they are very specific in that they would like to be Involved in
discussions.
The vote on the motion was Anderson,'.Jensen', Smith, Sohns and Reese in favor; Meyer
Michael and ~eil.and against. Michae] voted against because he feels country inn
not appropriate use of )and and not i'n City's best interest. Meyer stated he
doesn't mind the country inn, but doesn't think it is something we should be pushing;
he'd like to see'a.lternatlve ideas. Weiland is not in favor of trails and feels
City has too many parks already.
ADJOURNMENT
Michael moved and Andersen seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:35 p.m.
Al) were in favor; meeting was adjourned.
Thoma's R'eese, Chai rman
A. TNOMAS WURST, P.A.
CUR'riS A. F£AIqSON, P.A.
~AN~ D. LAW~ON, PA.
LAW DK'F'IC£$
WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LARSON '~' UNDERWOOD
IIOO KIRS~ BANK PLACE WES~
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA ~540~
May 15, ~985
Ms. Jan Bertrand, Building Official
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, F~ 55364
Ms. Fran Clark, City Clerk
City of Mound
5341 }~ywood Road
Mound, FLN 55364
Re: Motions, Resolutions, and Ordinances
Dear Jan and Fran:
During the Council meeting on May 14, 1985, I pointed
out that the Advisory Planning Commission minutes of the May 6
meeting indicated at one point, "Concensus of the Co~maission
was that park dedication not be included." I stated at that
time that the only way concensus is reached is if it is put
in the form of a motion and adopted by a majority of the
persons who have authority to make a decision on a particular
question.
It then came up that frequently Council members and/or
Planning Commission members will make a motion to aPprove or
to deny without including in that motion the important elements
which are necessary to give direction, either to the staff, the
applicant, the public, and/or a court. The important thing is
to understand that motions as such are used only for the most
simple administrative acts. When we are going to grant permits,
variances, and things of that nature, the intent of the body
should be reduced to writing and put into a resolution. If we
are going to adopt a law, then it has to be put into ordinance
form and adopted 'in that manner.
I am sending a copy of a letter I sent Jon Elam on
February. Il, 1983, and an attachment thereto which shows the
difference between motions, resolutions, and ordinances. It is
important that each Councilmember and each Planning Commission
member understand the differences between these various methods
of proceeding. In all cases, you will have a motion to adopt
a resolution or an ordinance, or as I have previously said, a
motion to approve some simple administrative matter. When we
WURST, PEARSON, HANIILTON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD
Page 2
Ms. Jan Bertrand, Building Official
Ms. Fran Clark, City Clerk
City of Mound
May 15, 1985
are establishing rights and parameters for people, we should do
so with great specificity.
I hope that if you supply the Planning Commissioners and
the Council with copies of these page~ and they are reviewed
carefully~, we will be able to better structure our actions, and
they will be more clear, both for the Council interpreting the
Planning Commission actions and for the p~blic and. staff in
interpreting the Council actions.
CAP:lb
Enclosures
Very ? truly your s
C~tis A. Pearson,
City Attorney
LAW 0 F'F'IC: E:$
WURST, PEARSON, HAMILTON, LARSON & UNDERWOOD
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 5540:)
February 11, 1983
Mr. Jon Elam
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Roa~
Mound, MN 55364
Re: Motions, Resolutions and Ordinances
Dear Jon:
At a recent meeting I was explaining to the council the
difference 'between motions, resolutions and ordinances.
Mayor Polston asked that that information be provided to the
council. I am enclosing herewith copies of pages 110 and
111 from the League Handbook. I believe that this accurately
reflects the differences and that each councilmember would
be well advised to know this information.
Veryz~ruly yours,
C earso
CAP:ms
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Bill Fahey
3. From the basic facts, findings or conclu-
sions often in the language of the statute or ordi-
nance are to be inferred, or not, as the case may
be.129
4. From this finding, the decision will folio, ay~
by the .application of the statutory criterion.'""
Findings of fact serve two major purposes. The
first relates to improving the decision-making
process and the second concerns judicial review.
Considering that only an occasional decision will
be submitted to court review, perhaps the most
important purpose that findings of fact serve is to
help improve decision-making. When a council
prepares precise findings of relevant facts, a well
reasoned and more rigorous decision-making
process is more likely to ensue. It is easy to
express an ultimate conclusion that the public
interest requires a denial. But when one is forced
to demonstrate that those conclusions are consis-
tent with all of the facts disclosed by the record,
careful and painstaking analysis is required.
