1987-06-23 CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
7:30 P.M., TUESDAX, JUNE 23, 1987
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Pledge of Allegiance
Approve the Work Session Minutes of June 3, 1987;
Regular Meeting Minutes of June 9, 1987; and the
Work Session Minutes of June 15, 1987
Continuation of Public Hearing on Method of Assessing
Pg. 1782-1789
Pg. 1790-1 807
PUBLIC HEARING:
Consider making improvements
on Shoreline Blvd. (Cry. Rd. 15) between
Commerce Blvd. and Fairview Lane by the
addition of street lights· Pg. 1808-1816
pUBLIC HEARING:
Consider making street improve-
ments to Shoreline Blvd· (Cty. Rd. 15)
between Commerce Blvd. and the Mound
City limits at Seton Channel by the
construction of curb and gutter, concrete
driveway aprons, sidewalk and storm
sewer·
pUBLIC HEARING: Delinquent Utility Bills
Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present
Pg. 1817-1829
Request for Signs and Banners for Incredible Festival
(Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church)
Pg. 1836
9. CASE 987-639:
10.
Pg. 1831-1836
Mohamed M. Hamoude, 1779 Wildhurst
Lane, Lot 3 & Part of Lot 4, Block 13,
Shadywood Point, PID #13-117-24 14 0019
~eauest: Side yard and front yard setback variances Pg. 1837-1848
cASE f87-6n2:
Lavon K. & Alyce J. Cooper, 2241
Southview Lane, Part of Lot 1, Block 12,
Mound Terrace, PID #14-117-24 34 0004
Request: Side yard setback variance
Pg. 1849-1856
11. CASE #87-6~5:
Robert N. & Judith A. Lund, 5235 Bartlett
Blvd., Tracts D & E, Registered Land
Survey #813 and part of Lot 17, Shirley
Hills Unit C, PID #24-117-24 24 0033
Page 1779
12.
13.
e u~ Minor Subdivision of Land
C~SE #87-§~?:
Pg. 1857-1867
Dianna L. Wilson, 5060 Tuxedo Blvd.,
Lot 8, Whipple Shores, PID #24-117-24 4B 0056
Variance to recognize existing nonconforming
side yard setback Pg. 1868-1874
CASE ~87-6~8:
~eouest:
Michael & Judy Gardner, 1599 Bluebird
Lane, Lots 18 & 19, Block 6, Woodland
Point, PID #13-117-24 12 0128
Variance to recognize existing nonconforming
side and rear yard setbacks Pg. 1875-1882
14. CASE. #87-649:
15.
16.
James A. McCrehin, 3137 Donald Drive,
Lot 11, Block 14, Pembroke, PID ~19-117-23
33 0161
Reauest: · Variance to recognize existing nonconforming
house size, lot size and setback Pg. 1883-1890
C~SE ~87-65-:
Mark Jerome Robertson, 3103 Devon Lane,
Lots 1,2,3,4, & 7, BLock 3, Arden,
PID #24-117-24 44 0029
,Bequest: Variance to recognize existing nonconforming
setback to do structural repairs Pg. 1891-1899
SFT PUBLIC HEARING DATES FOR THE FOLLOWING:
Suggested Dates: ALL JULY 14, 1987
Ae
Proposed Vacation of Dorchester Road from Stratford
Lane to Essex Lane. Pg. 1900
Be
Consideration of Conditional Use Permit for
Expansion of Cabinet Shop and Office - 5558
Auditor's Road.
Pg. 1901
Propose Zoning Map Amendment to Change Zoning of a
Portion of Block 1, 2, and 11, Seton, From R-4
Multi-Family to R-2 Single Family Residential -
4622 Kildare Lane through 4658 Kildare Lane
Pg. 1902
De
Proposed Vacation of Portion of Longford Road and
Kerry Lane North from Longford - 4622 Kildare Road
through 4658 Kildare Road.
Pg. 1903
Ee
Application to Amend Conditional Use Permit to Allow
Bait and Tackle Sales with Existing Service
Station - 4831 Shoreline Blvd. (Union 76) Pg. 1904
Page 1780
F®
Proposed Amendments to CDBG (Community Development
Block Grant) Funds for Years XII and XIII
Discussion on Checklist for Public Works Building
Referendum
Resolution on 1988 Budget
Discussion on Lost Lake (RFP) Request for Proposals
Draft
Approval of Licenses
Payment of Bills
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
Ae
May 1987 Financial Report as prepared by John
Norman, Finance Director ~
Be
Elected Official Salary Survey.as prepared by
the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
C. Ind. School Dist. ~277 Minutes - May 19, 1987
De
Letters of thank you from the Mound City Days
Volunteers for the work done by the City Staff
E. Planning Commission Minutes of June 8, 1987
Fe
Notice of Annual National League of Cities Congress
of Cities and Exposition to be held in Las Vegas,
December 12-16, 1987. Mayor and Councilmembers have
attended this in the past and you are encouraged to
attend. Please let Fran know as soon as possible
so suitable accomodations can be arranged.
Ge
Memo from the Police Chief on the hiring of Todd
Limond who replaces Officer Kyle Larson.
Notice from the Association of Metropolitan
Municipalities regarding opening on the AMM
Policy Committee. Please let me know if you
are interested in serving.
Pg. 1 905
Pg. 1906-1911
Pg. 1912-1915
Pg. 1 916
Pg. 1917-1929
Pg. 1930-1932
Pg. 1933-1942
Pg. 1943-1944
Pg. 1945-1946
Pg. 1947-1955
Pg. 1 956
Pg. 1957-1959
Page 1781
June 3, 1987
HINUTES - HOUND CITY COUNCIL - wORK SESSION
dune 3, 1~87
The meeting was called to.order at 7:30 P.H., by Mayor Smith. Hembers
present were: Hayor Steve Smith, Councilmembers, Liz Jensen, Phyllis
Jessen and Don Abel. Councilmember:Skip Johnson was absent and excused.
The City Council evaluated the City Hanager's performance for the past
year.
The meeting was ad.journed.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve Smith
Hayor
/
June 9, 1987
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - REGULAR MEETING
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in
regular session on Tuesday, June 9, 1987, at 7:30 P.M. in the
Council Chambers at 53~1 Maywood 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 Engineer John Cameron, City Planner
Mark Koegler, Hennepln County Assessors Don Monk and Ket.th
Rennerfeldt, and the following interested citizens: Mike
Mueller, Robert Skinner, Oswln Pflug, Jim Kutzner, Gary Paulsen,
Bob and JOan Polston, David Morse, Jim Nordby, Bill Slme.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in
attendance.
The Pledge o~ Allegiance Was recited.
MOTION made by Abel, seconded by Jensen to apProve the
Reconvened Board of Review Minutes of May 26, 1987; Regular
Meeting Minutes of May 26, 1987; and the Work Session Minutes
of May 21, 1.987, as presented. The vote was unanimously in
favor. Motion carried.
PRESENTATION TO FORMER MAYOR ROBERT POLSTO~
The Mayor presented former Mayor Robert Polst'on with a
Certificate of Commendation from the League of Minnesota Cities
recognizing him for his accomplishments and contributions .to
improve local.government.
FOrmer Mayor Polston thanked the Mayor for the award.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF CONDITIONAL U~,
~SE PERMIT FOR THE OPE~TION OF A WINE AND BEER
RESTAURANT (CLASS IV), D'¥INCI'S, 2244A
~OMMERCE BLVD.
The City Planner explained the request and stated that the Staff
recommends approval.
The Mayor opened the Public Hearing.
Mayor closed the Public Hearing.
There was no response. The
Johnson moved and Abel seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~87-108
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONDITIONAL 'USE
PERMIT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A CLASS II
L
100
June
RESTAURANT IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS
DISTRICT (B-l) AT22~4 COMMERCE BLVD. P
& Z CASE ~87-637
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion. carried.
APPROVAL OF FINAL p~AT - NORSE ADDITION, PID $13-117-2~ 23 0006
The City Engineer reviewed his recommendations and the resolution
with the Council. The Staff recommendation was approval with the
conditions listed in the proposed resolution. The Council
discussed 18 in the conditions. The Attorney recommended leaving
this condition relating to driveway'easements in the resolution.
Smith moved and Abei seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION $87-109 RESOLUTION TO APPROyE-THE FINAL PLAT OF
MORSE ADDITION. PID ~13-117-2q 23 0006
The vote was unanimously in favor. Mo~ion carried.
CAS~ #87-631: DONALD LOBDELL, 3367 WARNER ~NE, LOTS 1 AND 6~
BLOCK 12, DOUGLAS - WHIPPLE SHORES, PID #25-115
-24-2~ 0056, VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING
NON CONFORMING PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE SETBACK AND
ACCESSARY BUILDING. SETBACK
The City Planner stated that the Planning Commission tabled this
item at their meeting on Monday night. The applicant was not
present.
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Abel to table this item.
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PUBLIC HFARING: PUBLIC INPUT ON CITY OF MOUND'S METHOD OF
The Mayor explained that this public hearing is to allow
residents to voice their opinion on whether the City should
conti-nue their contract with Hennepin County. for assessing
serv£ces or hire its own assessor for Mound.
The Mayor opened the public hearing. The following persons spoke
in favor of having Mound hire or contract with a private assessor
other than Hennepin County: 0swin Pflug, 4851 Shoreline Blvd.
and Bill Sime, Orono Councilmember.
The following persons spoke in favor of continuing to contract
with Hennepin County for assessing services: Gary Paulsen, 2657
Westedge Blvd. and Bob Polston, 5780 Lynwood Blvd.
Hennepin County Assessor, Don Monk, was present and explained
101
June 9, 1987
the background, of the cancellation of Orono,s assessing contract
with the County. He further explained that the coefficient of
dispersion in Hound is now under 10% which is very good.
The Hayor stated that he had asked Orono's Assessor, Roll
Erlokson, to attend this meeting but he had a conflict. He
stated Mr. Erlckson could come to the meeting on June 23rd to
give his viewpoint on the benefits of Private assessing.
MOTION made by JOhnson, seconded by Smith to continue this
hearing until the June 23rd meeting. The vote was
unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
There were none.
PRESENTATION,.OF SURVEY R~SULTS ON CA_~LE TELEVISIOI
Jim Kutzner, Cable T.V. Advisory Committee Chairperson, presented
the results of the survey. The Council thanked him.
The Public Works Building item was postponed until later in the
meeting and after an Exeoutive Session.
DOcK FEE REFUNDS.
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded bY Johnson to approve
additional dock refunds aa recommended by the Dock Inspector
(see Page 1640 of the packet). The vote was unanimously in
favor. Motion carried.
MOTION made by Abel,
following licenses:
seconded by Jensen to.approve the
'Mound City Days (Waiving the fees)
Merchant Sales - Balloons, etc.
Fluff and Pillow Cleaning
Concessions and Food
Craft Shows
Dance
Fireworks
Pull-Tabs - Mound Fire Dept.
New License Application - Restaurant -
Domino's Pizza, Inc.
2330 Wilshire Blvd.
Mound, MN. 55364
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
102
June g, 1987
,p~NENT OF BILLS
Motion made by Jessen, seconded by Abel to approve, the
payment 'of bills as presented on the pre-list, in the amount
of S98,q80.q8, when funds are available; A roll call vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS:
A. Department Head Monthly Reports for May 1987.
B. An invitation from Steve Keefe, Metro Council Chairman,
to participate in the Metro Council's strategic planning
process.
