Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1987-05-26
CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MI}~NE$OTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL BOARD OF REVIEW AND REGULAR MEETING 7:00 P.M., TUESDAY, May 26, 1987 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. RECONVENED BOARD OF REVIEW Hennepin County Assessor Keith Rennerfe!dt will be present. He will review the properties that had been presented at the May 12 Board of Review and will give recommendations on their values. The Council will then have to consider the Assessor's recommendations and take actions on the property valuations. Pg. 1360-1376 REGULAR MEETING Pledge of Allegiance Approve the Minutes of the May 28, 1987 Regular Meeting and the Work Session Minutes of February 21, 1987, March 28, 1987, April 25, 1987 and May 9, 1987. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Delinquent Utility Bills 4. Comments and Suggestions from Citizens present ~ Cancel Spe~ents on recently ~r?h~sed~m Mr. Ernest Johnson, ester Road. 6. CASE ~87-622: Roco Investments, 5950 Bartlett Blvd., Lot 55, Auditor's Subdivision No. 168, PID #23-117-24 13 0032 Lot Width Variance &Subdivision CASE ~87-631: Donald Lobdell, 3367 Warner Lane, Lots 1 and 64, Block 12, Douglas - Whipple Shores, PID #25-117-24-24 0056 Reque_st; Variance to Recognize an Existing non- conforming Principal Structure Setback and Accessory Building Setback. Pg. 1377-1391 Pg. 1392 Pg. 1393-1395 Pg. 1B96-1411 Pg. 1412-1418 Page 1357 CAS.~..~7-632: James Stille, 4512 Montgomery Road, Lots 9 and 10, Block 9, Avalon, ~ID #19-117-2~ ~1 002~. ,,Request: Front Yard Setback Variance. CASE #87-633: Kurt L. and Jayne E. Silton, B237 Gladstone Lane, Lot 49, Whipple Shores, PID #25-117-24 21 0118. Pg. 1 41 9-1426 10. Request: Variance to allow the construction of a walkway/terrace within 30 inches of the ground at the property line. Pg. CASE..~87-634: William Lovkvist and Elaine Lovkvist 1745 Wildhurst Lane, Lot 8, Block 13, Shadywood Point, PID #13-117-24 14 0022. Lot Size Variance. 11. CASE #8?-635: 12. 13. '14. Pg. 15. 16. Howard H. Barrett, Re: 5000 Tuxedo Blvd. Part of Lot 1, Whipple Shores, and part of Tract A of Registered Land Survey 1149. PID #24-117-24 43 0029. Reouest: Variance to allow structural repair and an addition of a 2nd story to the existing basement dwelling. 1427-1438 CASE #~7~636: Don A. Scherven, 4528 Aberdeen Road, Lot A, Block 6, Pembroke, PID #19-117-23 34 0068. Request: Recognize existing non-conforming setback to the front yard. 1439-1445 Request for a Variance, Blocks 1 & 2, Rearrangement of Block 10, Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside Park for-Kele Homes - Mark Rodrigue. Pg. 1446-1459 Continued Discussion on Additional Projects to be done during the County Road 15 Project. A. Watermain Replacement B. Street Light Replacement C. Curb, Gutter and Concrete Apron, Storm Sewer and Sidewalks. DISCUSSION; Public Works Facility Payment of Bills Pg. 1460-1470 Pg. 1471-1474 Pg. 1475-1501 Pg. 1502-1516 Pg. .1517-1530 Page 1358 17. I NFO RMATION/M.! SCE,L..LANEOUS: April 1987 monthly financial report as prepared by John Norman, Finance Director. Pg. Be Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of May 11, 1987. 1531-1522 Cs Pg. 1534-1539 REMINDER: League of Minnesota Cities Annual Convention, June 9-12, 1987, Rochester. Registration must be in by June 5. (NOTE: This convention is the week of Mound City Days.) Please let me know if you are interested in attending. Pg. 1 540-1 547 De E® Letter from Bill Frenzel and Martin Sabo announcing the 1987 Economic Summit to be held in Minneapolis June 19, 1987. If you are interested in attending, please let me know. Pg. Letter from local resident complimenting our police department. Pg. Letter from Hennepin County Community Services thanking the City of Mound for its efforts in assisting the County on volunteer activities. This letter was presented to the City on May 14, at a banquet held in Brooklyn Park honoring cities around Hennepin County who have assisted in this area of volunteerism. Pg. Information on Purple Loosestrife, provided by Phyllis Jessen. Pg. Copy of a letter from Police Chief sent to Mr. Doug Eaton, 2611 Setter Circle, re: his complaint on being warned about a derelict camper located on his property. Pg. Copy of a letter from John Bierbaum, JRW Properties and owner of Commerce Place, along with a check for $2000 for fireworks for Mound City Days. We received this pursuant to Mayor Smith's and City Manager's request. I have sent a letter to Mr. Bierbaum thanking him for his donation and support. Pg. 1548 1549 1550 1551-1553 1554-1558 1559 Page 1359 LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION LOC WAYZATA LAKESHORE HIGH DEEPHAVEN LAKESHORE ORONO LAKESHORE VALUE . S~OREWOOD LAKESHORE MID VALUE EXCELSIOR TONKABAY MINNETRISTA' SPRING PARK LAKESHORE LAKESHORE LAKESHORE LAKESHORE LOW MOUND LAKESHORE VALUE ~OUND COMMONS LAKESHORE L~JCAI ION LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION LOC DATE: TOPIC: TYPE: TAXES: i~iAY 5, 1987 LAKESHORE LOT VACUE PRIVATE HIGH VALUE LOCATION VS. PUBLIC LOW VALUE LOCATION Subject property is being assessed as a PRIVATE lakeshor property. Address 2050 Waterside Cane 5420 Breezy Road 5436 Breezy Road 5500 Breezy Road FO~R 2060 Waters'ide Lane I r,~med i at e Ne i g h both ood Va i ~e.s Price $64, O00/Sold $ Sa~,o YSo 1 d $118, O00/Sold Date 4/84 6/84 $87,900/0N MKT TODAY Inconsistent Values Mixed Neighborhood SUBJECT PROPERTY 2060 Waterside Lane, MOUND Lakeshot'e Type: LOT VALUE: ~;,=, use Value: Buiit: Tota! Market Taxes: V a I COMMONS across street (waited on list for dock $$$50, 100555 $66.. 1954 $1 i6,800 ~ 3~" 2 ! 7-;='.4-~3-4i - ;/ COMPARABLE LOT 4250 Forest Lm~.e Dr. ORONO Lakeshore Type: Area: LOT VALUE: Hous~ Value: Bui It: ~"c, tal Mkt Value: Taxes: P~ i. D. Deeded PRIVATE, across street Oro~'mo $$$32, 700555 $93,. 500 N/A $126,200 $2,26!. FOR 4250 FORES]- LAKE DR. IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD VALUES Address 4225 Forest Lake Dr. 4265 Forest Lake Dr. Price Date $215, OOr~ 6/85 $225,000 8/80 Cor, for~nir, g U~oer Brackett Neighborhood Consistent values COMPARABLE LOT ~420 North Shore Dr., ORONO Lakeshore Type: Area: LOT VALUE: Hse Value: Built: Tokai MKT Value: ]'axes: P.I.D.: Owned, PRIVATE, across street Orono $$$49,400555 $53,300 1960 $1,614.88 08-!17-23-43-00i8 COMPARABLE LOT 3550 North Shore Dr., ORONO Lakeshore Type: Area :' LOT VALUE: H~_e Value: Buiit: To'tal Mkt Value: Ta×es: Owned, PRIVATE, across Orc, r~o $$$50,700555 $?4,800 i974 Sold 1/B~ $15S, 000 $!25~ 500 $2~ 278. 90 08-1 ! 7-2G-34-0055 Lakeshore Type: Area: LOT VALUE: Hse Value: Built: Total Mkt Value: Ta×es: P.i.D. COMPARABLE LOT 5855 Lakeview Dr., MINNETRISTA Dock via Association M i r~rset r i st a / Wood-Er, d $$$4'2, A00555 $126,800 1978 Cu,-refit ly on $168,800 $~ 583.03 35-117-24-13-00 i 2 /PRIVATE Shores Mkt $245,000 Lakeshore Type: iRABLE LOT Lakeview Dr., MINNETRISTA VIEW SAME AS PREVIOUS PAGE Deeded Dock ~ i?/PRIVATE Area · MirJrletrista/WoodEnd Shores LOT VALUE: $$$42,000555 Hse Value: $132,500 Built: 1972 sc, Id $215,000 4/83 $205,000 1/87 Total MAt Value: $174, 5 0 0 Taxes: $3, ]z50.72 P. I.D. 35-117-24-13-00 t 1 F6R Lakeview Dr. Prc, oerties IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD VALUES Address 5815 Lakeview Dr. 5801 'Lakeview Dr. 5930 Lakeview Dr. 5800 Lakeview Dr. Price Date $2_05, O0 1/87 $295:000 8/85 $173,000 4/84 $230, 000 2/81 UPPER BRACKET LAKESWOR~2 HOMES CONSISTENT VALUE COMPARABLE LOT (WHOLE POINT) 4695 Lagoor, Dr., SHOREWOOD p,z, int surrounded by water. VERY.° PRIVATE SEE PLAT MAP LaKeshore Type: (See Plat) Area: LOT VALUE: Hse Value: Built: Total Mkt Value: Taxes: P.I.D. Owned, PRIVATE, Penninsula entire point surrounded by water Shorewood (upper Drackett area) $$$55,000555 $36,600 1956 $91,600 $1,474.69 30-117-23-~1-0004 FOR 4695 LAGOON DR. IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD VALUES Address Price Date 4?65 LAGOON DR. 4325 Enchanted Dr S 4400 Enchanted Dr. Lot vacant 3964 Enchar~ted Lane SOLD $!80,000 ON/MKT $214,500 ON/MKT $79,900 Lot Only ON/MKT $184,900 6./86 Today Tod ay Today UPPER BRACKETT LAKESHORE HOMES Was vacant Vacant vacant Vacant Vacant MARKET VALUES GOING DOWN 5815 Lakeview Dr. 4325 Er, char, ted Dr. S. 2715 Casco Pt. Rd. 5420 Breezy Rd. 5555 Co. Rd. 151 690 Tonkawa Rd. SOLD 21570r)0 in 6/85 :--'40, 0(1)0 /84 220,000 /84 105, 675 10/82 Hc, r~e on Mkt since 1984 123,500/1984 SOLD 205~ O0 1/8-/ On MKT 214,500 On MKT 216,000 / On MKT 1-/9, ~0(~ On MKT i28,900 OVERVIEW Address 2060 Waterside Lane Lot Type Value Taxes Cor~.rdons $5(:), 000 $2, 146· 72 across street 4250 Forest Lake Dr. Deeded across street $32, r)O0 3550 Northshore Dr. Owrled across street $50, 700 3420 Northshore Dr. Owr~ed across street $49, 400 5855 Lakeview Dr. Deeded across street $42, 000 58!5 Lakeview Dr. Deeded across st peet $42, 000 4695 Lagoon Dr. Owrled $55,000 PRIVATE PENNINSULA $2,261.56 $2,278.90 $1,614.88 $3, 5~3.03 $3,750.72 $I,474.69 RESALE STATUS: Cor~mor~s least desirable. yet taxed as c, wne~ lakesnc, re This comr,~ons prooerty lc, ca~ea ir~ a very "mixed" value neignDor- hood should have a ic, t value of $27,500. 68 May 12, 1987 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - BOARD OF REVIEW MAY 12, 1987 Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, the Board of Review convened in the Council Chambers of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, at 5341Maywood Road, in said City on May 12, 1987, at 7:00 P.M. Those present were: Mayor Steve Smith, Councilmembers Don Abel, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen, and Skip Johnson. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Clerk Fran Clark, Hennepin County Assessor Keith Rennerfeldt. Mayor Smith opened the Board of Review and explained that this meeting is to give property owners ~a chance to question the assessed value placed on their property by the County Assessor as of January 2, 1987. He explained that each person would be heard and the Board of Review will reconvene at a later date and bring back their final decision on each property. The following persons responded to the call to be heard. They all asked to have the value of their property rechecked because they felt it was too high. Greg Caravelli 5016 Enchanted 2. J & P Company (Peter Johnson) Representing Huber Funeral Home 1801 Commerce Blvd. 3. Margue~m~e Stockstead 5440 Three Points Blvd.,$S33 Steven Berkey 2621Grainger Lane June Lundgren 1975 Lakeside Lane Ken Storke 4762 Manchester L. J. Rennet Lakewinds - A-106 - Wilshire Blvd. Ferner Johnson 3018. Island View Drive 13-117-24 11 0071 14-117-24 14 0002 13-117-24 22 0144 23-117-24 24 0021 18-11.7-24 23 0066 1 9-117-23 32 01 85 19-117-23 13 0022 19-117-23 34 0071 0091 /.3 '/'7 May 12, 1987 L & L Properties Thomas Lavoie 5712 York Ave. South Edina, MN. 55410 (Lakewinds Condo Units) 1~0. Julie Ranallo 4379 Wilshire Blvd. C-111 (Lakewinds Condo Unit) 11. Milbert Mueller 3880 County Road 44 Mound, Mn. 55364 12. Oswin Pflug 4851 Shoreline Blvd. 13. John Hokamson 2112 Kenwood Parkway Mpls., MN. 55405 (Lakewinds Condo Units) 14. Danial M. Montag 4371Wilshire Blvd. 205 B (Lakewinds Condo Unit) 15. William Werner 4407 Wilshire Blvd. 209 F (Lakewinds Condo Unit) 16. Vernon E. Mondloh 6248 Bay Ridge Road 17. Barbara Lundstrom 4363 Wilshire Blvd. A108 4379 Wilshire Blvd. C209 (Lakewinds Condo Units) 18. Michelle Olson 2060 Waterside Lane 19 Nancy C. Novak 7304 W. 110th St. Bloomington, MN. 55438 (4407 Wilshire Blvd. F 107) (Lakewinds Condo Unit) 20. Jack Seyler 16909 Marlbourogh Circle Minnetonka, MN. 55345 (Lakewinds Condo Unit D-306) 19-117-2~ 13 00~ 0114 0053 0112 0O85 19-117-23 13 0086~' 13-117-24 33 0042 0043 13-117-24 44 0015 0016 19-117-23 24 0089 0042 19-117-23 13 0064 19-117-23 24 0075'~ 23-117-24 32 0018 19-117-23 13 0024 0096 ....... 13-117-24 33 0041 19-117-23 24 0061 19-117'23 13 0141/ 7O 21. Ted Fox 4363 Wilshire Blvd. (Lakewinds Condo Units) A-109 D-206 F-106 C-203 22. Ridgedale Professional Bldg. Mark Saliterman 14001 Ridgedale Drive #200 Minnetonka, MN. 55343 (Shoreline Plaza Shopping Center) 23. Mary P. McNeil 4387 Wilshire Blvd. D-311 (Lakewinds Condo Unit.) 24. Andrea Ahrens 4673 Island Miew Drive 25. John Latsha 4387 Wilshire Blvd. D-208 (Lakewinds Condo Unit) 26. Eugene Temple 1635 Zealand Ave. N. Mpls., MN. 55427 (Lakewinds Condo Unit F-208) 27. Frank Biedny 1544 128th Ave. N.E. Mpls., MN. 55403 (Lakewinds Condo Units) E-108 C-303 28. James M. Kelley P. O. Box 1041 Minnetonka, MN. 55435 (Lakewinds Condo Units) F-308 A-104 29. Raymond Hoveland 4124 Longfellow Ave. South Mpls., MN. 55407 (Lakewinds Condo Unit) B-207 30. Bud Skoglund 5823 Bartlett Blvd. 31. Eunice Bren (Representing John & Beverly Wistrand) 4363.Wilshire Blvd. 201A (Lak%winds Condo Unit) 32. Ron Johnson 4416 Dorchester Lane May 12, 1987 19-117-23 13 0025 ...... 0129' 24 0060"'"" 13 0090~' 13-117-24 34 0072 19-117-23 13 01 46 .... 30-117-23 22 0008 19-117-23 13 0131''~ 19-117-23 24 0074 "'" 19-117-23 42 0009 13 0102~ 19-117-23 24 0086"' 13 0020'~ 19-117-23 13 0066 23-117-24 14 0020'~,, 0019' 0021,..-~ 19-117-23 13 0029/' 19-117-23 31 0104"" 0083/' 71 May 12, 1987 (The following persons could not attend this meeting and wrote letters objecting to the assessed valuation.) 33. Nancy L. Farness (Lakewinds Condo Unit) 34. C. L. Johnson '. P. O. Box 246 Spring Park, MN. 55384 (property at 5545 Shoreline Blvd.) 13-117-24 33 0506t~ 35. David Morse 1838 Commerce Blvd. P. O. Box 348 Mound, MN. 55364 13-117-24 23 0006 36. Gregg Murray 4729 Island View Drive" 37. Ann S. Shepherd 5647 Tall Oaks Birmingham, MI. 48010 30-117-23 22 0054 18-117-23 33 0028 The Board of Review will reconvene on Tuesday, May 26, 1987, at 7:00 P.M. MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING MAY 12, 1987 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, May 12, 1987, at 9:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers at 5341Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Steve Smith, Councilmembers 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, City Planner Mark Koegler, City Engineer John Cameron, Building Official Jan Bertrand, Fire Chief Don Bryce and the following interested citizens: Doug Eaton, Klm Yilek, James Lewis, Mark Saliterman, Stuart Chazin. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. MOTION made by Abel, seconded by Jensen to approve the Minutes of the April 28, 1987, Regular Meeting as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 72 May 12, 1987 PUBLIC HEARING: INPUT ON 1988 BUDGE~ The Mayor opened the public hearing. Doug Eaton, 2611 Setter Circle, asked why the City no longer provided the city-wide Spring and Fall trash pick-up. The City Manager stated that Revenue Sharing Funds were used to pay for that program and the funds are no longer available. The Mayor closed the public hearing. The City Manager stated that the Police Chief has present~'d facts, figures and justification for the hiring of an additional police officer which will be in the 1988 budget proposal. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF A PORTION OF THE PROPERI~ ALONG_ "NORTHERN ROAD FROM B-2, GENERAL BUSINESS TO R-2, ,SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL The City Planner explained the proposed change and the reasons for the recomended change in the zoning. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the change. The Council discussed R-2 (6,000 sq.ft.) versus R-1 (10,000 sq.f~.) for this area. The Mayor opened the public hearing. Kim Yilek, 4861Edgewater Drive, stated she was in favor of the rezoning. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Johnson moved and Abel seconded the following: ORDINANCE #4 AN ORDINANCE REZONING CERTAIN LANDS~FROM GENERAL BUSINESS (B-2) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R- 2) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE $87-622: ROCO INVESTMENTS, 5950 BARTLETT BLVD., LOT 55, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO, 168, PID ~23-117-2q 13 The Mayor explained that the applicant asked to have this item withdrawn from this meeting and rescheduled for the May 26, 1987, regular meeting. The following two people were present and stated they are against this subdivision: James Lewis, 5921 Beachwood Road 73 May 12, 1987 Robert Shid.la, 5901 Beachwood Road CASE #87-62q; SHORELINE PLAZA, 5229 SHORELINE BLVD., SIGN The City Planner explained the request. The Planning Commission recommended denial because the request is not a hardship. Mark Saliterman, owner of the shopping center, stated that the request is valid and the sign allowed is too small for the center. He stated he does not feel the ordinance was written to deal with a multi-tenant center. Smith moved and Abel seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION ~87-91 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE SIGN VARIANCE AS REQUESTED FOR' 5229 SHORELINE BLVD., SHORELINE PLAZA There was discussion on the current sign ordina'nce, sizes of sign allowed, the itegrity of the current ordinance, variance criteria and hardship. The City Attorney suggested that if the Council feels the ordinance should be reviewed or amended they should have the Planning Commission study it. Abel withdrew, his second and Smith withdrew the resolution. MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Jensen to table Case 987- 624 to a future date and direct the Planning Commission to review the sign ordinance as it relates to shopping centers with multi-tenant occupancy. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT Doug Eaton, 2611 Setter Circle, stated he does not feel he is being treated fairly by Officer Hyland with regard to an unlicensed camper in his yard. The item was referred to the City Manager and he will get back to Mr. Eaton with his findings. SET DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS; MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jessen to set June 9, 1987, at 7:30 P.M. for a public hearing to consider the issuance.'of a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a wine and beer restaurant (Class IV) located at 2244A Commerce Blvd. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MOTION mabe by Abel, seconded by Jansen to set June 9, 1~87, at 7:30'P.M. for a public hearing to allow public input on the City of Mound having assessing done by Hennepin County or a private contractor. The vote was unanimously in favor. 74 May 12, 1987 motion carried. APPLICATION FOR PORTABLE SIGN: IND. SCHOOL DIST. 277, COMMUNITY ~ERVICES - ART EXHIBIT MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Johnson to approve the issuance of a sign permit for a portable sign to be issued to Ind. School Dist. ~277, Community Services for an art exhibit. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST & APPROVAL OF CHANGE ORDER ~5: LYNWOOD .- ~LVD. PROJECT & TUXEDO BLVD. SAFETY PROJECT The City Engineer recommended approval. Abel moved and Jessen seconded the following resol~tion: RESOLUTION ~'§7-91 RESOLUTION APPROVING CHANGE ORDER ~5 IN THE LYNWOOD BLVD. PROJECT AND THE TUXEDO BLVD. SAFETY PROJECT FOR .$520.00 - PREFERRED PAVING The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jessen to approve the final payment request of Preferred Paving for the Lynwood Blvd. Project and the Tuxedo Blvd. Safety Project in the amount of $3,800.63. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORTS FOR ADDITIONAL PROJECTS TO BE DONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE COUNTY ROAD 15 PROJECT The City Engineer reviewed the city costs and the costs proposed to be assessed privately for the following: - Curb, gutter and concrete apron, storm sewer and sidewalks. - Watermain replacement. - Street light replacement. He presented a third alternate for the street light replacement. He stressed the need for the Council to move quickly on this if the above is to be includedin and constructed with the County Road 15 Project. The Council briefly discussed the funding for this project. The City Manager, Engineer and Finance Director will meet before the next meeting to work on funding. The Council will take these items up.again at the next meeting. No action was taken. May 12, 1987 ?AYMENT. OF. BILLS MOTION made by Abel, seconded by Johnson to approve the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $126,338.22, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. EXECUTIV~ SESSIO~ The Council went into Executive Session at 11:15 P.M. to discuss pending litigation. They returned at 11:35 P.M. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: April 1987, Department Heads Monthly Reports. Invitation to an information/meeting luncheon fo~ Mayors, Administrators and Councilmembers in the West Lake"Minnetonka Area to discuss Watershed District issues and concerns. MEETING DATE: TIME: PLACE: COST: Thursday, May 28, 1987 11:30 A.M. to 2:00 P.M. Minnetonka County Club $5.00 per person Please let me know by Monday May 18, 1987, if you plan to attend. Ind. School Dist. ~277 Minutes - April 13, 1987. Planning Commission Minutes of April 27, 1987. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Johnson to adjourn at 11:35 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Franc,ne C. Clark, CMC, City Clerk BILLS---'--MAY 12, 1987 Batch 874043 Batch 874044 Computer Run dated 5/5/87 Computer Run dated 5/7/87 52,960.81 68,768.28 Preferred Paving Howard Simar Loren Kohnen Lynwood & Tuxedo Recycling work Bldg inspections 3,800.63 288.oo 52O.0O Total Bills 12~.338.22 MINUTES OF CITY OF MOUND, CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION, FEBRUARY 21, 1~87 Members present were: Mayor Steve Smith, Phyllis Jessen, Skip Johnson, Liz Jensen, Don Abel. Absent: none. Also present: City Manager Ed Shukle. The work session was called to order by Mayor Steve Smith at 8:30 AM, in the c. lty council chambers. Each councilmember was asked to mention some items that they wanted to discuss during the work session. The following issues were stated: Downtown area, Public Works Facility, Lost Lake, Goals, Liability Ordinance, Designated Smoking Area, Consent Agenda, Commission Appointments, LMCD Appointment, Storage Ordinance, Maintenance Ordinance, Vehicle Inventory, County Road 15, Reactivating Police Reserves, Physical Training program for the Police Department, City Attorney annual report. LOST LAKE: Discussion was hel~ on the Lost Lake issue. Consensus was to send copies of.~he final report to the Mound Retail Council and the Westonka Chamber of Commerce. The purpose of this is to circulate cop.ies to obtain reactions to the report and seeking input on what the property ought to be used for. It was the consensus to have the Planning Commission conduct a publlc hearing on March 23, or April 13, with the City Council to receive the response and hold a discussion on April 28th. LAKE MINNETONKA REGIONAL PARK: Discussion was held on the park situation and the City of Minnetrista's stand on it. Also dicsussed was the King's Point access in Minnetrista. The City Manager pointed out that he had read an article in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune on Friday, February 2Otb, which indicated that the City of Minnetrista was negotiating for property in Mound for the regional park. Discussion was also held on the idea of Mound Bay Park and its number of parking spaces within 1500 feet of the park. The City Manager indicated that a letter had been filed in 1983, by the former City Manager Jon Elam, regarding the number of parking spaces within 15OO feet of Mound Bay Park. It was the consensus to have the City Attorney follow up on this matter and report back at a later date. COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS: Discussion was held on the process of which persons are appointed to the various advisory committees to the City Council. Consensus was to have joint interviews of potential candidates. This policy would go into effect after the vacancy that currently exists is filled. In other words, the latest vacancy would not be subject to this policy. NO SMOKING POLICY: This matter will be placed on the March 24th City Council agenda. COMMISSION DIRECTION: Concern was expressed with regard to giving tasks and assignments and general direction to the areas advisory commissions. MINUTES OF CITY OF MOUND, CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION, FEBRUARY 21, 1987 Page 2 EXTERIOR STORAGE: The Council asked what the staff has done so far with regard to this matter. The City Manager indicated that 50 slides have been taken of problem areas. Consensus was to have a list of complaints drafted for the last three years. ANNUAL REPORT - CITY ATTORNEY: The consensus was to have the city attorney provide an annual report of the past year regarding its criminal and civil cases and work. Also discussed were whether or not the City had a legal agreement with the city attorney for his services. PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY: This matter was discussed and consensus was to have this as the number one topic for the next work session. LMCD APPOINTMENT: The application of Leonard?Kopp was discussed. Council- member Jessen ~ndi~ated that the application of Leonard Kopp was withdrawn because he could not make the interview session on February 24th. The City Manager indicated that Mr. Kopp was withdrawing his name from'consideration. Consensus was to leave Mr. Kopp's application in with the others. The Council then scheduled another work session for Saturday, March 14, 1~87, at 8:30 AM, in the City Council Chambers. The work session was then adjourned at approximately 10:30 AM. City Manager ES:ls MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION - MARCH 28, 198~ The meeting was called to order at 8.30 AM. Persons present: Mayor Steve Smith; Councilmembers: Don Abel, Liz Jensen, Skip Johnson and Phyllis Jessen. Absent: none. Also present were Geno Hoff, Street Superintendent; Greg Skinner, Water and Sewer Superintendent and Ed Shukle, City Manager. The Public Works Facility was discussed. The City Manager indicated that he had prepared a chronological listing of events that have taken place since 1982, regarding the public works facility issue. He asked that the City Council review this as it provides some basic background on the history of this issue and where the City is at with it today. He also presented the report entitled "Preliminary Engineering Report for Improvements to Public Works Facilities", prepared by McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc., regarding bringing the existing Island Park facillty up to code. He summarized the - report saying that the cost o~ bringing the building up to code exceeds $100,000. He i~dicated that there are some very unsafe conditions at the present facility that warrant improvement. Correcting these conditions has a great deal with how the public works facility issue will be'dealt with, i.e., the city should not spend a large amount of money fixing this building up if its not going to be used and some other alternative is selected, such as a new facility in another location. After some discussion, the Council consensus was to direct the City Manager and staff to pursue the possibility of acquiring the bus garage owned by James Riley and adjacent property owned by Randy Bickman and to study the feasibility of acquiring a site north on County Road 110 owned by Fritz Widmer. In the case of the bus garage and Bickman property, the City would be looking at retrofitting the bus garage to meet its needs. In the case of the Widmer site, it would be looking at building a new facility. In both cases, the Council stressed the need for the cost to come in under one million dollars. The Council firmly believed that if the price tag is under one million, a referendum could be sold. They instructed the City Manager to come back with a preliminary report on this matter at a work session scheduled for Saturday, April 25, 1987. The vehicle inventory was discussed. The City Manager had Geno Hoff and Greg Skinner explain some of the pieces of equipment that were listed. Questions focuse~_ On the need for a V-Plow. The Council then agreed to keep the llst on file for future reference. The liability ordinance for councilmembers and employees was discussed. This ordinance is to be submitted for consideration at the April 14th City Council meeting. The topic of a consent agenda was discussed. The possibility of the City Manager batching items depending upon the type of items, for an agenda, could be done. The consensus was to reserve this for when it is needed. The City Manager briefly updated the Council on the C.S.A.H. 15 road improve- ment. Exterior storage was discussed. The City Manager showed slides. Jan Bertrand, building inspector, was present also to review the slides with the Council. This matter was continued until the April 14th Council meeting. MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MARCH 28, 1987 PAGE 2 Tom Reese, LMCD representative, was present to discuss with the Council the City's position on the Lake Minnetonka Regional Park. Reese indicated how important it was that the City and others consider the proximity of the pro- posed park to the Carver Park area and the Lake Minnewashta park situation. The Council consensus was that they agreed with Mr. Reese and feel' that the regional park should take a much smaller scope and should be kept east of C.S.A.H. 44 and should be tied in with Carver Park. Re,se will attend the Metro Council meeting on April 9th to testify on behalf of the City in this. regard. The City Manager is to contact Minnetrista regarding the City of Mound's support for a smaller park. LMCD legislation was discussed. This is to be discussed again at the April 25th work session. A possible Housing Maintenance Code was dlscu~sed. The Council consensus Was to direct the planning commlsslon to llmlt a code in scope, 'so that it focuses on certain areas. It was suggested that the City Manager obtain some sample copies of codes from other cities. Other Discussion Items: 1. Consideration of the City hiring its own assessor. The City Manager is to report back at the next work session on April 25th. 2. The VFW parking'lot. 3. Grimm's Store 4. Vacated Laurel Street - The Council consensus was that they needed more information on this matter before the public hearing on April 14th. 5. No smoking policy to be put on the April 14th agenda. City attorney annual report - The consensus was to have the following items included within the city attorney's annual report: 1) Number of cases - civil and criminal; 2) Types of cases; 3) Hours spent; 4) Breakdown of money; 5) Copy of retainer contract. With regard to the criminal area: 1) Types of cases; 2) Cases resolved at first before going to pre-trial; 3) Cases resolved at pre-trial; 4) Cases resolved after trial. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12:33 PM, on a motion by Smith, seconded by Jessen and they all ~voted in favor. City Manager MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION - SATURDAY, APRIL 2~,'"1987 The meeting was called to order at 8:30 AM. Members present: Mayor Steve Smith, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen, Skip Johnson and Don Abel. Absent: none. Also present were: John Cameron, City Engineer; Geno Hoff, Street Superintendent; Greg Skinner, Water and Sewer Superintendent; Fran Clark, City Clerk; Len Harrell, Poli~e Chief and Ed Shukle, City Manager. The Public Works facility issue was discussed. A number of alternative pro- posals for the construction or the remodeling of facilities for Public Works were reviewed. John Cameron, City Engineer, presented eight different alternatives that could be considered. The consensus of the Council was to return in two weeks with cost estimates on upgrading the Island Park facility and purchasing and up- grading the Riley Bus Garage property and purchasing the Bickman property. The City Manager then discussed office salaries for 1987. He indicated that th~se would be salaries for the clerica~ workers and that he was still analyzing salaries for department head~ and for himself with regard to 1987 recommendations. He said that he would have those completed in two.weeks. The Council consensus was to wait on the office salary recommendations and meet again on May 9'th at 8:00 AM for another work session to discuss this topic along with other non union admin- istrative salaries. The Council also asked for copies of the Stanton Report, jobs affecting the City of Mound, and the copy of the Metropolitan Area survey with regards to city council salaries. Consideration of the city hiring its own assessor was discussed. Fran Clark, City Clerk presented some information with regard to this subject. Consensus was to set a public hearing at the May 12th meeting for some time this summer to consider whether or not the city should change from doing its assessing with Hennepin County to hiring its own city assessor. Len Harrell, Police Chief, was present to present information recommending an additional police officer. Consensus was to discuss this matter further at the May 9th meeting. Other business discussed was the Bass Tournaments to be held in Mound Bay Park later on this. summer. 