The second major purpose for findings is that
they are an indispensable prerequisite for effective
judicial review.
In conclusion, it should be reemphasized that
any required record should demonstrate compli-
ance with all constitutional requirements (due
process deficiencies such as lack of notice often
provide grounds for appeal), as well as all statutory
and ordinance procedural requirements.
f" F. MOTIONS, RESOLUTIONS
AND ORDINANCES
The Legislative Process
Passing Ordinances and l~e$olutions
Council policies are reflected in two forms:
ordinances and resolutions. Either of these may be
introduced by any member of the council includ-
ing the mayor and, in standard plan cities, the
clerk. Once introduced, the council may, depend-
ing upon its own rules of procedure, act upon
them at once, refer them to a committee for study
and recommendation, postpone consideration to
some future time, or take any of the other actions
described in Chart VI under subsidiary and privi-
leged motions.. If the cour. cil decides to refer
the matter to a committee, the committee may
___.t...o ':o. :,,~,,cH~tle~nc ~nel ,inle~: instructed
otherwise, recommend: (1) passage of the ordi-
nance or resolution in its original form; (2) passage
in an amended form, or (3) rejection of the ordi-
nance or resolution. Debate may take place when
the matter is introduced, while it is being con-
sidered in committee, and after the committee has
reported its findings and recommendations. After
all consideration and discussion of the matter
is completed, the presiding officer should read the
ordinance or resolution and call for a vote.
Resolutions and other procedural motions .of the
council, unless otherwise provided in Chart VI, are
adopted if they receive a majority of the votes cast.
To illustrate, if two members of the council
vote in favor of a resolution, one votes against it,
and two abstain from voting, the resolution is
considered passed. Ordinances, on the other hand,
must receive at least three favorable votes.
The legality of the action taken depends upon
three essential steps: (1) a proper motion, (2) a
vote actually taken, and (3) a record of the number
voting for or against the proposal. Many clerks
report the inames of the members who take actior
at each of these various steps. (For a fuller discu~
sion of the requirements for recording council
actions, see the material dealing with council
minutes in this chapter.) Except for the third step,
however, this is not required.
Differences Between Ordinances,
Resolutions and 3lotions
A motion is merely a matter of parliamentary
procedure. It L.' a proposal that the council act in
one of the two. ways it has of acting, by resolution
or by ordinance. Motions may be used to intro-
duce ordinances and resolutions, to amend them,
and to take any other actions concerning them.
A~y council enactment which regulates or
governs people or property and provides a penalty
for i:~ violation is necessarily an ordinance. As a
result, all police regulations for public health,
morals, economic well-being, welfare ~n~ safety
must be passed in ordinance form.~' Any
regulations should be of general application within
the city and of a permanent and continuing nature
Ordinances may also be used to provide per-
manent rules for the organization and operation of
the council. For instance, the bylaws governing
council procedure may be passed in ordinance
form. Any action required by statute to be in
ordinance form cannot validly be done by resolu-
oNovember date for the city election, and combin-
ns the office of clerk and treasurer must be taken
by ordinance.
A resolution, on the other hand, should be used
for any action of a temporary, routine, or admini-
strative nature. Where there is any question about
the classification of a piece of legislative business,
the city attorney should be consulted. Deciding in
a specific instance is frequently difficult and in all
cases of doubt it is well to proceed with the
business as if it required an ordinance.
Proceedings simply in the formgf a motio~n duly
carne'~d~'fl-d-en~ered on r~cord are frequently held_
t_o~alent to ~ resolution...and probably this
i~~ fo, r most simple_ad?inistrat!ve
acts.132 ~, ---_ . _ -. .
The power to enact ordinances is vested only in
the city council. (See League publication "Model
Ordinance Code"; the League also has sample
copies of various ordinances available; see also
League memo "Procedural Requirements for
Adoption of Statutory City Ordinances and
Resolutions - Notes and Forms.") With a few
exceptions, most ordinances need not and may not
be submitted to the voters for approval. Unless a
charter provides otherwise, there is no general
statutory authorization which permits a council to
seek voter consent to a proposed ordinance or even
to ask for an advisory opinion on its desira-
bility.133
There are two general limitations upon the
power of the council to enact ordinances. First,
councils are limited in subject matter to the fields
in which the legislature has authorized them to
act. Without such authorization, the power to
regulate in any given field is reserved to the state.