C. May 14, 1987, Park Commission Meeting Minutes
D. Copy o~ a che~k from Contel to t~e Police Dept. as a
donation toward the purchame of 2 anatomical adult
dolls. These are used to assist in child abuse cases.
A copy of the final issue of the League of Minnesota
Cities Bulletin regarding the legislative action taken
on issues affecting cities. This is a lot of material
but I thought it was important enough to 'copy for you.
· ,COBB~STONE COVE .-
The City Engineer stated that the developer of Cobblestone Cove
has applied for a building permit for Lot 3, Block 1 and there is
a deck which is not shown on the survey that extends
approximately eight (8) feet, at its greatest point, over the
scenic easement. There is no vegetation that will be affected by
this deck. There was Council discussion.
MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Smith to DEN! the request
to allow a deck over the scenic easement on Lo't 3, Block 1,
Cobblestone Cove. The vote was 2 in favor with Abel, Jessen
and Johnson voting nay. Motion failed.
MOTION made by Johnson, seconded by Jessen to allow the deck
over the scenic easement on Lot 3, Block 1, Cobblestone Cove.
The vote was 3 in favor, with Jensen and Smith voting nay.
Motion carried.
The Council went into Executive Session at 9:20 P.M. to discuss
an Option Agreement to purchase land. The Council returned at
9:B5 P.M.
PUBLIC WORKS ~U~LDING
The City Manager explained that a resolution has been prepared
regarding a new public works building and calling an election for
103
September 29, 1987.
June 9, 1987
Abel moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #87-110
RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE NEED TO
ACQUIRE AND EQUIP A NEW PUBLIC WORKS
BUILDING AND TO ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION
BONDS TO PAY FOR THE SAME AND CALLING AN
ELECTION
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried..
The City Manager stated he would put together a check list of
items that the public should know on the public works facility.
The Council discussed the Option Agreement for the Bickmann
property and asked that~the right to do sol~'~rings be added to
it.
Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION ~87-111
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE
CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN OPTION
AGREEMENT WITH RANDY E. BICXMANN, LORETTA
E. CORBETT AND GORDON J. CORBETT, FOR
· PROPERTY KNOWN AS PID f13-117-24 33 0028
AND 0029, FOR A PRICE OF $155,000.00 PLUS
SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS - O~TION TO EXPIRE AT
4:00 P.M. ON JANUARY 4, 1988
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
MOTION made by Smith, seconded by Johnson directing the City
Manage.r~,to prepare a list of information items to be
discussed with the public, including examples of how much of
an estimated tax increase this facility will have on various
valued houses. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
MOTION made by Abel, seconded by Jessen to'adjourn at 9:45
P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager
Fran Clark, CMC, City Clerk
BILLS ..... JUNE
Batch 874053 Computer run dated 6/3/87 42,240.09
Batch 874054 Computer run dated 6/4/87 56,240.39
TOTAL BI LLS
~8,480.48
June 15, 1987
MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - WORK SESSION
June 15, 1987
The meeting was'called to.order at 7:50 P.M. by Mayor Smith. Members
present were:' Mayor Steve Smith, Counciimembers Don Abel, Liz Jensen,
Phyllis Jessen and Skip Johnson. Also present: City Manager Ed Shukle.
Mayor Smith asked the Council, prior to discussion of the budget resolution,
what their thoughts were on the City hiring a private assessor. He wanted
to know which way the Council was leaning on this issue. Councllmembers
Jensen, Johnson and Jessen indicated that they were against hiring a
private assessor. Councilmember-Abel indicated that he thinks it is wort~'
further study.
· Discussion. was. then held on setting some guidelines for the City Manager in
his development of the 1.988 Budget. Consensus was to.have the Mayor draft
a.resolution indicating the. Counci'l's intent on what t~hose guidelines
should be for the'General Fund. The scenarios are:t" .1) a low budget
figure of $1,990,000; 2) a medium budget figure of'$2,129.,000; 3) the
City Manager~:s recommended Budget. The Council will review this resoluti'on
at.the June 23rd meeting. Consensus was that these figures were not
~'etched in stone~.
The Mayor indicated that the Drug Task Force he. appointed earlier this year
will be coming forth in the next couple of weeks to make a presentation
.at a City-Council Meeting, verbally as well as providing a written report
on'recommendations. These~recommendations may require additional expen-
ditures by the City.
It was then moved byAbel, seconded by Jensen and carried unanimously to
adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 P.M.
Ed Shukle
City Manager
ES:lc
June 23 .. !'~.87
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Mal~,'or- arid City Cou~
Liz'Jensen, Counci
Method c, 9 Assessin~
I recieved a telephone call
Geog9 Michael
1713 R,,.,ocet La~e
Mound
· ~ci l
[ Representative
this ev'er~i nC~ 9r°om;
He stated that he ~.~.~c, u ld not be ab le to attend t. he pub l ic
hear. in~ on the .-=~.sessinc4 issue but that he u.~az-~ted biz
or-'inior~ enter, ed into the r'ecor'd.
Mr-. M icha. e l ~tated tha~ he thinks Mound should continue
~.~i+..h the contract +..hat ~i~e have ~.~.~ith Hennepin C:oun~y ~o do
our- a~sess i rl~.
Hound,..4elnnesota
June 18, 1987
· '"The-Honorable Mayor and Ctt¥ Counct1
~.-. 'City Of Hound
..:,i~:',/~ 5341 HRywood Road
Hound, Minnesota 55364
· ~:~'r 'H'ayor Sm1 th and Ctty Corec11 Members,
;,...": Due:to a previous coneftment I regret that ! am unable to attend the June
:Z3Cd hear. l. ng,..~relattve to the' assessing function. The Impact of your dectston
· prompts~me...,to.~pen my feelings. As a gauge to the relavancy of my statements my
backg~d:ts as_ follows: '
~;ii,~,~.Restdent of Hound stnce 1931
· ":'~"~nttal property owner in Hound stnce 1950
,~,,~mbe~ of comtttee for Plan B form 'of government .-. .......
~':'.?'i:!:..CO.;imerclal property.Owner tn Mound (1955-1984)
.... :.,~Hember: of Ctty Council 1958-1963 of ~tch 4~ years were as
· .-.~i~P~ ~uld 'be na~ye tO"th]nk that aSsessing and taxatton is ¢a~'~: to
eacl~ ~dl.e'v~ty~Jaerson but.there ts a method whtch ts.ndntmally at'ceded by soctal
Or econ'ojntci:.status or pers~l:,feeltngs and most equitable for the greatest'
number .Of:R~Y owners. ~;Havtng &Xpe.rtenced the methods and results~.of 'many
assessOrs;i!:~'O~ .good some badL~i~:~r ~he Period of'37 years-as a Property ewner
and obserVa~.t:of the admlntst~at't~, staff and clertcal ttme costs as,well as
tnd_~'t dual:~)b'i t_' ;ct ca1 pressu~s '"-Z: am ftrmly .convinced ~hat the con~,i;"aCt' wt th
Henneptrl..,:.Cou.nty,: for asSesst'ng, should be continUed. · ",:':i i~'
,, · yoU~fco;,~tent staff:]:'~m sure can provt.de you wi.th the procedural-:~.cOStS
· .and pt, tfai'is':.o.f,a local city assessor. The Current method and pmcess.:of,...
"' revte~:~!:hea~tng of those:wh~' feel there has been tnequlty whether-real!or
tmq, gtned:haS..~be.eln fairest to the greatest n~nbet, of.property owners°
Yours respectfully,
H. B. R. Larson ::"":' -'"": ~:
June 17, 1957
TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Leo~_,'d Xopp
SUBJECT: County Assessing
Due to another committment I cannot attend the June 23 hearing
on assessing, but would like.to express m~concerns on local
assessing and urge you to continue with County Assessing.
To keep this letter short, I will write only about two points:
cost and public acceptance.
I Cost: Will probably be more if done loca].ly. You are
paying (according to the paper) $37,000 to $38,000 -
a qualified assessor plus fringe benefits will come
close to that. Then in all probability, youwillneed
additional help for the assessor as well as considerable
computer t~.~.
II Acceptance: When the city had its own assessor (and
~len Newellwas a very competent assessor) the City
Council was besieged at each Board of Review for changes.
After the County. did the assessing there was a drastic
drop in complaints at the Boards of Review. It is
suggested that the Council discuss that point with the
Councilpersonsvho served when the change was made~
and previous to the change. .
If it is the Council's intention to change assessors, it
is suggested tbatyou carefully review all the ramifications
and the cost of each method.
I doubt that youwill ever find an assessor that everyone
approves of andagrees with, but I feel the County Assessor
over the years has served the City well, and I urge you to
continue using the County.
THIS WAS GIVEN TO BOTH THE LAKER AND THE'SAILOR NEWSPAPERS
ASSESSING LAWS & PROCEDURES - by' Keith Rennderfeldt, Hennepi'n County Assessor
At the Hound City Council Heeting on June ~, 1~87, the Council expressed
concern about the general public's understanding of assessing laws and pro-
cedures and asked that an overview be presented in the local newspapers.
Assessment laws and procedures are established by the State Legislature.
Those laws require the assessor to value and classify all property as of'
January 2 of each year. Your assessor's job is to properly estimate the
market value of each property so everyone pays a fair share of the costs ..
of local government. "Market Value" simply means what you could sell your
property for in today'smarket. The assessor estimates your market value
by studying the sales of similar properties in your city. By law, at least
one-fourth of all the properties in your city must ~e-,individuallX appraised
each year. During these inspections, the assessor checks your property's
.characteristics, its current condition, any'changes Xou max have made,
and any changes in the neighborhood that may affect your property's market
value. Although the assessor max get out to see your property only once
every four years, he is responsible for making sure that all properties -
· not just those visited in any one year - are estimated at the correct market
value each year. As required by law, property owners are mailed change
of value notices in the spring of each year. If you disagree with the
market value, call your assessor to discuss the value with him. Then if
Xou still disagree with the new estimated market value, there are further
steps you can take. Those steps are listed on the value notice.
-Your assessor also assigns a classification to your property based on how
it is used. The legislature has set statutory assessment percentages for
each classification of property. Your property's estimated market value
is cpnverted to an assessed value by multiplying it by the proper assessment
percentage.
The assessor turns his information (market values, classification and
assessed values) over to the County Auditor. At the same time, locally
elected governments {city and county officials and school boards, etc.)
are finalizing their budgets and sending them to the County Auditor. The
county auditor then divides the budget total by the assessed value of all
the property. The result is the tax rate {mill rate) that must be applied
to meet the budget.
There is a long process of appeals, hearings, budget meetings, etc., between
the time your assessor estimated the January 2, 1987, market value of your
property and the time you receive your lg88 tax statement based on that
value. Your assessor plays an important part in the real estate tax
system by making sure all properties are valued and classified correctly.
You can have input on local budgets through the people you elect to your
city council, school board and county board. The budgets they set to
meet your community's needs determines what the tax rate on your property
will be.
LEGAL NOTICE
CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA
PUBLIC HEARING
The City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota will hold a public
hearing on Tuesday, June 9, 1987, at 7:30 P.M. in the ~ounCil Chambers
at 5341May~ood Road, in said City.. The purpose of this hearing will
be to allow residents the opportunity to express their views on the
City of Hound having assessing done by Hennepin County or private
contractor. All persons will be heard.
Francene C. Clark, CMC, City Clerk
Publish in The Laker june 1, 1987
/
75 YEARS
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155
April 22, 1987
TO:
FROM:
City Council
City Clerk
The City Manager has requested that I reseach the merits of having
Hennepin County do our assessing or having our own City Assessor.