'The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 PM. Respectfully submitted, City Manager ES:ls MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION - MAY 9, 1918i The meeting was galled to order at approxlmately 8:40 AM. Members present: Mayor Steve Smit%, Phyllls Jessen, Liz Jensen, Skip Johnson, Don Abel. Absent: none. Also present: City Engineer, John Cameron; Water and Sewer Superintendent, Greg Skinner; Street Superintendent, Geno Hoff; Police Chlef, Len Harre11; City Manager, Ed Shukle. The public works facility was discussed. City Engineer, John Cameron reviewed alternates A - L and alternates X and Y, regarding the public.works facillties. After considerable discussion, the consensus was to have the City Englneer go back and focus on alternates X and Y, dealing with the Island Park facility, Bickman property and Riley property, to come up with a proposal that would add building space onto the existing Riley facility and utilize the Bickman property for outdoor storage. The Police Reserve's activitles and the proposed addition of one police officer 'was discussed. Council consensus would 11ke to have the Eity Manager chec4~ with the City Atterney on Ii~billty issues, with regard tO referrals of reserves for ~rivate security. The Council consensus was also to have the reserves prepare a list of things that they would like to do and review it with the Police Chief. The Police Chief would then review this with the Clty Manager and then the City Attorney. With regard to the proposed addition of one police officer, Police Chief Len Harrell reviewed again the manpower report distributed at the Apr11 25thwork session. He answered numerous questions ~ith regard to the proposal. He was then excused from the meeting and the Council discussed the merits of the proPosed addition of an.addltional officer. The consensus was to wait for the 1988 budget process to consider this proposal rather than to approve it now. 1987 Salaries were discussed for non-union personnel. Abel moved and Smith seconded the f°llowing resolution: RESOLUTION #87-90 RESOLUTION TO SET SALARIES FOR THE NON-UNION OFFICE PERSONNEL FOR 1987 AS RECOMMENDEO AND SHOWN oN '(EXHIBIT "E'~) The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carrled. These increases are retroactive to January 1, 1987. With regard to salaries for department heads for 1987, this matter was:continued until the May 26th regular meeting. .. Upon motion by Abel, seconded by.Johnson, and carried unanimously, the meeting was adjourned at 11:50 AM. Respectfully submitted, City Manager ES;ls Minutes of the Park Commission Meeting May 14, 1987 Dredge of Jennings ~ay Channel The Park Director, Jim Fackler, went over some points regarding dredging Jennings Bay (Dove Channel). An amended application to the Department of Natural Resources will take two months. He explained that Area 1 on the map (Bluebird and Canary) has a combination of private dockage and some commons docks; Area 2 is strictly commons docks (10) with 6 renewing their docks; Area 3 is private lakeshore and Area 4 is basically private. Fackler commented that'material would,still have to be disposed of on City propert~ and that they may have located a possible area to put material on (a large area off of Lake Langdon); he thought it would work out because there is a drain that goes through there now where water could run off easily through marsh area and into. Lake Langdon. After the Commission asked several questions, the Chairman opened the meeting for any 'comments orquestions from the audience. Hol.ly Lovseth questioned how high the figures.for the dredge were. Fackler stated estimated.cost was $69,560. and that we're looking into other companies to get bids from; Ken Weber stated he had gotten a bid of $53,000 for a 6,000 cubic yard dredge. It was discussed that bids/estimates were based on various factors and there were differences in how they were bid, etc. Have to get specifi- cations so all .are bidding on the same thing. Leo Wallis questioned who is going to pay for what. City has $I0,0OO budgeted for the dredge. Fackler stated there will be other costs such as legal and engineering fees and mentloned that the DNR recommends riprapping dredge which would add more. Marshall Weber mentioned'that Lake Minnetonka is not likely to be higher for several years as the Watershed is getting pressure from people along the creek that want water in the creek. .Greg Kohl questioned why Area 4 can't be connected into Area 3. It was explained area between is a wildlife marsh land and the Watershed won't allow any dredg,ing there. Ken Weber stated he thought if you stay away from the cattail llne, the DNR wouldn't object. The suggestions for action were discussed; also the alternative of only doing Areas 1 and 2. The Dock Inspector questioned if we can justify this kind of ext penditure for'the commons docks. Marshall Weber thought 18 of 20 persons could be accommodated if areas 1 and 2 were done. Dell feels City could assign the common dock holders elsewhere. It was discussed that number of docks doesn't warrant the large expenditure. Don Perry suggested getting dredge set.up for winter job and perhaps water would be down more and there would be more bidders. The Chairman closed the discussion. Jessen moved and Maas seconded a motion to recommend that the common dock holders be relocated for this year. The vote was unanimously in favor. Jessen stated she would get the Council's feeling on appropriating additional funds for the Jennings Bay dredge. The Park Commission tabled And took no further action at this time. 11 013 1689 91 11'013' 1730 12 11 016 1701 51 11 016 1749 41 11°022 1562 92 11 025 1661 23 11 028 1656 61 11 031 1721 2t 11 043 5022 61 11 058 5043 O1 11 064 4945 53 11 094 2044 62 1i 103 5804 92 11 109 5952 31 11 112 5971 71 i1 124 6090 O1 11 169 5408 02 11 169 6256 21 11 175 5504 31 11 175 5511 82 11 196 2148 83 11 211 2136 01 11 220 2197 31 Delinquent Water and. Sewer S. Hincgcliff , Daniel Rohrlcht Merlin Woytcke Pd. John Hi~t Wm Howell Rixhard TOllison Ronald Nelson Craig Hillerns Roberta Heuer Elaine Smith Brian Johnson Marshall Smith Bruce Rolfshus Robert Wyman Gary Brown D. Rodenwald Pd. Jerry Kohls Sharry Johnson Barbara Byi.ngton Chuck Downey Pd. Frank Sloan Pd. Glen Reger Brad Goranson Pd. $54.19 $165.39 154.99 175.06 50.64 73.93 150.01 163.92 191'.85 75.09 112.09 61.26 97.40 87.45 201.42 140.21 69.09 110.56 165.07 213.44 100.83 106.89 63.16 1689 Avocet Ln. 1730 Avocet Ln. 1701 Bluebird Ln. 1749 Bluebird Ln. 1562 Dove Ln. 1661 Eagle Ln. 1656'Eagle Ln. 1721 Gull Ln. 5022 Soarrow Rd. 5043 Enchanted Rd. 4945 Glen Elyn Rd. 2044 Bellaire Ln. 5804 Sunset Rd. 5952. Hillcrest Rd. 5971Gumwood Rd. 6090 Aspen Rd. 5408 Lynwood Blvd. 6256 Lynwood Blvd. 5504 Spruce Rd. 5511 Spruce Rd. 2148 Basswood Ln. 2136 Overland Ln. 2197 Cardinal Ln. *Made arrangements $2860.95 $2197.29 5-19-87 11 013 1689 91 11 013 1730 12 11 016 1701 51 11 016 1749 41 11 022 1562 92 11 025 1661 23 11 028 1656 61 11 031 1721 21 11 043 5022 61 11 058 5043 01 11 064 4945 53 11 094 2044 62 11 103 5804 92 11 109 5952 31 11 112 5971 71 11 124 6090 01 11 169 5408 02 11 169 6256 21 11 175 5504 31 11 175 ~511 82 11 196 2148 83 11 2'11 2136 01 11 220 2197 31 Delinquent Water and Sewer $165.39 131.20 154.99 175.06 50.64 73.93 150.01 163.92 191~85 75.09 112.09 61.26 97.40 87.45 201.42 140.21 69.09 110.56 165.07 213.44 100.83 106.89 63.16 $2860.95 REQUEST TO MOUND CITY COUNCIL Administrative Office 5341Maywood Rd. Mound, minn. 55364 MAy 20,1987 Subject; Cancellation of special assements on recently purchased property. Ref; Exhibits A,B,C. On Saturday,May 9,1987, we purchased an adjacent parcel of land , put up for public sale, for the sum of $2,900.00. This parcel of land will be cleaned up and used. to increase our back yard. It is our request that the special assemen%s referred in exhibit B for the sum of $10,639.95 be dropped. Thank You You ~re hereby notified that a public sale of tax forfeited lands located in Hennepin County, within 300 feet of your property will be held on Public Service Level, Hennepin County Government Center, 300 South 6th Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55415. A copy of the list of lands to be sold may be obtained from Finance & Commerce, 615 South 7th Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55415, by mailing $1.00 to them and requesting a' copy of the newspaper published on' April 18th or 25th, 1987. DATE & TIME OF SALE: SATURDAY. MAY 9TH. 1987 9:00 a.m. Suburban - 1:30 p.m. MDl~ PID OF SALE PROPERTY: Department of Property Tax & Public Records Tax Forfeited [and Unit A-603 Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487 Telephone No. 348-3734 .... :.;.,"-:.,..:.,.;-. ~,v, '~.;.~=,,..: ..t..~,.,~,..~ ..~...~"~ m2~mmAve~t~s~F.L.~:..':: .... :.:l:'::..;... u.ooo.~o ~,o~.,~ 12~0~ ~ Ave N l~t ( Btk I~ ............................ 12, OOO.00 (14~) PID P 1.i-L1S-I~-I l.OO~l IIiO~ n~th Ave N llot ? BUt S ............................ 1~,OOO.00 1~,5~0.~4 CITY OF MOURD SE'ION (1~) PID WY~W~D PEMBRO~ ~ ~ and E 1~ fl of L~ 51 ~ W 10 ~ of ~t ~ subj~t road B~ 10 n ~ of me~l at r/~ ~ and par wl~ N ~ of ~t 1 ~ S of reels it r/i to and pit ~ N ~ne of ~t ~K E of 3 ~ drawn ~0~ E of meas at r/~ to and ~E ~GH~DS That p~rt of ~M 6 and 7 l~g ~y of~e SEIy 112.~ WYCHWOOD · CTTY OF WAYZATA (le7) Pm Far Hffi Rd ~ ~ B~ ~ ............................. ~,~.~ ~,~1.~ (1~) PID Far Hffi Rd~t ~ B~ ~ ............................. ~,~.~ ~,MI PID ~31-1152~3~ ~5 FarHffiRd~t 4 B~ 2 ............................. . 5,~.~ ~,~1.~ elected, b~ accordance v. tth the terms or sad mo~age, ~ decl~e, . ~e~by ~ ~ ~ta~ly due ~d p~yable; ~d W~REAS, ~ere ~ cl~ due u~n mad morale, ~d m due ~e~n a~ ~e da~ of ~ NoOce, ~e sum ct I29,854.33 tn principal and in.mst, ~d ~ge~er wt~ ~xes I~c~ on sad pmmaes p~d by $~0.~, m~g a' ~ ~o~t due ~er~n u of ~e ~a~ of ~ Notice of $30,514.41; and no action or pr~ee~g berg now pen~g at law, sec~d by s~d ~o~ase; or ~y p~ ~ereor; ~ ~ , NOW, THRREPORE.'notlce ta hereby ~ven that by virtue of power of sale cpntalned tn said mortgage, and pp~suant to the p~vided, ~e s~d mo~gage ~ be foreclosed by the sale or said mortgaged premises wi[h here~amen~ and' ~ppur~nances, w~ch s~d s~e ~'~ made by ~e Sheriff o~ Henn~pt~ County. Mtn- .30 pf ~e He~ep~ Co~'~o~' s~d ~ on Money ~ 6~ da ct July, 1987, at 10:00 o'clock a.m., at public aucUon ~ ~e highest bidder ~ pay ~e ~o~[ ~en due on sad momgage, toge~er wl~ ~e cos~ Ct fornicate; ~chid~g at~meys' ~ ~owed by law, m acco~ce ~e prov~o~ of sad mo~e. The ~e ~owed by law for mdempUon by the mortgagors, the~ pe~on~ mon~ ~om ~e ~ ct ~d DASD: M~h 30, 19~. ~A~NGS, MORTGAGEE ~C~, CROSSE ~ MOORE By: F. L. ~o~n At~meys for Mo~ag~ 16~ ~F Tower ~eapoEz, ~eso~ 5~02 (Ap~l 18, 25, May 2, 9, 16, 23, 30, June 6, 1987l 70507 SUMMONS FUe P 87-'/491 STATE OF IvX1NNESOTA, ) ( County of HennepLn. ) DISTRICrI' COURT FOURTH JUDICI. AL DISTRICT Norwest iDes Mulnes), N.A., ~ Plslntl~ Fern O. Bru. nner, Defendant THE STATE OF MINNESOTA TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFEND. ANT: required to serve upon PlaintifFs attorneys, Ml~rso s~'ld Mlchelzon, an Answer to ~e Complaint which Is on ~le at the shove-named cour%, within 20 days ~r service of thJ5 Sunu'non~s upon you. exclusive of the day Of service, Lf you fail to do ~o. ]udgraent by defa~t wLLI be taken agaln.lt yOU for the relief demanded in the Com. plaJ. n~ .... D^TED~'S~'P~mbcr l~. ~S6. WHEREA~. there Iz clmmed due upon ~d mor~age, and k~ thereon at the daU~ of this NoUce, sum of $62,682,76 tn principal . interest and no action or procee~ being now pending at law, otherwtse, ta recover the C~bt sect by s~d mortgage, or any pert then NOW, THEREFORE, notic~ hereby given that by vL-l~ue of power of sale contained In s ~nortgage, and pursuant to statute in such case made provided, the ~dd mortg~e foreclosed by the sale of s. mortgaged premises with hereditamenta .and appurtenm.,~ whJch a4~td sale wUl be made by Sheriff of Hennepln County, h nesota, at the Sherl/rs o~ce m Rc 30 of the Hermep~n County house, m the ~ty Gl Mlnneapol~ said County on Monday the 6th o! July, 1987, at 10:00 o'clock public auction to the highest bicb to pay the amou.qt then due on mortgage, together with the foreclosure, ~n¢ludlng attorneys' ! az ~llowed by law, tn accordance · the provisions of ~Jd mortgage. t/~e ~Uowed by ~aw for redempt bY th~ ~nortgagor~. thelr'pere~ mont)~ from the ~lgte DATED; March 30. 1987. TCF BA.NK1NO SAWNOS, MORTOAO MACK,~LL, CROD'NSE & MOOR By: F. L. Thor~on · ' ..... ^ttomeya for Mort~ge~ ~ 1600 TCP Tower. (April. 18, May 2, 9, 16, 23, 30. June 6, 1987) , CERTIFICATE OF ASSUMED NAJ~.E STATE OF MINNESOT& Pursuant ~o Chapter 333, Mi nesota Statutes; the underalgm who iS or will be conducting assumed name, hereby certl~es: I. The ai.sumed name under wh~ the b~e~ b or ~ be conduc~ T.C. ~KET~O OF 5~EAPO~S 2, The ad~ of ~e p~cip~ p~ ofb~e~ ~ ~eso~ ~ or ~ g~ Oraim~xchan~e Bulldia ~ea~l~,' &~eso~ 5~ 15 Trace, Inc, 469 Grain E~cha~ B~ldlng, Ml~eapola, ~ ~133 Ole~on ~oad, E~a, ~ (Slgned) RON~D L. President, ~sc~ b STA~ OF ~SOT~ ) ( Co~ty O~ He~epth. The fore~oin~ instrument w( ac~owl~ ~ore me ~ ~ ~ 06,9 © TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building O~fJcial ~--~ Planning Commission Agenda of April 13, 19 CASE NO. 87-622 CASE NO. 87-622 APPLICANT: Roco Investments LOCATION: 5950 Bartlett Boulevard LEGAL DESC.: Lot 55, Auditors Subdivision No. 168; PID No. 23-117-24 13 0032 SUBJECT: Lot Width Variance and Subdivision EXISTING ZONING: R-1 Single Family The applicant is requesting a waiver of the subdivision provisions to subdivide an existing parcel of land to the north of Bartlett Boulevard. The existing par- cel has two singl~ family homes. He is requesting a variance of lot width from 60 feet to 25'feet at the improved public right-of-way to provide a deeded drive- way, utility and public vehicle access to an area at the north; the lot width is approximately 138 feet+. The existing dwelling of 5950 would have 10,481 square feet with a 1 foot rear y~rd variance to recognize a 14 foot rear yard. The front yard setback of the existing structure on Parcel 2 is 20 feet instead of the re- quired 30 feet in the R-1 Zoning District. The structure on the proposed Parcel 1 has conforming lot setbacks to the rear and side property lines, however, the lot setback for a replacement structure or expansion of the existing dwelling should be marked on the lot subdivision, but in no case should it be closer than 20 feet to the south property line. Parcel 1 would have 22,725 square feet. The site presently has a crest on the hill between Parcel 2 and Parcel 1. The north structure is connected with a sewer lift station through the front building at 5950 Bartlett Boulevard. To correct the situation and provide a separate sewer and water service to the rear structure Ts being proposed by the property owner. The survey submitted has not included the site grades. The applicant will be submitting a new survey to assure that the rear structure can make the sewer invert elevation possibly without a lift station on the future connection of sewer service. RECOMMENDATION: Staff feels that the lot areas are conforming with this parcel; possibly the Planning Commission could subdivide the property with the assurance that the rear parcel be disconnected from sewer and water service of the front building and that the new sewer service would be in the 25 foot deeded access for .the existing building to the north. After the grades are added to the survey, the subdivision could include drainage easements around the perimeter of Parcel 1 to assure on-site drainage would not be diverted to the property north of Parcel 1. Staff does recommend the waiver of the public hearing for the subdivision of less than'.five acres, the park dedication, replat of the parcel and any fees for legal engineering, etc. The abutting neighbors have been notified. This will be referred to the City Council on April 28, 1987. Planning Commission Minutes - April 27, 1987 1. Case 'No. 87"622 Lot Width Variance and SubdiviSion - 5950 Bartlett Boulevard Lot 55, Auditor's Subdivision No. 168; PID No. 23-117-24 13 0032 The applicant, Mark Rosenbaum, was present and also neighborS, Dorothy Hallin and James Lewis were present. - The Building Official briefly revlewed the proposal and that elevations had been' added to the survey. There wlil be' new sewer and water services and a new lift station will be required if.this subdlVi.sJon is approved. The.-rear lot Ilne for proposed Parcel'2'could be changed.'to make a conformi~.,rt~r~tru~tute on Parcel 2 has ~ nonconforming front yard setback of 20 feet instead of the 30 feet 'required; variance is the lot.width (25 feet) for Parcel 1 which would than have. deeded driveway. The City Engineer could review the drainage and possibly would recommend drainage easements. Applicant Mark Rosenbaum was present; he advised he had written to Ms. Hallin and the Lewis' informing them they have no intention of subdividing rear parcel more; they want to separate two structures so properties can be sold to tenant resi- dents. He commented .rea{ lot lin~ could be swung 90° to glve Parcel 2 more land and a conforming rear yard setback. .. James Lewis was concerned that mo~e homes could be pat in and make appearance of crowdiness and diminish spaciousness they have now. Hs. Hallin commented she does[ not think this is orderly planning. Ray Hanson, neighbor to the west, questioned kind of structure to be put on parcel 2; he stated tenants of that house have been type that play loud music until 3 A.M. and he did not feel a family would want-to purchase and live in that small a house. He's.oppOsed to more homes in this area. Rosenbaum stated his intention is to make two self-sustaining parcels which can be sold to two.parties. He would not object to havlng a restriction placed in the deed limiting the division'to two sites. In response to the Commission's question, the Planner stated he believed because there is a.variance involved, approval could be made Subject to. having a deed restriction placed on Parcel 1 and have that reviewed by the'City Attorney. The-Commission disCussed-'the request, at length;: the nonconforming size of the house on Parcel 2; t'he. length°f.'tim~ it has been unoccupied add whether 'it could be re-rented; there ~e. re.several suggest.ions for ways of splittlng the land; discussed Whether 50~ of value'.~le applied; whether if they created the lot with 'the nonconforming structure,"it would be back for more variances; also discussed past'decisions on similar lots on Bartlett-and whether they'd be creating more problems. It.was noted'that lot is 138 feet wide at the street and, if'no house ~ere on'it, twq conforming lots could be made---also noted that they'd be back'to the bowling lane type lots. The.Planner clarified that the small structure can be rented again provided it has not been vacant a year; he'also.st'ated'that. small house does meet setback requirements and if separate Parcel, it could be added onto to meet minimum house size. Smith'~oved a motion to deny the request~ motion was seconded by Jansen. Smith' stated the. reason for the mot.ion was can't see reason to create more p~oblem~ The vote was: Andersen, Jensen,.Reese, Smith and Sohns in favor of the denial and Meyer and Thal against the denial. Motion carried. ' This wilt be on the Councilagenda for May 12, 1987. APPLICATION FEE OWNER 'R0c0 INVESf~ENTS FOR SUBDIVISION Sec. 22.03-a VILLAGE OF MOUND OF LAND PLAT FEE $ PARCEL Location and complete legal description of prope~y to be divided: 5950 BARTLETT BOULEVARD, NOUND, NN LOT 55, AUDITORS SUBDIVISION 168 55364 ZONING To be divided as follows: ...' LoT I - All supporting.documents,-:Such as sketch plans, surveys, attachments, etc. must be sUbmitte'd:ln 8½"'X ll': size*and/or, lZ~ copies, pl.i~s: one' 8~" X' ll'" 'copy. (attach survey or scale ;drawing showing adjacent streets, dimension of proposed building sites, square foot area of each new parcel designated by number) A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR.. New Lot No. From Square feet TO Square feet Reason: APPLICAN~ (signature) ADDRESS ~ "~ 001~..~ . 144 Pf.~-~ - TEL. NO. S~;'¥'o~ DATE Applicant's interest in the property: OWNER - ROCO INVESTMENTS This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of the property, or an explan- 'ation given why this is not the case. PLANNING' COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION.- DATE ~ ~.~..5'7 CITY OF MOUND MAR I 9 t987 "'~OO~: .............. iAPPLICATION TO PgA~I~ ~ ZOninG ~0~1~10~ ,, ~ ,~,~.,~,~ · (Please type the ¢ol]owlng in~or~tlon) Street Address o¢ Property 5950 BARTLETT BOULEVARD Legal Description of Property: Lot Addition AUDITORS SUBDIVISION 168 3. Owner's Name ROCO INVESTMENTS Address BOX 300128 Case No. Fee Date Flied 55 Block PID No. 23-117-24 13 0092 Day Phone No. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55403 372-3276 Applicant (if other than owner): Name MARK ROSENBAUM Address 1921 JAMES AVE SO MINNEAPOIS, Day Phone No. MINN 55403 374-3276' 5. Type of Request: (X) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit / ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. *If other, specify: ~~ (J~/ _~_~-t~Y (,.) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit (1)*Other 7. Existing Use(s) of Property 8. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conaitional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? NO If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of appiicatlon, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request· I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate, I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of insp. e~t)3g-;~5'~f posting, maintaining'and removing such notices as may be required b/y~?w~/~__~.~ · " Signature of App]ica~" Date Planning Commission Recommendation: Council Action: Date Resolution No. 4/82 Request for Zoni.ng Variance Procedure (2) Case D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc; E. Indicate North compass direction F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and app]icable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. I!1. ~equest for a Zonin9 Variance A. All information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. B. Does the present use of the property conform to all use regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (X) No ( ) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: C. Do the existing structures comply with all area height and bu)k regula(ions for the zone district in which it is Jocated? Yes ( X ) No ( ) If "no", s~ecify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) .Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil" ( ) Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface ( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape (X) Other: Specify: EXISTING HONE TO CLOSE TO PROPERTY LINE TO PERMIT 60' ON ROADWAY Ee Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No (X) If yes, explain: F. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (X) If yes, explain: Ge A're the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (X} No ( ) If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? He What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use of your ]and? (Specify, using maps, site.plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional sheets, if necessary.) WE REQUEST A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A 25' FRONTAGE ON ROADWAY Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property i.n the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? NO ~urvey for: ~ C_..o ~t~3V~-~"[-IN~.I%,~T~ I Job No. '77~/ I Bk. 4g'G'pg. ~/--~--I I I : ' 22,725 S.F~. lO~481' S.F. // 0 Co. ~'~ I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF /q lT '7' / -F o ,~ -~ ~ u Z~ Z~ l U / ~ / o ,",~ ~.z o . SURVEYED BY ME THIS IqOl , DAY OF City of Mound Planning & Zoning Commission 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 RE: Request for Variance 5950 Bartlett Blvd. Lot 55, Auditors Subdivision 168 Gentlemen; Our request for this variance has been generated by our desire to Subdivide our land at the above address so that each of the two dwellings thereon can be owned individually. Due to the placement of t~e house in front, it is not possible to achieve a 60 foot frontage on Bartlett Boulevard. Since the water,_sewe~,.. and existing driveway serving the rear property lies within a 25 foot path to the east of the front house, we would like to continue using this as the egress to the rear house-and have that strip of land deeded to the rear property. We sincerely appreciate your attendance to this matter and patiently await your response. March 18, 1987 l¥ok- Ron Krueger Associates, Inc. .8080 Wallace Road Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 (612) 934-4242 Engineering Land Surveying Landscape Architecture Planning Legal Description Parcel 1 That part of Lot 55, Auditors Subdivision No. 168 lying northerly and easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the Southwest Corner of said Lot 55; northerly along West line of said Lot 55, a distance of 98.00 ft. to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence northeasterly deflecting to the right 78o30'00'' a distance' of 102.00 ft; thence south- erly deflecting to the right 96o30'00'' a distance of 97.00 ft., more or less, to the southerly line of said Lot 55 and said line, there terminating. Mayor a~d City Council Members City Staff FROM: Dorothy Hallin, 5912 Bartlett Boulevard DATE: May 21, 1987 SUBJECT: Case No. 87-622 5950 Bartlett Boulevard Lot 55, Auditor's Subdivision No. 168 P.I.D. 23-117-23 13 0032 Attachments: A. Copy of Plat Map ISSUE - Lot width variance and subdivision of subject property.~. INTRODUCTION.- ~he following issues were brought before the Planning Commission for their consideration on this application: Proposed Plat Parcel 2 A. Granting a rear yard setback of 14 feet where 15 feet are required. B. Lot size would be restrictive for future improvements and/or additions to the existing structure. C. Shared driveway access. Proposed Plat Parcel 1 A. Lot width variance from required 60 feet to 25 feet on Bartlett Boulevard. B. Existing structure has a 1986 market value of $3,800 and does not meet existing building standards. C. New installation of sewer and water hookup from Bartlett Boulevard and the necessity of a lift station. D. .Proposed lot contains 22,725 square feet which could indicate the possible future division of this lot. E. The proposed lot will not conform wi.th the existing lots in the neighborhood. It will become an isolated island in the backyards of 5950 Bartlett Boulevard and the adjacent properties. It will take away the privacy and open space of these properties. F. This type of lot division might set a precedent in .the neighborhood for future subdivisions. DISCUSSION - As proposed this subdivision would not meet existing established neighborhood lot plan (Exhibit A). The existing house on parcel 2 would be left with little "buffer" area from the traffic on Bartlett Boulevard. /~ According to Hennepin County Traffic Count Department the traffic count on Bartlett BouleVard averaged 6,900 vehicles per day in 1986. (The traffic count will undoubtedly increase each year.) The City Council has the responsibility to maintain the orderly gr'owth and development of the community. The subdivision of property has a lasting effect upon the neighborhood and entire community. This neighborhood was platted many years ago and as shown in Exhibit A the lots were platted to accomodate a structure facing Bartlett Boulevard and a private back yard. At this point in time we can only assume that the purpose of platting the lots in this manner was to give a private area to persons living on a County road. Thank you for the consideration of my concerns on this matter. TO Plannin~ Commission Members City Staff Dorothy Hallin, 5912 Bartlett Blvd. DATE: April 22, 1987 SUBJECT: Case No. 87-622 5950 Bartlett Blvd. Lot 55, Auditor's Subdivision No. 168 P.I.D. 23-117-24 13 0032 ISSUE · Lot width variance and subdivision of subject property. INTRODUCTION The County Assessor's records indicate a 1986 market value of $64,000 land and building value for 5950 Bartlett (land 20,000 and building 44,000) and a market value of $5,800 land and building for the second structure (land 2,000 amd building 3,800), making the total market value of the existing parcel $69,800. Proposed Parcel 2 would include the existing structure 5950 Bartlett which has a market value of $44,000 on a lot containing 10,481 square feet. Proposed Parcel 1 would include an existing structure which has a market value of $3,800 on a lot containing 22,725 square feet. DISCUSSION There are some issues and concerns on this application that adjacent property owners would like the Planning Commission members to consider before making a recommendation to the Council · Proposed Plat Parcel 2 A. The .granting of a rear yard setback of 14 feet not the required 15 feet. B. Lot would be restricted for future improvements and/or additions. C. Shared driveway access. Proposed Plat Parcel 1 A. Lot width variance from required 60 feet to 25 feet on Bartlett Blvd. B. Existing structure h~s a market value of $3,800 (very low° value for a ~abital building). Would it be possible to make major improvements or an addition to this structure? C. Installation of sewer and water hookup from Bartlett Blvd. and the possible necessity of a lift station. D. Lot c'ontains 22,725 square feet which could indicate the possible future division of this lot. E. This proposed lot will not conform with the existing lots in the neighborhood. It will become an isolated island in the backyards of 5950 Bartlett Blvd. and also the adjacent properties. In addition is would take away the privacy and open space of the these properties. F. This might set a precedent in the neighborhood for future subdivisions. CONCLUSION As 'proposed this subdivision would not meet the existing established neighborhood lot plan. The long shared driveway could be a hardship for emergency vehicles. Will Parcel 2 have a driveway easement? The sewer and water hookup and possible lift station will be a substantial expense for the developer, which will encourage the request for future subdivision of Parcel 1. The Planning Commission members must consider the future impact of this proposed subdivision not only to the adjacent neighbors, the existing neighborhood, the City as a whole and the applicant. Moving the 25 foot wide access to the west side of the lot would be an advantage to Parcel 2 by giving more open space toward the east and eliminating the need for a shared driveway. This plan however does not eliminate the major objection to this subdivision which is the non-confomity of the proposed lot to the re'st of the neighborhood. The size of the property would indicate that a developer could divide the property with a division line running north and south creating a new buildable lot to the west of the existing strtucture (5950 Bartlett). It is anticipated this would require a small lot width variance, but could be an acceptable alternative. Additionally. the lot has.a slop to the west which° would probab, ly dictate the architectural style of a new structure. The small existing structure in the rear of the lot could be used as a storage building if it is not raised. Such a subdivision would eliminate; a.) shared driveway, b.) expense to developer of lengthy sewer and water line installations, c.) initial cost and upkeep of a lift station, d.) would preserve the conformity of lots in the neighborhood, e.) preservation of privacy and open space of newly created lot and adjacent properties and f.) applicant is granted a subdivision of his property · Thank you for your time and consideration regarding our concerns on this matter. April 13, 1987 Re: Requested variance on PIN ~3-- /[7-~¢ ;~ ~7_--~ ~ To Whom It May Concern~ ~ ~J~. ~7-~ ~ Marylan and James Lewis, owners of the lot adjoining the above property on the north at 5921 Beachwood Road oppose the granting of a variance from city code to the owners of the above property for subdivision of the lot. The following are our reasons: 1. The building of an additional house, I believe will diminish the value of adjoining properties as it will. give the appearance of crowding and lack of orderliness. Sight lines for such a house would not be congruent with any other houses. 