It should be noted, however, that statutory cities
are empowered to enact ordinances on some
subjects which are already regulated by state law.
In these fields, a city may make any provision in its
ordinance which is not inconsistent with the state
law. '
~r Second, councils are limited by the following
general requirements.134
Ordinances must be reasonably certain in
their terms.
2. They must be consistent with the State
Constitution and statutes.
3. They must not limit or deny any common
law or constitutional rights.
4. Their provisions must not constitute an
unreasonable restraint of trade.
Their terms must be reaSonable.
When adopting an ordinance, cities should be
aware that the city can be held liable for not
enforcing a "police power" meaSure contained in
it.135 (See Chapter 10 on Liability and Insur-
ance.)
Form~ Contents and Adoption of
Ordinances
Since ordinances are,' in effect, local statutes
which have the force and effect of law, the form
and manner in which they are written is of the
utmost importance. While the law .does not
require that they be drafted by a qualified at-
torney, their preparation does involve a sound
understanding of the law and, consequently,
ordinances not so drawn are frequently subject to a
variety of legal objections. It is recommended,
therefore, that some competent attorney be
consulted in the preparation of ordinances for
council consideration.
The following paragraphs provide a brief descrip-
tion of the requirements which must be met, and
of the forms which are ~u)ually used, in the pre-
paration of ordinances.3~° Charter cities should
also look to their own charter provisions for
ordinance enactment.
2'he title. Every ordinance should bear a title
which describes its contents briefly, but ade-
quately. The phrases: "repealing ordinances
inconsistent herewith" and "providing penalties for
the violation thereof" are totally unnecessary and
may be omitted from the title.
7'he number. Each ordinance should bear an
identifying number as a part of its title.
7'he enactb;g clause. All ordinancis, after a
suitable title, should begin substantially in this
form: "The City Council'of ordains:"
The body o. f the ordinance. The text of the
-111 - .,., .
183 University Ave. E., St. Paul, MN 55101-2526 (612) 227-5600
April 21.. 1987
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Mayors, ~ager , Finan~tors
~ r~i at~ v-
Execu~'irectorv
LaurieDonald,F Hacki~r'n~g[-slative Representative
THREE PERCENT LEVY LIMIT AND LGA CUT GAINING MOMENTUM
It is critical that you immediately contact your state representatives and
senators in opposition to two proposals .... an extremely restrictive three
percent levy limit (imposed even on small cities) and a large cut in local
government aid (LGA). These proposals are being debated this week by both
the House and Senate Tax Committees. They seriously threaten the
financial viability of our cities.
LIMIT': On Monday, the Property Tax Division of the House Tax
ommittee adopted an amendment to impose an arbitrary three percent limit
on nearly ALL levies for ALL cities and counties. This amendment will now
be debated by the full House Tax Committee. The proposed three percent
levy limit would apply to all cities, even those with populations under
5,000 (which currently are not affected by levy limits). All levies,
including "special levies" would be included under the limit. The only
exemptions under the new levy limit would be the costs of bonded
indebtedness and unfunded pension liabilities.
In addition, under the levy limit proposal, if a city is forced to raise
property taxes to make up for a cut in federal general revenue sharing or
LGA, such a property tax increase would be subject to the same three
percent levy limit. It now appears likely that the Tax Committees will
approve imposing the six percent sales tax on city purchases --any
property tax increase necessary to cover this increased cost for cities
would also be sujbect to the levy limit. Furthermore, a community
experiencing population growth would be subject to the same uniform three
percent levy limit.
LGA: In an attempt to balance the state budget, lawmakers are considering
an 'across-the,board cut in LGA that could reduce LGA payments due to
cities in July and December of this year. The proposed reduction would be
permanent, lowering LGA funding in future years.
[TY OFFICIALS SHOULD CONTACT THEIR STATE LEGISLATORS TODAY OPPOSING LGA
AND FURTHER RESTRICTIONS IN THE LEVY LIMIT LAW. INFORM YOUR
LEGISLATORS HOW SUCH A LEVY LIMIT AND LGA CUT WOULD AFFECT YOUR CITY
--WHAT SERVICES WOULD YOU HAVE TO CUT AND WHAT JOBS WOULD BE' ELIMINATED.