The following points are very important in formulating a decision:
1. Property tax as a source of revenue to the City.
A. Authority to tax.
B. The role of property tax.
C. "Real" property tax.
Assessment of property.
A. Assessment officials.
Valuation of property.
A. Classification of property.
Equalization procedures.
A. City Board of Review.
,P,~OPERTY TAX AS A SOURCE OF REVENUE FOR THE CITY OF MOUND.
Property tax is no longer the major source of revenue for
Minnesota cities. Less than one quarter of city revenue .is
derived from property tax.
AUTHORITY TO TAX
Ail taxing authority is vested in the state legislature. It is
the state legislature which authorizes city property taxes and
sets limits upon such taxes. Consequently, all city taxing
authority is subject to change or revision by the legislature at
any time.
ROLE OF PROPERTY TAX
There are, essentially, only three kinds of taxes: those levied
against what a person earns, owns or spends.~ 'inCome tax is an
example of the first, sales tax represents the. last. The
property tax, whether levied against real or personal property,
is a tax against the wealth which a person owns. It is essential
'that local officials be intimately familiar with property tax
itself, with the tax levy limits and authorizations, with the
details of its execution and with the maintenance of improvement
of the tax base.
Property tax supports many different governmental Jurisdictions.
For example every dollar that a City of Mound property owner,
pays, through the property tax the following percentage of that
dollar 'goes for:
City of Mound
School Dist. #277
Vocational School
Misc. Levies
Watershed District
Hennepin County
16.76~
49.30%
I .31~
5
.12%
"' TOTAL 100.00%
"REAL" PROPERTY TAX
The City has no authority to determine what property is taxable,
l'1'17
nor in what proportions or amounts. The legislature alone
prescribes the procedures to be followed and sets all rates and
.exemptions. The assessor and the local board of review are
authorized only to determine valuations in accordance with the
procedures prescribed by the legislature.
All real property subject to taxation is listed and at least one-
fourth of the parcels listed must be each year with reference to
their Value on January 2 preceding the assessment so that each
parcel is reappraised at maximum intervals of four years.
~SSESSMENT OF PROPERTY
There are four basic steps in the assessment of property:
(1) Appraising property to determine its full and true value;
(2) Classifying property to establish its assessed value; (3)
Equalizing valutaions to reduce inequities; (4) reassessing
property when necessary. SEE VALUATION OF PROPERTY for the first
2 items and the last two SEE EQUALIZATION PROCEDURES.
ASSESSMENT OFFICIALS
STATE OFFICIAL
The state commission of revenue supervises the administration of
assessment laws, striving to secure just and equal assessment of
all property in the state. Some of the commissioner's duties
include ordering the reassessment of any or all real or personal
property in any assessment district and requiring cities to
supply apy needed information relating to the assessment of
property and collection of taxes.
17 8
COUNTY OFFICIAL
The assessment official at the county level is the county
assessor. It is his or her duty to make the final determination
of the value of all property subject to assessment and taxation.
If there is a city assessor, the locally appointed assessor views
and appraises the property, but all the book work and final
evaluations are assigned by the county assessor. This means that
if there are deficiencies in the assessment procedures or any
inequity in the value of property, the county assessor is
empowered to correct them and the costs for the" corrections would
be for charged to the city.
CITY ASSESSOR
· A. city assessor places valuations on all taxable real property in
the city. To do this, the assessor receives annually from the
county auditor, on or before the first Monday in December of each
year, the necessary assessment books and blanks. The work must
be completed and books returned to the county auditor either on
or.before the first Monday in May or after the last meeting of
the city board of review, whichever date is later.
VALUATION OF PROPERTY
All property is to be valued at its market value. "Market value"
is defined by State Statute to mean the usual selling price at
the place where the property to which the term is applied is
located at the time of assessment, being the price which could be
obtained at a private sale and not at a forced or auction sale.
Market value is not necessarily the same as original cost or
intrinsic value since the assessor is also authorized, to consider
other value-producing factors in assigning value to property in
terms of money.
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY
The assessed value of property, that value on which tax is
imposed, is a given percentage of the property's market value~
The percentage of market value that is actually submitted subject
to tax is fixed by state law and depends upon the property,s
classification wh. ich in turn depends upon its use.
The process of deriving a property's assessed value for tax
purposes can be demonstrated as follows.
Let us assume that the property being valued is land and a
'building for residential homestead purposes, and that their
combined market value is $100,000, as determined by the
assessor. To determine the assessed value, the market value
is multiplied by the percentage rate established for the
particular classification of property. In this case it would
be:
18% of the 1st $65,000 which equals $ 11,700.00
and 28% over $6§,000 which equals 9,'800.0Q
ASSESSED VALUE $ 21,500.00
Tax on this property would be figured as follows:
Assessed Value ($21,500) x millrate (108.637) = $2335.70 tax
The homestead credit is figured as follows:
54%' of tax, up to $700.00 maximum
TOTAL TAX ON HOMESTEAD PROPERTY
- ?oo.,0,0
$1635.70
This same property non-homestead would be figured as £ollows:
28~ of Market Value ($100,000) x mlllrate (108.637) =
$30~].8~ TOTAL TAX ON A NON-HOMESTEAD PROPERTY
EQUAL~ZATIOli PROCEDURES
After the assessor has completed the work, it is reviewed and,
within limitations, modified at the city, county and state levels
of government;. During this review procedure, two kinds of
corrections are made:
~. The assessor's lists are check for ac~'Uracy, individual
complaints are heard, and any'necessary adjustments are
made. This the sole conoern of the city board of
review.
2. The ratio of mar'ket to assessed market values is
equalized. The county and state boards devote a
grea~er percentage of their time ~o this ~ask.
Only when ~he assessments have been reviewed and equalized b2 all
~hree levels of government, do they become the official assessed
values for ~ax purposes.
CITY BOARD OF REVIEW
In Mound's case, the City Council is the Board of Review which
meets as it will on May ~2th. The city assessor (if Mound had
one) and the county assessor must attend this meeting with their
assessment books and papers. At the first meeting the board and
the assessor accept and record the complaints and reasons. Then
the board adjourns and the assessor reviews the parcels.in
question and brings back his recommendations at a later meeting,
but no later than 20 days after the first meeting.
In fulfilling ~ts role,
functions to perform:
the board of review has three main
1. It must review the assessor's list, making sure that
all taxable property in the city has been properly
placed upon it.
2. It must review the assessor's valuations, striving to
standardize the ratio between market value and adjusted
market value for each individual piece of property. T~
accomplish this, the board may. raise or lower
valuations on individual properties, but increases in
valuations cannot be made without first notifying the
property owner and giving him an opportunity to be'
heard.
3. The board must hear and settle complaints of individual
property owners regarding the valuations which have
been placed upon their property.
The local board of review may not reduce the total or aggregate
amount~ of the assessment returned by the county assesser by more
than -l~; This means that compensation must be made for
reductions in assessed values by making comparable increases in
assessments against other parcels of property. (NOTE: THIS IS
VERY IMPORTANT.)
Ifa persons still feels aggrieved by an assessment after the
local board of review, he or she may appear before the county
board of equalization, but persons NOT appearing or notifying the
local board of review of their complaint may not move on to the
?
county board of review.
SERVICES INCLUDED IN ASSESSING CONTRACT COST WITH HENNEPIN COUNT~
1. Maintenance of a computer file and physical file on each
property's physical characteristics, valuation and
classification.
2. Physically inspect and review 25% of the parcels each year
as required by State statute.
3. The remaining 75~ are adjusted by use of their computer
assisted assessment system.
Physically inspect and value all new construction, additions
and renovations·
Conduct all homestead procedures (see attached Exhibit "A").
Process all divisions and combinations for Mound·
Initiate, for the taxpayer, abatement applications.
Make appraisals for, testify or negotiate all district court
or tax court filings.
9. Analysis of property saleS.
10. Preparing assessment runs.
11. Reviewing properties at taxpayer's request.
12. When valuation notices are mailed, they have appraisers on
duty to answer telephone inquiries and do reView appraisals
-this effort is aimed at resolving as many taxpayer
concerns as possible prior to the local Board of Review.
13... A representative from the County Assessor's Office attends
the local Board of Review as the primary advisor to the
board members on valuation and assessing procedures· T~ey
also do additional review appraisals and related
investigations as requested by the local board. They also
attend any other meetings the Council deems necessary.
1/4. They have at least one appraiser on duty each day to answer
Mound taxpayer questions.
We will be paying $38,707 in 1987 for these services. Mound has
/4,691 parcels which means that it costs about $8.25 per parcel
for Hennepin'County to assess.
If the 'City went for a private contract the only service Hennepin
County would provide to the taxpayers of Mound would be to tell
them what thei. r taxes are. Any other calls or inquiries would be
directed to the city and then on to the local assessor.
The county assessor has charged the following since 198/4:
198;4 $37,637
1985 $37,9/45
1986 $37,9/44
1987 $38,7O7
PROPOSED COSTS FOR LOCAL ASSESSOR (CONTRACT EHPLOYEE).
An average starting salary for an assessor in the metro area is
$39,200. The City would have to provide the following:
1. Necessary filing area and working area for the purpose
maintaining required assessment records.
2. All of the equipment and supplies necessary of required
for performance of services.
3. Pay for all direct expenses, including those forms and
supplies, film, aerials and other miscellaneous and
homestead material and postage. ~.
Necessary support staff to. process homesteads (See
Exhibit A for duties), type, answer more phone calls,
etc.
I have found that cities that contract with private contract
assessors are paying from $10.12 per parcel to $12.00 per parcel.
Page 1 - EXHIBIT ~A~
Homestead applications are taken for both full-year and mid-year homesteads°
When applying for homestead, applicant must do the following:
1) complete homestead application
2) submit a copy of the deed
3) submit proof of occupancy, when needed.
Processing the homestead application:
1) check over the application form
2)' check deed for the following:
a) date
b) signatures
c) notary signature
d) legal description
contact'applicant if more information is needed
3)
5)
6)
index cards (both alphabetical and numerical) are made for each home-
stead application that is completed and filed in with other active cards.
(There are at least 2 index cards for each parcel that is homesteaded.)
The old index cards are pulled out and filed in with the inactive index
cards.
A homestead declaration card must be typed if parcel was not homesteaded
the previous year.
Homestead application and copy of the deed is filed with the other
applications for that year.
Homestead declaration cards are mailed on December 31st of each year for full-year
homestead applicants and on May 31st for mid-year applicants. The homestead cards
are printed by computer for those parcels that were homesteaded the previous year.
The others' must be tYPed --- these include all of the mid-year cards.
Ieo
Page 2 - EXHIBIT
When the homestead cards are returned, they are compared to the-index cards that
were made when the original application was taken. They are checked for the follow~
1) name
2) address
3) ?.I.D. Number
4) signature
5) Social Security Number
If one of the above do not match, check out and make any changes that are needed.
If the homestead card checks out to be OK, the ~ollowi~g is done:
1) homestead card is stamped date received
2) index card is stamped date the homestead card is received
3) folder is marked to indicate homestead credit should be given for that year
4) homestead cards are filed in P.I.D. number, order.
Final notices are mailed to those who do not return their homestead card .
For homestead applicants who do not qualify, the index cards are pulled from the
active cards and filed in with the inactive.
Returned-in-the-mail homestead cards are kept and filed.
The index cards must be kept up to date through out the year.
Envelopes and homestead cards must be ordered for the mailing of the homestead cards.
A primary/secondary list is typed once a year. This is a list of all homesteaders
wh° .are homesteading more than one parcel for that year. This information is obtained
from the index cards.