2. We purchased our lot because it provides spaciousness on our back lot line from the existing structu.res on the said property. This spaciousness would be diminished by building a house on the said lot. 3. Quality of life is, to some extent, a function of space. As space diminishes, quality of life diminishes with it. 4. A final thought: If the subdivision were granted, what would hinder the developer(s) from requesting permits to build TWO houses which would only intensify the objections we have,mentioned above. S~--cerely, ~ ~ , J~mes and Marylan L-~wis ~5~92! Beachwood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 Phone 472-7390 I,./10 I'UII - 33&.2 -- I I CASE NO. 87-622 4 $o / 3030 Harbor .Lane North, ~Suite 104 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441 612/553-1950 TO: Planning Co~mission and Staff FRC~: Mark Koegler, City Planner ~ DATE: May 6, 1987 SUBJECT: Variance Request APPLICANT: Donald Lobdell CASE NO: 87-631 VHS FILE NO: 87-310-A20-ZO LOCATION: 3367 Warner Lane EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-l) ~SIVE PLAN: Residential . PROPOSAL: Mr. Lobdell has applied for a variance to recognize existing, non-conforming setbacks. This request has been submitted to satisfy mortgage requirements. No changes and/or additions are being proposed for any of the structures on the property. The existing single family structure has a 4.2 foot setback along the northern property line. The reg. uired setback in this area is 10 feet resulting in a 5.8 foot sideyard variance. The Garage, which is an accessory structure, sits 1.3 feet from the front lot line and 2.9 feet from the side lot line. Since the garage door does not face the street, required front and side yard setbacks are 8 feet and 4 feet respectively. This situation results in a 6.7 foot front yard variance an~ a 1.1 foot side yard variance. The property contains one additional accessory structure which is labeled on the survey as a storage building. The storage building sits approximately 10 feet from the lakeshore resulting in a possible lake setback variance, the exact amount of which is impossible to calculate due to a lack of available contour information. '. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the fact that all of the variances requested by the applicant are to recognize existing conditions and that no expansion or intensification of any of the three existing structures is proposed, staff recommend~ approval of the noted variances to recognize existing conditions. RESOLUrlO~ ~Oo 87- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING PRINCIPAL STRUClXJRE SETBACK AND ACCESSORY BUILDING SETBACKS FOR LOT 1 & 64, BLOCK 12, DOUGLAS-WHIPPLE SHORES, PID NO. 25-117-24 24 0056 WHEREAS, Donald Lobdell, the owner of the property described as Lot 1 & 64, Block 12, Douglas-Whipple Shores, PID No. 25-117-24 24 0056, has applied for a variance to recognize existing nonconforming principal structure and accessory structure setbacks; ar~ WHEREAS, the existing principal structure is nonconforming due to a 4.2 foot setback along the northern property line and the garage, which is an accessory structure, is nonconforming due to a 1.3 foot setback from the front property line and a 2.9 foot setback from the side property line; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the R-1 zone which, according to city code, requires a 10 foot sideyard setback for principal structures and accessory structure setbacks of 8 feet for the front yard and 4 feet for the side yard; and WHEREAS, the applicant has requested the subject variance for the purposes of obtaining mortgage approval and no modifications, alterations or expansion of any of the existing structures is proposed; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend the variance to recognize the existing principal structure and accessory structure setbacks. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby recognize the existing principal structure and accessory structure nonconforming setbacks for property located at 3367 Warner Lane, PID No. 25-117-24 24 0056. Plannlng Commission Minutes May 11, 1987 J Case No. 87-631 Variance to recognize existing nonconforming setbacks at 3367 Warner Lane; Part of Lot 1, Block 12, Douglas and Lot 64, Whipple Shores; PID No. 25-t17-24 24 0056 Don Lobdell w~s present. The City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed his report stating that applicant is not proposing any changes or additions; request is v~ri~nce to recognize existing non-conforming setbacks in order to satisfy mortgage requirements in order to sell the prQperty. He stated that in addition to ~-ariances for the house ~nd garage, the storage building may require a ~-ariance. The building~needs to be above the ordinary high%rater level and contour informa- -tiOn is not aw-ailable. The staff recommends approval'of the noted ~ariances to recognize existing conditions and noting that no expansion or intensifi- cation of any of the three existing structures is proposed. The Co~m~ission discussed request and all we're doing is recognizing existing. Weiland moved and Michael seconded a motion to recommend staff recom- mendation with the provision that this-has to come back for any additions. Commission questioned age of garage. A portion to thewest %cas added last year and it ~-as thought by stakes that were pointed out, garage w~s con- forming. New survey shows lot lines ~ith garage at angle to lines. The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor. This will be on the City Council agenda on May 26, 1987. MOUND Fee Paid Date Filed ~//~/.~/~ APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) 1. Street Address of Property ~-~'/~ 7 /L'/~"a'~'g/~"- -~"~.~9.w 2. Legal Description of Property: Lot ] Cbr~q Addition ~. Applicant (if other than owner): a ) T7pe of ~) Zoning interpretation & Review ( )sinperm, o (') Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( )*Other Block PID NO, ,--2'~-II Day Phone "0. *If other, specify: 6, Present 'Zoning District '/~)- / - d ..... 8. Has an application ever been made for zoning, v~r/i nce, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property?/V' b If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies.of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. i certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or p]ans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining'and removing such notices as may be required by law. Signature of Applicant~ / V Planning Commission Recommendation: Recommend staff recommendation with provision that this has to come back for any additions. 5-11-87 Date Council Action: Resolution No. Date 5-26-87 h/R9 Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) Case D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction F. Any addition~l information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. III..Request for a Zonin~ Variance A. All information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. B. Does the present use of the property conform to ~)-) use regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (/~) No ( ) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: C. Do the existing structures comply with all area height and bu~,[egula(ions for the zone district in ~hich it is located? Yes If "no", s~pecify each non-conforming use: / D. Which unique p4ysica! characteristics ~f thee'subject propert~pre~nt its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil ( ) Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface ( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify: Ee Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests, ~in the )and after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No ¥~,;) If yes, explain: /- Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca- 'tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (/~)~ If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a vaEiance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes . (X) 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 e variance be materia)ly detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? DONALD LOBDELL Prepared for: IS' LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Par 1: The Northerly 1/2 of Lot 1, Block 12, Douglas, described as follows: Beginning at the Northeasterly corner of said Lot 1, which is also the point where the Northerly line of the lot intersects the Westerly line of Warner Way. From this point in a Southwesterly direction following the Southeasterly line of Lot 1, 120 feet, more or less, to a point in said Southeasterly line which is equally distant from the Northeasterly corner and the Southeasterly corner of said Lot 1. From this point in a straight line to the shore of Lake Minnetonka to a point on said shore line which is equally distant from the Northwesterly corner and the Southwesterly corner of said Lot 1. From this point in a Northeasterly direction along the shore of Lake Minnetonka to the Northwesterly corner of the lot, which is also the point where the Northerly line of said lot intersects the shore of Lake Minnetonka and from this point in an Easterly direction following the Northerly line of said Lot 1 to the point of beginning, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. Par 2: Lot 64, Whipple Shores, according to the recorded plat thereof, and situate in Hennepin County, Minnesota. o Denotes iron monument "x' Denotes cross chiseled in concrete K951.5 Denotes existing spot elevation ~ Denotes proposed spot elevation ~ Denotes surface drainage Dashed contour lines denote proposed features Solid contour lines denote existing features ALL-METRO SURVEYORS 2340 Daniels Street Long Lake, Minnesota 553,56 Ph: 475-1433, GENERAL NOTES[ Proposed top of foundation Bier. - Proposed basement floor elev. a Proposed garage floor elev.- BENCHMARK: ;CALE I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was 1"-40 prepared bY me or under my direct supervision and that - I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of BOOK I PAG;o Star--Minnesota · DATE ~f~. 19, Iqg? REG. NUMBER 11025 ~101%°5 44. 64 61 59 PHEt 14'5 CASE NO. 87-632 PROPOSED RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO 87- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL OF A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE AND AND EXISTING NONCONFORMING REAR YARD FOR LOTS 9 AND 10, BLOCK 9, AVALON; PID NO. 19-117-23 31 0023; P & Z CASE NO. 87-632 (4512 Montgomery Road) WHEREAS, James Stille, owner of the property, has requested an 12 foot front yard variance to allow an unenclosed deck within 18 feet of the front property line and to recognize an existing 10 foot rear yard setback; and WHEREAS, the City Code requires a 30 foot front yard setback abutting the two right-of-ways of Montgomery Road and Wilshire Boulevard, a 15 foot rear yard setback to the east, and a 10 foot sideyard in the R-3 one and two family residential district; and WHEREAS, t'he Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recommend approval due to the shape of the lot. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of 'the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the 12 foot front yard variance to Wilshire Boulevard to allow the construction of an unenclosed deck onto the structure and does recognize the existing 10 foot nonconforming rear yard, upon the condition that the proposed deck not be remodeled, expanded or enclosed in the future unless receiving further variance approval for Lots 9 and 10, Block 9, Avalon; PID No. 19-117-23 3l 0023 (4512 Montgomery Road). UPON~--I~rll- I'UKIHI'K CUNUIIIUIM [,,ob ~ ~u,,'~i',~ ~-'-'rv~.V be submitted ~.r~nrt;-;.;.~k,v,, ',~ ~m~nr'_~.~l. CASE NO. 87-632 TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff FROM: Jan Bertrand,' Building Official ~ Planning Commission Agenda of May 11, 1987 CASE NO. 87-632 APP'LICANT: James Stille LOCATION: 4512 Montgomery Road LEGAL DESC.: Lots 9 and 10, Block 9, Avalon; PID No. 19-117-23 31 0023 SUBJECT: Front Yard Setback Variance EXISTING ZONING: R-3 Two Family Residential The applicant is [equesting a front yard variance to allow an unenclosed deck within 18 feet of the front property line. The proposed deck is 12 by 24 foot. The R-3 Zoning District requires front yards abutting corner lots to both street right-of-ways of 30 feet. The County Road 125 right-of-way is 32 feet from the driving surface to the property owner's lot line. The proposed deck and stairway ~'~L~ be 18 feet from property line instead of the required 30 feet abutting 125. The 30 foot setback is maintained to the west, Montgomery Place. The existing dwelling has.a l0 foot rear yard instead of the required 15 feet. The owner has a copy of Hennepin County Road as-built street drawing attached to his application. The certificate of survey was done by Carlson and Carlson in 1970 prior to the construction of the dwelling. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the 18 foot setback to the deck, the requested 12 foot variance due to the shape of the lot and the road right-of- way surface set 32 feet to the nearest property line. However, the Planning Com- mission could recommend that the survey certificate be updated to include the existing dwelling on the boundary line survey, recognize the existing lO foot nonconforming rear yard, and require the proposed deck to be unenclosed and any future remodeling or expansion or enclosure of the deck to receive future vari- ance app. roval. The abutting neighbors have been notified. This will be referred to the City Council on May 26, 1987. JB/ms Planning Commission Minutes' May 11, 1987 Case No. 87-632 'Front yard Setback'variance for 4512 Montgomery Road Lots 9 & 10, Block 9, Avalon; PID No. 19-117-23 31 0023 Kathy Stillewas present. The Building Official, Jan Bertrand, reviewed her repor~ on the applicant's request for a front yard %rariance %o allow an unenclosed deck within 18'feet of the front property line and also to recognize a non'conforming rear'yard of 10 feet'instead of the required 15 foot setback. Mr. Stille abuts on two right-of-ways, both requiring a 30 foot setback (in the R-3 Zoning District).. Staff recon~uends approval of the 18 foot setback to the unenclosed deck [12 foot variance) due to the shape and that the driving surface of the road is 32 feet to the nearest property line; recognizing the existing l0 foot non- conforming rear yard, and also to require any future remodeling, expansion or enclosure of the deck would have to receive future variance approval. She also noted the Comuissionmaywant %o require a current survey be sulm%itted. The Commission had several questions and con~uents including that applicant is not adding stairway in front. Thal moved and Sohns seconded a motion to recor~uending a~cepting staff's recorauendations including requiring a survey and approving. The vote was unanimously in favor. This will be on the City Council agenda ohM ay 26, 1987. Case No. ,~7 Fee Pa i d .5-~. ,~ ~-, APPLICATION TO PLANNINa S ZONINa COHHISSION (Please type the following information) Date Filed 1. Street Address Of Property ~,~i~ 2. Legal Description of Property: Lot Addition 3. Owner's Name ~~S Address ~/~ ~ ~t ~ h. Applicant (if other than owner): Block PID No./~-//? -p~ ,~/' Day Phone No. Name Day Phone No. Address Type of Request: (~) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit' ( ) Amendment ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Sign Permit (') Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( )*Other *If other, specify: Present 'Zoning District 7. Existing Use(s) of Property Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? I'[}O If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining 'and removin9 such notices as may be required by laW.of Y~/I~ ~[~ V/ 7//! Signature Applicant /~ Date 'Planning Commission Recommendation: Accept staff recommendation and approve with condition current survey be submitted. Date 5-11-87 ,uncil Action: Resolution No. I ;;L Date 5-26-87 4/82 Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) Case D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. III. Request for a Zoning Variance A. Al) information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general application must be provided before a hearing will'be scheduled. B. Does the present use of the property conform to all use regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (~) No ( ) .. If "no", specify each non-conforming use: Do the existing structures comply with a-ll area height.and bulk regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes ()~} No ( ) If "no" specify each non-conforming use: , Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ()~) Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil ( ) Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface .( ) Too shallow (~() Shape ( ) Other: Specify: Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No (X) If yes, explain: F. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes (~) No ( ) If yes, explain: 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? He 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.) Fee+ Will'granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? 4'527 27 26 2~ 21 ESSEX STRATFO ~,D / LA. ZZZ.~ ISLANn CASE NO. 87-633 PROPOSED RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. 87- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR LOT 49, WHIPPLE SHORES; PID NO. 25-117- 24 21 0118 (3237 Gladstone Lane); P & Z CASE NO. 87-633 WHEREAS, Kurt L. and Jayne E. Silton, owners of the property, have applied for a 2 foot variance to allow the construction of a walkway/terrace/ step within 30 inches of the ground at the property line; and WHEREAS, the City Code requires a 2 foot setback from the property line for terraces, steps, uncovered porches, stoops and similar structures under the provisions of 23.408 of the Mound City Code; and WHEREAS, the requested stairway and terrace will be-constructed within O feet of the propeFty line; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recom- mend approval due to the topography and forestation on the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the requested 2 foot side yard setback variance to construct the terrace and stairway within O feet to the lot line upon the condition that the conforming setback on the unenclosed deck not be con- structed within the utility easement of the property for Lot 49, Whipple Shores; PID No. 25-117-24 21 Ol18 (3237 Gladstone Lane). Iq2-1 CASE NO. 87-633 TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official Planning Commission Agenda of May 11, 1987 CASE NO. 87-633 APPLICANT: Kurt L. & Jayne E. Silton LOCATION: 3237 Gladstone Lane LEGAL DESC.: Lot 49, Whipple Shores; PID No. 25-117-24 210118 SUBJECT: Variance to allow the construction of a walkway/terrace within 30 inches of the ground at the property line. EXISTING ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential The applicant, ~r. and Mrs. Silton, are requesting a 2 foot variance to allow the construction of a walkway/terrace within 30 inches of the'ground at the property line. The Zoning Code Section 23.408 states, (3b) 'lTerraces, steps, uncovered porches, stoops or similar structures, which do not extend in elevation above the height of the ground floor elevation of the principal building and do not extend to a distance of less than two (2) feet from any lot line". The proposed deck would be constructed over a sewer easement. The survey dated March 23, 1978 did not indicate where the easement was dedicated. However, it did show the placement of the structure and lot dimensions. Mr. Silton has been informed that the deck placement cannot be in the sewer easement as of April 22, 1987. RECOMMENDATION: Due to the topography and forestation on the property, staff does recommend allowing a 4 foot stairway with a walkway O feet to the property line. The abutting neighbors have been notified. This will be referred to the City Council on May 26, 1987. JB/ms cc: Public Works Department Planning Co~missio~ Minutes May 1!, 1987 - Page 3 4. Case No 87-633 Variance to allow the construction of a w~lkw~y/terrace within 30 inches of the ground at property line - 3237 Gladstone Lane Lot 49, Whipple Shores; PID No. 25-117-24 21 0118 Kurt L. and Jayne E. Silton were present. The Building Official reviewed her report on the request for a 2 foot v~ri- ance to allow the construction of a ~lkw~y/terrace within 30 inches of the ground level, treating it more like a side~lk at the property lineo (terraces~ stoops can be within 2 feet from any lot line). The proposed deck will be relocated off of the sewer easement. The staff does recon~end allowing the stairway with ~alk%ray 0 feet to the property line due to the topography and forestation. The Con~nission ~iscussed r~quest and one member had a question on the strength of the Meyer moved and Thal seconded a motion to reco~end approw~l of the ~ari- ance requested. The vote ~-as unanimously in favor. ' This will be on the City Council agenda of May 26, 1987· APR 2 2 1 87 ';? CITY OF HOUND Case. No. f? ~.~j Fee Paid .~-~. ~ i-,." ' ;~.;-' [,'~'; 'APPL.,ICATION TO PLANNING ~; ZONING COHHISSION ................. j"(Please type the following informtion) Street Address of Property.~3~7 Legal Description of Property: Lot 0Whet' s Name Date Filed Block PID No. Z~-~I~-.~- ~- oil~ q. Applicant (if other than owner): Day Phone No. ~L~ C~- i0 0 Name Address Day Phone No. Type of Request: (~/~Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit" ( ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ( ) ~etland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( .) Amendment. ) Sign Permit )*Other e *If other, specify: Present ~oning District" Existing Use(s) of Prop r zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or If so, list date(s) of and provide ution No.(s) accompany present request. ts an~ the statements contained in any required are true and accurate· I consent to the entry in ication by any authorlzed official of the City of posting, maintaining and removing such '~"'~--~ Date Date Resolution No. 43o Date Request for Zoni.ng Variance Procedure (2) D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. III. Request for-a Zonin9 Variance A. All information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general .application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. B. Does the present use of the property'conform to ail use regulations for the zone district in which it Is located? Yes (~J' Ho ( ) .. If "no", specify each don-conforming use: Ce Do the existing structures comp3y with ,all area height and bulk regulations for the zone district in which it Is.located? Yes (~,~ No' ( ) If "no", epeciTy each non-conforming use: De Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent Its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? (X) .Too narrow ~l(~) Topography ( ) Soil ( ) Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface .( ) Too shallow (. ) Shape ( ) Other: Specify: Ee Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the'Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ( ) No (~) If yes, explain: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (X) If yes, explaln: 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 propert3es are similarly affected? He What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulatlons t.hat 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.) ~/111 granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or>to the enforcement of this ordinance? CEItTIFICATE OF SU~VE'g '. , [h~ebyccrtl{y ~h~ston '' ~ TO ~ · ' S~vo)'or ur, der th~ .. J. ~.~a;) R)a.~. R.:~',~:n:.~ I.~:~ Sur*t~cw. No. tl*~:~ ' · · /"'""'~ John l R:..i~P,.cx,~tcrc*JL&nd%b, vcyur. No ~4~9 * '" ':' / ~''' REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO SIDE SETBACK RULES Comments Ooncerning Lot Characteristics And The Proposed ConstrUcti on 1. The lot rises very steeply o~f the lake and continues upwards t.owa~_d~_~J3e_b~us~- T]3e_u-_idge_d~_.e~.e~ed to on the site map is about 10 feet above the high water mark when measured at the -proposed stair, The run as measured at the same point is 15 ~ ee.t~_ 2. As you can see by the pictures, the lot rises rapidly towar_d~_~he_~ouse. It i~_s~_s.teep_as~_~o~make_d~owing_di-~-~ult and drainage poor. The poor d~ainage problem p~events a decent lawn as the water tends to run o~ be~o~e is can soak in. Erosion has left the ground ~o~ky. We have begun to. remidy~ this problem with retaining wails and terraces, however, this leads to another problem. 5. A retaining~wall was built inside the property line on the low side of'the lot. Then the low spot was ~illed in. The lot is very_narrow ..... There_is no way to bring ~ill_ to the_back_yard except bY hand. And that is very difficult in and o~ itsel~ because the wheelbarrow loads must travel over several sets o~ _steps_at_Jthe_stree~_level~and-again aiong~the side_c~__the.~Souse~ The lowest point.in the yard (excluding the area below the ridge) is the area where the proposed deck will go and along the property_line_where..the ~etaining wall was built.- 4.. If the deck were to be built in the proposed location, 5 ..... Nmt~ the gho~~th~stai~a.~-comes-down-.~-~om-the. walkout level to the back yard. As you can see~ the shape that portion o~ the lot makes it logical to put that stai~ where line to the,pr.oposed deck and stair down to the dock. ~ .......... It would make sense, to put the new. stair_. .that_ goes- to~. th~---- dock in a direct line with the existing stair that comes ~rom the house. It also is logical that a walkway be allowed to connect the_two_ stairs ...... Th~ dec.l~should be allowed to_connec~i~_ihis__ walkway to provide a continous path and to be in a position where it can substitute ~or a lot o~ ~ill. 7. Note the picture o~ the 'area where the proposed stairway to the dock will go. there is a tree that is about ~ ~eet ~rom the.~side_lot_iine. _I_ wi sh_._to put_ in..a 4..~oot wide_stair- would be sa~er ~or both the tree and the users o~ the stair the stair was not right up against the tree. It would also look REQUES~ FOR VARIANCE TO BIDE BETBACK RULEB?~ much better'~ desi rabl e,i Again'' a direct line between the ~tWo stairs~ is · 8- Note again the photo of the existing stair .from the walk· out level. Halfway up is another tree. Notice how logical a to put any fi'll ih any closer to the base o~ the tree;~ A walkway at the hight of the retaining wall makes that low spot useable.. I would build a railing along the proposed walkway that would double as a fence and would match the r~iling along the pr_op osed_d er_k. 10. The sewer line runs undeP the proposed deck. A manhole · cover_, i s al so under the pFopose~ 'deck°. I would provide_ though the decking for the manhole cover. to-the dock, and a walkway connecting the two stairs. The most logical place for these would run right along the property line .......... and would .be close~., tha~. two feet to the property line ..... ~he-lot ............ would become more usable in that a low spot would be made useable without a great deal of manually hauled in fill, and that a Iow spo~ nea~._~.._t~ee..:.woul d-be. made_ usembl e wi thout_damage to, he. tree, and 'that another tree wont get in the way using the stairwaY to the dock. Continuity would be maintained because_the shape o~-the lot- already ne=cesatates.-the.-location_.o~ one stairway on the property line and the new construction would be in a continous line ~rom that stair. i.q~5 Brian Jackson 3247 Gladstone Lane Mound, MN 55364 April 20, 1987 Mound City Council 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Si r~, My neighbors, Kurt and Jayne Silton, are planpi6g to construct a deck, walkway, and a stairway that leads to the dock. Their plans call for this construction to be closer then two feet to the property line that seperates our two lots. I would like to state for the record that I have no objections to the above mentioned projects as long as they are built to generally accepted construction standards. Si ncerel Brian Jackson BLVD LA CASE NO. 87-634 TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff Jan Bertrand, Building Official ~rJ~ FROM: II Planning Commission Agenda of May 11, 1987 ~ CASE NO. 87-634 APPLICANT: William Lovkvist and Elaine Lovkvist LOCATION: 1745 Wildhurst Lane LEGAL DESC.: Lot 8, Block 13, Shadywood Point; PID No. 13-117-24 14 0022 SUBJECT: Lot Size Variance EXISTING ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential The applicants, Mr. and Mrs. Lovkvist, are requesting a lot size variance tO make Lot 8, Block 13, Shadywood Point, a buildable lot site. R-1 Zoning District requires 10,O00 square foot lot area. Lot 8 has 9,3OO~ square feet. Section 23.403 states, "lots of record in a residential district may be used as buildable sites provided the lot has conforming lot area and setbacks, provided: l) the lot fronts on an improved public right-of-way. 2) it was under separate ownership from abutting lands upon or prior to the effective date of this Ordinance." RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the lot size variance as the request is within the 10% guideline to affo'rd the owner reasonable use of his land. The abutting neighbors have been notified. This will be referred to the City Council on May 26, 1987. JB/ms Certificate of Su'rvey for Marvin D. Wolfe of Lots 8 and 9, Block 13, "SHAOYWOOD POINT, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINN," I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of tots 8 and 9, Block 13, "SilADYWOOD POINf, HEN- .q~EPIN COUNTY, MINN.", and of the location of /~11 existing buildings, if any, thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. COFFIN & GRONBERG, INCo Mark S. Gron§erg MN. ~ic. No. 12755 Gordon R. Coffin MN. Lic. No. 6064 Engineers, Land Surveyors, Planners Long Lake, Minnesota Scale: 1 inch : 30 feet Date : April 20, 1987, ~ : Irwin marker found ~: Spot elevation ~m,~n sea level datum) Proposed Lega! Descripticns A. That part of Lot 9 lying westerly uf the easterly 3.50 feet thereof, as measured at right angl~,s to the easterly line of said Lot 9 and its northerly extension, Block 13,"SHADYWOOD ~OINT, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINN." B~ L~ 8 and the easterly 3.50 feet o~ Lot 9, as measured at right angles to the easterly line of said Lot 9and i~s norther]y extension, 8iock 13, "SHADYWOOD POINT, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINN." APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND Variance Permit Sec. 22.03-a Paid $$O.O0 4-24-87 Receipt # 26988 VILLAGE OF MOUND ~ 50,00 (see ab~ ' FEE $ FEE OWNER '-. Marvin Wolfe PLAT PARCEL Locationandcompletelegaldescriptionofpropertytobedivided: 1743 and 1745 Widhurst.Lane, Mound .. .1 13Lot 8 and ~ot 9, Shadywood Point That part of Lot 9 lying Westerly of the Easterly 3.5 feet Tobe divldedasfollows: there of, as measured at a right angle to the Easterly line of said Lot 9 and .its northerly extension , Block 13 Shadywood Point. 'Lot 8 and the.~asterly 3.5 feet of Lot 9, as measured at a right angle to the ~as~erly line of said Lot 9 and its northerl~ extension, B1 13 Shadywood Point All supporting documents,"such as sketch plans 'surveys, attachYnents, etc. must submitted'in 8½'"'X l l" Slze"and'/or. 1/~ copies p~us'on'e 8'½" X l l"' copy... (attach survey or scale drawing showing adjacent streets, dimension of prop~,oed building sites, square foot area of each new parcel designated by number) be A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR: New Lot No. From Square feet TO Square feet Reason: APPLICANT ADDRESS Applicant's interest in the property: (;ignature) TEL. NO, DATE This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of the property, or an explan- 'ation given why this is not the case. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION.', Case No., CITY OF MOUND APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type the following information) Legal Description of Property: Lot S Addition.¢~--/¢///~ I/)O~~ /~/~¢ :. PID No. Fee Paid ~'.., ¢--~ Date Filed Name dj.,).,' /~' ~' 4. ~~ (if other than owner): Name ~¢~/~ /~¢} ~ ~ Addres ~ ~. fp/OL Block - Day Phone No. Day Phone No. 5. Type of Request: (X) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit' ( .) Amendment ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review ( ) Sign Permit (') Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. ( )*Other *If other, specify: Present Zoning District Existing UseCs) of Property Has an application ever been made for zonlng,¥~riance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property?/~*~' If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies.of previous resolutions shall accompany present request· I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining 'and removing such notices as may be required by law. Signature of Appl icant ~ Date z.:/'.-,.~¢'-,¢¢¢/ / Planning Commission Recommendation: To convert application from a variance reouest t~ nlinor subdivision with a waiver of the public heari.ng and provisions of the subdivision ordinance and no park dedicat!on and suggest that subdivision be recommended for approval subject to lot areas being at least lO,O00 square feet each. Date 5-11-87 uncil Action: Resolutlon No. Date 5-26-87 4182 Request for Zoni.ng Variance Procedure (2) Case D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. E. Indicate North compass direction F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. III. Request for a Zonin~ Variance A. All information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general application must be provided before a hearing will. be scheduled. B. Does the present use of the property conform to all use regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (~x) rio ( ) .. If "no", specify each non-conforming use: C. Do the existing structures comply with all area height.and bulk regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes ( ) No ( If "no", specify each non-conforming use: D. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its r~a~onable 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: Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopte~? Yes ( ) No (~) If yes, explaln: Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca- tlon of a road? Yes ( ) No (/~') If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes .. ( ) No (/~x) 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? Planning Commission Minutes May ll, 1987 Case No. 87-634 Lot size ~-ariance for property at 1745 WildhurstLane Lot 8, Block 13, Shadywood Point; PID No. 13-117-24 14 0022 William and Elaine Lovkvist were present. The Building Official reviewed her report on the lot size~-ariance to make L6t 8 a buildable site including the definition for "lots of record". 8 has 9,300+ square feet and is within the lO~guideline use by the Coca, is- sion. She s--tared she had not recon~nended splitting a portion of LOt 9 add to Lot 8 because both lots are too narrow. The Co~ission questioned the width of the lots; if both lots belong to s~me party and how far back the continuous o~nership goes. C~Lu~,ent%rasmade-that LOt 8 and 9 would make on, beautiful site. Applicant s~ated area doesn't w~rrant spending that much for one site. Dale Pixler, Real Estate Agent, on the property stated there are two "PID Numbers", and lot~ were charged for 2 w~ter ~nd 2 sewer assessments; there %fas a home on Lot 9 (portion of founda- tion is still there). Pixler co~ented a beautifUl house can go on 40/50 foot wide lot. Jan gave a little history on the properties. She stated that ~n 1981 or 1982, the contract holder came in to remove a couple of decks and then he came back for a demolition permit on the house. 'The fee owner then got the property back. The Commission discussed having a~plicant change his request to a minor sub- division and add a sliver of Lot 9 to Lot 8 to make both conforming lot size. The applicant stated that would add a great deal of time and costs to have survey done and new descriptions made up and than to come back to another Planning Commission meeting. Sohns moved a motion that the Planning Commission had reviewed the case and discussed it with the applicant and reco~m~ends that the application be con- verted from av~riance request %o a minor subdivision with a ~aiver of the public hearing and provisions of the subdivision ordinance and no park dedi~ cation and suggest that subdivision be recommended for approval subject to ~lot areas being at least 10,000 square feet each and if thbse conditions are met, this case will not need to com~ back to this body. Thai'seconded the motion. The ¥o%e w~s Meyer against; all other voted in f~vor. Motion carried. ' This will be on the City Council agenda on May 26, 1987. CASE NO. 87-635 PROPOSED RESOLUTION RESOLUTION NO. 87- RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACK FOR THAT PART OF LOT 1, WHIPPLE SHORES AND OF TRACT A, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY 1149, LYING NORTH OF A LINE RUNNING FROM A POINT IN WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 1A DISTANCE 147 FEET NORTH FROM SOUTHWEST CORNER THEREOF TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 1: PID NO. 24-117-24 43 0029 (5000 TUXEDO BOULE- VARD); CASE NO. 87-635 WHEREAS, Mr. Howard H. Barrett, applicant, and John K. Kub[k, owner of the property, have requested a variance to allow structural repairs and an addition of a second story to an existing basement dwelling with nonconforming setbacks to the front and rear yard; and WHEREAS, the City Cod~ requires a 15 foot rear yard, a 20 foot front yard due to the ~epth of the lot for lots of record, a 10 foot side yard and a 50 foot lakeshore setback from the ordinary high water elevation of 929.5 N.G.V.D. in the R-1 single family residential district; and WHEREAS, the property described has an existing setback from the struc- ture at the rear of 5.1 feet, a 10 foot side yard, and a 16.1 foot to the front yard abutting Brighton Commons, plus 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water elevation of 929.5 N.G.V.D. of Lake Minnetonka; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed this request and does recommend to the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the variance to allow the second story and structural repairs to the structure with the existing 5.1 foot rear yard, lO foot side yard upon the condition that the front yard 16.1 foot setback is not increased or intensified by a second story addition due to the shallowness and shape of the lot for that part of Lot 1, Whipple Shores and of Tract A, of Registered Land Survey 1149 lying north of a line running from a point in the west line of said Lot 1, a distance 147 feet north from southwest corner thereof to the southeast corner of said Lot 1; P!D No. 24-117-24 43 0029 (5000 Tuxedo Boulevard). CASE NO. 87-635 TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official Planning Commission Agenda of May ll, 1987 CASE NO. 87-635 APPLICANT: Howard H. Barrett LOCATION: 5000 Tuxedo Boulevard LEGAL DESC.: That part of Lot l, Whipple Shores, and of Tract A of Registered Land Survey 1149 lying North of a line running from a point in' West line of said lot 1 distant 147 feet North from Southwest corner thereof to the Southeast corner of said Lot 1; PID # 24-117-24 43 0029 SUBJECT: Variance to allow structural repair6 and an addition of a 2nd story to the e~isting basement dwelling EXISTING ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential The applicant is requesting a variance to allow structural repairs and an addi- tion of a 2nd story to the existing basement dwelling. The structure was not completed since it was built in 1954. It has been vacant since approximately 1981. The Zoning Ordinance for the R-1 district requires a 15 foot rear yard; the structure has a 5.1 foot; a 20 foot front yard due to lot depth for lots of record; the structure has a 16.1 feet; a lO foot side yard; the structure has a 12 foot setback. The setback from the lakeshore I'Ordinary High Water" elevation is 50 feet. The structure is currently valued at $8,100. The additions and modifications will exceed 50 percent of the structure. However, the lot has an unusual shape with a high knoll where the structure is sitting on the lot. The Planning Com- mission has had a recently approved variance on Waterbury, as attached drawing, with a 6 foot rear yard, a 20 foot front yard, and conforming lakeshore and side yards. COMMENTS: The applicant could be granted a rear yard variance due to the shal- lowness of the lot. However, the existing structure is non;conforming due to inadequate front and rear yard setbacks. The Ordinance forbids alteration of non-conforming residential units when the improvements increase the bulk of the building. A doubling of the floor'area obviously increases the bulk of the building. RECOMMENDATION: Based upon the ordinance criteria, staff recommends denial of the subject variance request due to lack of actual hardship. However, staff would recommend a 6 foot rear yard and a 20 foot front yard setback due to the shallowness of the lot. The abutting neighbors have been notified. This will be referred to the City Council on May 26, 1987. .% Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1987 e Case No. 87-635 Variance to allow structural repairs and an addition of a second story to the existing b~sement dwelling; 5000 Tuxedo Boulevard Part of Lot 1, Whipple Shores and of Tract A, R.L.S. ~ 1149; PIDNo. 24£117- 24 43 0029; Applicant, Howard B~rre%t, ns present. The Buiiding OffiCiai reviewed her report on the request. She stated b~se- ment dwelling w~s built in about 1954 and never completed. The Zoning~0rdi- nance for the R-1 district.requires a 15 foot rear yard .and the struc%ur~ has 5.1 feet to the'west (rear); a 20 foot front yard to the east due to the lo~ depth for 16ts of record and the structure has 16.1 feet; the other setbacks, side yard and lake front, are conforming. She commented that applicant ~oes not intend to build a second story over the garages and the Con~ission could recognize that nonconformancy as he will not be intensifying the front trard setback. S~e noted that this lot has ~n unusual shape and that the Co~ission recently approved a v~ri~nce on Waterbury (similar situation) with a 6 foot rear y~rd setback and a 20 foot front y~rd and, if applicant removed one foot off rear corner of the basement to the west, staff would recommend granting the ~-ariances t° alloW structural repairs and the addition of a s~cond story. The Co~ission discussed the request at 'length; questioned how exterior would be finished (stucco), lot size, and if structure would be brought up to building code? Con~ission felt it w~s unlikely a house on adjoining property to west would be close to this property line. The consensus of the Commission--s not to require applicant to chip the corner off the basement. Commission felt' applicant's proposal would be a decided improvement to the neighborhood. Meyer moved and Andersen seconded a motion to accept.the staff recommendation to allow a second floor within 5.1 feet of the west property line only on theexisting foundation and recognize an existing 16.1 foot front yard set- ~ack on the condition that the. building be brough~ up to buildiTM code and' no second floor within 30 feet of the front property'line. The vote was all in favor. Th. is will be on the Council agenda on May 26, 1987. e CITY OF MOUND Case No. ~'~7 Fee Paid ~r~D. D~te F~led ~-27- ~77 -' .'' "i"; '., j'~APPLICATION TO PLANNING $ ZONING COMMISSION i~-.~- ''' :~"' ~¥"~'~.'.'.':i' i(Please type the following inforn~ation) Street Address of Property. 5000 Tuxedo Drive Legal Description of Property: Lot see addendum 1 Block Add i t.i on PID No. 24-117-24-43-0029"& 0030 Owner's Name John K. Xubik Address 705 6th St. S.E., Minnea,~olis Day Phone No. e Applicant (if other than owner): Name Howard H. Barrett Address 1105 Medicine Lake Dr., Plymouth, MN Day Phone No. 55441 545~8193 $. Type of Request: (x) Variance ( ) Condition'al Use Permit ( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review (') Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D. *If other, specify:.. ~resent Zoning District'. Existing Use(s) of Property, ( ) Amendment ( ) Sign Permit ( )*Other Single Family - Unoccupied basement dweilin~ Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or other zoning procedure for this property? ~ If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request. I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in thi: application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or oF posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by~.l~w. Signature Of AppI ,cant -~~//~/~,/~ Date 4/27/87 .Planning Commission Recommendation: To accept staff recommendation to allow a second floor within 5.1 feet of. the west property line Only on the existing foundation and recognize ............ ~ ............... ~ ~o,~ ==~ ~,, L~,~ uu,,d;L;un ~ha~ the buiiding be Drought up to building code and no second floor within 30 feet of the front prqD~ line 5-11-87 il Action: Resolution No. / 5-26-87 Date 4182 16S ' Request for Zoni.ng Variance Procedure (2) Case D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, eec. E. Indicate North compass direction F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. III. Request for a Zoning Variance A. All Information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general application must be provided before a hearing will.be scheduled. B. Does the present use of. the property'conform to all use regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes { } No ( ) If "no", Specify each non-conforming use: Ce Do the existing structures comply with all area height and bulk regulations for the zone district In which it ls located? Yes ( )' No ( ) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: De Which unique physical characterlstlcs of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) .Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soll ( ) Too. small · ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface ( ) Too shallow (x) Shape ( ) Other: Specify: Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property, interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes ~ ) No ( ) If yes, explain: See Addendum 2 F. Was the hardship created by any'other man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (x) If yes, explain: Ge Are 'the conditions of hardship for'which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes (x) No ( ) If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? He 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.) See Addendum 3 Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? See adder~d~m ~ /q6 Addendum 1 - That part of lot 1 Whipple Shores and oF ~ract A Reg Land Suryey no. 1149 lying N. of a line running ~rom a pt in W. line of said lot 1 Dis 147 ft No. from S.W. cor thof to the S.E. cor of said lot 1. Addendum 2 - Foundation was built prior to present zoning ordinance and was lived in for several years as a basement dwelling. The present owner, Mr. Kubik, wishes to sell and I, H. Barrett, propose to purchase the property and build a structure utilizing the present foundation with some modifications to improve the present structure. As shown on the sketch below, this would be done with the addition of a block wall. m~IL:~t .,, /~,~ '..,....:.. ;: ' / f, ~'~ _-, i z...' ,':.-I,..:..:";,'"':'::.: / i,/.4 '~_1/'- ,. '; ":!, ~ ,~.~,'":. I ~ .~; '"'.'.': '-""-~ '~ .... '- Existing, below / .~' ~ ~ound~ walls to be _! / ~ k led with concrete . - New block wall Addendum 3 - It is requested that the back lot line set back of 15 ft. requirement be set aside to allow the e×isting set back of 5.1 ft. to be used as is for only one corner of foundation (see attached sketch). Also, the set..back of.l-5 ft. for the side lot line be set aside to allow the existing !: 12 ft. distance to be used. The set back of 20 ft. from road to the garage is actually at an average of 25.75, although only one corner is less than 20. The foundation is located in the widest and best part of this long, narrow lot. The usable space is very'~limited at the north end of lot 29 and cannot be built on per zoning code. Lot 30 cannot be built on at all. One cannot angle the foundation different without aiming the house in a less aesthetic view. One would be looking at the back of a neighbor's house, instead of beautiful Lake Minnet0nka. See broken line for buildable area. Addendum 4 - Granting the variance and adding the second floor per attached drawings, should improve the looks of the neighbor- hood. In so far as this lot has the least violations, per attached drawing, the area should be enhanced. See 5006 Tu×edo and Day 119. i SKETCH TO ADDENDUM 3 C:,,, g ~o= - O0 g ~ g · 0 I11 %1, - MIDDLESEX NO. I] RIGHTON 77" t~ 3~~ CASE NO. 87-636 PROPOSED RESOLUTION RESOLUTION 87- RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SETBACK TO ALLOW A WALKWAY AND DECK FOR LOT A, BLOCK 6, PEMBROKE; PID NO. 19-117-23 34 0068; CASE NO. 87-636 (4528 ABERDEEN ROAD) WHEREAS, Don A. Scherven, owner of the property, has requested a vari- ance to recognize an existing nonconforming setback on his property to allow a 16 foot front yard setback to the south right-of-way of Aberdeen and a 16 foot setback to the north unimproved Knox Lane and to construct a platform stoop with- in 30 inches of grade to replace his .sidewalk in the front setback along Aberdeen which would extend 8 feet above grade at the east corner of the home with a 4 foot walkway than to continue north from the northeast corner of his tuckunder garage and than be widened out to a 12-by 20 foot unenclosed deck above grade 30 feet back from the property line abutting Aberdeen; and WHEREAS, the City Code requires a 30 foot front yard'setback along each right-of-way abutting the property; and WHEREAS, the Planning COmmission has reviewed the request and does recommend to the City Council for approval due to the shape of the lot and topo- graphy. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby recognize the existing 16 foot front yard setback to the north and south public right-of-ways and to allow the construction of a stoop sidewalk within 30 inches of grade at the front of the house 4 foot in width to the east corner and than to continue the 4 foot walkway 8 feet above grade to the north and allow a 12 by 20 foot unenclosed deck above grade no closer than 30 feet from the front property line as shown on Exhibit A for Lot A, Block 6, Pembroke; PID No. 19-117-23 34 0068 (4528 Aberdeen Road). CASE NO. 87-636 TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official ~ Planning Commission Agenda of May ll, 1987. CASE NO. 87-636 APPLICANT: Don A, Scherven LOCATION: 4528 Aberdeen Road LEGAL DESC.: Lot A, Block 6, Pembroke; PID No. 19-117123 34 0068 SUBJECT: Recognize existing nonconforming setbacks to the front yard EXISTING ZONING: R-1 ~ingle Family Residential The applicant, Mr. Scherven, is requesting a variance to recognize an existing non- conforming setback on his property to allow a 16 foot front yard setback to the south right-of-way of Aberdeen and a 16 foot setback to the north unimproved Knox Lane. He is requesting to construct.a platform within 30 inches of grade to replace his sidewalk in the front setback along Aberdeen which would extend 8 feet above grade at the east corner of the home. The four foot walkway than would continue to the northeast corner of his tuckunder garage and than be widened out to a 12 by 20 foot unenclosed deck above grade. The Zoning Code does require front yard setbacks along each right-of-way abutting Mr. Scherven's property. The R-1 district requires a setback of 30 feet abutting the Aberdeen Road, the Island View Drive and Knox Place. The width of the lot would define the front yard along Island View Drive, the rear yard setback, due to the shape of the lot shows a depth of approximately 100 feet. The existing home has been drawn in on the Registered Land Survey dated 1959. The setbacks shown are approximate by the applicant. The site has an unusual shapedlot, a topography that has a walkout, level 8 feet difference to the east from west side of the home, and a copy of street asbuilt drawing is attached to indicate the widening of the road right-of-way after the structure was built. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends recognition of the existing nonconforming setback to Aberdeen of 16 feet 4 inches, to Knox Place (the unimproved right-of-way) of 16 feet, and allow the applicant to construct a deck at grade to the east corner of the home continue 4 foot walkway on the east side of the house, than widen the unenclosed deck to a 12 by 20 past the 30 foot building setback'line required in the R-1 District due to the topography and shape of the lot. The abutting neighbors have been notified. This will be'referred to the City Council on May 26, 1987. JB/ms Planning Commission Minutes May il, 1987 Case No. 87-636 Variance to Fec..ognize.pq.n.¢onforming setbacks to the front yard; 4528 Aberdeen Road;.Lot A, Block 6, Pembroke; PID No. 19-117-23 34 0068 Don Scherven w~s present. The Building Official reviewed her report on the applicant's request for a variance to recognize existing nonconforming setbacks to his property lines. His lot fronts on two stree~and his site plan indicates a 16 foot setback to an unimproved Knox Place which has not been vacated. The R-1 district ~equires 30 foot setback abutting ~11 three streets. Applicant is proposing to build a 4 foot walkway in front of his house as a stoop less than 30 inches to grade, but as you 'come alongside the home where the tuckzunder garage is, the change in elevation is 8 feet; he would like to continue ~lk~ay back more than 30 feet from the lot line to allow walk%ray to 12 by 20 foot deck. The staff is recon~nending recognition of the existing nonconforming setbacks to Aberdeen and unimproved Knox Place and allow construction of %~alk%~y and deck requested due to the topography and the shape of the lot. Applicant stated where siding was taken off W-as old deck; what they'd like to do is take out old concrete and put in ~ wooden sidewalk, %Tap walkway right around on grade. The Commission had question on retaining wall. Michael moved and Andersen seconded a motion to approve with staff recom- mendations. The vote was unanimously in favor. This will be on the Council Agenda on May 26, 1987. e CITY OF MOUND Case No. ,F"7- 63 ~ ,-.'~ %,,c E~'~AP, t~LI. CATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ~ C.. " ....... ~,~,~.-~-~~se type the following information) Fee Paid Street Address of Property Legal Description of Property: Lot Addition Owner's Name Address Applicant (if other than owner): Address /'//'~'-~.~'~ ,/~'L~?(?--~'/'~/ /~ [~, Date Filed Block ~ PID No. /~-//~-~.~/-~/-~~ Day Phone No.~.// W2/~ ~-~/t / 5. Type of Request: Day Phone No. (v~ 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 property? /~"~ If so, list date(s) of list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s) Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request· I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City of Mound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining 'and removing such notices as may be required by law. ,~ Signature of Applicant /¢/t~'/, Date . ~d~-d~ Approve staff recommendations. planning Commission Recommendation: Date 5-11-87 Council Action: Resolution No. Date 5-26-87 4~82 Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) Case D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, et'c. E. Indicate North compass dlrect~on F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. III. ~equest for a Zonin~ Variance ..A. All information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled. B. Does the present use of the property conform to all use regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (/~) No ( ) If "no", specify each non-conforming use: C. Do the existing structure~ comply with all area height and bulk regulations for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (~'~ No ( ) If "no", s~ecify each non-conforming use: D. Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for any of th.., uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ) Too narrow (~ Topography ( ) Soil ( ) Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface ( ) Too shallow (~><~ Shape ( ) Other: Specify: E. Was the hardship described above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the Zoning Ordinance was adopted? Yes (~ No ( ) If yes, explain: F. Was the hardship created ~y any other man-made change, such as the reloca- tion of a road? Yes (xz<~ No ( ) If yes, explain: Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a v~rj~ance 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. p)ans 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? This platform will replace the old sidewalk, it is on ground level, and will be 12 feet from Aberdeen Road. / i iii i ii!lit ii iiii i iii i ii iliii : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : i : : i i i ii : !i!ii!i' ' it. Drive, I$"/Vlaple ~ l I l"Map_le NoPark. S~qn.I . 18," A4ople 20" /l, taple 16" A,laple la"Elm 18"Elm lO" A, laple 8, A,laple 14" A,la p ~e 5"Cherry 'i" Cedar. 6"~ap!e '~'~' 6" IVlopte 4"Fir 7"Fir' I0" White Pine'1 $5" Maple ~' ! 3" Maple No Park, 5~cln Curb 5top$iqn ~anholc / / i i / / I- C~V~[C;[ r'(JIC 20'Bit. Drive 2,Moil Box /Vla i l Box , ' ' co..o oo No RJrk. 5iqn 26'~ Elm. Power Pole ~0" Elm 30" Maple Power Pole Curb 9" 5pruce 8" Spruce 36" S idewall Conc. Ret. War, Re'l; W~III $O" /14ap/e ?" Spruce ~6 Fl'i OB' I P 'REETi ~, / / D~ ~VEwA Iq?! c-+p_~ .rD, ,"b 0 ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'0 ~ 0 ~'0 ~ O~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~.~ 0 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 :~" ~ (~ LO '1) '-". 0 .-.. ;~' 0 :~ c'+ ,'-~' Z =7 .'1) ct) un ,,-) C~ d) 0 0 c- 7~ 'C2 ~' 0 "D -~ ~ (.,,q C' 7'.- D 0 '"'0 ..~, --. ~ ~: 7.- k.~ :~ .'"D u') 0 0 0 '~ CD ~(. - 271 RESOLUTI OH NO. 8~;- 173 ' RESOLUTION TO APPROVE ~, V~RIAHCE TO ESTABLISH A. BUIL~ABLE LOT'FOR PART OF LOTS 1,2'~3 &'q, IN BLOCKS 1 .AND 2, REARRANGEHENT OF BLOCK 10', ABRAHAM LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK- PlO # 13-117-2q'31 OO7O P & Z CASE NO. 86-55q · WHEREAS,'Jean'.Graff, owner of property descrlbe.d as a lot In Bio.cks.1 and .2, Rear. rafigement.of Block 10,.Abraham Llncoln Add~tion to Lakeside' Park, has apl~l led' for a variance' to"'.establlsh a i~,000+_ square foot parcel as a ' buil.dable: lot' since the parcel currently d.oes not front on a.publlc-right-of- way; and' ' · I~iEREAS; the Hound C.ity (:'.ode requires a11 lots to contaln frontage on ~ publlc r.lgh~-of-way;, and .... ...WHERE~,'the Plannlng Commtsslon.'revle~e&.the request-~nd reco~nended- 'granting the:'var'~ance due to the 'fact 'that the City of ~o'un'd previously vacated Laud;el ~treet'whlch pro'~ld~'d access to the p~rcel thereby-establlshlng, i hardshlp.under:'Sectlon 2~.50~;,1 of the Mound Zoning Code:. .. : ' NOW, THERI~FI~RE, BI~' IT RESOLVED, the. councll of the City of Hound, Hlnne'- 'sota,. does 'hereby g~ant tN& varlance's~ect to revie~ of'the propos&d ease- ment by the City Attorney t:°'prOvide access-to City utilit'ies f~r:.- . ~b~t o~rt, o£ LOt~ ::L a:d 2, :~Ao'ek 2, a~e' ~ts 3 a~1'/,, :~Loek :L~-a~l et. · vacated :au:tel Street, an~ o~ the vae~e~ 12-£oot a~e7 as. platted ~et~een bots %~ 2~ ~ 4~.a~d :22 o£ ~id ]~Lock :].~ :Regr~az~e~ent o£ ..1': ELock :L0~' A~-aI~ L~co:L~ Acld~t~on to ~:kes~de 2~.k~ des._c~_bed as '£o!lows = Being at the po~t of t~sect~on o£ the' line o£ sa~d bot, 2~ ]Aock 2~ ~r~t.~ a ::LL~e d~-~ pa~a .3Ael ~th az~ ?~ £eet North of the ~ort~ .:~ of' LOt /+ o~ sa~ :E:Lock 2~ ~s ~eas~ed ~ght angles to se:~d ]~:orth ~'e~ thence ~r~L~g :~o~heaster::Lr 'a:loz~ the Nortt~ster.]~r ~ of ~aid .Lots 2 and 1, :B~ock. 2, to tBe Northerly'corn&r of ~ai6 Lof,'l; thence runr.~ng '$ou~heas%er:L7 along; the NorthsaSter]~r ]~ne of said ~ot 1, :Block 2, --n~ ~ts' e::te=~ion thereof to the .~ost. North;fly c~er of =.~:~ Lot 3, ?.lock !; thence' cont~nui Southeaster]~r' along the No:r~he~s~erly :L~e of Said bot 3, Bloc~..li to a point which is 82.5 feet Southeasterly fr~.m the m~_st · Northerly corner of said.. 'Lot l, Plcck 2, -as m~.nsured alone the Ecrth-. easterly lines of Said Lot 1, ~lock 2, ar~ Lot ~, Block 1; thence runnin~ Southwesterly 136 feet more or less to a ~otnt in a line : dra~.m parallel with and 75 feet North of S.he Eorth ~.~Ine cf Lot 4, Block 2, .extended, as measured at right angles t.~ sa!~ North line, said ~oint. also 'heine 15 feet ge. it as meas~ed at right angles fram .~[ the .~st line of ~aurel Street; th,e. nce running West parallel with the North line of said ~L~.t~4, B19~c,~ 2, ~ the point of 1~ ginr. Ln~, ~ v~th a ~ foot Setback ~t west~50 foc~t setb~¢k[~: north'~]O foot setbacks e~st ond south property lines from the prin.¢ipal structure Drov~clSng .two off s:reet parking st~lls. Public Works shall approve utility connections. ~~, McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc. 12800 Industrial Park Blvd. Plymouth. MN 55441 612/559-3700 1-800-328-8322 Ext 784 May 7, 1987 Engineers Planners Surveyors Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBOECT: Watermain Replacement County Road No. 15 MKA File #8258 Dear Council Members: As requested, we are submitting a Preliminary Engineering Report for replacement of a portion of watermain in County Road 15. The existing watermain from Fairview Lane east to approximately 300 feet west of Fernside Lane is of 1930 vintage. The remainder of the main east to Fernside Lane was constructed in the early 1960's. Both of these sections have a record of numerous watermain breaks and should be replaced since it is located within the paved portion of the new road construction. If the main is rebuilt, most of the services and curb stops should also be replaced at the same time. Our estimate for this watermain replacement is $55,000.00, a copy of which is attached to this report. Hennepin County has suggested, and we agree, that the watermain replacement be bid with the County project to minimize the cost. If it is the City's desire to proceed in this manner, final plans would need to be prepared and submitted to Hennepin County sometime in Oune for inclusion with their plans. We would consider this project to be a capital improvement which would not be assessed to the abutting properties but should be paid from the City Water Fund. The cost of replacing the watermain in Commerce Boulevard which was completed during the County's reconstruction of County Road llO, was paid from the City's Water Fund. If you should have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. ,John Cameron .u: cah 271 November 25, 1 RESOLUTION NO. 86- 173 RESOLUTION TO APPRovE ~ VARIANCE TO ESTABLISH R. BUIL.DABLE LOT'FOR PART OF LOTS l tg;~ &'qt IN BLOCKS 1.A~O Z, REARRANGEHENT OF BLOCK 10; ABRAHAJ~ LINCOLN ADDITION TO LAKESIDE PARK- PlO # 13-117-2q'31 0070 P & Z CASE NO..B6-55q · WHEREAS,'dean'.Graff, owner of property described as a lot In Blocks i and 2, .Rear. ra6gement.of Block 10,..Abraham Lincoln Addition to Lakeside: Pa~k, has applied for a varlan~e't.o"'.establlsh a iq,OD0+_ square foot parcel as a ' bull.dable, lot' slnoe the parcel currently does not front on a'publlc .right-of- way; and' .. WHERE,; the Mound C-lty C'.ode requires all lots to contaln front,.ge on e pub1 lc. r...i~.hg-of-way;, and ' ' · ..WHERE~S,'th.e P1annlng Comml. sslon.'.revle~e~..the request .~nd recommended. granting the. :' va.r'lance due to the 'fAct ·that the C'ity of Mound previously. : vacated Laurel Street ·which pro'~Ided access to the p~rcel thereby.establlshlng-i hardship under/Section 2~.50&,1 of the Mound Zonlng Code:. .. · .: NO~, .THEreFORE, B~' IT RESOLVED, the Councl 1 of the City of M°und, Hlnne'- sera,, does hereby g~ent t~& variance'sub, eot to revle~ of·the propOs&d ease- ment by the City Attorney tO'provide access-to City utJllt'ies f6r: - That mart o£ Lots I aha 2, ~'=k 2~' a~' I~ta 3 ar~' ~., ~lock ~;-am~ Of. ~" · vacated Laurel Street, and of the ~acated 12-£oot aJ.ley as olatted ' Bet~'een Lots l, 2, S, 4,.azd 12 of said Block 1, ReArrangement of · · ~ · Block 10, ABraham Lincoln Addition to 'Lakeside P~Tk, described as ~ follows.. Beginmtng at the point of intersection of the' Eorth~e~sterl~ '--~ line of said Lot 2, ~o. ck 2, with a li~e dra~ parallel ~ith and ?