I o?
CITY OF MOUND
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARIN~ FOR
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
'Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Hound will meet in
the Council Chambers of the City Hail at 7:~0 P.M. on Tuesday, June 2~, 1987 to
consider the making of improvements on Shoreline Boulevard (Hennepin County
Road No. 15) between Comme~ce Boulevard and Fairview Lane by the addition of
street lights pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 429.011 to 42_g.111. The
area proposed to be assessed for such improvement is the property abuttin9 on
such street. The estimated cost 'of sUch tmpzovement is $127,~5~.00. Such
persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed improvement will.
be heard at this meeting.
" Fran Clark
CityClerk
5341 Naywood Road
Mound, HN 55364."
(PubliShed in the' Laker Oune 8th and l~th, 1~87.)
EXCERPT FROH THE HINUTES OF HAY 26, 1987
DISCUSSION ON ADDITIONAL PROJECTS TO BE DONE DURING TR£-COUITI?
ROAD 15 PROJECT:
B. STREET LIGHT REPLACEMENT
The City Engineer expiained the Cost "£stimate -
Alternates I - ~. He then explained the methods for
assessing different percentages to Privately owned
property. The Council d~soussed the above and dec~ded on
Method B - 50~ of the total cost assessed to privately
owned property and Alternate ~1, as follows:
A~nount to be assessed would be $63,677.00
Cost per foot for commercial property 14.58
Cost per foot for res[dent£al property. 9.72
~ohnson .moved and Jessen seconded the following
resolution:
RESOLUTION #87-106
RESOLUTTOli RECETVTNG PREL~'MTNAR!
ENGINEERING REPORT AND CALLING
HEARING FOR STREET L~GHT ~HPROVEHEN~
ON SHORELINE BL~.
The vote was unanimously in favor.' Motion carried.
McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc.
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
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 55441
612/559-3700
1-800-328-8322 Ext. 784
May ll, 3.987
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Councii
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
SUBgECT:
Preiiminary Engineering RepOrt
Street Lights County Road No. 15
~<A ~8259
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
As requested, we are submitting herewith a P~eliminary Engineering Report
for new street iights on County Road No. 15.
If you have any questions, or requi~e additional information on anything in
.this report, we wiii be pleased to discuss this further with you at your
convenience.
Very truiy yours,
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Oohn Cameron
~:jmj
Enclosures
Enginee
Planners
Surveyors
!
GEh~RAL
This report will investigate the cost and feasibility of installing a new
street light£ng 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 Commerce 8oulevard 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 county's contractor.
There are ~lso 13 existing street lights mounted on N.S.P. poles at various
locations between Beimont Road and Bartiett Boulevard. Host of 'these are
iocated at intersections, but a few are in mid-biock such as the two across
from the apartment buiidings. We beiieve 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 Bouievard. The iight standards wouid be 35 feet high with a
6 to 8 foot mast on the top of the poie. The Iamps wouid be either 150 watt
high pressure sodium or 250 watt high pressure sodium, the same as are in use
aiong Commerce Boulevard. Electricai outiets 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) new. 250 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 Bouievard would remain in approximately the
same location. AIternate No. 2 wiii investigate the feasibiiity of instailing
new iights the entire iength of the street improvement from Commerce Boulevard
to Bartiett Bouievard. For this Alternate, nine - 150 watt high pressure
sodium and seven - 250 watt high pressure.sodium lights wouid be added to
Alternate No. 1 for the area from Fairview Lane to Bartlett Bouievard, with the
lower wattage lamps used in the residential area. ~J~
The existin9 fluorescent lights provide approximately 1.7 foot candies at
street level compared to an average of 2 foot candies for the 250 watt fixtures
with~100 foot., alternate... .. spacin~ and approximately 1 foot candle for the
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
sodium 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 ~o not maintain the existing fluorescent ..
lights. At the present time, the existing system from Commerce 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. ~. with 46 fixtures, would cbst $3,3~4~00 per year to
operate and maintain.
COST ESTIMATES
As previOusly mentioned, two of the existin9 fluorescent lights are within
the proposed construction Iimits for County Road 15 anO would need to be
relocated by the county's contractor. I~ 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,~5~.00
$ 202,~7~.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 deOucted from each of the
Alternates, if the existing lights interfere with the street.construction. A
breakdow~ of the estimated cost for each Alternate is enclosed.
COST ESTIMATE - ALTERNATE NO.
ITEM
OUANTITY l~IT PRICE
Poles and Fixtures
(250 Watt)
Bases
Wire
CondUit
ControlCenters
30 EACH $ 1,100.O0/EA
30 EACH $ 550.O0/EA
26,000 L.F. $ 1.25/LF
600 L.F. $ 7.20/LF
~ EACH $ 2,100.O0/EA
Contingencies
Total Estimated Construction Cost
Engineering, Legal, Fiscal and Administrative Costs
Total Estimated Cost Alternate No. 1
· COST ESTIMATE - ALTERNATE NO. 2
ITEM
QUANTITY UNIT PRICE
Poles and Fixtures
(250 Watt)
Poies and Fixtures
(i50 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 Administrative Costs
Total Estimated Cost Alternate No. I
TOTAL
~,000.00
16,~00.00
~2,~00.00
4,320.00
6,300.00
$
$101,882.00
$ 25~471.00
$127,353.00
TOTAL
$ 42,900.00
$ 7,000.00
$ 25,~00.00
$ 55,000.00
$ 6,480.00
$ 10,500.00
$ 14~718.00
$161,898.00
$ 40~475.00
$202,373.00
ASSESS~N~
On the previous street light project along County Road 110, approximately
1/3 of the total cost was assessed to the aDutting private properties. On this
project, we would recommend that a minimum of 40% of the total cost be assessed
to the private property abutting the improvements.
each Alternate breaks down as follows:
Alternate No. 1
Commercial Property
Residential and Multiple
City Owned and Unassessable
Total
The assessable footage for
4,300 L.F.
lO0 L.F.
!.t740 L.F.
6,140 L.F.
Alternate No. 2.
Commercial Property
Residential and Multiple
City Owned and Unassessable
Total
4,72.5 L.F.
2,87.5 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 ~roperty. If the same procedure is
used, the proposed assessments for each Alternate would be as follows:
~ETHOD A - 40~ OF THE TOTAL COST ASSESSED TO PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY
Alternate No. 1
Amount to be Assessed Wouldbe
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
t45THOD B - 50% OF THE TOTAL COST ASSESSED TO PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTY
Alternate No. I
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 Commercial Property
Cost Per Foot for Residential Property
$101,187. O0
15.24
10 · 16
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
'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°
CITY OF MOUND
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT
Notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Mound will meet in
the Council Chambers of the City Hall at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, June 23, 1987 to
consider the making of street improvements on Shoreline Boulevard (Hennepin
County Road No. 15) between Commerce Boulevard and the Mound City limits at
Seton Channel by the construction of curb and gutter, concrete driveway aprons,
sidewalk and storm sewer, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Sections 429.011 to
429.111. The area proposed to be assessed for such improvement is the properly
abutting on such street. The estimated cost of such improvement is
$331,518.00. Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to the proposed
improvement will be heard at this meeting.
Fran Clark
City Clerk
5341 Maywood Roa~
-- Mound, MN 55364
(PubIished in the Laker Sune 8th and 15th, i987)
EXCERPT FROH THE 'HINUTES OF I'tAY 26, 1987
CURB, GUTTER AND CONCRETE APRON, STORM SEWER & S]~DEW~LKS
The City .Engineer reviewed the report that was submitted
earlier in May to the Council. He stated that the amount
of deficit funding if Alternate I with method B
assessment is used for the street lights would be,
$35,801. The next step would be to call a publio
hearing. The date %hosen was June 23, 1987, at 7:30 P.H.
Jessen moved .and Jenson seconded the followin~
resolution:
RESOLUTION
~87-107
RESOLUTION RECEIVING PRELTI4TNAR!
ENGINEERTNG REPORT AND CALLIIIG
HEARING ON SHORELINE BOULEVARD
(HENNEPTN COUNTY ROAD NO. 15) STREET
TMPROVEHENT
The vote was unanimously in favor. Hotion carried.
I, 18
~~k, McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc.
~PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT
· FOR
COUNTY ROAD 15 IMPROVEMENTS
CITY OF MOUND
MAY, 1987
Enginee, ~
Planners
Surveyors
12800 Industrial Park Blvd., Plymouth, MN 55441 612/559-3700 1-800-328-8322 Ext. 784
MOUND CITY:" CO~CIL
WE THE UNDERSIGNED. AS A~!~TTING PROPERTY OWNERS ARE OPPOSED
ASSESSED FOR T}{E C0UNTY,:R0~ 1'5 IMPR0~~
b~J,3
a,3oo
TO ~ING
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
WE THE UNDERSIGNED~ AS ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS ARE OPFOSED TO BEEG
ASSESSED FOR THE COUNTY ROAD 13r IMPROVEMENTS
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
WE T~ UNDEI~SIGNED~ AS ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNERS ARE OPPOSED TO BEING
ASSESSED FOR THE C6~TY ROAD 15 /MPRO~TS
POLLED BY PHONE
McOombs-Knutson Associates, Inc.
12800 Industrial Park Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55441
612/559-3700
1-800-328-8322 Ex1784
May 7, 1987
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, Minnesota 55364
SUBOECT:
County Road 15 Improvements
Preliminary Engineering Report
MK~ 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-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
$ohn Cameron
OC:cah
/8',,?0
GEneRAL
Hennepin County Project No.'8024, which is scheOuied for construction in
1988 inciudes 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. Aiso scheduled for 1~88 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 pians
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
ianes. The inpiace concrete pavement wii1 be overiayed with bituminous
surface.
The plans call for the actual reconstruction to begin at the entrance to
the city parking lot adjacent to the post office and continuing eastJ 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 proposeO 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 provided 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
the City ~equest Hennepin County install concrete siOewalk in this area as part
of the project.
COST ESTIMATES
The preliminary cost estimates included at the end of this report were
provided by ~ennepin County. The City of Mound's share of the proposed
construction is estimated to be $~09,924.86, which is broken down as follows:
Estimated
Construction
Cost
Estimated Cost inclo
Hennepin County
County Engineering
Estimated Cost incl.
Hennepin County
Engineering & Add'i
City Expenses
1. Right-of-Way $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00
2. Concrete Curb & Gutter 40,687.50 47,604.38 51,412.73
[ Concrete Driveway Aprons 15,000.00 17,550.00 18,954.00
ConCrete Sidewalk 50,062.50 58,573.13 63,258.98
Storm Sewer 103,355.00 120,925.35 130,599.37
~ Timber Retaining Walls 21,600.00 25~272.00 _ 27~293.76
* Rlease 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 'included in' the total. We have included %his 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 ~ddition 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
all the State Aid streets in the City to State standards. In 1~87, the City of
Mound received $17~,~52.00 from the State for street construction and
maintenance on State Aid streets. The construction portion of the allotment
$148,~52 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 bedone to state
standarOs of width, load limit, parking regulations, etc.
At the present time, Mound has $180,469.00 in their construction fund with
approximateiy $~5,000 of this totai set aside for remaining reimbursement on
the Lynwood Bouievard ProJect, ieaving a projected baiance of approximateiy
$i45,000.00. Mound s~oulO receive close to the same cogstruction allotment in
1988 (approximateiy $148,000) as they did this year, which if added to the
projected baIance woul~ result in a fund balance of approximateiy $29~,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 i5 which is eligible for State Aid
reimbursement. This would have to be negotiated with Hennepin County since it
is thei~ project and they can aiso receive State Aid money. We have estimated
that approximateiy $189,600.00 of Mound's share of the construction cost is
e~iigibie for State Aid reimbursement.:
ASSESSNENTS
Since the street construction program began in i975, virtualiy 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 assesseO 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 llO was improved in 1981, 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 15 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 ar~ 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 iineal foot basis 'for the curb and
gutter and a square yard basis for driveway aprons.
The proposed assessment for curb and gutter would be $5i,412.7~ divided by
10,200 lineal feet which equals $5.0~..pe~ lineal ~oot. The proposed assessment
for driveway aprons is $18,954.00 divided by 1,O00 square yards which equais
$_~18.95 per.._.$quare yard, A typical driveway apron is 16 feet wide by l0 feet
deep, resulting in an assessment of $~6.89. Wider aprons would be
proportionately 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 $)1,629.47 divided by 44,500 S.~F. which
equals $0..71 per square foot. For a typical 80 foot wide residential lot 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. Prior to that, storm sewers in Mound were
assessed 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 p2eviously
assessed for street improvements which included storm sewer. We would
recommend that the storm 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 wili 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 equais $0.075 per square foot.
Sewer and Water Services
If during construction it is determined that sewer or water services need.
to be instaIled where, none previousIy existed, the cost.for same wouid be
assessed to the benefitting property.
Summary of Estimated Totals to be Assessed
Concrete Curb and Gutter $ 51,412.73
Concrete Driveway Aprons 18,954.00
Concrete Sidewalks 31,629.49
Stqrm Sewer
Total $ 232,595'59
· · 130~599 37
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 the 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 89 x 100 ~ot would be assessed $600.00 for storm sewer,
$403.20 for curb and gutter, $336.89 for a driveway apron an~ $227.20 for
.sidewalk for a total of $1,56~.29~ This compares with an assessment of
$~5_~~77.75 for the same size lot on the 1980 Street Improvement Project.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
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 iate summer or
early fall. The project woulO then be bid sometime in the winter of 87-88 with
actual construction to start in the spring. Mour~ 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 c~ 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.
HENNEPIN
IL
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
320 Washington Av. South
Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468
935-338~
March 11, 1987
bdd: T. J. Hoffman
File 15/7924
Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr.
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Ma.~od Road
Mound, Minnesota, 55364
CSA~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 equol oppodunity employer
0 00000 000
0 00000 000
O OOOOO 000
OO
O 0 O ~0OO~ 00~ ~0~
~ 0 0 00000 000 O0
o
~ o~ . o o.ooo ~gg ~§g
0 ~0 0 00~00 000 O0
PROOECT COST SUMMARY
COUNTY ROAD 15 I~ROVE~ENTS AND STREET LIGHTS
PROPOSED FUNDED
ASSESSMSNTS BY CITY
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
STREET LIGHTS
(ALT. NO.1 WITH METHOD A ASSM'T)
TOTALS
STATE AID REIMBURSEMENT
DEFICIT FUNDING
$169,795 + $161,724
$ 50~941 + $ 76~412 =
$220,7'36 + $238,136 =
$189~600
$ 48,536
TOTAL
PRO. CT COST
$331,519
$127~353
$458,872
$35,801 IF ALT.
$93,547 IF ALT.
$73,311 IF ALT.
$71,970 IF ALT.
$55,329 IF ALT.
$38,688 IF ALT.
$31,812 IF ALT.
$21,864 IF ALT.
$11,924 IF ALT.
NO. 1 WITH METHOD B ASSESSMENT IS USED FOR STREET LIGHTS.
NO. 2'WITH METHOD A ASSESSMENT IS USED FOR STREET LIGHTS.
NO. 2 WITH METHOD B ASSESSMENT IS USED FOR STREET LIGHTS.
NO. 3 WITH METHOD A ASSESSMENT IS USED FOR STREET LIGHTS.
NO. 3 WITH METHOD B ASSESSMENT IS USED FORSTREET LIGHTS.
NO. 3 WITH METHOD C ASSESSMENT. IS USED FOR STREET LIGHTS.
NO. 4 WITH METHOD A ASSESSMENT IS USED FOR STREET LIGHTS.
NO. 4 WITH METHOD B ASSESSMENT' IS USED FOR STREET LIGHTS.
NO. 4 WITH METHOD C ASSESSMENT IS USED FOR STREET LIGHTS.
6-10-87
33 484 4905 32
33 593 4933 34
22 232 2361 73
22 238 4941 14
22 238 4957 14
22 238 5020 31
22 250 2142 32
22 259 4949 O1
22 259 5561 21
22 259 6549 61
22 259 6557 91
22 286 5915 32
22 286 6013 63
22 286 6040 91
22 292 6033 21
22 301 2910 41
22 310 2630 91
22 310 3148 15
22 324 2611 O1
22 337 5975 82
22 343.2509 63
~3~4 2530162
22 373 5031 53
22 382 2308 11
22 404 5017 71
22 404 5092 O1
Joe. Fi edler $191.90
Mike Gables 119.91
Bob Longnecker Pd. 79.74
Mark Semeja 88.99
Jim Cagle 76.10
Linda Nelson 87.63
Jim Anderst 134.64
H.G.Miller Pd. 65.70
Richard Stoik Pd. 69.36
Thomas Lavoi Pd. 99.45
M Malaski Pd. 101.05
Tim Bell 117.95
Brian Erickson 90.97
Peter Solstad Pd. 116.24
David Keller 74.33
Lambson & Metzker 107.66
W. Lang 111.87
d Katchmarek 79.79
Doug Eaton 102.53
J. Mittelsteadt 103.45
Michael Kroeing P~70.00141.54
Gary Winterfield 112.51
Dean Benson 193.00
Tim Heynan Pd. 88.33
Ray Martin Pd. $50.00 117.12
P Neuschwander Pd. 121.85
$2793.61
$1931.89
4905 Tuxedo Blvd.
4933 Drummond Rd.
2361 Fairview Ln.
4941 Edgewater Dr.
4957 Ed§ewater Dr.
5020 Edgewater Dr.
2142 Sandy Ln.
4949 Bartlett Blvd.
5561 BArtlett Blvd.
6549 Bartlett Blvd.
6557 Bartlett Blvd.
5915 Hawthorne Rd.
6013 Hawthorne Rd.
6040 Hawthorne Rd.
6033 Cherrywood Rd.
2910 Hazelwood Rd.
2630 Westedge Blvd.
3148 Westedge Blvd.
2611 Setter Circle
5975 Beachwood Rd.
2509 Commerce Blvd.
2550 Lakewood Ln.
5031Woodridge Rd.
2308 Driftwood Ln.
5017 Shoreline Blvd.
5024 Shoreline Blvd.
6-18-87
33 484 4905 32
33 553 4533 34
22 232 2361 73
22 238 4941 14
22 238 4957 71
22 238 5020 31
22 25O 2142 32
22 255 4949 O1
22 259 5561 21
22 259 6549 61
22 259 6557 91
22 286 5915 32
22 286 6013 63
22 286 6040 91
22 292 6033 21
22 301 2910 41
22 31o 2630 91
22 310 3148 15
22 324 2611 O1
22 337 5575 82
22 343 2509 63
22 364 2550 62
22 373 5031 53
22 382 2308 11
22 404 5017 71
22 303 5092 O1
Delinquent water and sewer
_ $191.9o
119.51
7~,74
88.59
76.10
87.63
134.64
65.70
99.45
101.05
117.95
90.97
116.24
74.33
107.66
111.87
79.79
lO2.53
103.45
141.54
112.51
193.o0
88.33
117.12
121.85
$2753.61
June 23, 1987
RESOLUTION NO. 87-
RESOLUTION APPROVING 3 PORTABLE SIGNS AND 2 BANNERS
ADVERTISING OUR LADY OF THE LAXE*S
'INCREDIBLE FESTIVAL
WHEREAS, Hound's Incredible Festival Committee,
sponsored by Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church has requested
permission to display three outdoor portable signs (4' x 8") to
be located as follows:
1. County Road 110 & Three Points Blvd. "
2. Mound Bay Par~
3. The parking lot across from the Ben Franklin; and
two banners: one on County Road 15 near the Beton Bridge and the
other on County Road ~]0 coming from St. Bonifaclus; and
WHEREAS, the City Code, Section 3~5~5, subdivision 10,
allows portable signs used for the purpose of directing the
public under certain conditions; and '
WHEREAS, Our. Lady of the Lake Catholic Church's
Incredible Festival meets.the conditions in the City Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the use of
portable signs and banners for a period of one month to advertise
the Incredible Festival as follows: three outdoor portable signs
(4' x 8") to be located as follows:
County Road ]10 & Three Points Blvd.
2. Mound Bay Park
3. The parking lot across from the Ben Franklin; and
two banners: one on County Road ]5 near the Beton Bridge and the
other on County Road 110 coming from St. Bonifacius
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
and seconded by Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
INTERLACHEN COUNTRY CLUB
6200 INTERLACHEN BOULEVARD
EDINA, MINNESOTA 55436
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL MANAGER
June 18,1987
Mrs. Fran Clark
City of.Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, Mn ~55364
Dear Mrs, 'Clark:
On behalf of Mound's Incredible Festival' committee, spon-
sored by Our Lady of the Lake~Catholic Church, I wish to re-
quest permission to displaythree outdoor signs (4' x 8'}.
The signs would be located at.the following locations:
Hwy 110 & three points blvd
.Mound Bay park
the city parking lot across'from'the.dime store
Inaddition, we request permission to display two banners
across city streets; one near the Seton Bridge andthe other
on 110 coming from St Boni.
The Council's favorable action to these requests will
be greatly appreciated. ~vT~l~Yo~s,
TEL. 929-1661
APPLICATION FO~SIGN PERHIT..
ADDRESS_.
street Number
City
PHONE NO. Z/?2,/~' t~'
BUI LO! NG OWNER :~w~ ~_
(If' other than ~pplicant) Name
CONTRACTOR. P
Name
S I GN LOCAT I ON' _ ~ ~L ~ s
LOT BLOCK'
Zip
Address
Address
ALLOWABLE S!GNAGE @ -- ~" "~ Square Footage
WALL AREA ...... BY' .Ft. = TOTAL ZONING DISTRICT .
EXISTING SIGNAGE' ,.~1'~ "' NUHBER OF SIGNS ~' SQ. FOOTAGE OF SIGNS
DESCRIBE SIGN (Hateria]s;' etc;)
HEIGHT OF SIGN
ILLUHINATED: YES NO
SIGN SIZE BEING REQUESTED ~,~ By ~
= SQ. lT.
LENGTH OF TIHE SEASONAL SIGN TO BE ERECTED:
TYPE OF SIGN: WALL HOUNT
FREE STANDING
PORTABLE
PLEASE DESCRIBE REQUEST AND REASON FOR REQUEST:
.. ,4.5.A,P,
Is sign for a community organization and does it meet 'all the standards of Sectio~
!'f additional information is attached, please submit 8~" X 11" maximum sized drawings.
Recommendation:
APPROVED:
Building Official
168 R 9185
r~, l)
dy,. /
Mound City Code Section 365:15, Subd. 9(e,
Ce)
~arage sale signs will be permitted ~n conjunct:ion with 'the sale of house-
hold goods and materials from private residences. Such si~s shall be
exempt from permits end f~es but shall be subject to the follo~ng:
Signs shall not exceed four (4) square feet in area.
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
The name and telephone number of the party responsible for the sale
shall be clearly marked on the si~n.
No signs shall be placed within the public way nor shall they be
ac~ached to any telephone poles or light stendards.