~ feet ;;orth of the ~orth .line of' Lot 4 o~ sat~ ~lock 2, as measure~ at.: right angles to sgid North lin'e; thence running ~ortheasterly 'along' the Nort~w~ster. ly lizm of said Lots 2 and 1, P. lock 2, to the most · ~;ortherly'corner of ~ai~ Lo~'i;' thence running 'Southeasterly along the .'~ortheasterly line of sai~ ~ot 1, Block 2, and its' extension thereof to the most. Nort~.erly cox~er of mzid Lot 3, ?.lock !; thence" continuing Southeasterly along the. ~lOrtheasterly line of sale LOt 3, Block.l~ to a point ~hich is 82.~ feet'~outheaster!y fro.~ the most · · NortherXy corner of said.. '~ot 1, Plock 2, 'as :masure. d along +~b~ North-. : easterly lines of said Lot 1, ELock 2, an~ Lo( 3, Block 1; thence running Southwesterly 156 feet ~ore or less to a ~oin% in a line : dra~.m parallel with and 7~ feet North of t~m North ~.~ine of Lot 4, P. lock 2,. extended, as measured at right ~n~les to said .~crth line, said point, also 'being Z~ feet 'Ea§t as measure~ at right angles from the East line of ~aurel Street; thence running West parallel with the Eorth line of said Lot 4, Elock 2, to the point of beginr~Lng, with a 50 foot Setback at west, 50 foot setback at north, 10 foot setbacks at east and south property lines from the principal structur~ providing two off street parking stalls. Public Works shall approve utility connections. E']:] ~ McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc. 12800 Industrial Park Blvd. Plymouth, MN 55441 612/559-3700 1-800-328-8322 Ext. 784 May 7, 1987 Engineers Planners Surveyors Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341Naywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUB3ECT: Watermain Replacement County Road No. 15 MKA File #8258 Dear Council Members: As requested, we are submitting a Preliminary Engineering Report for replacement of a portion of watermain in County Road 15. The existing watermain from Fairview Lane east to approximately 300 feet west of Fernside Lane is of 1930 vlntage. The remainder of the main east to Fernside Lane was constructed in the early 1960's. Both of these sections have a record of numerous watermain breaks and should be replaced since it is located wlthin the paved portion of the new road construction. If the main ls rebuilt, most of the servlces and curb stops should also be replaced at the same tlme. Our estimate for this watermain replacement is $55,000.00, a copy of which is attached to this report. Hennepin County has suggested, and we agree, that the watermain replacement be bid wlth the County project to mlnimize the cost. If it is the City's desire to proceed in thls manner, flnal plans would need to be prepared and submitted to Hennepln County sometime in June for inclusion with thelr plans. We would consider this project to be a capital improvement which would not be assessed to the abuttlng properties but should be paid from the City Water Fund. The cost of replacing the watermain in Commerce Boulevard whlch was completed durlng the County's reconstruction of County Road 110, was paid from the City's Water Fund. If you should have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. Oohn Cameron 3C:cah COST ESTIMATE WATEr. lAIN REPLACEMENT FOR COUNTY ROAD FAIRVIEW LANE TO FERNSIDE LANE 8" WATERMAIN 8" GATE VALVES 314" & 1" SERVICE CONI~ECTICN 3/4" & 1" CURB STOP 1 1/2" SERVICE CONNECTION 3/4" COPPER SERVICE PIPE 1 1/2" COPPER SERVICE PIPE FITTINGS HYDRANT 6" GATE VALVE 6" HYDRANT LEAD GRANULAR MATERIAL MOBILIZATION 1270 L.F. ~ $ 15.00/LF = $ 19,050.00 3 EACH ~ 500.O0/EA = 1,500.00 20 EACH ~ 40.O0/EA = 800.00 20 EACH ~ IO0.O0/EA = 2,000.00 3 EACH ~ 200.O0/EA = 600.00 700 L.F. ~ 8.00/LF = 5,600.00 50 ~L.F. ~ ll.O0/LF = 550.00 3000 LBS ~ 1.O0/L8 = 3,000.OQ 1 EACH ~ 900.O0/EA = 900.00 2 EACH ~ 400.O0/EA = 800.00 25 L.F. ~ 12.00/LF = 300.00 200 TONS ~ 8.00/TN = 1,600.00 1 L.S. LUMP SUM = 3,000.00 CONTINGENCIES 4 ~ 300. O0 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $44,000.00 ENGINEERING, LEGAL, FISCAL & ADMIN. COST 11~000.00 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROOECT COST .................... $55,000.00 YEARS CITY OF MOUHD 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155 May 2t, 1987 TO: FROM: RE: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER JOHN NORMAN, FINANCE DIRECTOR WATER FUND CASH BALANCE The watermain extension on County Road 15 is projected to cost $55,000. effect it would have on the Water Fund cash reserves if expense occured immediately is: April 3Oth Cash Balance $159,500 The Less: Watermain Extension (55,000) $104,5OO You also inquired about what this would do to the water rates. In my annual report and the audit the council has been informed about the status of the Water Fund. One of the problems that Greg Skinner and I have discussed, is the condition of a portion of our water system. Part of the watermain on County Road 15 was built in the 1930's. There are other areas of the city water system that are old and will also need to be replaced. The rate structure for the Water Fund should include an amount for capital improve- ments to the water system. The past few years our water rates have not covered the operations of the Water Fund (the cash balance 12-31-84 was $400,000 and decreased to $220,000 at 12-31-86). In conclusion, we do have the reserves in the Water Fund to cover the watermain replacement on County Road 15. However, the cash reserve will be at the lowest level possible for the operation of the Water Fund. The future water rates must be able .to maintain and, hopefully, build up the Water Fund cash reserves. We will be looking closely at the Water Fund rates during the 1988 budget process. cc: Greg ~kinner JN:ls 'May 26, 1987 RESOLUTION NO.. 87- RESOLUTION RECEIVING FEASIBILITY REPORT, ORDERING IMPROVEMENT AND PREPARATION OF PLANS FOR WATERMAIN REPLACEMENT IN SHORELINE BOULEVARD FROM FAIRVIEW LANE TO FERNSIDE LANE WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution #87-72 adopted by the Council on April 14, 1987, a report has been prepared by McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc., the City Engineers, with reference to the replacement of the existing watermain in Shoreline Blvd. between Fairview Lane and Fernside Lane; and WHEREAS, this report was received by the Council on May 12, 1987; and ~HEREAS~ the City Engineer has recommended replacement of said existing watermain; and WHEREAS, the estimated cost of $55,000 for said replacement would be paid from the City water fund, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: 1. Such improvement is hereby ordered as proposed in feasibility report dated May 7, 1987. McCombs-Knutson is hereby designated as the Engineer for this improvement and shall prepare plans and specifications for making of such improvements. Adopted by the Council this 26th day of May, 1987. Mayor Attest: City Clerk ~~. McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc. Engineers Planners Surveyors PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT FOR = STREET LIGHTS COUNTY ROAD NO. 15 MOUND, MINNESOTA May, 1987 12800 Industrial Park Blvd., Plymouth, MN 554'.41 612/559-3700 1-800-328-8322 Ext. 784 McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc. 12800 Industrial Park Blvd. Plymouth, MN ~;5441 ' 612/559-3700 1-800-328-8322 Ext. 784 May 11, 1987 Engineers Planners Surveyors Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 SUBOECT: Preliminary Engineering Report Street Lights County Road No. 15 MKA #8259 Dear Mayor and Council Members: As requested, we are submitting herewith a Preliminary Engineering Report for new street lights on County Road No. 15. If you have any questions, or require additional information on anything in this report, we will be pleased to discuss this further with you at your convenience. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron 3C:jmj Enclosures GE~RAL This report will investigate the cost and feasibility of installing a new street lighting system on County Road 15 from Commerce Boulevard to the Seton Bridge. At the present time, there exists eight (8) old style fluorescent street lights between Con~nerce Boulevard and the Post Office. These lights are obsolete and expensive to operate and maintain, in fact, the one in front ~f Century Auto Body had to be removed and has not been replaced. Two of the lights are within the area of proposed reconstruction on County Road 15 and probably will need to be relocated by the co?ty's contractor. There are also 13 existing street lights mounted on N.S.P. poles at various locations between Belmont Road and Bartlett Boulevard. Most of"these are located at intersections, but a few are in mid-block such as the two across from the apartment buildings. We believe these are ali 100 watt high pressure sodium fixtures which were installed and are owned by N.S.P. LIGHTS The proposed lights would be a contemporary design to match the existing lights on Commerce Boulevard. The light standards would be 35 feet high with a 6 to 8 foot mast on the top of the pole. The lamps would be either 150 watt high pressure sodium or 250 watt high pressure sodium, the same as are in use along Commerce Boulevard. Electrical outlets would be provided for Christmas decoration lighting at a 20 feet height above the ground. This report will include two alternates for the City to review. Alternate No. 1 would be for thirty (30) newi250 watt high pressure sodium lights at 100 foot alternate spacing along both sides of the street from Commerce Boulevard to Fairview Lane. If this Alternate is used, then the 6 existing N.S.P. lights between Fairview Lane and Bartlett Boulevard would remain in approximately the same location. Alternate No. 2 will investigate the feasibility of installing new lights the entire length of the street improvement from Commerce Boulevard to Bartlett Boulevard. For this Alternate, nine - 150 watt high pressure soOium and seven - 250 watt high pressure soQium lights would be aOded to Alternate No. i for the area from Fairview Lane to Bartlett Boulevard, with the lower wattage lamps used in the residential area. The existing fluorescent lights provide approximately 1.7 foot candles at street level compared to an average of 2 foot candles for the 250 watt fixtures with 100 foot alternate spacing and approximately i foot candle for the 150 watt fixtures at 200 foot alternate spacing. The existing fluorescent lights cost the City $156.60 per fixture per year and the 100 watt high pressure sodium cost $115.20 per fixtures per year to operate. The new high pressure soOium fixtures would cost $54.60 for the 150 watt and $76.20 for the 250 watt per fixture per year to operate. N.S.P. will maintain the new fixtures at no additional expense, whereas they do not maintain the existing fluorescent lights. At the present time, the existing system from Co~erce Boulevard to Bartlett Boulevard, which includes only 21 lights, cost the City $2,750.40 per year to operate. A new lighting system for this entire area, as suggested under Alternate No. 2 with 46 fixtures, would cbst $3,334.00 per year to operate and maintain. COST ESTIMATES As previously mentioned, two of the existing fluorescent lights are within the proposed construction limits for County Road 15 ane would need to be relocated by the county's contractor. If the City installed new lights, the County would pay for two new bases and the wiring necessary for two lights. The total cost for each Alternate is as follows: Alternate No. 1 Alternate No. 2 $ 127,353.00 $ 202,373.00 The credit for the two bases and wiring to be paid by Hennepin County would amount to approximately $3,000.00 and would be deducted from each of the Alternates, if the existing lights interfere with the street construction. A breakdown of the estimated cost for each Alternate is enclosed. - ALTERNATE NO.~l~ ITEM QUANTITY l~IT PRICE Poles and Fixtures (250 Watt) Bases Wire Conduit Control Centers 30 EACH $ 1,100.O0/EA 30 EACH $ 550.O0/EA 26,000 L.F. $ 1.25/LF 600 L.F. $ 7.20/LF 3 EACH $ 2,100.O0/EA Contingencies Total Estimated Construction Cost Engineering, Legal, Fiscal anO Administrative Costs Total Estimated Cost Alternate No. 1 : ~ COST ESTIMATE - ALTERNATE NO. 2 ITEM QUANTITY UNIT PRICE Poles and Fixtures (250 Watt) Poles and Fixtures (150 Watt) Bases Wire Conduit Control Centers 39 EACH $ 1,100.O0/EA 7 EACH $ 1,O00.O0/EA 46 EACH $ 550.O0/EA 44,000 L.F. $ 1.25/LF 900 L.F. $ 7.20/LF 5 EACH $ 2,100.O0/EA Contingencies Total Estimated Construction Cost Engineering, Legal, Fiscal and AOministrative Costs Total Estimated Cost Alternate No. 1 TOTAL 33,000.00 16,500.00 32,500.00 4,320.00 6,300.00 $ 9~262.00 $101,882.00 $ 25~471.00 $127,353.00 TOTAL $ 42,900.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 25,300.00 $ 55,000.00 $ 6,480.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 14~718.00 $161,898.00 $ 40~475.00 $202,373.00 ASSESSIvENTS On the previoum street light project along County RoaO 110, approximately 1/~ of the total cost was assessed to the abutting private properties. On this project, we would recommend that a minimum of 40% of the total cost be assesse~ to the private property abutting the improvements. The assessable footage for each Alternate breaks down as follows: Alternate No. i Commercial Property Residential and Multiple City Owned and Unassessable Total Alternate No. 2. Commercial Property Residential and Multiple City Owned and Unassessable Total 4,300 L.F. 100 L.F. 1~740 L.F. 6,140 L.F. 4,725 L.F. 2,875 L.F. 3~270 L.F. 10,870 L.F. On the previous street light project, the commercial property was assessed l-l/2 times the rate of the residential property. If the same procedure is used, the proposed assessments for each Alternate would be as follows: I,I~THOD A - 40% OF THE TOTAL COST ASSESSED TO PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY Alternate No. 1 Amount to be Assessed Would be Cost Per Foot for Commercial Property Cost Per Foot for Residential Property $50,491.00 11.67 7.78 Alternate No. 2 Amount to be Assessed Would be Cost Per Foot for Commercial Property Cost Per Foot for Residential Property $80,950.00 12.19 8.13 FETHOD B - 50% OF THE TOTAL COST ASSESSED TO PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY Alternate No. 1 Amount to be Assessed Would be Cost Per Foot for Commercial Property Cost Per Foot for Residential Property $63,677.00 14.58 9.72 Alternate No, 2 Amount to be Assessed Would be Cost Per Foot for Co~ercial Property Cost Per Foot for Residential Property CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMIvENDATIONS $101,187.00 15.2~ 10.16 With the reconstruction that is scheduled for County Road 15, this is the best opportunity the City will ever have to install street lights in the remainder of their downtown area. It is the opinion of the Engineer that the .. proposed project is feasible, and can best be accomplished as described herein. .... .. McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc. 12800 Industrial Park .Blvd. Plymouth, MN 55441 612/559-3700 1-800-328-8322 Ext. 784 May 22, 1987 Engineers Planners Surveyors Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 SUBJECT: Addendum to Preliminary Engineering Report for Street Lights - Co. Rd. No. 15 MKA File #8259 Dear Council Members: Enclosed is an addendum to the Preliminary Engineering Report for street lights on County Road 15 which presents two more alternates for the Council's consideration. Alternate No. 3 is for 250 watt high pressure sodium lights from Commerce Blvd. to Belmont Lane and from Northern Road to Bartlett Blvd. For the remainder of County Road 15 from Belmont Lane to Northern Road, 150 watt high pressure sodium lights are proposed. Alternate No. 4 includes 250 watt high pressure sodium lights from Commerce Blvd. to Belmont Lane and 150 watt high pressure sodium from Belmont Lane to Fairview Lane. The remainder of County Road 15 from Fairview Lane to Bartlett Blvd. would stay the same as presently lighted with the 6 existing 100 watt high pressure sodium N.S.P fixtures attached to power poles. Also included are three methods of assessment for each alternate ranging from 40% to 60% of the total cost as an assessment against the privately owned property. If you have any questions or require additional information, we will be pleased to discuss this further with you at your convenience. Very truly yours, McCONBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron OC:djk COST ESTIMATE - ALTERNATE NO. 3 ITEM ~UANTITY UNIT PRICE POLES & FIXTURES (250W) POLES & FIXTURES (15OW) BASES WIRE CONDUIT CONTROL CENTERS 16 EA $ $1,100.O0/EA 20 EA $ 1,O00.O0/EA 36 EA ~ 550.O0/EA 39,000 LF ® 1.25/LF 900 LF ~ 7.20/LF 4 EA ~ 2,100.O0/EA CONTINGENCIES TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST ENGINEERING, LEGAL, FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE COST TOTAL ESTIMATED COST ALTERNATE NO. 3 PROPOSED ASSESSMENT METHOD A - 40% OF THE TOTAL COST...ASSESSED TO. PRIVATE PROPERTY AMOUNT TO BE ASSESSED COST PER FOOT FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY COST PER FOOT FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY METHOD B - 50% OF THE TOTAL COST ASSESSED TO PRIVATE PROPERTY AMOUNT TO BE ASSESSED COST PER FOOT FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY COST PER FOOT FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY METHOD C - 60% OF THE TOTAL COST ASSESSED TO PRIVATE PROPERTY AMOUNT TO BE ASSESSED COST PER FOOT FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY COST PER FOOT FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TOTAL = $ 17,600.00 = 20,000.00 : 19,800.00 = 48,750.00 = 6,480.00 = 8,400.00 l~lO0.O0 ~'133,130.p0 3~280.00 $ 166,410.00 $ 66,564.00 '$ 10.02 $ -6.68 $ 83,205.00 $ 12.54 $ 8.36 $ 99,846.00 $ 15.o3 $ 10.02 COST ESTIMATE ALTERNATE NO. 4 ITEM qUANTITY UNIT PRICE POLES & FIXTURES (290 WATT) POLES & FIXTURES (150 WATT) BASES WIRE CONDUIT CONTROL CENTERS 7 EA 8 $1,100.O0/EA 13 EA 8 1,O00.O0/EA 20 EA ~ 550.O0/EA 25,?00 LF 8 1.25/LF 600 LF 8 ?.20/LF 2 EA ® 2,100.O0/EA CONTINGENCIES TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST ENGINEERING, LEGAL, FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE COST TOTAL ESTIMATED COST ALTERNATE NO. 4 PROPOSED ASSESSMENT METHOD A - 40% O~ THE TOTAL COST ASSESSED TO PRIVATE PROPERTY AMOUNT TO BE ASSESSED COST REP FOOT FOR COMqERCIAL PROPERTY COST REP FOOT FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY METHOD B - 90% OF THE TOTAL COST ASSESSED TO PRIVATE PROPERTY AMOUNT TO BE ASSESSED COST PER FOOT FOR CO~ERCIAL PROPERTY COST PER FOOT FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY METHOD C - 60% OF THE TOTAL COST ASSESSED TO PRIVATE PROPERTY AMOUNT TO BE ASSESSED COST PER FOOT FOR CO~ERCIAL PROPERTY COST PER FOOT FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TOTAL = $ 7,700.00 = 13,000.00 = 11,000.00 = 32,125.00 = 4,320.00 = 4,200.00 7~2~5.00 $ 79,580.00 19~900.00 $' 99,480.00 $ 39,792.00 $ 9.12 $ 6.08 $ 49,740.00 $ 11.39 $ 7.59 59,680.00 13.67 9.11 May 16, 1987 RESOLUTION NO. 87- RESOLUTION RECEIVING PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT AND CALLING HEARING FOR STREET LIGHT IMPROVEMENT ON SHORELINE 80ULEVARD WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution #87-72 adopted by the Council on April 14, 1987, a report has been prepared by McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc., the.. City Engineers, for the improvement of Shoreline Blvd. by the addltion of street lights between Commerce Blvd. and ; and, WHEREAS, this report was received by the Council on May 12, 1987; and NOW, THEREFpRE, BE IT RESOLVED by the 'City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: The Council will consider the improvement of Shoreline Blvd. by the addition of street lights between Commerce Blvd. and in accordance with alternate in the report and the assessment of abutting property for a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $ . e A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 23rd day of Sune, 1987, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 7:30 P.M. and the Clerk shall glve malled and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. Adopted by the Council this 26th day of May, 1987. Mayor Attest: City Clerk McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc. Engineers Planners Surveyors PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT COUNTY ROAD FOR 15 IMPROVEMENTS CITY OF MOUND MAY, 1987 ;2800 Industrial Park Bivd,, Plymouth. MN 55441 612/559-3700 1-800-328-~322 Ext. 78,4 [~'"~.,~. McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc. 12800 Industrial Park Blvd. Plymouth, MN 55441 612/559-3700 1-800-328-8322 Ext. 784 May 7, 1987 Engineer, Planners Surveyors Honorable Mayor and Members o¢ the City Council City o¢ Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBOECT: County Road 15 Improvements Preiim~nary Engineering Report MKA File #8087 Dear Council Members: As requested, we are submitting herewith a Preliminary Engineering Report for street improvements on County Road 15. If ~ou have any questions or require additional information on anything in this report, we will be pleased to discuss this further with you at your convenience. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUISON ASSOCIATES, INC. $ohn Cameron OC:cah GEr~RAL Hennepin County Project No.'8024, which is scheduled for construction in 1988 includes grading, bituminous base, bituminous surfacing, concrete curb and gutter, concrete sidewalks and storm sewer on C.S.A.H. No. 15 from Commerce Boulevard to the Seton Bridge. Also scheduled for 1988 construction is the replacement of Seton Bridge and reconstruction of C.S.A.H. 15 from Seton Bridge to County Road No. 19 in Navarre. At the present time, the County's plans indicate that most of the inplace concrete pavement will remain with the roadway widened to accomodate a wider driving lane and the addition of turning lanes. The inplace concrete pavement will be overlayed with bituminous surface. l i i ! I ! l The plans call for the actual reconstruction to begin at the .entrance to the city parking lot adjacent to the post office and continuing east~ The existing road section from that point west to Commerce Boulevard will be overlayed with a bituminous mat. A 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk on both sides is proposed for the entire length of the project within the City limits of Mound. The sidewalk will be adjacent to the curb from Commerce Boulevard to Wilshire BoulevarO which is a 52' wide road section. On the remainder of the project, a 44' wide road section is planned with the sidewalk set 5' behind the curb except for the area of the turning lanes at Bartlett Boulevard. In this area, from Monclair Lane to the Seton Bridge, the road will also be 52' wide with the sidewalk directly behind the curbs. If the plans remain the same as when they were proviOed to us in March, there would be approximately 400 feet on the north side from First Minnesota's driveway east to the beginning of the project which does not include new concrete sidewalk. We would recommend that t~e City request Hennepin County install concrete siOewalk in this area as part of the project. COST ESTIMATES The preliminary cost estimates included at the eno of this report were provided by Mennepin County. The City of Mound's share of the proposed construction is estimated to be $309,924.8~, which is broken down as follows: Estimated Construction Cost EstimateU Cost incl. Hennepin County County Engineering Estimated Cost incl. Hennepin County Engineering & AUd'i City Expenses 1. Right-of-Way 2. Concrete Curb & Gutter Concrete Driveway Aprons 4. Concrete Sidewalk 5. Storm Sewer 6. Timber Retaining Walls $ 40,000.00 40,687.50 15,000.00 50,062.50 103,355.00 21,600.00 $ 40,000. O0 $ 40,000. O0 47,604.38 51,412.73 17,550.00 18,954.00 58,573.13 63,258.~8 120, ~25.35 130,5~ · 37 25,272.00 27,2~3. ?~ $30~,~24.86 't {~--;-~. ~/$331,518.84 Please note that there is an error in the preliminary cost estimate furnished by Hennepin County, as the first item for concrete curb and ' gutter was not-~nciuded in the total. We have included this amount plus engineering and corrected Mound's estimated share to read $309,924.86. The additional City expenses include items such as engineering, legal, fiscal and administrative costs. In addition to the above costs, the City will have additional costs to replace a portion of the old watermain and the installation of new street lights, if those project are approved. Separate reports will be presented for these two projects. STATE AID FUNDS Each year a portion of the Minnesota gas tax is allotted for Street construction and maintenance in cities with a population over 5,000. Each city is required to designate a State Aid street system. Mound's System was set up in 1962 and revised from time to time since then. Some of the State Aid streets in Mound are Tuxedo Boulevard, Three Points Boulevard, Wilshire Boulevard, Maywood Road, Cypress Lane, and Bartlett'Boulevard. Each year a construction and maintenance allotment from State Aid funds is placed in a trust fund for each community. The amount of the allotment is based upon population, miles of streets in the city, and the estimated cost of upgrading i ! i ! 1 all the State Aid streets in the City to State standards. In 1987, the City of Mound received $175,3.52.00 from the State for street construction and maintenance on State Aid streets. The construction portion of the allotment $148,352 may be used for construction on the State Aid system or on the county highway system. In the past few years, some of this money has been used to pay Mound's share of the cost of bridge replacements and the recent County Road 110 construction. All construction done with state aid funds must be done to state standards of width, load limit, parking regulations, etc. At the present time, Mound has $180,469.00 in their construction fund with approximately $35,000 of this total set aside for remaining reimbursement on the .Lynwood Boulevard Project, leaving a projectpd balance of approximately $145,000.00. Mound should receive close to the same construction allotment in 1988 (approximately $148,000) as they did this year, which if added to the projected balance would result in a fund balance of approximately $293,000.00 in 1988. Some of this money can be used to finance that portion of Mound's share of the cost for County Road 15 which is eligible for State Aid reimbursement. This would have to be negotiated with Hennepin County since it is thei~ project and they can also receive State Aid money. We have estimated that approximately $189,600.00 of Mound's share of the construction cost is eligible for State Aid reimbursement. /~SSESS~£NTS Since the street construction program began in 1975, virtually all of the City's streets have been reconstructed with concrete curb and gutter and storm sewer. With the exception of State Aid streets, the entire cost of this 'construction has been assessed to the abutting property owners' on these streets. Improvements on State Aid streets have previously been assessed on the same basis as residential streets~ using the cost of a typical residential 'street as a determination of the amount assessed. The remainder of the cost is paid with State Aid funds. There are some items included in Mound's share of the County Road 15 construction that benefit the abutting properties in the same manner that similar construction benefitted properties abutting other streets in Mound. When County Road ilO was improved in i98i, a portion of that cost was assessed to the abutting properties, therefore, to continue with a fair and consistent policy throughout the City, these costs for County Road i3 should also be assessed. The items to be considered for assessment would'be concrete curb and gutter, concrete driveway aprons, concrete sidewalk and storm sewer. Concrete Curb and Gutter & Driveway Aprons The co~t of the curb and gutter and driveway aprons is assessed to the properties abutting the improvement on a per lineal foot basis'for the curb and gutter and a square yard basis for driveway aprons. The proposed assessment for curb and gutter would be $31,412.73 divided by 10,200 lineal feet which equals~3.04 per_lineal foot: The proposed assessment for driveway aprons is $18,934.00 divi~ed by~i,O00 square yards which equals ~.8.93 per ~quare Yar~. A typicai driveway apron is 16 feet wide by 10 feet deep, resulting in an assessment of $3~6.89. Wider aprons would be proportionateiy more expensive. Sidewalk The cost of the sidewalk would be assessed to the properties abutting the improvement on a square foot basis. The proposed assessment for Sidewalk would be 50% of Mound's share of the cost or $)1,629.4~ divided by 44,300 S.F. which equais $0.71 p~r sqNare foot. For a typical 80 foot wide residential iot with a 16 foot driveway, the proposed assessment would be $227.20. The portion of a sidewalk through a driveway is assessed as driveway apron. Storm Sewer The cost for storm sewer on previous street improvements has been assessed as part of the street project. Rrior to that, storm sewers in Mound were assessea on a square foot basis to the entire watershed drained by the storm sewer system. In the past a credit has been given to properties p[eviousiy assessed for street improvements which included storm sewer. We would recommend that the s~orm sewer cost for this project be assessed on a square foot basis to the properties abutting the street and that if any of these properties were previously assessed for storm sewer as part of a street project, they will be given credit against this project. On this basis, the estimated assessment for storm sewer is $130,599.37 divided by 1,750,000 S.F., which equals $0.075 per square foot. Sewer and Water Services If during construction it is determined that sewer or water services need. to be installed where none previously existed, the cost for same would be assessed to the benefitting property. .Summary of Estimated Totals to be Assessed Concrete Curb and Gutter $ 51,412./3 Concrete Driveway Aprons 18,954.00 Concrete Sidewalks 31,629.49 Storm Sewer 130;599.37 Total ........................................ $ 232,595.59 Of the total properties abutting the project, it is estimated that City owned property and the right-of-way of intersection streets account for 25% to 30%.. Included in this figure is the railroad footage between Northern Road and Seton Channel. If 27% is used as the City's share of ~he assessment, 73% of $232,595.59 or approximately $169,794.78 would be assessed against private property. If the recommendations for assessments contained in this report are followed, ~ typical_ 8Q_x lO0_lot would be assessed $600.00 for storm sewer, $403.2'0 for curb and gutter, $336.89 for a driveway apron and $227.20 for sidewalk for a total of $1,567.29. This compares with an assessment of $3,577.75 for the same size lot on the 1980 Street Improvement Project. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMFENDATIONS Hennepin County is in the process of preparing the final plans for this project which should be ready for the City's final approval in late su~er or early fail. The project would then be bid sometime in the winter of 87-88 with actual construction to start in the spring. Mound would be billed for 90~ of their share of the construction or approximately $243,000.00 at the time the contract is awarded. In the past, the City has been invoiced separately at a . later time for their share of the right-of-way cost. The proposed assessments will not even begin to pay the City's share of the project; therefore, we. would recommend the difference be maOe ge with money from Mound's State Aid Construction Fund. It is our opinion that the project is feasible and can be accomplished as described herein. ! i J-'-~ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 320 Washington Av. South I FIEiNE[I~ Hopk. i935_3381ns, Minnesoto 55343-8468 March 11, 1987 bdd: T. J. Hoffman File 15/7924 Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr. City Manager City of Mound 5341 Ma~od Road Moun~, Minnesota, 55364 CSAH 15 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROJECT 8024 Dear Mr. Shukle: As requested in your letter of March 9, 1987, ! am sending preliminary plans for the above referenced project to John Cameron, City Engineer, and a preliminary project cost share for the City of Mound based on Hennepin County's policy. A copy of that estimate is attached for your information. Please call me if you have any questions about this project. Sincerely, A. W. Herzog, P.E. Detail Design Engineer AWH:mak Enclosure cc: .John Cameron HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opporlg~Jl'y employer 0 0 00000 O0 000 0 0 00000 000 O0 o~ o o~ooo ~ PROOECT COST SUMMARY COUNTY ROAD 15 IMPROVEMENTS AND STREET LIGHTS STREET IMPROVEMENTS' PROPOSED FUNDED TOTAL ASSESSMENTS BY CITY RROJECT COST $169,795 + $161,724 = $331,519 STREET LIGHTS (ALT. NO.1 WITH METHOD A ASSM'T) TOTALS STATE AID REIMBURSEMENT DEFICIT FUNDING $ 50~941 + $ 76~412 = $~27,~,353 $220,736 + $238,136 = $458,872 $189~600 $ 48,536 $3.5,801 IF ALT. NO. 1 WITH METHOD B ASSESSMENT IS USED FOR STREET LIGHTS. $93,547 IF ALT. NO. 2 WITH METHOD A ASSESSMENT IS USED FOR STREET LIGHTS. $73,311 IF ALT. NO. 2 WITH METHOD B ASSESSMENT IS USED FOR STREET LIGHTS. $71,970 IF ALT. NO. 3 WITH METHOD A ASSESSMENT IS USED FOR STREET LIGHTS. $55,329 IF ALT. NO. 3 WITH METHOD B ASSESSMENT IS USED FOR STREET LIGHTS. $38,688 IF ALT. NO. 3 WITH METHOD C ASSESSMENT IS USED FOR STREET LIGHTS. $31,812 IF ALT. NO. 4 WITH METHOD A ASSESSMENT IS USED FOR STREET LIGHTS. $21,864 IF ALT. NO. 4 WITH METHOD B ASSESSMENT IS USED FOR STREET LIGHTS. $11,924 IF ALT. NO. 4 WITH METHOD C ASSESSMENT IS USED FOR STREET LIGHTS. Ray 26, 1987 RESOLUTION NO. 87- RESOLUTION RECEIVING PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT AND CALLING HEARING ON SHORELINE 80ULEVARD (HENNEPIN COUNTY ROAD NO. 15) STREET IMPROVEMENT WHEREAS, pursuant to resolution #87-72 adopted by the Council on April 14, 1987, a report has been prepared by McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc., the City Engineers, with reference to the improvement of Shoreline Blvd. (Hennepin County Road No. 15) between Commerce Blvd. and Seton Channel and WHEREAS, this report was received by the Council on May 12, 1987, NOW, THEREFORE, 8E IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota: The Council will consider the improvement of Shoreline Blvd. by Hennepin County in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting.property for a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Winnesota Statutes Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of Wound's share of the improvement of $~1,518.00. m A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 2~rd day of June, 1~87, in the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 7:30 R.W. and the Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. Adopted by the Council this 26th day of Way, 1987. Wayor Attest: City Clerk McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc. 12800 Industrial Park E~lvd. PLymouth, MN 55441 612/559-3700 1-800-328-8322 Ext. 784 May 21, 1987 Engineers Planners Sumeyors Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBOECT: Public Works Facilities ~<A #8257 Dear Mayor and Council Members: Enclosed ar~ four (4) more alternatives for upgrading the Public Works Facilities to add to the list previously submitted. Alternates Q and R are for a 5720 S.F. addition as shown on the attached proposed site plan of the Riley property. Alternative Q would include major improvements to the existing Riley building such as replacing the bituminous floor with concrete, remodeling the front elevation and insulating the roof. Alternate R would carry the remodeling of the existing building one step further by completely removing the existing roof, adding to the existing wall height and building a new roof in conjunction with the construction of the new addition. Alternates S and T are for a 7920 S.F. addition, which would result in a U shaped complex as shown on the enclosed plan. Again, Alternate S would include the same improvements to the existing Riley building as outlined for Alternate q and Alternate T would include complete retrofit of the existing building. As you will note, all 4 of these Alternates include an estimated cost of $23,000 for repairs to the existing Island Park facility. The major portion of this cost is for reroofing the garage. We have also attached a summary showing total estimated cost and the usable square footage for each alternative discussed. If you have any questions or require additional information, we will be pleased to discuss this further with you at your convenience. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:tdv Enclosures ALTERNATE Q - ISLAND PARK, BICKMAN PROPERTY AND RILEY PROPERTY WITH MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING RILEY BUILDING AND 5720 SF ADDITION 1. MINIMUM REPAIRS TO I.P. FACILITY 2. LAND COST - BICKMAN PROPE]RTY 3. SITE WORK - BICKMAN PROPERTY 4. LAND COST - RILEY PROPERTY 5. MA.]OR IMPROVEMENTS TO RILEY BUILDING AND 5720 SF ADDITION 6. SITE WORK - RILEY BUILDING ESTIMATED ACQUISTION AND CONSTRUCTION COST ENGINEERING, LEGAL, FISCAL AND ADMIN. COST TOTAL ESTIMATED COST ALTERNATE G ....................... $ $ 23,000 165,000 45,000 200,000 310,800 24~000 767,800 115~200 883,000 ALTERNATE R - SAME AS ALTERNATE Q WITH COMPLETE RETROFIT OF EXISTING RILEY BUILDING 1. MINIMUM REPAIRS TO I.P. FACILITY 2. LAND COST - BICKMAN PROPERTY 3. SITE WORK - BICKMAN PROPERTY 4. LAND COST -'RILEY PROPERTY 5. COMPLETE RETROFIT OF RILEY BUILDING AND 5720 SF ADDITION 6. SITE WORK - RILEY PROPERTY ESTIMATED ACQUISTION AND CONSTRUCTION COST ENGINEERING, LEGAL, FISCAL AND ADM!N. COST TOTAL ESTIMATED COST ALTERNATE R ....................... $ 23,000 165,000 45,000 200,000 364,600 24~000 821,600 123~200 944,800 ALTERNATE S - ISLAND PARK, BICKMAN PROPERTY AND RILEY PROPERTY WITH MAOOR IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING RILEY BUILDING AND 7920 SF ADDITION 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. MINIMUM REPAIRS TO I.P. FACILITY LAND COST - BICKMAN PROPERTY SITE WORK - BICKMAN PROPERTY LAND COST - RILEY PROPERTY MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS TO RILEY BUILDING AND ~ SF ADDITION SITE WORK - RILEY PROPERTY ESTIMATED ACQUISTION AND CONSTRUCTION COST ENGINEERING, LEGAL, FISCAL AND ADMIN. COST TOTAL ESTIMATED COST ALTERNATE S ....................... $ $ 23,000 165,000 45,000 200,000 411,400 24~000 868,400 130~300 998,700 ALTERNATE T - SAME AS ALTERNATE S WITH COMPLETE RETROFIT OF EXISTING RILEY BUILDING 1. MINIMUM REPAIRS TO I.P. FACILITY 2. LAND COST - BICKMAN PROPERTY 3. SITE WORK - BICKMAN PROPERTY 4. LAND COST - RILEY PROPERTY 5. COMPLETE RETROFIT OF RILEY BUILDING ~o AND ~ SF ADDITION 6. SITE WORK - RILEY PROPERTY ESTIMATED ACqUISTION AND'CONSTRUCTION COST 23,000 165,000 45,000 200,000 465,200 24~000 922,200 ENGINEERING, LEGAL, FISCAL AND ADMIN. COST 138~300 TOTAL ESTIMATED COST ALTERNATE T ....................... $1,060,500 SUMMARY 0¢ ALTERNATIVES FOR PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES ALTERNATE A Concrete Building - West Edge Site ALTERNATE B Concrete Building - West Edge Site ALTERNATE C Concrete Building - West Edge Site ALTERNATE D Steel Building - West Edge Site ALTERNATE E Steel Building - West Edge Site ALTERNATE F Steel Building - West Edge Site ALTERNATE G Concrete Building - Downtown Site (Bickman and Riley Property) ALTERNATE H Concrete Building - Downtown Site (Bickman and Riley Property) ALTERNATE I Concrete Building - Downtown Site (Bickman and Riley Property) ALTERNATE O Steel Building - Downtown Site (Bick~man and Riley Property) ALTERNATE K Steel Building - Downtown Site (Bickman and Riley Rroperty) ALTERNATE L Steel Building - Downtown Site (Bickman and Riley Property) USABLE AREA 28,164 SF 24,384 SF 19,848 SF 28,164 SF 24,384 SF 19,848 SF 28,164 SF 24,384 SF 19,848 SF 28,164 SF 24,384 SF 19,848 SF TOTAL COST $ 1,226,440 $ 1,130,327 $ 992,958 $ 1,141,438 $ 1,053,504 $ 927,840 $ 1,564,194 $ 1,468,082 $ 1,419,263 $ 1,479,193 $ 1,391,259' $ 1,354,146 SUMMARY CF ALTERNATIVES FOR PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES, cont. USABLE AREA ALTERNATE Island Park, Bickman & Riley Property with Major Remodeling and 5720 SF Addition ALTERNATE R 20,224 SF Island Park, Bickman & Riley Property with Complete Retrofit and 5720 SF Addition ALTERNATE S 20,224 SF Island Park, 8ickman & Riley Property with Major Remodeling and 79~0 SF Addition ALTERNATE T 24,800 SF Island Park, Bickman & Riley Property with Complete Retrofit and 7920 SF Addition ALTERNATE X 24,800 SF Island Park Facility & Riley Property with 5808 SF Garage Addition ALTERNATE Y 21,752 SF Island Park Facility, Bickman Property & Riley Property with 5808 SF Garage Addition 21,752 SF TOTAL COST $ 883,000 $ 944,800 998,700 $ 1,060,500 $ 710,000 $ 946,000 SUMMARY OF BUILDING AREA (OFFICE, STORAGE AND GARAGE) ALTERNATE Existing I.P. Carage Existing I.P. Office & Small Garage Riley Building New Addition with Mezzanine 4,800 SF 1,100 5F 6,844 SF 7~480 SF * 20,224 SF Includes 15,604 SF Inside Vehicle Storage ALTERNATE R 2. 3. 4. Existing I.P. Garage Existing I.P. Office & Small Garage Riley Building New Addition with Mezzanine Includes 15,604 SF Inside Vehicle Storage 4,800 SF 1,100 SF 6,844 SF 7.~480 SF * 20,244 SF ALTERNATE S l, Exlstlng I.P. Garage 2. Existing I.P. Office and Small Garage Rlley Buildlng 4. New Addition with Mezzanine 4,800 SF 1,100 SF 6,844 SF 12~056 SF + 24,800 SF + Includes 15,428 SF Inside Vehicle Storage ALTERNATE T 2. 3. 4. Existing I.P. Garage Existing I.P. Office and Small Garage Riley Building New Addition with Mezzanine 4,800 SF 1,100 SF 6,844 SF 12~056 SF + 24,800 SF + Includes 15,428 SF Inside Vehicle Storage ALTERNATE X Existing Facilities Riley Building Garage Addition to Riley Building 9,100 SF 6,844 SF 5~808 SF * 21,752 SF * Includes 12,800 SF Inside Vehicle Storage ALTERNATE Y Existing Facilities Riley Building Garage Addition to Riley Building 9,100 SF 6,844 SF 5~808 SF + 21,752 SF + Includes 16,372 SF Inside Vehicle Storage 15o ET'E~!i~k. McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc. 12800 Industrial Park Blvd. Plymouth, MN 55441 612/559-3700 1-800-328-8322 Ext. 784 May 7, 1987 Engineers Planners Surveyors Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBOECT: Public Works Facilities MKA File #8257 Dear Council Members: As requested, wl are submitting additional alternatives for your review. We have revised the building slightly and reduced the cost of the alternates that were presented at the Council work session on April 25th. In. addition, another alternate has been included with a square footage which is between the two sizes presented at that time. Alternates A, D, G & $ are for the full size building shown on the attached proposed floor plan. Alternates B, E, H and K showing 24,384 square feet has the upper level garage deleted. Alternates C, F, I and L showing 19,848 square feet has the upper garage deleted and 54 feet removed from the end of the main garage. The cost reduction from our first presentation was made possible by removing the jog on the back side of the main building making it rectangular and thereby reducing the size by approximately 1,600 square feet. Further cost reductions were realized by miscellaneous revisions in the building itself including substitution of different building materials, more accurate prices, etc. Also included are two more alternates X and Y which look at the different uses of the existing facilities in combination with the Riley property and also the Bickman property. The square footages of both the buildings and the property for the different combinations are included. If you have any questions or require additional information, I will be present at your meeting on Saturday morning, May 8th. Very truly yours, McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC. $ohn Cameron 3C:cah MOUND PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING WEST EDBE BOULEVARD SITE ALTERNATE A - CONCRETE BUILDING 28,164 SQUARE FEET LAND COST SITE WORK (AS PER BRA PLAN) BUILDING WATERMAIN EXTENSION CONTINGENCIES TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTIONCOST 0 $ 155,000 791,517 23,000 96~952 $1,066,469 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROOECT COST ......... $'1,226,440 ALTERNATE B - CO~CRETE BUILDING 24,384 SQUARE FEET 2. 3. 4. LAND COST 0 SITE WORK (AS PER BRA PLAN) $ 155,000 BUILDING 715,539 WATERMAIN EXTENSION 23,000 CONTINGENCIES 89~354 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 982,893 ENGINEERING, LEGAL, FISCAL AND ADMIN. COST 147~434 TOTAL ESTIMATED F~OOECT COST ........................... $1,130,327 ALTERNATE C - CONCRETE BUILDING 19,848 SQUARE FEET 1. LAND COST 2. SITE WORK (AS RER BRA PLAN) 3. BUILDING 4. WATERMAIN EXTENSION CONTINGENCIES TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST ENGINEERING, LEGAL, FISCAL AND ADMIN. COST TOTAL ESTIMATED PRO3ECT COST ........................... 0 $ 155,000 606,947 23,000 78~495 863,442 129~516 992,958 MOUND PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING WEST EDGE BOULEVARD SITE ALTERNATE D - STEEL BUILDING 28,164 SQUARE FEET 1. L~D COST 2. SITE WORK (AS PER BRA PLAN) 3. BUILDING 4. WATERMAIN EXTENSION CONTINGENCIES TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST 0 $ 155,000 724,323 23,000 90~232 $ 992,555 ENGINEERING, LEGAL, FISCAL AND ADMIN. COST 148~883 TOTAL ESTIMATED RROOECT COST ........................... $1,141,438 ALTERNATE E - STEEL ~UILDING 24,384 SQUARE FEET 2. 3. 4. LAND COST SITE WORK (AS PER BRA PLAN) BUILDING WATERMAIN EXTENSION CONTINGENCIES TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST 0 $ 155,000 654,809 23,000 83~281 $ 916,090 ENGINEERING, LEGAL, FISCAL AND AD~N. COST 137~414 TOTAL ESTIMATED RROJECT COST ........................... $1,053,504 ALTERNATE F - STEEL BUILDING 19,848 SQUARE FEET 2. 3. 4. LAND COST SITE WORK (AS PER BRA PLAN) BUILDING WATERMAIN EXTENSION CONTINGENCIES TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST 0 $ 155,000 555,471 23,000 73~347 $'~06,818 ENGINEERING, LEGAL, FISCAL ~D ADMIN. COST 121~022 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROOECT COST ........................... $ 927,840 NOTE: TO UPGRADE WEST EDGE BOULEVARD ADD $100,000 MOUND PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DOWNTOWN SITE (BICKMAN PROPERTY & RILEY PROPERTY) ALTERNATE G - CONCRETE BUILDING 28,164 SQUARE FEET LAND COST UPGRADE RILEY BUILDING SITE WORK BUILDING CONTINGENCIES TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 365,000 0 80,000 791,517 123~652 $1,360,169 ENGINEERING, LEGAL= FISCAL AND ADMIN. COST 204~025 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST ........................... ALTERNATE H - CONCRETE BUILDING 24,384 SQUARE FEET 2. 3. 4. LAND COST UPGRADE RILEY BUILDING SITE WORK BUILDING CONTINGENCIES TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 365,000 0 80,000 715,539 116~054 $1,276,593 ENGINEERING, LEGAL, FISCAL AND ADMIN. COST 191~489 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST ........................... $1,468,082 ALTERNATE I - CONCRETE BUILDING 19,848 S~UARE FEET 2. 3. 4. LAND COST UPGRADE RILEY BUILDING SITE WORK BUILDING CONTINGENCIES TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST ENGINEERING, LEGAL, FISCAL AND ADMIN. COST $ 365,000 70,000 80,000 606,947 112~195 $1,234,142 185~12! TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST ........................... $1,419,263 MOUND PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DOWNTOWN SITE (BICKMAN PROPERTY & RILEY PRORERTY) ALTERNATE O - STEEL BUIDING 28,164 SQUARE FEET 2. 3. 4. LAND COST UPGRADE RILEY BUILDING SITE WORK BUILDING CONTINGENCIES TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 365,000 0 80,000 724,323 116~932 $1,286,255 ENGINEERING, LEGAL, FISCAL ~qD ADMIN. COST !92.~938 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST ........................... $1,479,193 ALTERNATE K - STEEL BUIDING 24,384 SQUARE FEET 2. 3. 4. LAND COST UPGRADE RILEY BUILDING SITE WORK BUILDING CONTINGENCIES TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 365,000 0 80,000 654,809 109~981 $1,209,790 ENGINEERING, LEGAL, FISCAL AND ADMIN. COST 181~469 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST ........................... $1,391,259 ALTERNATE L - STEEL BUILDING 19,848 SQUARE FEET 2. 3. 4. LAND COST UPGRADE RILEY BUILDING SITE WORK BUILDING CONTINGENCIES TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST $ 365,000 70,000 80,000 555,471 107~047 $1,177,518 ENGINEERING, LEGAL, FISCAL AND ADMIN. COST 176~628 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST ........................... $1,354,146 MOUND PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES ALTERNATE X - ISLAKO PA~K FACILITY AND RILEY PROPrieTY 2. 3. 4. UPGRADE SHOP AS PER REPORT UPGRADE P.W. OFFICE AND GARAGE UPGRADE OLD ISLAND PARK HALL COMPLETE ELECTRICAL RENOVATION-I.P. HALL & OFFICE SUBTOTAL - ISLAND PARK FACILITY LAND COST - RILEY PROPERTY UPGRADE RILEY BUILDING NEW ADDITION ON RILEY PROPERTY ESTIMATED ACQUISTION AND CONSTRUCTION COST ENGINEERING, LEGAL, FISCAL AND ADMIN. COST TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST ........................... $ $ 108,500 2,600 31,803 20,500 163,403 200,000 70,000 184100.0 617,403 921597 710,000 ALTERNATE Y - ISLAND PARK FACILITY, RILEY PROPERTY AND BICKMAN PROPERTY LAND COST - BICKMAN PROPERTY $ 165,000 SITE WORK - BICKM~ PROPERTY 401000 ESTIMATED ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION COST OF BICKMAN PROPERTY 205,000 ENGINEERING, LEGAL, FISCAL AND ADMIN. COST 31~000 SUBTOTAL 236,000 ALTERNATE X 710~000 TOTAL ESTIMATED RROOECT COST ...................... $ 946,000 BUILDING AREA - OFFICE AND STORAGE EXISTING FACILITIES 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. ISLAND PARK GARAGE ISLAND RAKR OFFICE AND LUNCH ROOM ISLAND PARK SMALL GARAGE ISLAND PARK VILLAGE OFFICE (2ND FLOOR) ISLAND PARK VILLAGE OFFICE (2ND FLOOR STORAGE) ISALND PARK HALL REST ROOMS - BASEMENT ISLAND PARK HALL PUMP HOUSE BALBOA LEASE * TOTAL ALTERNATE X 1. EXISTING FACILITIES 2. DEDUCT BALBOA LEASE SUBTOTAL 3. RILEY BUILDING 4. NEW ADDITION 44' X 132' + TOTAL + INCLUDES 12,800 S.F. VEHICLE STORAGE INCLUDES 16,372 S.F. VEHICLE STORAGE 4,800 S.F. 600 S.F. 500 S.F. 370 S.F. 200 S.F. 2,170 S.F. 260 S.F. 200 S.F. 8~000 S.F. 17,100 S.F. 17,100 S.F. 81000 S.F. 9,100 S.F. 6,844 S.F. 5~808 S.F. 21,752 S.F. ALTERNATE Y EXISTING FACILITIES DEDUCT BALBOA LEASE SUBTOTAL RILEY BUILDING NEW ADDITION 44' X 132' + TOTAL 17,100 S.F. 8~000 S.F. 9,100 S.F. 6,844 S.F. 5~808 S.f. 21,752 S.F. INCLUDES 12,800 S.F. VEHICLE STORAGE INCLUDES 16,372 S.F. VEHICLE STORAGE LAND AREA RILEY RRORERTY = 8ICKMAN RRORERTY = 34,200 S.F. 50,400 S.F. BILLS ......... MAY 26, 1987 Batch 87405] Computer run dated 5/]9/87 Batch 874052 Computer run dated 5/21/87 111,522.91 46,240.30 Loren Kohnen Bldg inspections Mike Savage Reimb for tool Chem Mfg Assn VHS training tape Brian Erickson Lens holder for fire The Laker Legal notices goggles ]6O.OO 35.62 25.OO 32.06 564.98 TOTAL BI LLS 158,580.87 Fl Z 0 I1'1 W rO 0 C Z ,,=.t m i i I W~ I I Z Z Z ZZZZZZZZZZ Z Z~ O3 r-I- f- Z ~ 0 ~ 0 "'D 1TI f- ro f"rl O0 ZZ O0 ZZ ZZ mm O~ t~ Z m z 'O Ill .-m 0 Z I I I "'t- O =0 Itl .-~ Z 0 =u 0 -4 -t,' "~ ~ mmrn mmm mmm ZZZZ m m 0000 ZZZZ 0000 ZZZZ 0 Z -I Z 0 '"11 -4 '-r m o~ ITl I I c~ro i I I I I I U'l IJl I I foro I I o I W W wino oogoo I I I Z Z ZZ ZZ Z Z Z ZZZ C C CC CC C C ~ CCC IIII IIII IIII ZZZZ CCCC IIIIII 111111 IIIIII 0 Z Z 0 rrrrrrrrrr mm mmmmmmmm O0 00000000 (D U] ,.00~ (D ,.0 .~ '-~ ',0 -~ .~ ~WOW~OOOW~0W 0 C: m Z m t~ m r~ -I ZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZ~ZZZZZ ~ooooooo Illlllllll ZZ~ZZ~Z~Z~ o /~ o I Co o 3> 0 I" 0 -ri 0 C: Z WW ~ ~0 ~ ~ WW W ~~ WW ~ ~ ~ooW~oo oo WW ~ II Z 0 ?- ,=.l m m ~a z ~ z c C C ZZZZZ~ Z Z Z r-rrrrr r r r Z C F' ~ C m r- o -,j oO O0 O3O3 0 t.rl ~ ooo~ oo o ~o WWO oo oo ~ "l= "z' =D'D --I ZZ P'l~ 0 ZZ 'q"~ "z z ;:070 I'rl r~ zz ~r 0 7.. '-4 m Z 0 ZZ ~ X ~r0 ~> z ~3 r~' ~ O0 ~ # ""'z '",z ~'""e '""e I CC CC C ]~ r-r r-r- r- ,..4 m WW o U1 t.fl ~WW # 00o mmm Z 0 Z 0 m r~ 0 m c m z m o o r 0000000~0 ZZZZZZ~ZZ 0 Z '0 0 0 0 0 O0 r~ mm mm O0 000 ~- ~- ~- 000 ZZZ o ,,,0 I o I I o ! ,.la, I ,,,d W I o I Ld I I I WWW I I I I I I 0 Z Z 0 0000000000 .~.,~ O0 Oo OO O0 WW --4 o000000 ZZZZ~ZZ o .-4..4-.4 000 · ~ "o 'D I-~1- · .< -< ~ CCC rrr m C: r- m '~'0 O0 rr oo I I rOlO ! I -4o I t I I I I .-I Z 0 I o r0 o Ut U1 u1 oooo z o C. -q -? 0 Z ! Z F' .--I m 'r 0 Z CC: ~"0 r-i- mmm · .-I .-{ ~ 000 ZZZ "ti"Il'Il 000 I ! I ro r0 r0 I I I .-doo o~.~w ¢ar0w ZZZZ ZZZZ 0000 0 --4 Z rtl Z '11 0 o 000000000000000 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ 000000000000000 ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ~Z · I11 Z 0 ('1 P'I I1 ~0 -,I m m IIIllllllll{lll WWWWW~W~W~WWWW C Z 00000000~~ 0 ?TT?????T?TTT?~ ~ooooooW~WWWW~ r~ Ill WWW LdL~W Z 0 3:, WW ~roo o o U~ Ltl 0 .H N X 0 X 0 0 .-I Z -I ! U1 o r 000 I11 Z Z r' O0 ZZ .-I-I o--~ -~0 'r O~ 3:3:3: -,r- .'t.' -r mmrrl I rtl z z m I- m z z m i- ra ill Z I1'1 r I11 F' Ill I ..-e rtl · z Ill "v I11 '13 -'1 m o 1 W r0 I w -4. I ' I f I V1U'l ~ I I I ~r~r~ I I I w--IX) oo I I ?? I t I I I I ??? c} 0 Z 0 irt · '~ i 0 I m "0 ~. rq m oooo o i : o WW WW oooo~ WW ww 0 Z .-4 'U m =i~ Z C: I- I rq rn 'n 0000 0000 I- Itl m F' Z m i" m --i cz: m r- m Z ,r I- 0 ,,4 C rtl ~0 r 'Il 0 t~ 0 0 I" Ill 0 0 0 m -o "r m ~m rn (n rtl o I I¥ I ! ro I W I I oo I I I I WWWW WWWW I w ~-~ 0 Z Z 0 o 0 \ ~0 0 0 m ,0 C .k W WW rn I Z Z ~m ZZZZZ 00000 00000 00000 00000 Ill I l'fl Z I -.Ir C 3: Z fl] rn Z -.I nl m ..~ 0 f- 0 0') -r' nl rn (~ fn I11 frl m z -,I Z n~ I J~ w I I oo WW W~ o w I fO ~o I o I .Ix I w m o --d W KO * WW o o oo o o o o 0 X ..~ 0 0 -i, Z \ 3~ Z m .H 1'5 '3~ C -I 0 -,I -t- m -,I 0 0 Z --I 0 /- m x -I m -r m m X -m rq o -o z 0 X ...( Z .Z 0 r m I'll m z o m ..~ m .,q 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~00000000 0 Z Z 3~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 U1 U1 U~ U1 U1 0 ZZZZZZZZZZZZ 000000000000 :~ ~ Ill ~"~ I~1 ~ 0 Pl Z e3 I z .-i ill ~ ~ Z 0 -( -I ,,-( ~-~ ~ Z ;0 t.., P'I ;a rtl Z 0 I~ --I ~ Z ~ 0 -,~ P't 0 m o I I ,,.4 , m F" CI r- rtl o ~ ..q ! 0 -- Z *J -I I o Z ? ¢ Ill ' OUND 75 YEARS CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYVVOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155 May 18, 1987 TO: FROM: RE: ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER JOHN NORMAN, FINANCE DIRECTOR APRIL 19~7 FINANCIAL REPORT We have reached the 1/3 point of the 1987 Budget Year. Most departments and funds are operating according to budget guidelines. COUNCIL - 48.2% of Budget $7,825 was spent on Public Officials Errors and Ommissions Policy. The Budget is $9,000. AREA FIRE SERVICE FUND - 47.4% of Budget. The fire rescue truck was purchased earlier this year. Also, for the second consecutive year fire calls are at an all time high. JN:ls ~ITY OF MOUND 1987 BUDGET REPORT APRIL 1987 ~3.3 t of Year BUDGET APRIL REVENUE YTD REVENUE PER CENT VARIANCE 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 13,000 108,100 33,3OO 94,000 20,870 57,5OO 24,917 741 633 9,495 2,111 10,324 1,260 1,543 32,831 13,241 1,857 68,869 9,172 19,202 4,772 2,208 943, O62 3.4 771 ,O57 1.7 11,143 14.3 39,231 63.7 24,128 27.6 74,798 2O.4 16,O98 22.9 55,292 3.8 TOTAL REVENUE $2,073,720 51,O24 152,152 1,921,568 7.3 LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND $755,OOO $300,OOO $565,O00 62,337 23,208 45,111 211,313 88,78O 187,236 543,687 28.0 211,220 29.6 377,236 33.1 BUDGET CITY OF MOUND 1987 BUDGET REPORT EXPENDITURES APRIL 1987 APRIL EXPENSE YTD EXPENSE 33.3 % of UNEN- CUMBERED EXPENSE Year PER CENT EXPENDED GENERAL FUND Council City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Legal Cable TV Recycling Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspection Streets Shop & Store City Property Parks Commons Docks Mound City Days Contingencies Transfers $50,460 103,8OO 5OO 46,170 128,880 83,750 1,490 18,320 610,850 2,300 102,120 385,170 49,750 85,320 143,920 54,1OO 3,500 60,120 14~200 9,O16 7,935 19 476 9,006 4,554 226 1,O74 45,413 3O 7,668 25,086 3,307 3,341 9,735 2,664 3,006 444 9,767 24,341 30,386 124 2,940 37,181 19,631 494 4,962 197,325 492 31,356 114,348 15,492 11,855 44,7OO 38,253 3,244 8,O76 39,067 26,119 73,414 376 43,230 91,699 64,119 996 13,358 413,571 1,928 70,764 270,82.2 34,258 73,465 99,220 15,847 256 52,044 104,133 48.2 29.3 24-.9 6.4 28.8 23.4 33.2 2'7; 1 32.3 16.2 30.7 29.7 31.1 13.9 31.1 7O.7 92.7 13.4 27.3 GENERAL FUND TOTAL $2, O73,72O 142.767 1,449,4~3 30,1 Area Fi re Service Fund Liquor Fund Water Fund Sewer Fund $223,940 $147,240 $294,140 $688,220 16,433 17,766 15,215 44,716 106,196 48,110 98,018 222,880 117,744 99~130 196,122 465,340 47.4 32.7 33.3 32.4 NUTES OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLAR~ING COMMISSIONMEETING .' May 11, 1987 Present were: C~rman Thomas Reese; Conmissioners VernAndersen, William Meyer, Geoff Michael, Brad Sohns, William Thal and Frank Weiland; Council Representative Elizabeth Jensen; City Manager Ed Shukle; City Planner Mark Koegler; Building Official Jan Bertrand and Secretary Marjorie Stutsman. Absent and excused was Commissioner Ken Smith. Later in the meeting Mayor Steve Smith was present. Also present were the following interested persons: Oswin Pflug, Kathy Stille, Tony Borer, Don Lobdell, Freda J. Olson, Kurt Silton, Jayne Silton, Howard H. Barrett, Ronald Gehring, William Lovkvist, Elaine Lovkwist, Dale Pixler, Don Scherven, Phil Lansing, Mike Mueller and Robert Skinner. MINX3TES The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 27, 1987 were presented for consideration. Andersen moved and Thal seconded a motion to approve the minutes as presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. BOARD OF APPEALS 1. Case No. 87~32 Front yard setback v~riance for 4512 Montgomery Road Lots 9 & 10, Block 9, Avalon; PID No. 19-117-23 31 0023 Kathy Stillew~s present. The Building Official, Jan Bertrand, reviewed her report on the applicant's request for a front yard variance to allow an unenclosed deck within 18 feet of the front property line and also to recognize a non-conforming rear' yard of 10 feet instead of the required 15 foot setback. Mr. Stille abuts on two right-of-ways, both requiring a 30 foot setback (in the R-3 Zoning District). Staff recon~nends approval of the 18 foot setback to the unenclosed deck (12 foot variance) due to the shape and that the driving surface of the road is 32 feet to the nearest property line; recognizing the existing 10 foot non- conforming rear yard, and also to require any future remodeling, expansion or enclosure of the deck would have to receive future variance approval. She also noted the Commission may want to require a current survey be submitted. The Commission had several questions and comments including that applicant is not adding stairway in front. Thal moved and Sohns seconded a motion to recommending accepting staff's .recommendations including requiring a survey and approving. The vote was unanimously in favor. This will be on the City Council agenda on May 26, 1987. 2. Case No 87-630 Minor subdivision of land at 28XX Cardiff Lane Lots 94 and 95, Phelps Island Park First Division Ronald Gehring was present. The Building Official reviewed her report on applicant's request that lots be split to run east/west instead of as they are now to give them access off of the secondary street, Cardiff Lane, rather than off of Wilshire Boulevard (County Road 125). The proposed lot split is to divide Lots 94 and 95 approxi- mately in half with the proposed dwellings to front on Cardiff and to be located with conforming setbacks. Staff is recommending approval of the minor subdivision upon 6 conditions as both Lots 94 and 95 are no~,' buildable and Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1987- Page 2 and the new proposed configuration would be more conducive for driveway access from the secondary public right-of-way of Cardiff Lane. She suggest~ that the proposed northerly parcel be treated as a lot of record with a 6 foot sideyard requirement (to the south property line) so proposed house would be built farther from any possible future dedication of a right-of-way to the interior lots, 85 through 93. The northerly 10 feet of Lots 94and 95 is presently designated as a driveway easement. The Commission discussed that the side yard requirement should be 10 feet but that 6 foot would be better for both lots and agreed that the 10 foot setback in Conditions 1 and 2 be changed to 6 foot setback. Michael moved and Meyer seconded a motion to accept the staff recommenda- tion with above change to Conditions 1 and 2. OSWIN PFLUG had question about whether these would be single family or duplex? Mr. Pflug is concerned with haying more homes in this area, thi~zs garages and exits should stay toward Wilshire; he mentioned sharp . curve and that traffic would suffer under this plan as Cardiff Lane is very narrow and this would bring more congestion to area with parking, etc. It was discussed that proposed house would be 23 feet from driveway easement. FREDA OLSON stated she did not object to single family homes on these lots. The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor of the minor subdivision. This will be on the Council agenda on May 26, 1987. Case No. 87-631 Variance to recognize existing nonconforming setbacks at 3367 Warner Lane; Part of Lot 1, Block 12, Douglas and Lot 64, Whipple Shores; PID No. 25-117-24 24 0056 Don Lobdell was present. The City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed his report stating that applicant is not proposing any changes or additions; request is variance to recognize existing non-conforming setbacks in order to satisfy mortgage requirements in order to sell the property. He stated that in addition to variances for the house and garage, the storage building may require a. variance. The building needs to be above the ordinary high water level and contour informa- tion is not available. The staff recommends approval of the noted variances to recognize existing conditions and noting that no expansion or intensifi- cation of any of the three existing structures is proposed. The Commission discussed request and all we're doing is recognizing existing. Weiland moved and Michael seconded a motion to recommend staff recom- mendation with the provision that this has to come back for any additions. Commission questioned age of garage. A portion to the west was added last year and it was thought by stakes that were pointed out, garage ~s con- forming. New survey shows lot lines with garage at angle to lines. The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor. This will be on the City Council agenda on May 26, 1987. Planning Commission Minutes May 11, 1987 - Page 3 4. Case No 87-633 Variance to allow the construction of a w~lkway/terrace within 30 inche~ of the ground at property line - 3237 Gladstone Lane Lot 49, Whipple Shores; PID No. 25-117-24 21 0118 Kurt L. and Jayne E. Silton were present. The Building official reviewed her report on the request for a 2 foot xrari- ance to allow the construction of a walkw~y/terrace within 30 inches of the ground level, treating it more like a sidewalk at the property :line.(terraces/ stoops can be within 2 feet from any lot line). The proposed deck will be relocated off of the sewer easement. The staff does recommend allowing the stairway with walkway 0 feet to the property line due to the topography and forestation. The Commission discussed request and one member had a question on the strength of the wall. Meyer moved and Thal seconded a motion to recommend approval of the varl- ance requested. The vote was unanimously in favor. This will be on the City Council agenda of May 26, 1987. 