Directional o£f premise garage sale si~s ca~ be placed on private
property providing that the proper owners consent is obtained prior
to the placement of such signs.
The use of garage sale signs shall be limited
per calendar year per residence. :."
to five (5) occasions
(6) Boutiques, craft sales, and ocher 'sales events of hand-crafted
merchandise shall be subject to all garage sale signage provisions.
(7) Garage sale signs shall be limited to five (5) days per occurrence.
(f) Seasonal Signs - Seasonal signs of a t~rary or portable nature may be
used in the non-residential districts to promote or advertise on-premise
seasonal services or merchandise. Such' signs shall be limited to a maxhnu~
of thirtT-two (32)
square feet and shall not be left in place for more than
a two (2) month period. Permits and fees shall be required for all
seasonal sisns, and perm/Cs may be issued no more than two (2) times per
calendar year per business.
Except as may be specifically authorized by this Subd. 10 and Subd.
of this Section 365:15, portable signs are prohibited. A portable si~n
used for the purpose of directing the public may be permitted under the
· following conditions:
(a)
(b)
Said si~n is coincidental to, or used in conjunction with, a governmental
unit or quasi-public function; and
· The period of use of said sign shall not exceed ten (10) consecutive
days; and
(c) Signs shall noC be used more than four (4) times during a calendar year; and
(d) Prior approval of a majority of the City Council shall be required for
the use of any such sign; and
(e) Signs shall be placed bn the premises of the advertised event; and
(f) Such signs shall require the issuance of a permit but will be exempt
from all fees; and
Hound City Code
Section 36~:15, Subd. 11
(g) In the instance of a mulCt-use facility, only one seasonal s[~n ~ay
be placed on the premises at any one thne.
Subd. 11. Projecting wall signs shall be permitted only in Commercial Districts
provided the total stsn area does not exceed ten (10) square feet per building
face. Such signs shall not project over public property more than 18 inches.
Subd. 12. One address, name place and/or identification sign, visible from
the public way, shall be required per building in all districts. Such signs
shall contain the street address in minimum 4-inch nmnerals and shall be
securely attached to the structure.
Subd. 13. Canopies and marquees shall be considered an integral part of the
structure and shall not be considered as part of the wall area and shall not
warrant additional sign area.
Subd. 14. Signs located on the interior of a Building are exempt from the
provisions of this Section 365. However, such sig~s;, no~ including changeable
signs, shall not 'contain flashing lights that are visible from the exterior
of the building.
Subd. 15. A Comprehensive Sign Plan is required at the time of Planning
Commission review of any proposed commercial or industrial development. Said
plan shall indicate the location, size, height, color, lighting and
orientation of all proposed signs and shall Se-_--submitted for approval
pursuant to the regulations of the CiTy of Mound.
Subd. 16. Signs shall not exceed two faces. _
Subd. 17. Roof Signs. shall be prohibited in all districts except as noted
in Subds. $ and 6 of Section 365:20.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 87-639
RESOLUTION NO. 87-
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AND APPROVE A FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR LOT
3 AND PART OF LOT 4, BLOCK 13, SHADYWOOD POINT;
PID NO. 13-117-24 14 0019 (1779 Wildhurst Lane)
P & Z Case No. 87-639
WHEREAS, Mohamed M. Hamoude, owner of the property, has requested a
2 foot side yard .and a 15 foot front yard setback to allow the construction of
a 22 by 22 foot attached garage for Lot 3.and that part of Lot 4 lying easterly
of a line parallel wlth and distant 20 feet westerly measured at right angles from
the easterly line of said Lot 4, Block 13, Shadywood Point; and
WHEREAS, the City Code requires a 30 foot front yard and a 6 foot and 10
foot side yard setback for lots of record in the R-1 Single Family Residential
Zoning District; and
WHEREAS~ the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does
recommend a 4 foot side yard and 17 foot front yard setback to allOw the construc-
tion of a 20 by 20 foot attached garage.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, does hereby .approve a 2 foot side yard variance and a 13 foot front yard
variance due to the topography of the site to allow a 20 by 20 foot attached garage
for Lot 3 and that part of Lot 4 lying easterly of a line drawn parallel with and
distant 20 feet westerly measured at right angles from the easterly line of said
Lot 4, Block 13, Shadywood Point; PID No. 13-117-24 14 0019 (1779 Wildhurst Lane).
JB/ms
1757
TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Off|c,lal 7¢
Planning Commission Agenda of June 8, 198
CASE NO 87-63~
CASE NO. 87-639
APPLICANT: Mohamed M. Hamoude
LOCATION: 1779 Wildhurst Lane
LEGAL DESC.: Lot 3 and that part of Lot 4 lying Easteriyof a line drawn parallel
with and distant 20 feet Westerly measured at right angles from the
Easterly line of said Lot 4, Block 13, Shadywood Point; PID No.
13-117-24 14 0019
SUBJECT: Side yard and front ~rd setback variance -
EXISTING ZONING: R-'! Single Family Residential
The applicant is requesting a side yard and front yard setback'variance of 4 feet
and 15 feet respectively to allow the construction of 22 by 22 foot attached
garage.
The R-1 Zoning District requires 30 foot front yard and a 6 foot and 10 foot
side yard setback for lots of record.
COMMENTS: The lot slopes to the west and to the south. The present yard grade
is lower than the public right-of-way of Wildhurst Lane The variance that was
· n OW ·
granted by Resolution No. 78-5 required a variance in 1978, but/would not require
a variance approval with the setbacks as shown on the attached Resolution and
Exhibit A. The former Planning Commission also asked for documentation from the
deed to indicate the present driveway access onto the property. Looking at the
site, there is a 10.4 foot sideyard setback to the west and possibly if a garage
were detached and put in the rear yard of this property, it would be again a very
difficult driveway access as the slope would be approximately 10% grade or more.
The lot does abut a park and would be considered a lakeshore lot, I believe, by
the Zoning Ordinance. It was discussed whether or not a garage could be detached
in the.front yard location with the garage doors facing to the west as the former
owner had received a variance to locate it in such a manner· The present site
plan that was turned in with this application was not accurately scaled and proba-
bly indicates the garage would have to be shifted further to the east, but
in no case would be closer than 2 feet to the lot line on the west side. The
structure on the property is'also presently located at an angle to the property
RECOMMENDATION:. The staff would recommend that if the Planning Commission would
grant the 4 foot side yard variance and 15 foot front yard Variance to allow the
construction of this attached garage, the applicant would have to submit to the
City proof from the title of the 10 foot driveway easement on the west property.
This would alleviate any construction within 10 feet of the adjourning proRerty
and would assure open space between this new attached garage and any further con-
struction on the adjoining property. The hardship on the lot would be the topo-
graphy of the site.
Report on Variance Request for 177~) Wi ldhurSt Lane
Page 2
CASE NO. 87-639
The abutting neighbors, have been notified. However, the owner of the property
to the west, i believe, is in Japan at the present time.
This will be referred to the City Council on June 23, ]987.
ResolUt|on 78-5 and the site plan, Exhibit A, is attached w|th the.request.
JB/ms
Planning Commission Minutes
June 8, 1987
Case NO o 87-639 Side yard and front yard setback variances for 1779 Wildhurst
Lane; Lot 3 and part of Lot 4, Block 13, Shadywood Point; PID 13-117-24 14 0019
Mohamed Hamoude was present.
The Building 0fficial reviewed her report on request for a 4 foot side 'yard
variance and a 15 foot front yard variance to allow the construction of a
22 by 22 foot attached garage. She stated it appears to her the proposed
garage would have to be shifted .to the east or it will be over the lot line.
The staff is reco~nending granting the side yard and front yard setback
variances due to the hardship of the topography Of ~he lot with the condi-
tion that applicant sU~t proof of the 10 foot driveway easement on the
west property.
The Conm%ission disCUssed the problems of driveway and the difficult instal-
lation of the garage. APPlicant stated he has not been able to find an
easement recorded for the driveway; it is only access he had to his property.
Also he stated he is agreeable to reducing the size of his garage to 20 by
20 feet. The Cc~mission discussed that he'd have to put drive on his own
property and that. shifting garage would cover front door. The Planner stated
with the c/mange, he would have a 17~ north facing driveway; the street, eleva-
tion is set as is the building elevation and there is not much you can do
atto. ut the grade. Applicant stated he would build up the front yard so drive-
way comes into the garage. He,ll have-quite a retaining wall and garage
would be higher than the house. Co~nission discussed at length.
Weiland mmved and Thal seconded a motion to grant ~ .2' foot side yard 'wari--
ance and a 13 foot front yard variance to construct a .20 by 20 foot
attached garage on the property with applicant working out the .specifics.
Commission discussed that possibly he could get an easement established;
but if not, he'd be .able to go ahead with the project. The vote on the
motion was all in' favor .except Michael abstained from the vote.
Michael thought the wariance as requested should be granted.
This will be referred to'the City C0uncil on June 23, 1987~
i
87-63'9 '
Case No. '
CITY OF HOUND Fee Paid,
-~ . ~""o '-?~ ~,. ~., i;_...'APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COHHISSION
~'- ; ....... ~~* ' the roll.lng infor~ti~-~-"
,; ~'~-:~ ,.'~ ~,, .... ~ (Please type
1. Street Addr~perty_
2.
Date
Filed.,, ~-_
L.egal Description of Property: Lot L7 '~'~ ~' d~,~,~..~,,¢=eV/F~lock / ~
Add i t ion SHADY~/OOD POI NT ~
APplicant (lf Other than Owner):
Name ~~ Day Phone No. "
Type of Request: (~ Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit
( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review
( ) Wetland Permit (') P.U.D.
*If Other, specify:..
( ) Amendment
( ) Sign P~rmlt
( )*Other
Present Zonlng Oistrict
7. Exlsting Use(s) of Property
8. Has an epPllcatlon ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional ~se permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? ~d~,~, If so, list d~,(s~f
list. date(s) of app1~cation, action taken a~'Provide Resolution No.(s)
CoOl'es ~ ~re~iOus resolur i on~h~ accompany ~resent request.
I certify .that a11 of the above ~rate~nt~ and the statements conLained'ln any requlred
papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate.
or upon the premises described in this applicatlon by any authorized offlclal of the City
of Hound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and re~ving such
notlces'.as.may be required by la~.
Appl
Planning Co~ission. Reco~endation:
Council Action:
Date ~-8-~7
Date' fi-2~3-87.,,
Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2)
De
Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc0
Indicate North compass direction
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 !1, 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
If "no", specify each non-conforming use: "
Do the existing structures comply with ~ll area height and bulk regulations
for the zone district in which it is located? Yes'~..) No ( ) "
If "no", specify each non-conforming use:
De
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its
reasonable use for any of the uses p~rmitted in that zoning district?
~ .Too narrow ('~) Top6graphy ( } 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 ( ) If yes, explain: /~--~' ~-~'-~ ~-(~"~--
F. Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes ( ) No ( ) If yes, explain:
Ge
Are the conditions of hardship for'which you request a variance peculiar
only to the property described in this petition? Yes (~ No ( )
If no, how many other properties are similarly affected?
What is the "minlmum" modificatlon (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. grantlng of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the
same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
!