5. Case No. 87-634 Lot size xrariance for property at 1745 Wildhurst Lane Lot 8, Block 13, Shadywood Point; PID No. 13-117-24 14 0022 William and Elaine Lovkvist were present. The Building Official reviewed her report on the lot size variance to make Lot 8 a buildable site including the definition for "lots of record". Lot 8 has 9,300+ square feet and is within the i(P~ guideline use by the Corrals- sion. She s--tared she had not recommended splitting a portion of Lot 9 to add to Lot 8 because both lots are too narrow. The Con~nission questioned the width of the lots; if both lots belong to same party and how far back the continuous o%~nership goes. Co~ent was made that Lot 8 and 9 would make one beautiful site. Applicant stated area doesn't warrant spending that much for one site. Dale Pixler, Real Estate Agent, on the property stated there are two "PID Numbers", and lots were charged for 2 water and 2 sewer assessments; there was a home on Lot 9 (portion of founda- tion is still there). Pixter commented a beautiful house can go on 40/50 foot wide lot. Jan gave a little history on the properties. She stated that in 1981 or 1982, the contract holder came in to remove a couple of decks and then he came back for a demolition permit on the house. The fee owner then got the property back. The Commission discussed having applicant change his request to a minor sub- division and add a sliver of Lot 9 to Lot 8 to make both conforming lot size. The applicant stated that would add a great deal of time and costs to have survey done and new descriptions made up and than to come back to another Planning Commission meeting. Sohns moved a motion that the Planning Commission had reviewed the c~se and discussed it with the applicant and recommends that the application be con- verted from a variance request to a minor subdivision with a %~qiver of the public hearing and provisions of the subdivision ordinance and no park dedi- cation and suggest that subdivision be recommended for approval subject to lot areas being at least 10,000 square feet each and if those conditions are met,' this case will not need to come back to this body. Thai'seconded the Planning Con~nission Minutes May 11, 1987 - Page 4 motion. The vote w~s Meyer against; all other voted in favor. Motion carried. This will be on the City Council agenda on May 26, 1987. Case No. 87-635 Variance to allow structural repairs and an addition of a second story to the existing basement dwelling; 5000 Tuxedo Boulevard Part of Lot 1, Whipple Shores and of Tract A, R.L.S.~ 1149; PID No. 24-117-' 24 43 0029; Applicant, Howard Barrett, w~s present. The Building Officia~ reviewed her report on the request. She stated base- ment dwelling w-as built in about 1954 and never completed. The Zoning Ordi- nance for the R-1 district requires a 15 foot rear yard and the structure has 5.1 feet to the west (rear); a 20 foot front yard to the east due to the lot depth for lots of record and the structure has 16.1 feet; the other setbacks, side yard and lake front, are conforming. She con~nented that applicant does not intend to build a second story over t~e garages and the Commission could recognize that ~onconformancy as he will not be intensifying the front yard ' setback. She noted that this lot has an unusual shape and that the Con~nission recently approved a variance on Waterbury (similar situation) with a 6 foot rear yard setback and a 20 foot front yard and, if applicant removed one foot off rear corner of the basement to the west, staff would recommend granting the v~riances to allow structural repairs and the addition of a second story. The Commission discussed the request at 'length; questioned how exterior would be finished (stucco), lot size, and if structure would be brought up to build~ code? Co~,ission felt it was unlikely a house on adjoining property to west would be close to this property line. The consensus of the Commission was not to require applicant to chip the corner off the basement. Commission felt applicant's proposal would be a decided improvement to the neighborhood. Meyer moved and Andersen seconded a motion to accept the staff recommendation to allow a second floor within 5.1 feet of the west property line only on the existing foundation and recognize an existing 16.1 foot front yard set- back on the condition that the. building be brough% up to building code and' no second floor within 30 feet of the front property line. The vote was all in favor. This will be on the Council agenda on May 26, 1987. Case No. 87-636 Variance to reco~nize.no~conforming setbacks to the front yard; 4528 Aberdeen Road; Lot A, Block 6, Pembroke; PID No. 19-117-23 34 0068 Don Scherven was present. The Building Official reviewed her report on the applicant's request for a variance to recognize existing nonconforming setbacks to his property lines. His lot fronts on two stree~ and his site plan indicates a 16 foot setback to an unimproved Knox Place which has not been vacated. The R-1 district requires 30 foot setback abutting all three streets. Applicant is proposing to build a 4 foot walkway in front of his house as a stoop less than 30 inches to grade, but a~ you come alongside the home where the tuckunder garage is, the change in elevation is 8feet; he would like to continue %~l~.ay back more than 30 feet from the lot line to allow walkway to 12 by 20 foot deck. The staff is recommending recognition of the existing nonconforming setbacks to Aberdeen and unimproved Knox Place and allow construction of walkq~y~.and deck requested Pl~nnin9 Commission Minutes May 11, 1987 - Page 5 due to the to~x)graphy and the shape of the lot. Applicant stated where siding was taken off was old deck; what they'd like to do is take out old concrete and put in a wooden sidewalk, wrap walk~ay right around on grade. The Commission had question on retaining %tall. Michael moved and Andersen seconded a motion to approve with staff recom- mendations. The vote was unanimously in favor. ~ This will be on the Council Agenda on May 26, 1987. Case No. 87-637 Public Hearing to consider issuance of a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a wine and beer restaurant (Class IV) at 2244 A Commerce Boulevard; Metes & Bounds Description, Koehler's Addition to Mound; PID No. 13-117-13 22 0042/0043 Applicant Robert Skinner and Building Owners, Phil Lansing and Mike Mue~ler, were present. The City P~anner reviewed his report on the request. The staff recommends appro~-al of this request. The Chair opened the public hearing. Mr. Skinner had some concerns about the signage. There were no other comments or questions and the Chairman closed the public hearing. Weiland moved and Meyer seconded a motion to recommend approval with the staff recommendations. The vote ~-as unanimously in favor. The public hearing by the City Council will be set for June 9, 1987. LOST LAKE - REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) The City Manager, Ed Shukle, reviewed 'his report and concluded that he and the City Planner would have the RFP to the Planning Commission by June 1st for their review. The Commission had various comments including that dredging channel would be terriblyexpensive and questioned whether financial incentives should be more specific and whether it would be appropriate to let it be known there is Balboa's 2 ac~es also available and what our goals are for the property. EXTERIOR STORAGE The City Planner reviewed his report commenting that the general consensus is ordinance is too restrictive and the Council feels some changes are in order. The Building official showed exterior storage slides and noted the locations. Commission felt that ordinance ought to be enforced, particularly derelict cars, junk, garbage, etc. removed. Commissioner&had various comments. Mayor Smith would like Commission to concentrate on safe storage and yet allow reasonable use of property. Relative to the options noted in the May 6th letter, the majori- ty of the Commission were in favor of ~ 2, modify the existing ordinance. The Council would like the Commission to hold a public hearing. It %~s decided a good notice which included copy of ordinance and ~ritten article be publfshed in The Laker with the hearing to be June 22nd. Planning Co~ission Minutes >~ay 11, 1987 - Page 6 The Chairman asked each Con~issioner to write down "how they'd define storage,, and bring that definition to the next meeting. Also he requested each of them to talk to the people they meet in town about what they think of this issue. ADJOURNMENT . Meyer moved and Andersen seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:30 p.m. The vote was unanimously in favor, so meeting %~as adjourned. Attest: Chairman Thomas Reese ..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: .:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:-:.:.:.:.:.:.>:.:.:-:-:.:-:-:.. .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:.: oZ: ~ '~ '~ .~'o ~ .~ '- ...................... >. ~ = '~ o>. '- o ':.: .:.:.:.:.:.:-:.:-:.:.:.:-:.:.:.:.. ~ ~ ,~, I~ ~., .:..================================== o-- o = ~ ~. ~ ....:...:..:.:.:...-,:.:., =._ ~'r~ ~ .~ ~ ~.o ..........,...... = ~ .~ [== =~ , ..,.................... ~ ~ ~ .~ 'o= .=~ '- ::i.::::'.':i:i::':: !': ~ -- '~ '8 :'.:. :.:....:- .., ,.,_ ..:.:: - '~ E ~.~= ~ :"' .... '"" -:- Z: ~ o - ''." . '= E ~.'- P = ~ ~'~= "~-~ ~ ~ E-~ >-~ <~ ~ c '~ 0 ~ ~- LMC Annual Conference June 9-12, 1987 Rochester, Minnesota "Visions for 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 4511 be one of the first in Roches- ter's new dream building, the Mayor Civic Center. See for yourself why many have commented that this new civic center is more than they imagined. Noted faculty The League has invite, d a roster of distinguished speakers. Among them is Layne Longfellow who ~ speak on Friday after Mdely acclaimed presen- tations at the National League of Cities conference and the Minnesota Spring Institute for City and County Manaver~ 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 participator3' 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, timely 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 stvactured discussions on topics of special interest which stress practical experience. Topics include finding new revenue sources, working with unions, wastewater treatment, coping vdth 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 con/erence. Layne Longfellow will offer a presentation that is both personally stimulating and professionally enrich- ing. Longfellow is a rivefng 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 CMc 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 ,~511 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, tern'ds, swimming, and the recrea- tion center sill be available at ~e Rochester City Desk (in the regis- tration area) throughout the coll~ererlce. Tuesday, June-9 Golf Tournament, Soldier's Field Golf Course 1:00 p.m. Wednesday, ' June 10 7:30-8:30 a.m. Eye-Opener (Coffee and rolls on the Mezzanine fab. ler Hotel) Compliments of the city Rochester. 10:30 a.m. Plummer ttouse and Mayowood Tour' Buses leave main entrance of the Mayo Civic Center for Plummet House and Mayowood tours. Enjoy the historic homes of Drs. Charles Mayo and Henry Plummer. Wine and assorted cheese will be served. 12:30 p.m. Shopping Buses will 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, door prizes. Speaker: State Senator, Nancy Brataas. Don't miss 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) until 12:00 noon. Then on to Shakey's Pizza for lunch and entertainment. Back to the Rec Center for swimming (bring 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 -- Luncheon Advance Registration -- $10.00 Children's Activities -- $3.00 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 LMC Annual Conference Preliminary program schedule Tuesday, June 9 L3IC Board of Directors meeting 1:00~:00 p.m. Special Kickoff prOgram 7:00-9:00 p.m. Garrison Keillor (Host o[ pubb'c radio's "A Prairie 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: 0RGANIZA- TIONAL SKILLS Future Setting 10:15 a.m.-12 noon SKILL SESSION: LEADERSHIP Listening for Effective Leaderstdp · lO: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 Vohmteers 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 II '(Choose one) SKILL SESSION: ORGANIZA- TIONAL SKILLS .Teambuilding 1:30-3:15 p.m. SKILL SESSION: LEADERSHIP Fostering lnnovation 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 for Repair, Replacement, and Maintenance of lnirastructure 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. Worldng with unions 3:254:25 p.m. Waste water treatment and facility construction 3:254:25 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 3:9-54:25 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 and Etl~'cs 8:30-9:30 p.m. Land Use, Enffronment, F, ner~,,and Transportation $:30-9:30 a.m. Concurrent sessions II'I (choose one) SKILL SESSION: INFLUENCE SKILLS Marketing Your City -- Overview 9:30-10:45 a.m. SKILL SESSION: LEADERSHIP Serving 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 e Dissatisfaction 9:30-10:45 a.m. ISSUE INSTITUTE: ESPECIALLY FOR SMALL CITIES How Cities Have Solved Practical Problems -- Part I 9:150-10:45 a.m. ISSUE INSTITUTE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Economic Development /n/t/atives -- Developing Fledgling/Potential Enterprises 9:30-10:45 a.m. Concurrent sessions IV (choose one) SKILL SESSION: INFLUENCE SKILLS Marketing- International Strategies 11:00-12:30 p.m. SKILL SESSION: LEADERSHIP Serving Your Constituents -- Pm-tH 11:00-12:30 p.m. ISSUE INSTITUTE: PROFESSION- · ALIZING CITY GOVERNMENT Optional City Structures -- Part II, Council-Manager 11:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m. ISSUE INSTITUTE: PERSONNEL Improving St~fi Morale 11:00-12:150 p.m. ISSUE INSTITUTE: ESPECIALLY FOR SMALL CITIES How Cities Have Solved Practical Problems -- Part 1I 11:00 -.m.-19~:150 p.m. ISSUE INSTITUTE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Economic Development l_m'tiatives -- Cooperative Ventures, Consolidated Approaches 11:00 a.m.-12:30 p.m. Concurrent sessions V (choose one) SKILL SESSION: INFLUENCE SKILLS Marketing- External Strategies (Enhancing communications ~ith the public) 2:30.3:45 p.m. SKILL SESSION: LEADERSHIP Streamlining Couna7 Meetings 2:30-3:45 p.m. ISSUE INSTITUTE: PROFESSION- ALIZING CITY GOVERNMENT ' Evaluating Your City Manager or Clerk 9-:30-3:45 p.m. ISSUE INSTITUTE: PERSONNEL Get~g Employees Back to Work 2:30-3:45 p.m. ISSUE INSTITUTE: ESPECIALLY FOR SMALL CITIES Improving the Rural Economy 2:30-3:45 p.m. League annual meeting 4:00-5:00 p.m. LMC reception/banquet ti:30-9:00 p.m. Mayor's Association/ Mini Conference Lunch 12:30.2:00 p.m. Break 10:45-11:00 a.m. 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 producfivit3') Is~4 Visions _for Tomorrow 1987 League of Minnesota Cities Annual Conference 19157 LMC ANNUAL CONFERENCE HOUSING }USLNG INFOI: MATION 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. $59.00 $55.00 SLNGLE DOUBLE $44.00 $52.00 + 5.00 Poolside $42.00 $44.00 $40.00 $47.00 +9.00 Poolside E,a RLY BIRD SPECIAL For member c/ty 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. IMI:'ORTANT INSTRUCTIONS Rooms will 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 choke hotel. The hotels will hold room blocks only until May 29, 1987, alter wh/ch 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. i OUSING Name: RESERVATION Title: City or Organization: Address: City: State: Arrival Date: Arrival Time: Hotel Preference First: Second: Special Requirements: Zip: Departure Date: Third: 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 Credit Card Preferred Credit Card Company Card Number Expiration Date IF PAYING BY CHECK MAKE PAYABLE TO: LMC HOUSING 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 bn the confirmed date unless I have cancelled my reservations with the hotel at least 24 hours in advance. C~'dholder 1987 LMC ANNU CONFERENCE REGIST TION GENERAL DELEGATE REGISTRATION JUNE 9-12, 1987 number Advance registration (before June 5) ....................... $130.00 Registration at Conference ............................... $155.00 total Reg~st. rauon fee includes badge, admission to ail 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... ~CLUDE MAYORS/ML¥I CONFERENCE LUNCHEON on Thursdav. Tins is a change from previous rears. If your spouse attends, that registrar/on is complimentary, but you must'purchase meal tickets for your spouse. ~/ou may do so in the EXTRA CONFERENCE M£AL TICKETS section b~low. If you pre-register you'll receive a postcard acknowledgement to be presented at the advance reg%tration desk to facilitate speedy regUstration. Daytime City: Contact Person: Teiephone# p A.C. L E A S E P R I N T Full N~me Nickname Title (e.g. Wi~lia~ll~ (e.g. Bill) MLNI-CONFERENCE REGISTRATION THURSDAY, JU 'NE 11 number total 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 tickets presented below, at the prepaid registration desk to facilitate speedy registration. Mini-Conference delegates who plan to attend the Thursday banquet should purchase Registered delegates to the General Conference are welcome to attend Mini-Conference sessions and do not need to purchase special regisu-ations. Daytime City.: Contact Person: Telephone # p A.C. L E A S E P R I N T Furl Name Nkkmme Title Spouse (e.g. William) (e.g. Bill) EXTIL4~ 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 meal tickets. Order below. M/hi-Conference registration does not include any meals except the Thursday luncheon. Number Total Luncheon Wednesday for whom ............................................ $ 8.00 Mayors' Luncheor~Mini-Conference Luncheon Thursday ............... $11.25 for whom Banquet Thursday for whom ............................................... $21.75 TOT: L ADVANCE REGISTRATION ................ $ Send reg/stration and payment to Gavle Brodt, League of Minnesota Cities, 183 University'Ave. East, St. Paul, 5Eh' 55101. blake checks payable to: l~'eague of Minnesota Cities 0{ The :1987 Minnesota Economic Summit CONGRESSMAN BILL FRENZEL CONGRESSMAN MARTIN OLAV SABO CO-CHAIRMEN May 12, 1987 JUNE 19, 1987 HOLIDAY INN DOWNTOWN MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA Mr. Bob Polston Mayor 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Mayor Polston: On Friday, June 19, L987, we will convene and moderate the 1987 Minnesota Economic Summit, at the Holiday Inn Downtown in Minneapolis. AS chairmen bf the summit, we take pleasure in inviting you to attend and participate in the summit. The purpose of the Economic Summit is to bring together a diverse group of leaders to assess the changes that are taking place in Minnesota's economy. We will examine the opportunities that these changes bring for increasing income and employment for the people of our state. The program will feature presentations by national and regional authorities on the implications of economic trends for Minnesota and on the specific steps that can be taken to attract new business and stimulate investment and expansion of regional industries. The summit will provide a forum for the exchange of ideas among leaders from government and the private sector in a cooperative endeavor to map a strategy that will respond to future needs and opportunities. A great deal of effort has gone into planning this conference to insure that it will focus on defining solutions, rather than simply restating the problems confronting the region's economy. The conference is being coordinated by the Columbia Institute and is sponsored by a number of local business and civic groups. The program will begin promptly at 9:00 a.m. and conclude at 4:00 p.m. There is no registration fee. The only expense will be the cost of the luncheon. To confirm your attendance, please complete the enclosed form along with a check for $15.00 made payable to the Columbia Institute. We do hope that you will plan to attend and look forward to seeing you on June 19. Bill Frenzel Member of Congress Sincerely, Martin Olav Sabo Member of Congress PMS DISCOVERY & SUPPORT CENTER Joy Bennett, Director 5023 Edgewater Drive Mound, Minnesota 55364 (612) 472-5311 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Volunteer Services A-'1300 Government Center Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0~13~1 May 14, 1987 Mr. Edward Shukle, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Drive Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ed: On behalf of the Hennepin County Community Services Department, and the Volunteer Services Unit, we would like to extend a sincere "Thank you" to you and your staff, and to all the volunteers who live in the Mound area for the work you have done on behalf of the Hennepin County clients. All of us greatly appreciate the efforts you,have put forth.' Sincerelv, , ..-/-- ...-iV ,, .,-, /' / ,--.-~, . . , .,.~ ,~, . ' ' , /' . ' ~"';,..d ~-';'-'; ~V~l/~nteer ~ervices ! d[?/obert E. ^rise ,,~ol. Unit Super¥isor Robert "Bob" A. Roos, Sr. ¥ol. Coordinator Linda L. Bloom§ren, Special Program Counselor /mb HENNEPIN CO'UNTY on equal cppor, uni,'¥ employer PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE ALERT Purple loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) is an erect, perennial, wetland herb that was probably introduced from ~thern Europe. By the late 1800's, it had spread throughout the northeastern United States and Canada. It caused few problems until the 1930's when it became an aggressive weed in Quebec pastures~ Since then it has become a serious threat to native emergent vegetation in shallow-water marshes throughout the northeastern, northern, and central regions. In the last 20 years, L. salicaria has become established in reclamation projects and riparian wetlands in the West ano Northwest. . '?',-, '-- ,', / ~ ' 1/~ /~ ~ ' "b,~ -/",,/:" ' .,':~: : ! -',.-'~: J: ~Y ~./ /_~-. ~ --...: -;, '': ..... . ~' '~. -:~, / / ,,_F I o..~ ~ .~' / ./'7-,,__ o -, t'Z.~ ~-., ~ (,e'r'/%i ~ ~,.5_,...~.-,~ / /. / ~ t~ ~,.F ,-.-4y %,' ~ ,= ~ ' ,' / ~ '~ ~ ~"' J. .,~::~'r.' ~.< ~ ,C' ~," ~_....~ , / L,= '¥- ..... '. ,. :-'--~-":'Y ">~ ? '~.. · ~ ~'-- ~ -5' '.';""~.'~7~,",-~' , -, , ~ '~ ..e ~-. ~ e· · ;' ' / .~i,~._-'T~, 2 ~ ..... ,'x-'; t.:. ' ..,~y.~o.% ~v~,~- ~':'~ · *'~Pr--. ! ',.~-~' '~ r ~' . ~i~~ ',k ..',~..... eG,4 "be-=.~,· , .-. r r~,.,~ · r -.-,""-"~"--" . ·-.¥~...~ · k~,~ \.~l- 0 : . .'h-. --~ ....... '~--+....'L. -.::'~ · ..., ~.~ - ~ /, .. /---' :.~,.~', ~. : ·, K ~.~' -' ,~o-,oo', " ' ' ~- ~ i ~-~.'/' ° i ",*-~- ~'" ..... '~'~'. ~'~"~ '. · /k ~ --~ - :'-'~' ', -..L-- ~../ x ~-<. ---, . ~ ........ . ' -.~ ~ e..v .... ~_~ ' (Co~il~ by ~. k. Stuckey an~ O. Q. ~o~son} ~ (S-~O ~ ~.l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e; .~ ' . .. (3-10 cm Identification. Purple loosestrife is most easily identified during its long season of bloom (1 July to 10 September). At this time, the characteristic reddish-purple flower spikes can be identified with the naked eye at 100 yards. Reproduction an~d Spread. L. salicaria is a prolific seed producer; seeds begin to set in mi'~-July in early flowers and continue to mature as flower development progresses into late summer. Once seeds have been set by even a few plants within a watershed or basin, colonization to the limits of high water is probable. Seed dispersal is by wind or water. Disperal can also occur in dried mud on birds' feet, fur of muskrat or mink, or on shells of turtles.' Purple loosestrife can reproduce from fragments of cut stems; muskrat cuttings or mechanical clippings can hasten the spread and dominance of the plant if allowed to float within an impoundment. In addition to natural modes of spread, horticultural hybrids of Lythrum are shipped as rootstocks; segregates of these plants are frequently sources of local escapes. At least one apiculture supply house sells purple loosestr!fe seed for "naturalization" as a wetland honey plant. Growth Requirements. L. salicaria prefers moist, high o~rganic soils but tolerates a wide range of texture and parent material including sand, silt, clay, andmuck. Purple loosestrife seedlings can become established on a bare strand during an early summer drawdown. Once established, the seedlings can survive shallow flooding to a depth of 12 to 18 inches in waters of low turbidity.. Although purple loosestrife is sensitive, to high salinity or alkalinity, it has invaded seepage pastures in southwestern Idaho with pH 7.7. Purple loosestrife prefers full .sun bUtsurvive in 50% shade.,can Control. Although L. salicaria can be controlled in loc'al areas accessible ~o machinery with combinations ofmowing, spraying, ordiscing, the A ~ cost of control becomes prohibitive once the plant is established over a marsh basin or inl~oundment floodplain. Some form of biological control, in corabination with the following local practices, is urgently needed. Local Eradication. At present, the key to purple loosestrife control lies in reco-~n~"~e first appearance of young plants; these should be grubbed or hand- pulled and the entire plant removed from the wetland basin. Mature plants cannot be hand- pulled; on upland sites they can be spot treated with glyophosate or a 50/50 mixture of dican~a and 2,4-D. Since neither of these formulations is cleared for use in marsh or aquatic habitats, we recommend spot application of 2,4-D with a hand sprayer. Whatever chemical you choose, be sure that i-ts label includes clearance for aquatic sites. Water Management Options. Once L. salicaria has become firmly established in a large wetland or watershed, control becomes increasingly expensive and the wetland manager loses options in shallow-water or moist-soil management. Minimum disturbance to the wetland community is the key to coping with L. salicaria. If a drawdown must be made (for repair of water control structures, etc.), it should be delayed until mid-July or later so that the time for L. salicaria seedling development is minimized. This will assure maximum seedling mortality ~ollowinl~ reflooding. .IF YOU THINK YOU HAVE FOUND PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE IN ONE OF YOUR MANAGEMENT UNITS, CALL. OR WRITE: Daniel Q. Thompson, USF&WS (retired) 623 Del Notre Place Fort Collins, CO 80521 O__~R Phone: (303) 484-2039 Tom Jackson, USF&WS Box 25007, Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 Phone: {303) 234-5845 FTS 234-5845 Purple Loosestrife (Lythrum salicaria) MINNESOTA ACTION 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 -September 19 issue of Minneapolis Tribunes "Picture" Magazine publishes "Purple Loosestrife: Flowery Threat' to Wetlands. -DNR publishes an article of warning in the Minnesota Volunteer, July-August issue, "Purple Loosestrife: Agressive Invader of Meadow and Woodland". -The Minnesota Division of the IZaak Walton League of America recommends the plant as a noxious weed. -The City of Chanhassen prohibits the planting of any species of Lythrum in wetland areas. -The Minneapolis Audubon Chapter recommends its inclus- ion in.the noxious weed list~ -The Purple Loosestrife Coalition was formed in Novem- ber 12, 1984. -Representative Connie Levi proposes legislation drafted by the Coalition to control the sale of the plant. The proposal is tabled. -The Minnesota Nurserymen's Association recommends that its members voluntarily stop selling Lythrum sali- -caria.-The U.S. Forest Service in Grand Rapids and the USFWS in Morris report expanding populations in their areas. -The Interagency Work Gro~up composed of the DNR,' DOA, MnDOT and USFWS begins work. -Cities of Orono, Bloomington and White Bear Lake begin campaigns against the invading plant. -DNR and DOA request $225,000. from LCMR to address the problem. The request is refused on the basis that a more comprehensive program with a pricetag, proportional to the problem be presented to the General Session. -The Interagency Work Group and the Purple Loosestrife Coalition join forces to define a program for control, research and education of the issue -Senator Dahl introduces Senate Bill 934. -Representative Stanius introduces House Bill 966. LEN HARRELL Chief of Police [ OUND POLIC 5341 Maywood Road Telephone 472-3711 Mound, MN 55364 Dispatch 544-9511 EMERGENCY 911 May 22, 1987 Mr. Douglas Eaton 2611 Setter Circle Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Eaton: Recently, it has come' to my attention that there is some concern regarding a warning ticket that you were issued on April 20, 1987. The warning indicates that you have property.~at_.~s considered a nuisance; a camper to be exact. The camper was observed by our animal Warden who also handles nuisance violations. The camper, pictures enclosed, is displaying a license plate dating from 1983. The license number, RL87925, registers to Peggy Elizabeth Bryant, dob: 08-28-37, of 5852 Idlewood Road in Mound. The ordinance on storage of recreational vehicles, such as travel trailers, is specific regarding the fact that "stored equipment shall be registered to, leased to, or rented to the owner or renter of the property." The travel trailer stored along-side of your resi. denceis in violation of the ordinance. If there are any facts or concerns regarding the situation that I am unaware of, please feel free to contact me at 472-3711. A citation will be issued if the violation is'not corrected. Len Harrell, Chief MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enc. CC: E. Shukle .,. ..Appendix B ® Approval of a planned industrial area operations permit shall be by the City Council after recommendation by the City Staff. At the option of the City Council, the City may elect to call a public hearing to solicit public input on an operations permit application. A hearing may be called to review concerns regarding the use or discharge of toxic substances, emissions, specla) access, parking or loading requirements, noise, storage or other re)avant factors. )m 23. 650.7 Criteria.for Granting Operations Fermits The criteria for granting operations permit shall be the same as the' criteria .listed in Section 23.505.1 for the issuance of conditional use permits. (Section 23.650 - Ord. qB1 - 9-9-85) SECTION 7. PERFORPLANCE STANDARDS 23.701 Purpose The performance standards established in this section are designed to encourage a high standard of development by providing assurance that neighboring land uses wili be compatlble. The performance Standards are designed to prevent and ellmlnate those conditions that cause blight. -:. All future development in any district shall be required to meet these standards. The standards shall also apply to existing development where so stated. The City I~nager shall be responsible for enforcing the standards. Before any building permit is approved, the Zoning Administrator shall determine whether the proposed use will conform to the performance standards. The developer or land owners ~hall supply data necessary to demonstrate such conformance. Such data may include description of equipment to be used, hours of operation, method of refuse dlsposal and type and location of exterior storage. 23. 702 Exterior Storage In residential districts, all materials and equipment shall be stored within a building or fully iscreened so as not to be visible from adjoining properties, except'for the following: laundry drying and recreational equipment, see definition (92), construction and landscaping materials and equipment currently (within'a period of thirty-six (36 hours) being used on the premises, off-street parking of licensed and operative passenger automobiles and pick-up trucks. Storage of recreational vehicles including, but not limited to boats, boat trailers, travel trailers and self-contalned motor homes is permissable subject to' the following conditions: Such equipment shall be stored on private property in yard areas excluding the front yard setback area. -qg- 23.704 Appendix B · 2. Stored equipment shall be registered t0, leased to or rented to the~Qwner or renter of the property. 3.' Stored equipment shall be limited to.no more than four (4) recreational vehicles. q. Stored equlpment.shall not exceed thlrty (30) Peet in length. Existing uses shall comply'with this provision within twelve (12) months following enactment of thi's Ordinance. ,.. In all. districts, the City may require a Conditional Use Permit for any exterior storage if it is demonstrated that such storage .. ls a hazard to the public health, safety, convenience, morals, or has a depreciating effect upon nearby property values, or impairs scenic views, or constitutes threat to llving amenities. (ORD. 488. 