Plat of Stuwey
f¢.r ~lan J.
in Lotm 3 and A, Block 13,. Sbmdywcod Point
Hennepin County, Minnesota
~ Certl f~ ~ate..... S~-vey:
' '~ , ~~s a t~e a.d cor~ct re~re-
*~ ~ ~ /. send,on efa s~ey of the
~ _~;t of Lot ~ !,~n~ ~st.erly
of a 1Jne dra~ o~llel with
and dts~nt 20 feet ~'es.~rly
measured at right angles from the ~st~rly line of s~id Lot ~,
Block 1~, Shady~eod Folr, t, Henneptn Ccunty, Minnesota, and of the
!o~tton of a~ ~ldings thereon. It does n~.t p~,r!, to show
other !~rcve~nt.~ or enc~a~.~nts.
Scale: 1" = 50'
~.te : 10-]7.-74
~, : ~rcn .~rke r
7'~-5
1 -lO-TB
RES.O. LIJTIO,~I ilO. 7'3 - 5
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLAq.~II.HG COM'~ISSION
RECOMHENrJa, TIO;I TO r, RA~IT THE V~,~,IA"ICE AS REO. tlESTED
WHEREAS, owners of property descrlbed as Lot 3 and part of Lot 4,
Block 13~ Shadywood Point have applied for~a"stre~t front
variance, and
WHEREAS, said variance would enable the owner to erect a garage on
said property,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEO BY THE CITY CO~JNCIL OF MOUtlg. MOUND, MINNE-
SOTA:
That Council concurs with the recommendation of 'the
Planning Commission and does hereby authorize the ~
foot street front variance for the purpose of allow-
lng the building of a garage on the above describe~
property.
Adopted by Council this loth day of Jan. 1978.'
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE- N0.'87-642
RESOLUTION NO. 87-
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AND APPROVE A FENCE MATERIAL VARIANCE FOR PART OF
LOT I, BLOCK 12, MOUND TERRACE; PID NO. 14-117-24
34 0004 (2241SOUTHVIEW LANE) P & Z Case No. 87-642
WHEREAS, Lavon K. and Alyce d. Cooper, owner of the property, has re-
quested a fence material variance to allow the construction of a building hard-
ware type wire fence for part of Lot 1, Block 12, Mound Terrace; PID No. 14-117-
24 34 0004; and
· WHEREAS, the City Code Section 23.415(4) requires chain link fence and
wooden fences, constructed from commercially available materials; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does
recommend the variance as the property has an unique lot area which would make
"practical difficulties" for the Owner to comply with the Ordinance intent.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the requested fence material to allow a
building hardware type wire fence around the property for part of Lot l, Block 12,
Mound Terrace; PID No. 14-117-24 34 0004 (2241Southview Lane) upon the condition
that the ex|sting building hardware fence be removed from the unimproved Butter-
nut Road public right-of-way. ~
JB/ms
CASE NO. 87-642
TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official (~,~)
Planning Commission Agenda of June 8, 1987
CASE NO. 87-642
APPLICANT: Lavon K. &'Alyce J. Cooper
LOCATION: 224l Southview Lane
LEGAL DESC.: Part of Lot l, Block 12, Mound Terrace; PID No. 14-117-24 34 0004
SUBJECT: Fence material variance
EXISTING ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential
The applicant is rqquesting a-variance to the' Zoning ~CoUe to allow the construc-
tion of a building hardware type fence within the required yard space of the lot,
48 inches in height.
The Zoning Code for fencing, Section 23.415(4) states, "In residential and com-
mercial districts, chain link fences and wooden fences, constructed from commer-
cially available materials, shall be permitted." The definition for a fence
under Section 23.302(45) states, "A fence is defined for the purpose of this
Ordinance as any partition structure, wall or gate erected as a dividing marker,
barrier or enclosure and located along the boundary, or within the required
yard." The proposed fence~ithin 30 feet of the public right-of-ways of South-
view Lane and Butternut Road would require a setback of 30 feet to allow this
type of fencing and on the West and North, 15 foot setback and a 10 foot set-
back respectively.
The site is basically a hobby farm type of location. The survey submitted indi-
cates the present south fence along Butternut Road is in the dedicated right-of-
way at this time.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the request to put in a building
hardware type wire fence of 48 inches in height as there are practical diffi-
culties in putting in a wooden or chain link fence and maintaining it on this
basically rural lot upon the condition that the existing fence along the south
right-of-way of Butternut Road be relocated within the boundaries of Mr. Cooper's
property. However, if the requested fence was set back 30 feet from the south
10 feet from the north property line, and 15
and east property lines .,
feet from the west property' line, I believe it would be an undue hardship.
The abutting neighbors have been notified.
This will be referred to the City Council on June 23, 1987'
JB/ms
Planning Commission Minutes
June 8, 1987
e
Case No. 87-642 Fence material variance for 2241 Southview Lane.
Part of Lot 1, Block 12, Mound Terrace; PID 14-117-24 34 0004
Mr. and Mrs. Cooper were present.
M~yer moved and Sohns seconded a motion to rec~,a,,end approval of the' staff
recommendation for fence material variance.
The C~m~ssion discussed request briefly and jensen stated she did not see a
hardship except maybe financial and that is 'not considered a hardship. She
feels that maybe ordinance should be changed for' large parcels rather than grant
a var. iance in order to maintain the integrity of. our ordinance. Meyer stated
the reason for'the motion was-that property is-so unique to Mound; he didn't
think the fence ordinance Was .written-to consider $ acre parcels and this
should be looked .at as an' exception rather than change' the. ordinance. The
Bulld[ng'Officlai stated Butternut' and Southview-Lane.are unimproved· right-of,. ,
ways and any abu~tlng.'properties would be 30~'feet di'stant. The Planner stated
this i.s a'case,where Commission.could-.apply the practical difficulty definition;
he feels there is 'no .basis for a hardship; '
The' vote on the motion was unanimously in favor.
This wi!l be'on the.Cl't~'Council agenda of' June 23, 1987.
CITY OF HOUND
APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COHHISSION
(Please type the following information)
1. Street Address of Property ~-I
2. Legal Description of Property: Lot
Addition ~]~u~
Address ~2~/ .~.~l. vr~,~
/4. Applicant (i.f other than owner):
Name
Address
Case NO.
Fee Paid
D te Filed
Block / ~-
Day Phone No.._~4L/- ~-~ Z qJ
Day Phone No.
Type of Request:
e
(~,) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit
( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review
(') ~etland Permit ( ) P.U.D.
( ) Amendment
( ) Sign Permit
( )~Other
*l-f other, specify:
~resent ~°ning District' '~- I
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? ~,~ ~;r~c~ ,~ylf so, list date(s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolution No.(s)
Copies of previous resolutions shall accompany present request.
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required
papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in
or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City
of Hound for the purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining'and removing such
notices as may be required by law.
Signature Of Applicant
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Council Action:
Date
Resolution No.
Date
Request for Zonl.ng Variance Procedure
D.
Case #
E®
Fe
Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilitles, e~c.
Indicate North compass direction
Any additional information as may reasonably be required by. the City Staff
and applicable Sections. of the Zoning Ordinance.
I!1..Request for a Zoning Variance
..A. All information below, a site p]an, 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 ~nott, 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 ttno', s~ecify each non-conforming use:.
D./ Vhich unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its
reasonable use for any of the uses.permitted in that zoning district?
( ) .Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil
( ) Too small '( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface
- ( ) Too shallow ( ) Shape (~_) Other: Specify:
E. ~as the hardship d~scribed above created by the action of anyone having
property Interests in the land after 'the Zoning Ordinance was adopted2
Yes ( ) No (~') If yes, explain:
F. Vas the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (~) If yes, explain:
G. A're'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?
· ~ t ·
H. Vhat is the "minimum~ ~d~ficat[on [variance) from the area-bulk regulations
that ~il1 permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using
maps, site. plans ~lth dimensions and ~ritten explanation. Attach additional
sheets, if necessary.)
,
1&grant
I. ~il 1ag of ~he varlaace be materially detrlme~al ~o ~ro~er~y
same zo~e~ or to ~he enforcemea~ o~ this
Application for Zoning Variance
Application by Lavon K. Cooper, 2241Southview Lane
Requesting variance to use alternative fencing materials as described
below. Property is approximately five acres in size and is presently
partialitY enclosed with fences of like materials, some of which are in
"larger area" properties also use this type
need of repair. Adjacent, ~
of fencing extensively.
This application proposes the construction of a new fence along part of
the eastern boundary of the property and the repair of the fence along
part of the northern boundary of the property.
A ne~ survey has beeO completed on May 13, 1987 t~ identify the property
boundaries.
Proposed fencing:
1. Construction of a new fence along part of the eastern boundary of the
property. In this area the property adjoins the unimproved right of way
for Southview Lane. ·
.A. The fence is needed to help eliminate trespassing by bikers,
motorcyclists and snow mobilers who frequently cross the property ~_
in that area.
B. This section of the fence would be approximately 450 feet long.
It would start at the property's driveway entrance, running south-
ward along the eastern boundary, and extend around the southeastern
corner to connect with the existing fence line.
C. Most of the posts would be new steel posts, si;.,' feet long, driven
to an exposed height of approximately 50 inches. Treated wooden
anchor posts would be used at the curvature points and at the
gate.
D. Fencing material would be commercially available woven steel wire
fencing approximately 48 inches high.
E. A gate would be installed in the southeastern corner area of the
property ·
2. Repair of the existing fence along part of the northern boundary of
the property.
.. A. This section of fence is needed to help eliminate trespassing
from neighboring properties. Children have been raiding and
vandalizing my garden which is located in that area.
B. This section of the fence would be approximately 400 feet long.
C. About half of the existinq steel posts are sound and re-usable.
The remainder would be replaced with steel posts~ as in 1-C, above.
D. The., existing fencing wire: including the barbed wire, would be
r-emoved and replac, ed with ~..-~oven wire ~ence~ as in I-D above.
:Il.
$outhvlew
I
Lone
e
LO'I:.
42
LOT Z
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 87-645
RESOLUTION 87-
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDIVISION
FOR TRACTS D AND E, REGISTERED LAND SURVEY
NO. 813 AND PART OF LOT 17, SHIRLEY HILLS
UNIT C, PID NO. 24-117-24 24 0033 (5235
BARTLETT BOULEVARD) Case No. 87-645
WHEREAS, the minor subdivision of metes and bounds description has
been submitted in manner required for platting of land under City of Mound
Ordinance, Section 330 and under Chapter 462 of Minnesota State Statute and ail
proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder; and
WHEREAS, an application to waive the subdivision requirements contained
in Section 330 of the City Code has been filed with the City of Mound; and
WHEREAS, said request for waiver has been reviewed, by the Planning Com-
mission and City Council; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that thereaFr~ special circumstances
affecting said property such that the strict application of the ordinance would
deprive the owner of the reasonable use of his land; and that the waiver is neces-
sary for the preservation and enjoyment of his substantial property rights; and
that granting the waiver would not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the other property owners.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota:
The request of the applicant for a waiver from the provisions of Section
330 of the City Code and the request to subdivide property of less than
five acres, described as follows:
Tracts D and E, Registered Land Survey 813 and that part of Lot 17,
Shirley Hills Unit C, according to the recorded plat thereof lying
easterly of the following described line and its extensions:
Commencing at a point on the easterly line of said Lot 17, distant 385.94
feet southerly from the northeast corner of said Lot 17; thence westerly,
perpendicular to said easterly llne, a distance of 29.79 feet to the
point of beginning of the llne to be described; thence northerly to a
point on the northerly line of said Lot 17 distant 20.89 feet westerly
from said northeast corner and said line there terminating.
A.) It is hereby granted to permit the subdivision in the following man-
ner as per Exhibit "A":
Parcel A: Lot 18, except the westerly 10.O0 feet thereof, Shirley Hills,
according to the recorded plat thereof.