9-2-86) Refuse In all districts, all waste material, with the excep[.ion of debris, refuse, or garbage shall be kept in an enclosed building or properly contained in a closed container designed for such purposes. The owner of vacant land shall be responsible for keeping such land free of refuse. Existing uses shall comply with this provision within six months following enactment of this Ordinance. Passenger vehicles and trucks in an inoperative state shall 'not be parked in residential districts for a period exceeding nlnety-slx (96) hours; inoperative shall mean incapable of movement under their own power- and in need of repairs or removal to junk yard. All exterior storage not included as a permitted accessory use, a permitted use, or included as part of a conditional use permit, or otherwise permitted by provisions of this Ordinance shall be considered as refuse. Screening Screening shall be required In all residential zones where (al any off- .. street parking area contains more than four (q) parking spaces and is within thirty (30) feet of an adjoining residential zone, and (bi where the driveway to a parking area of more than slx (6). parking spaces is within fifteen (15) feet of an adjoining resldential use or zone. -50- JOHN F. BIERI~UM 88 SOUTH SIXTH STREET SUITE 925 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 5S402-1196 (612) 338-3888 May 20, 1987 Mr. Ed Shukle City Manager, City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Ed, On behalf of the merchants of Commerce Place and JRW Properties, I am pleased to send you the enclosed check for $2,000 towards the fireworks for Mound Days. We hope the fireworks will add to the festivities. Best wishes, ~,~F. Blerbaum, President JFB/mek Enclosure GITY OP MOUND 75 YEARS 5341 MAYVVOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155 Brian Gubrud, 6349 Walnut #00125 ~*Jayne Carlsen 2601 Commerce #00235 Tom Gyllen 1610 Dove #00255 Wm. Peglow 2875 Pheasant Circle ~J~ ~j~is1987 1625 Eagle #00385 #00295 ATTN: The six dock holders listed above DOCK SITE # ON DOVE LANE At the May meeting of the Mound Park Commission, they voted to discontinue the use of dock sites #00115 through 00385 (14 sites) for this year because of the low water. There is not enough funds available at thiS'time to dredge this area. Because you have held one of these sites and paid for it for 1987, we will work with you to find another site close to this area. It will probably be a share with someone. You would then receive half of your fee back. If you choose not to have a site this year, we will refund your full fee" and you would retain your priority on' this site for 1988, if it becomes useable. Please call me by May 26, 1987, with your intentions. If I do not hear from-you by that date, I will refund your 1987 dock fee and no attempt will be made to find you a site this year. Sorry for the Inconvenience. Sincerely, Dell Rudolph Dock Inspector cc: Jim Fackler, Parks Director Phyllis Jessen, Council Representative Nancy Clough, Park Commission Chair Ed Shukle, City Manager DR:Is LAKEWINDS CONDOMINIUMS Kelley Renner Lundstrom Fox Wistrand "Hokanson PID # 19-117-23-13-0017 19-117-23-13-0018 19-117-23-13-0019 19-117-23-13-0020 19-117-23-13-0021 19-117-23-13-0022 19-117-23-13-0023 19-117-23-13-0024. 19-117-23-13-0025 19-117-23-13-0026 19-117-23-13-0027 19-117-23-13-0028 19-117-23-13-0029 19~117-23-13-0030 19-117-23-13-0031 19-117-23-13-0032 19-117-23-13-0033 19-117-23-13-0034 19-117-23-13-0035 19-117-23-13-0036 19-117-23-13-0037 19-117-23-13-0038 19-117-23-13-0039 19-117-23-13-0040 19-117-23-13-0041 19-117-23-13-0042 19-117-23-13-0043 19-117-23-13-0044 19-117-23-13-0045 19-117-~3-13-0046 19-117-23-13-0047 Unit A101 A102 A103 A104 A105' A106 A107 A108 A109 Al10 Alll Al12 A201 A202 A203 A204 A205 A206 A207 A208 A209 A210 A211 A212 A301 A302 A303 A304 A305 A307 A308 Original 1987 Value $47,OOO $62,400 $26,400 $62,100 $73,000 $89,100 $64,000 $82,400 $47,100 $45,700 $45,300 $69,700 $44,400 $53,200 $43,800 $57,700 $66,200 $82,100 $66,200 $81,100 $44,000 $58,50O $51,800 $60,500 $53,80O $50,400 $48,900 $46,300 $80,20O $79,800 $147,200 Recommended 1987 Estimated Market Value $37,900 $56,200 $20,900 $55,900 $60,300 $82,100 $50,90o $74,100 $39,400 $41,200 $36,300 $64,100 $36,500 $47,800 $36,100 $51,900 $54,o00 $73,800 $53,900 $74,800 $36,300 $54,000 $43,100 $54,500 $43,100 $53,000 - $38,900 $49,300 - $64,600 $64,300 $136,400 No Change No Change Lavoie Lavoie Monta9 Hoveland PID # 19-117-23-13-0048 19-117-23-13-0049 19-117-23-13-0050 .19-117-23-13-0051 19-117-23-13-0052 19-117-23-13-0053 19-117-23-13-0054 19-117-23-13-0055 19-117-23-13-0056 19-117-23-13-0057 19-117-23-13-Q058 19-117-23-13-0059 19-117-23-13-0060 19-117-23-13-0061 19-117-23-13-0062 19-117-23-13-0063 19-117-23-13-0064 19-117-23-13-0065 19-117-23-13-0066 19-117-23-13-0067 19-117-23-13-0068 19-117-23-13-0069 19-117-23-13-0070 19-117-23-13-0071 19-1i7-23-13-0072 19-117-23-13-0073 19-117-23-13-0074 19-117-23-13-0075 19-117-23-13-0076 19-117-23-13-0077 19-117-23-13-0078 19-117-23-13-0079 19-117-23-13-0080 19-117-23-13-0081 Unit A309 A310 A311 A312 8101 8102 8103 8104 8105 8106 8107 8108 8201 8202 8203 8204 8205 8206 8207 8208 8301 8302 8303 8304 8305 8306 8307 8308 C101 C102 C103 C104 C105 C106 Original 1987 Value $49,000 $56,00O $52,700 $55,900 $48,600 $48,600 $48,800 $62,700 $49,500 $60,800 $43,500 $45,100 $47,000 $44,500 $65,600 $69,800 $69,900 $67,600 $52,100 $47,800 $46,300 $49,500 $77,500 $79,000 $68,000 $69,000 $49,700 $52,600 $57,600 $42,800 $61,000 $33,200 $84,900 $72,100 Recommended 1987 Estimated Market Value $38,900 $59,500 - $42,000 $59,300 - $40,600 $40,500 $38,800 $49,800 $39,300 $48,300 $36,400 $36,200 $35,700 $36,700 $52,200 $57,200 $56,000 $55,600 $42,100 $39,500 $37,100 $39,300 $64,300 $63,700 $54,400 $54,900 $40,0OO $41,900 $51,800 $34,100 $54,900 $28,900 $76,400 $60,100 No Change No Change Hokanson Lavoie Ranallo Fox Lundstrom Farnes Lavoie Lavoie PID # 19-117-23-13-0082 19-117-23-13-0083 19-117-23-13-0084 19-117-23-13-0085 19-117-23-13-0086 19-117-23-13-0087 19-117-23-13-0088 19-117-23-13-0089 19-117-23-13-0090 19-117-23-13-0091 19-117-23-13-0092 19-117-23-13-0093 19-117-23-13-0094 19-117-23-13-0095 19-117-23-13-0096 19-117-23-13-0097 19-117-23-13-0098 19-117-23-13-0099 19-117-23-13-0100 19-117-23-13-0101 19-117-23-13-0102 19-117-23-13-0103 19-117-23-13-0104 19-117-23-13-0105 19-117-23-13-0106 19-117-23-13-0107 19-117-23-13-0108 19-117-23-13-0109 19-117-23-13-0110 19-117-23-13-0111 19-117-23-13-0112 19-117-23-13-0113 19-117-23-13-0114 19-117-23-13-0115 19-117-23-13-0116 Unit C107 C108 C109 Cl10 Clll Cl12 C201 C202 C203 C204 C205 C206 C207 C208 C209 C210 C211 C212 C301 C302 C303 C304 C305 C306 C307 C308 C309 C310 C311 C312 D101 D102 D103 D104 D105 Original 1987 Value $84,900 $70,600 $45,900 $42,900 $62,300 $45,500 $63,200 $44,700 $53,200 $49,300 $81,400 $70,100 $81,5oo $74,700 $57,80o $44,200 $61,900 $52,900 $59,900 $46,300 $59,300 $49,900 $89,400 $72,000 $88,700 $71,600 $59,500 $49,500 $68,600 $52,700 $42,700 $51,900 $48,800 $37,300 $70,700 Recommended 1987 Estiamted Market Value $76,400 $56,8o0 $41,400 $34,100 $58,000 $38,300 $57,700 $35,500 $47,800 $39,700 $73,300 $56,300 $73,400 $60,300 $52,ooo $35,300 $55,800 $42,900 $53,900 $37,100 $53,300 $37,100 $82,300 $54,900 $81,700 $54,600 $53,500 $36,900 $63,600 $39,700 $33,900 $34,500 $40,700 $25,ooo $56,900 Fox Latsha Seyler McNeil PID # 19-117-23-13-0117 19-117-23-13-0118 19-117-23-13-0119 19-117-23-13-0120 19-117-23-13-0121 19-117-23-13-0122 19-117-23-13-0123 19-117-23-13-0124 19-117-23-13-0125 19-117-23-13-0126 19-117-23-13-6127 19-117-23-13-0128 19-117-23-13-0129 19-117-23-13-0130 19-117-23-13-0131 19-117-23-13-0132 19-117-23-13-0133 19-117-23-13-0134 19-117-23-13-0135 19-117-23-13-0136 19-117-23-13-0137 19-117-23-13-0138 19-117-23-13-0139 19-1!7-23-13-0140 19-117-23-13-0141 19-117-23-13-0142 19-117-23-13-0143 19-117-23-13-0144 19-117-23-13-0145 1'9-117-23-13-0146 19-117-23-13-0147 19-117-23-24-0055 19-117-23-24-0056 19-117-23-24-0057 Unit D106 D107 D108 D109 Dl10 Dlll D112- D201 D202 D203 D204 D205 D206 D207 D208 D209 D210 D211 D212 D301 D302 D303 D304 D305 D306 D307 D308 D309 D310 D311 D312 F101 F102 F103 Original 1987 Value $71,200 $65,200 $63,600 $41,800 $26,800 $49,400 $45,300 $44,700 $51,2oo $44,900 $51,800 $65,800 $70,300 $66,000 $66,000 $43,100 $45,100 $47,600 $47,600 $46,100 $52,900 $51,ooo $53,000 $68,0o0 $79,500 $73,500 $76,200 $48,900 $53,900 $51,200 $54,900 $52,500 $43,000 $26,600 Recommended ~1987 Estimated Market Value $57,400 $52,000 $50,600 · $33,200 $21,300 $40,000 $36,200 $35,500 $46,100 $35,700 $46,700 $52,300 $69,000 $52,50O $65,100 $34,400 $36,000 $39,300 $38,100 $36,900 $47,600 $41,200 $47,700 $54,400 $79,100 $60,600 $74,300 $39,600 $45,300 $42,600 $41,700 $45,400. $34,200 $22,300 Fox Novak Temple Werner Kelley Hokanson PID Cf 19-117-23-24-0058 19-117-23-24-0059 19-117-23-24-0060 19-117-23-24-0061 19-117-23-24-0062 19-117-23-24-0063 19-117-23-24-0064 19-117-23-24-0065 19-117-23-24-0066 19-117-23-24-0067- 19-117-23-24-0068 19-117-23-24-0069 19-117-23-24-0070 19-117-23-24-0071 19-117-23-24-0072 19-i17-23-24-0073 19-117-23-24-0074 19-117-23-24-0075 19-117-23-24-0076 19-117-23-24-0077 19-117-23-24-0078 19-117-23-24-0079 19-117-23-24-0080 19-117-23-14-0081 19-117-23-24-0082 19-117-23-24-0083 19-117-23-24-0084 19-117-23-24-0085 19-117-23-24-0086 19-117-23-24-0087 19-117-23-24-0088 19-117-2~-24-0089 19-117-23-24-0090 19-117-23-42-0002 Unit F104 F105 F106 F107 F108 F109 Fl10 Flll Fl12 F201 F202 F203 F204 F205 F206 F207 F208 F209 F210 F211 F212 F301 F302 F303 F304 F305 F306 F307 F308 F309 F310 F311 F312 E101 Original 1987 Value $48,500 $69,800 $67,500 $74,600 $71,100 $33,200 $42,400 $49,900 $55,1oo $44,900 $44,900 $49,600 $44,700 $65,800 $75,50O $70,300 $66,000 $55,400 $44,000 $47,800 $51,900 $46,500 $46,300 $46,700 $46,500 $76,400 $68,600 $72,800 $72,200 $52,300 $45,700 $53,900 $49,500 $43,000 Recommended 1987 Estimated Market Value $40,500 $57,200 $54,000 $61,600 $57,300 $28,300 $33,700 $41,500 $36,200 $37,000 $35,8O0 $41,100 $35,700 $53,600 $62,500 $57,600 $56,400 $37,400 $35,000 $39,500 $42,000 $38,400 $38,300 $38,600 $38,300 $63,000 $56,000 $59,900 $59,300 $43,400 $37,800 $45,000 $41,000 $34,200 PID # 19-117-23-42-0003 19-117-23-42-0004 19-117-23-42-0005 19-117-23-42-0006 19-117-23-42-0007 19-117-23-42-0008 19-117-23-42-0009 19-117-23-42-0010 19-117-23-42-0011 19-117-23-42-0012 19-117-23-42-~013 19-117-23-42-0014 19-117-23-42-0015 19-117-23-42-0016 19-117-23-42-0017 19-117-23-42-0018. 19-117-23-42-0019 19-117-23-42-0020 19-117-23-42-0021 19-117-23-42-0022 19-117-23-42-0023 19-117-23-42-0024 19-117-23-42-0025 Unit E102 E103 E104 E105 E106 E107 E108 E201 E202 E~03 E204 E205 E206 E207 E208 E301 E302 E303 E304 E305 E306 E307 E308 Original 1987 Value $43,200 $65,300 $51,500 $68,400 $54,100 $55,700 $56,100 $44,700 $49,500 $72,900 $67,700 $74,100 $67,000 $55,900 $60,600 $45,900 $46,300 $67,600 $68,ooo $74,100 $77,000 $59,700 $58,000 Recommended 41987 Estimated Market Value $35,500 $52,100 $42,300 ,$56,500 $46,200 $48,200 $48,600 $35,500 $42,500 $58,900 $55,2oo $61,600 $54,600 $48,400 $52,600 $36,700 $38,200 $54,100 $55,5o0 $59,800 $63,600 $51,8oo $5o,3oo HENNEPIN iL ASSESSOR A-2103 Government Center 300 South Sixth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55487-0213 May 26, 1987 Local Board of Review City of Mound Dear Board Members: As you requested, we have reviewed the 1987 Estimated Market Values on several properties in the City of Mound. Those properties are listed below with their original 1987 EMV and a recommendation based on our review appraisal. Original Review 1987 EMV Appraisal Recommendation 1. Greg Caravelli $104,300 $95,800 $95,800 5016 Enchanted 13-117-24-11-0071 2. J & P Company $246,000 $260,000 Huber Funeral Home 14-117-24-14-0002 No Change Marquerite Stockstead 5440 Three Pts. Blvd. #533 13-117-24-22-0144 13-117-24-22-0234 $49,000 $47,000 $47,000 $4,000 $4,000 No Change Steven Berkey 2621 Granger Lane 23-117-24-24-0021 $112,000 $99,800 $99,800 June Lundgren 1975 Lakeside Ln. 18-117-23-23-0066 $132,100 $124,600 $124,600 HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal opportunity employer lr Mound Local Board of Review May 26, 1987 Page 2 Original 1987 EMV Review Appraisal Recommendation e Ken Storke 4762 Manchester 19-117-23-32-0185 $69,700 $65,000 $65,000 e Ferner Johnson 3018 Island View Dr. 19-117-23-34-0071 19-117-23-34-0091 $77,000 $25,0o0 $68,000 $25,o00 $68,000 No Change 0 Milbert Mueller 3880 Co. Rd. 44 13-117-24-33-0042 13-117-24-33-0043 $330,000 $45,ooo $375,000 $45,0O0 No Change No Change o Oswin Pflug 4851 Shoreline Blvd. 13-117-24-44-0015 13-117-24-44-0016 $62,000 $175,000 $65,000 $180,000 No Change No Change 10. Vernon E. Mondloh 6248 Bayridge Rd. 23-117-24-32-0019 $71,500 $69,500 $69,500 11. Michelle Olson 2060 Waterside Lane 13-117-24-33-0041 $117,700 $120,000 No Change 12. Mark Saliterman Ridgedale Prof. Ctr. 14001Ridgedale Dr. #200 Minnetonka, MN 55343 13-117-24-34-0072 $766,700 $795,000 No Change 13. Frank Ahrens 4673 Island View Dr. 30-117-23-22-0008 $127,800 $128,500 No Change Mound Local Board May 26, 1987 Page 3 of Review Original 1987 EMV Review Appraisal Recommendation 14. Bud Skoglund 5823 Bartlett Blvd. 23-117-24-14-0021 23-117-24-14-0020 23-117-24-14-0019 $95,500 $33,200 $36,500 $94,800 $3O,0O0 $3O,000 $94,800 $3O,0OO $30,000 15. Ron Johnson 4416 Dorchester Rd. 19-117-23-31-0104 $179,900 No Change Sincerely, ~ee'~~eith M' Re~'n~ Principal Appraiser KMR:jb LAKEWI ND S TAX PROTEST: SECOND MEETING To be delivered in speech by Dan Montag (Owner Occupant) INTRODUCTION: Mr. Mayor, and members of the tax review board: I represent the owners of LAKES condo units in a group effort to protest the market values determined by Hennepin County. Members of our IAKEWINDS OWNERS ASSOCIATION were present for the 1985 tax protest trial which just took place on ~-~y 5th and 6th at the Hennepin County Gov~t Center. During the trial Keith Rennerfeldt, our county appraiser, asseSsor, gave testimony as to the methods he used in determining the values of.our LAK~INDS condos. Keith was very clear in making his point that the auction prices paid in April of 1986 were in his words, "highly suspect" as NOT FAIR MARKET VALUES. We owners do not agree. Considering there were 53 condos out of a total 192 sold at the auction, a figure representing more than 27% of the total. Considering the sale prices of those auction coo~os were lower than the before auction sales. By not including the auction prices paid in the calculation to FAIR MARKET VALUE for tax purposes, our market value figures are higher than they should be. It was also made clear during the trial that MINNESOTA STATE LAW allows the use of AUCTION PRICES in the market value comparison process. 27% of the total complex sale prices being ignored when state law allows their lower sale prices to be considered causes the tax values for the entire complex to be valued higher than. the market. Further, garages and boat slips at. Lakewinds are by the condo documents, COMMON R~.VMENTS see sections 3A and 3C of our documents. Thus, their value should not be included in the individual UNIT VALUES. Garages valued at $6,000.00 each are not based on "comparables". A 200 square foot garage valued at $30.00 per square foot is unacceptable. Building brand new today costs less, with these at LAKEWINDS being over 17 years old. The information Keith Rennerfeldt presented during the trial was partly his field appraisal of the IAKEW/ADS complex which was cOmPleted following field inspections of condos and cc~mon elements in the year 1987. It is evident by tracking the taxes assessed on the LAKEWINDS units from 1985 thru 1987 Keith in some cases R~DUCED the 1987 values frcm the 1986 values. HOWEVER, this reductio~ was NOT LARGE ENOUGH considering the 27% portion of LOWER AUCTION PRICES that were NOT PART of his evaluation. The lack of resale activity of lakewinds condos is also a prime issue to we owners. The VERY POOR record of 1st owners selling to a new 2nd 'owner is evident. Section 589 of the multiple listings for the IAKE M/NNETCNKA area for sale illustrates that over half of the available condos for sale in the entire area are from IAKEWINDS. Yet only a few sales have taken place. This poor record of true "ARMS LENGTH SALES" within our complex is dUe to many fact~ors. ALL THESE FALTORS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN ,MARKET VALUE. MOST CERTAINLY THESE AT,T, EFFECT THE MARKET VALUE. Page Tw~ LAKEWISDS TAX PROTEST: S~2OND MEETING 1ST: LAKEWINDS is NOT approved for FHA or VA financing. This lack of approval is for two reasons. One, ~ BY STRUCU3RAL DESIGN HAVE THE WRC~G MIX of two bedroc~ vs one bedrocm units. Requirements are that a cc~plex have a majority of t~D bedroom T~I) BATH units over one bedroom one bath. LAKEWINDS ONLY HAS TWO, 2 Bedroom two bath units and these were created during the refurbishing by the developer at conversion. LAK~S is mostly one bedroom by design and any structural change of this by remodeling would badly affect the heating'system. The second reason for lack of FHA and VA financing is occupancy by owners. The written requir~nent is 70% ..owner occupancy. Although variences are sc~netimes granted for special considerations, LAKEWINDS is only 12% owner occupied which is a long way frc~ any varience consideration. Even if in the future our owner occupancy would reach a percentage near acceptance, the WRONG DESIGN MIX would still disallow the financing. The 88% rental percentage by use of the complex makes the c~lex harder to market as an owner occupant residence. The developer still ownes 21 unsold units. Only one condo has been sold by the developer since April of 1986. That sale took place in December of 1986. The lack of sales in turn makes the units harder to sell, and worth leSs. The new FEDERAL TAX LAW reduced the tax benefit of a ~S condo as an investment. The lack of depreciation for deduction, and interest write-off for other than a s~cond hc~e, forces the investor t~ look elsewhere for their purchases. Before Auction prices and financing creates in some cases losses in excess of $300.00 each month after the market rent is collected. This $300..00 loss gets greater if .the unit is not rented, needs repairs, or the association dues increase. 4TH The association dues have increased over 25% in the last three years. Most of the increase is due to .the required repair and replacenent of wearing out pool ~/ui~nent, plumbing, heating, and mechanical equiFment which are part of the c~aL,~)n elements of the complex. This OLD equipment in its poor condition should downwardly effect the Market Values of the condo units. LAKEWINDS is a complex over 17 years old and showing its age! 5TH The inccme approach to value was considered by Hennepin County in their appraisal of LAKEWINDS. The approach was ignored after consideration. We owners would like to point out that the $300.00 per month loss is part of that INCC~E APPROACH TO VALUE. Given, the approach would result in LAKE?~/~DS units being valued FAR BELOW their present rate, We Owners think .. closer look should be given to the income approach to value, bY HENNEPIN COUNTY. Lakewinds is at best an unusual complex, To review 'the inccme approach to market value would at the least illustrate its poor investment return and show a difficult item to 'sell. All five of the items I mentioned effect the condo value and its market_ability to a prospective buyer. NONE CF TH~q WERE CONSIDERSD BY HENNEPIN COUNTY in the established market values for the LAK~%~DS coD~os. If considered, the established market values and taxes would be less. Page three LAKEWINDS TAX PROTEST: SECOND M~TING During the court trial for the '85 protest Keith Rennerfeldt also testified that the REPLACS~5~f COST APPROACH to value was considered and then ignored in establishing the MARKET VALUES for the ~S condos. The present'cost to date of the LAKEWINDS STYLE construction is $50.00 per square foot. The $50.00 per foot includes the building with heating, plumbing, electrical, and finished walls etc. The $50.00 does not include land. Our land has been valued through court testimony at $1000.00 per foot or $750,000.00. This portion of land value.would have to be added to each condo unit to establish a fair replacement cost. with 192 units total and not making any adjustment for one or two bedroc~ units, each unit w~uld have a land "add on "of $3900.00. By using the lower auction prices of the ignored27% of the Lakewinds total · sales, the average square foot cost was $56 to $57 per square foot not including land. Remember also that the $50 per square foot price is for BRAND NEW CONSTRUCTION. The auction generated prices six to seven dollars per square foot higher for 17 year old USeD housing. This comparison with the lower auction prices being/within a reasonable range of true REPLACS~ENT COST makes us owners question the County NOT USING THIS APPROACH TO VALUE. The facts seem to illustrate a lower market value 'and tax ~uld result if the REPLACemENT COST APPROACH were used to establish market value. The last item to consider in our protest is the CRV form. Many times thru the 1985 protest the County refered to the MARKET VALUE prices being determined thru the use of the owner's CRV statement. The CRV or CERTIFICATE fF REAL ESTATE VALUE, being one of the forms filled out and signed at closing, then sent to the County for the County's use. This form is re~red to be signed by the purchaser, owner UNDER PENALTY OF LAW, if willingly inaccurate. The form is designed to allow the deduction for personal property, appliances, furniture etc which are included in the sale, but are NOT REAL ESTATE. The purpose for the form is to allow the deduction of those items within the sale that should not be considered in the Real Estate Value and ·taxed accordingly. In the LAKEWINDS CONDO SAT.VS as documented by the attached'breakdown, consessions are illustrated which amount to PREPAID PROPERTY TAXES TO BE PAID IN FUTURE YEARS BY THE DEVELOPER, FU~JRE ASSOCIATION DUES TO BE PAID BY THE DEVELOPER, UPGRADES IN CARPET, INTERIOR DECOR, FINANCING COSTS TO BE PAID BY THE DEVELOPER FOR BUY1/gG DOWN THE INTEREST RATES, AND FEES FOR ENGAGING THE FINANCING OR INSURANCE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE DEVELOPER AFTER THE CLOSING AS PART OR THE SALE AG~74ENT. These consessions amount to thousands of dollars tacked on to the condo unit that are NOT PART OF THE REAL ESTATE VALUE. In the case of future property taxes to be paid by the developer, we are literally paying Property Tax on Property Tax. This is not fair. Because Garages and Docks are c<~,,.~n elements and should be included as a base for all the c~,~n elements according to our registered and filed documents they should also be allowed to be deducted from the CRV. Keith Rennerfeldt has stated that on SOME CRV forms there is a space for "special financing"deductions. However the forms vary, and many are c~leted by the closing company prior to the closing date, with the information being incc~plete. With the backbone of the MARKET VALUE APPROACH used by the County being the owner supplied CRV form, and the inaccuracY of the form presenting a higher than "REAL ESTATE VALUE" figure we have a very serious problem to solve. It is clear that a review of the CRV Page four ~S TAX PROTEST: S~COND MEETING forms on file that represent the LAK~ISDS sales DO NOT reflect the high concession dollars included in the recorded purchase price.~ ~ In final review. Our ~S values and taxes are set too high. We owners believe that by only looking at the CRV documented approach and ignoring in that approach the auction sales we are unfairly valued at a higher rate. By ignoring the Replacement and Income approaches to value we are again unfairly valued at a higher rate. The CRV form is inaccurate and solicites misinformation by design. There are five items we pointed out that effect our cond's market value that are not part of the appraisal process. If considered these five it~ns w~uld reduce our values and taxes. In closing, Lee Maxfield of Maxfield and Associates, an expert witness during the '85 trial testified, -"Lakewinds is 'a BUMMER as a condo .conversion" Poor location, small units, bad mix of units, poor parking, only a few garages detached from the main buildings, no guest parking, little soundproofing, not FHA or FANNY MAE approved financing, poor unit finishing and A VERY POOR TAX STRUCTURE. We ~S owners appeal to you, The County Tax Reveiw Board to reduce our market values ' across' the board 40% · If our appeal does not result in a redu6tion of our values as set by Hennepin County. ~:~ith the auction sales, income and replacement cost approach to value being ignored as indicative of the county's appraisal system, then we urge the city council of Mound to consider other means of assessing. RESPECITULLY SUBMITI~D: LAKEWINDS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 3. Common Elements. All portions of the Real Estate other than the Units are Common Elements. Certain port. ions of the Common Elements, includ- lng but not limited to air condit, ioning and ventilating equipment, fireplace flues~ and balconies~ which serve or are designed to serve a single Unit are, by operation of Section 515A.2-102(2)' and (4) of the Act, Limited Common Elements allocated for the exclusive use by the respective Units served thereby to the exclusion of other Units. Additionally, as shown on the Floor Plans, certain portions of the ground adjacent to the buildings are designated as courtyards, terraces, and decks which are to be Limited Common Elements. Each such courtyard, terrace, and-deck is.hereby declared to be a Limited Common Element allocated for th'e exclusive use of the Unit to which such court- yard, terrace, 'or deck is immediately adjacent. A. Parking (i) Outdoor Parking Spaces and Garage Spaces. There are 203 outdoor parking spaces and 65 garage parking spaces shown on the Floor Plans. All such outdoor parking spaces and garage parking .. spaces Are, and at all times shall remain, a part of the Common Elements. - The'-:~ Board .:.i of . Directors. :shal,I, .... however, execute, and 'deli~er.~it°!~;~l~'e~ 0Why'rs!? of.'each."of the: Units-:(other than Unit A-308) an' aSsi.gnment... Of one outdoor parking space or one =. garage Parking space (hereinafter referred to as "Parking Assign- ment''). The Board of Directors shall execute and C. Boat Slips. A Multiple Dock and Mooring Area license issued by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District curren..tly allow~ the maintenance in Lake Minnetonka adjacent to the Condomini'um of a multiple dock with 43 boat slips .for ~he use of. residents of'the Con- dominium. The approximate configuration and Iocatibn of the 43 boat slips as presently utilized is as set forth in Exhibit B hereto and the 43 boat slips are 'identified by number thereon..The license pursuant to which such boat slips are maintained' is required to be renewed annually by the Association. There is no assurance that such license will continue to be issued or that such license, if issued, will con- tinue to be issued for 43 boat slips in their present configuration and location. In the even~ of any change in the number, configuration or location of the boat slips' permitted to be maintained, the Board of Directors shall make equitable adjustments to the rights of the varioul Unit Owners who have interests therein. The boat slips are, and at all times shall remain, an appurte- nance to the Common Elements. Three boat slips shall be retained permanently by the Association. The remaining 40 boat slips (herein- after referred to as'"Assignable Boat Slips") shall be assigned to various of the Unit Owners by. assignments 'executed in the manner and having the effect set forth below. The Board of Directors shall execute and deliver an assignn~ent (h~reinafter referred to as a .Slip Assignment") of each-of .the Assignable Boat Slips to such~ Unit Owners as shall be selected by the Declarant. The Declarant shall entitled to designate the Unit Owners to which an Assignable B~at. Slip is to be assigned and to select the Assignable Boat Slip to be' assigned to each such Unit Owner., and as long as Declarant owns any Units, no Assignable Boat Slip which has not been previously signed may be assigned except in accordance with Declarant's wrlllml designation. Upon receipt of any such designation in wrltin0, the Board of Directors shall issue the appropriate Boat Slip Assignment requested by Declarant. LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION LOC WAYZATA LAKESHORE HIGH DEEPHAVEN LAKESWORE ORONO LAKESHORE VALUE S~OREWOOD LAKESHORE MID VALUE EXCELSIOR TONKABAY MINNETRISTA SPRING PARK LAKESHORE LAKESHORE LAKES~ORE LAKESHORE LOW MOUND LAKESHORE VALUE MOUND COMMONS LAKESHORE L~CA~ION LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION LOC DATE: MAY~,= 1987 TOPIC: LAKESHORE LOT VALUE TYPE: PRIVATE HIGH VALUE LOCATION VS. PUBLIC LOW VALUE LOCATION TAXES: Subject property is being assessed as a PRIVATE lakeshor property. FOR 2060 Waterside Large Immediate Nei ~borhood Values Address Price Date 2050 Waterside Cane 5420 Breezy Road 5436 Breezy Road 5500 Breezy Road $64,000/Sold 4/84 $ ~O~,o I/So 1 d / ~ 6 $118,0o0/Sold 6/84 $87,900/0N MKT TODAY I r~cc, ns i st ent Va 1 ues Mixed Neighborhood 2060 Waterside Lane, MOUND L_akeshore Type: COMMONS across (waited on list Area: Mm und LOT VALUE: $$$50, 100555 House Value: $66, 700 Bui It: 1954 Total Market Value $I16~B00 'T'axes: S2~ i48. '7& /g 3 street for dock 1 Add 20~O WATERSIDE LN 3LISz APPROX, 1/2 ACRIL 4 B~ R/W FIRST MNTKA 5 Of Ph 4730251 .6 A~ HARRY D ? OUTSTANDING VIEWS OF HARRI$ON~I BAY.CONVENIENT. WITHIN WALK- 8 lNG DISTANCE TO CHURCHE$,$CHL~.IU$&D~TOWN MOUND.EXClrl I IrNT 9 DOCK RIGHT5 (ALL THE ADVANTAGES OF LAKE UV~G Wll14OUT 10 LAKE TI R WILL CONSIDER C/D, ~EE SUPI~EMENT SHEET. 12 LR X X 22X15 ISlDL Bus IBLK Z~p 55364 MI~I $12,~ 13DR ~ SHOE ~Y w~ IA~Y 14rD, I~S pm 22X14 ICSY ~ t~ co~. 15Kit 118X11 ~tYwo ~R&Oy Natty IF&M ~l fox. p..,B~ pwv ...;~A ~SBRI xiK~?exn p3~G~YIRe~l9 BBOY ~CDSEEEU~R 25 B~ Own RODGER$ OD Mo $ 21W Q COMPARABL~ LOT 4'-,~(-) _ ,. ~-w. F,:,rest ~ awe Dr. ORONO Lakeshore Type: Area: LOT VALUE: House Value: Bui !t: .'Total Mkt Value: T a~x es ~ P. i. D. Deeded PRIVATE, across street $$$32~, 700555 $93,500 N/A $126, 200 $2, 2E.!. 56 07-1 FOR 4250 FOREST LAKE DR. IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD VALUES Aodress Price Date 4225 Forest Lake Dr. 4265 Forest Lake Dr. $215,000 6/85 $225,000 8/80 Conforming Up,er Brackett Neighborhood Consistent values COMPARABLE LOT 3420 b!orth Shore Dr., ORO~iO Lak. eshore Type: Area: LOT VALUE: Hse Va 1 ue: Bui it: Total MKT Value: ]'axes: P.I.D. : Owned, PRIVATE, across street Orono $$$49,400555 $53,300 1960 $102, -?00 $i, 614.88 08-i i7-23-43-00i8 Lakeshore Type: Area: LOT VALUE: H_=e Value: Buiit: Total Mkt Value: Taxes: P. I.D. COMPARABLE LOT 3~550 North Shore Dr., ORONO Owned, PRIVATE, across street Orono $$$50, 700555 $74,800 i974 Sold 1/86 $153,00A $ ! 25,500 $2~ 278.90 08-1 t 7-23-34-0055 COMPARABLE LO]' 5855 Lakeview Dr., MINNETRISTA Lakeshore Type: Dock via Association /PRIVATE Area. ' M i r,r, et r i st a / Wood-End S~ ores LOT VALUE: $$$42,000555 Hse Value: $126,800 Bui it: 1978 Currently c,r~ Mkt $245,000 Tz, tal Mkt Value: $168,800 Taxe~: $3,583.03 P. i.D. Lakeshore Area: LOT VALUE: Hse Va 1 ue: Bui it: Total Mkt Taxes: P. I.D. Type: Va 1 ue: ,RABLE LOT Lakeview Dr., MINNETRISTA VIEW SAME AS PREVIOUS PAGE Deeded Dock ~ 17/PRIVATE M i nr~et r i st a / Wood End $$$42,000555 $ i 32,500 1972 sold $215,000 $174,500 $3, 750. 72 35-117-24-13-A01 i Shores 4/83 $2(:)5,000 1/87 ~O,R LaXeview D~~. Prooer~ies IMMEDIATE NE!GHBOR~4.00D VALUES Address 5815 Lakeview Dr. 580i 'Lakeview Dr. 5930 Lakeview Dr. 5800 Lakeview Dr. Pr i ce Dar e $205,00 1/87 $295,000 8/85 $173,000 4/84 $230, 000 2/81 UPPER BRACKET' LAK~SHOR~ ~OMES CONSISTENT VALUE i 'TI Poir.~t surrounded by water. VERY. PRIVATE SEE PLAT MAP COMPARABLE LOT (WHOLE POINT) 4695 Lagoc, r~ Dr., SHOREWOOD Lakeshore Type: (See Plat) Area: LOT VALUE: Hse Value: Built: Total Mkt Value: Taxes: P.I.D. Owned, PRIVATE, Penninsula entire point surrounded by water Shorewood (upper Drackett area) $$$55,000555 $36,600 1956 $91,600 $1,4-Z4.69 30-117-23-31-0004 / I! It / FOR 4695 LAGOON DR. IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD VALUES Address 4765 LAGOON DR. 4325 Enchar~ted Dr S 4400 Enchanted Dr. Lot vacant 3964 Er~chanted Larle Price Date SOLD $180,000 ON/MKT $214,500 ON/MKT $79,900 Lot Orely ON/MKT $184,900 6/86 Today Today Today UPPER BRACKETT LAKESHORE HOMES Was Yacant Vacant Yacant Vacant Vacant MARKET VALUES GOING DOWN 5815 Lakeview Dr. 4325 Er~chanted Dr. S. 2715 Casco Pt. Rd. 5420 Breezy Rd. 5555 Co. Rd. 151 690 TonKawa Rd. SOLD 215, 000 in 6/85 240,000 /84 220, 000 /84 105, 675 10/82 Home c,n Mkt since i984 123,500/i984 SOLD 205,00 1/87 On MKT 214,500 Ora MKT 216,000 / On MKT i-Z9, 90(~ On MKT i28,900 Address Type OVERVIEW Lot Va 1 ue 2060 Waterside Large Ccmlrnor~s across street $ 50, 000 4250 Forest Lake Dr. Deeded across street $ 32, 000 355(1) Northshore Dr. Owned across s~reet $50,7C)0 3420 Northshore Dr. Owr, ed across street Taxes ~8-~ Lakeview Dr. Deeded across street $2,146.72 5815 Lakeview Dr. Deeded across street $2,~6i.56 4695 Lagc.:,n Dr. $2,278.90 $49, 400 $1,614.88 $42, 000 $3,583.03 $42, 000 Owned $55,000 PRIVATE PENN I NSULA $3,750.?2 $I,474.69 RESALE STATUS: Cc, r,lrnons least desirable. yet taxed as owneO lakesnc, re This cc, rnmons property lc, cameO ire a very "mixed" value r~eigh~c,r- h,:,c,d should have a lot va].ue c,f $27,500.