That part of Lot 17, Shirley Hills Unit C, according to the recorded plat
thereof, lying westerly of the following described llne and its extensions:
Proposed Resolution
Case No. 87-643 - Page 2
Commencing at a point on the easterly llne of said Lot 17, distant 385.94
feet southerly from the northeast corner of said Lot 17; thence westerly,
perpendicular to said easterly line, a distance of 29.79 feet to the point
of beginning of the line to be described; thence northerly to a point on
the northerly line of said Lot 17 distant 20.89 feet westerly from said
northeast corner and said line there terminating.
Which lies northerly of the following'described line and its extensions:
Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot 17; thence southerly along
the easterly line of said Lot 17, a distance of 197.62 feet to the point
of beginning of the line' to be described; thence westerly, deflecting to
the right 91 degrees 29 minutes 49 seconds, a distance of 24.86 feet and
said line there terminating.
Parcel B: That part of Lot 17, Shirley Hills Unit C, according to the
recorded plat thereof, lying .easterly of the following.~ described line and
its extensions: ~
Commencing at a point on the easterly 'line of said Lot 17, distance 385.94
feet southerly from the northeast cOrner of said Lot 17; thence westerly,
perpendicular to said easterly line, a distance of 29.79 feet to the point
of beginning of the line to be described; thence northerly to a point on
the northerly line of said Lot 17 distant 20.89 feet westerly from said
northeast corner and said line there terminating.
Which lies southerly of the following described line and its extensions:
Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot 17; thence southerly, along
the easterly line of said Lot 17, a distance of 197.62 feet, to the point
of beginning of the line 'to be described; thence westerly, deflecting to
the right 91 degrees 29 minutes 49 seconds, a distance of 24.06 feet and
said line there terminating.
Tracts D and E, Registered Land Survey No. 813.
B.) It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a
desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with
adjacent properties.
C.) The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this
resolution to the applicant for filing in the office of the Register of
Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance
with the subdivision regulations of the City.
D.) This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days of
the adoption date of this resolution.
'llEC E I"-.. ' " . ir,',
~ ~ McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc.
i~iECEIVED JU~,~ 2 - 1987
12800 Industrial Park Blvd.
F~ymouth, MN 55441
612/559-3700
1-800-328-8322 Ex[ 784
June 1, 1987
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
Ms. Jan Bertrand
Planning and Zoning
City of Mound
5)41 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
SUBOECT:
Subdivision of Land - Part of Lot 17
Shirley Hills Unit C and Tracts D & E
RLS No. 81~ - P.I.D. 24-117-24 24 00~
HKA $211~
Dear Jan:
As requested, we have reviewed the above proPosed subdivision of land and
have the following comments and recommendations. The survey submitted we felt
was incomplete, so I have contacted the applicant and requested that the survey
be revised to show the complete property presently included under parcel
(00~). He is supposed to furnish you with revised copies this week.
It appears everything is in order for this subdivision. The new parcels
created are both over. the 10,000 square foot minimum. As you are aware, parcel
two does not front on a pubiic street, but has access by way of a private
easement, which is not effected by this subdivision.
If you have any questions, or need any additional information, please
contact us.
JC:jmj
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
John Cameron
B
#o.~$j
IUNI T
"J.~oOJd
Planning Co~nissionMinutes
June 8, 1987
10.
Case No. 87-645' Subdivision of Land - 5235 Bartlett' Boulevard
Tract D & E,. Registered Land Survey .813 and part of Lot 17, Shirley Hills
Unit C; Applicant Ro~er~ Lund was present;' also Jane Weisman.
The Buildin~ Offi'cial-explained the request that Mr. Lurid owns East % of
Lot 17, and Parcel D & E (shown on plat map) and is proposing to split the
east % of 17 and sell '~outh-half to adjoining property owner to west who
owns 18 except the %~est 8 feet and west ½ of 17. The C~..~ssion noted the
large parcels, but questioned why we are splitting land and if they intended
to try to subdivide .again for one or more building sites.' 'Ms. Weisman
stated, for right now, she just %~nts to insure .her privacy, but at some
future time, she planned to build another home on .the lake'.'and sell her
present home. The C~,,~.~ssion advised her of the requirement to hav~ 60
feet' on a public right-of-way for each building site, which it appears she
would not have and would need to apply for a variance. Oa,,uission noted
that was not the request at this time.
Jensen moved and Smith seconded a motion to rec~auend approval of the
requested subdivision of land. The vote was unanimously in favor.
This will be referred to the City Council on June 23, 19871
APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF LAN~D, . ~.. i ":~:., fl.
s c. ......
VILLAGE OF MOUND ' ':' ' ~:
FEE S 5'O""
FEE OWNER
Robert ~. Ltmd and
Judith A. Lurid
PLAT PARCEL
PI.D ~o. 24-117-24-24-0033
Location and complete legal description of property to be divided:.
5235 Ba=tlett Blvd.
fiound, f~ 55364
See attached iegal description
To be divided as follows:
See attached legal description
All supporting documents,'such as sketch p]ans,'surveys, attachments, etc.
submitted in 8½'" X ]]" size and/or ]~t copies plus one 8½" X ]]" copy.~
(attach survey or scale drawing showing adjacent streets, dimension of proposed
building sites, square foot area of each new parcel designated by number)
must be
A. WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR:
New Lot No. From
Square feet TO
Square feet
Reason:
APPLICANT
ADDRESS
Applicant's. interest in the property:
5235 t~rtlett. Blvd.
Mound, 1~ 55364
TEL. NO. 472-3581
771-=
DATE May 19, 1987
This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of the property, or an explan-
'ation given why this is not the case.
:i
:i PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
COHPLETE I, EGA~ D'~SCI~YPTION OF I'ltOP~,I'Y TO BE DIVIDED
Tracts D & E, Registered Land Survey No. 813 and that part
of Lot '17, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT C, according to the recorded
plat thereof, lying easterly of the following described line
and its extensions:
Commencing at a point on the easterly line of said Lot.
17, distant 385.94 feet southerly from the northeast
corner of said Lot 17; thence westerly, perpendicular
to said easterly line, a distance of 29.79 feet to the
point of beginning of the line to be described; thence
northerly to a point on the northerly line of said Lot.
17 distant 20.89 feet weste¥1y from said northeast
corner ~nd said line there terminating.
ABOVE T.E~AL DEBCRIPTION TO BE DIVIDED AB FOT. T. OWB:
PARCEL ONE: ~TO BE ATTACHED TO ADJOINING PROPERTY ON THE
WEST: )
That part of Lot 17, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT C, according to the
recorded plat thereof, lying easterly of the following
described line and its extensions:
Commencing at a point on the easterly line of said Lot
17, distant 385.94· feet southerly from the northeast
corner of said Lot 17; thence westerly, perpendicular
to said easterly line, a distance of 29.79 feet to the
point of beginning of the line to be described; thence
northerly to a point on the northerly line of said Lot
17 distant 20.89 feet westerly from said northeast
corner and said line there terminating.
Which-lies northerly o~ the following desc¥ibed line and its
extensions':
Commencing at the northeast corner of said' Lot 17;
thence southerly, along the easterly line of said Lot
17, a distance of 197.62 feet to the point of
beginning of the line to be described; thence
westerly, deflecting to the right 91 degrees 29
minutes 49 seconds, a distance of 24.86 feet and said
line there terminating.
PARCEL TWO: Tracts D & E Registered Land Survey No. 813.
That part of Lot 17, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT C, according to the
recorded plat thereof, lying easterly of the following
described line and its extensions:
Commencing at a point on the easterly line of said Lot
17, distant 385.94 feet southerly from the northeast
corner of said Lot 17; thence westerly, perpendicular
to said easterly line, a distance of 29.79 feet to the
point of beginning of the line to be described; thence
northerly to a point on the northerly line of said Lot
17 distant 20.89 feet westerly from said northeast
corner and said line there terminating.
Which lies southerly of the following described line and its
extensions:
Commencing at the northeast corner of said Lot 17;
thence southerly, along the easterly line of said Lot
17, a distance of 197.62 feet, to the point of
beginning of the line to be described; thence
westerly, deflecting to the right 91 degrees 29
minutes 49 seconds, a distance of 24.86 feet and said
line there terminating.
Prepared By:
$CHOELL & MADSON, INC.
Engineer8 Surveyora Planner~ $0118 Testing
10550 Wayzata Boulevard
Minnetonka, Mn. 55343
546 - 7601
PROPOSED DESCRIPTIONS PARCEL A
Lot 18, except the ~esterly tO.O0 feet thereof, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT C, according
to the recorded plat thereof.
That part of Lot 17, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT C, according to the recorded
thereof, lying ~esterly of the fotlwtflg described 1the and its extensions:
Cmmenctng at a point on the easterly it~e of said Lot 17, dtstant
385.94 feet southerly fre~ the northeast comer of satd Lot
thence ~esterly, porpandtcular to said eastarly line, a distance
of 29..79 feet to the point of beginning of the 11ne to be described;
thence northerly to a point on the northerl~ 11ne of said Lot 17
dtstant 20.89 feet ~esterl.v free satd northeast comer and said line
there retain&ting.
#htch lies northerly of the following described line and its extensions:
Coataenctng at the northeast comer of said Lot tY; thence southerly,
along the easterly tine of said Lot tY, a distance of 197.62 feet
to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence westerly,
deflecting to the rtght 9t degrees 29 minutes 49 seconds, a distance
of 24.86 feet and said tine there terminating.
PARCEL B
That part of Lot 17, SH%RL[¥ HILLS UH%T C, according to the recorded plat
thereof, tying eastert~ of the following described tine and its extensions:
Conmenctng at a point on the easterl.y ltne of said Lot l?, distant
385.94 feet southerly fro~ the northeast corner of said Lot 11;
thence ~estorly, parpendtcutar to said easterly tine, a distance of
29.79 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described;
thence northerly to a point on the northerly 11ne of said Lot
distant 20.89 feet westerly fro= said northeast comer and said
line thd~e teminattng.
Idhtch ties southerly of the following described line and its extensions:
Commencing at the northeast comer of said Lot 17; thence soutberlX,
along the easter1X tine of said Lot 17, a distance of 197.62 feet,
to the point of beginning of the tine to be described; thence ~esterlx,
deflecting to the right gt degrees 29 minutes 49 seconds, a distance
of 24.86 feet and said 1the there temtnatlng.
GENERAL NOTES:
1. e . Denotes iron monument set.
2. · - Denotes 1ton monument found.
3. Areas: Parcel A - 28,420 sq. ft. more or 1ess.
Parcel B · S,380 sq. ft. more or less.
I hereby certify that this survey ~as prepared under
supervision and that I am a Licensed Land Surveyor
under the laws of the State of HInnesota.
Theodore 0. Kemna
SURVEY FOR: ~O~EI~T N. LUND
,,/~Lv'D- I;., or Lol r~
~ I' ~'l,j
, ~ of' Lot n
\ .................. I,Ie c~rner
~/Ou~e
( ¢0
/
/
E
C~
UNIT O
N
N
T
N
HENNEPIN COUNTY ROAD NO. 15
STREET I~°ROVE~ENTS
ESTIMATED COST OF MOUND'S SHARE
Right-of-Way
Concrete Curb & Gutter
Concrete Driveway Aprons
Concrete Sidewalk
Storm Sewer
Timber Retaining Walls
TOTALS
$ 40,000.00
51,412.73
18,954.00
63,258.98
130,599.37
27~293.76
$ 331,518.84
PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS
Concrete Curb and Gutter
$51,412.73 - 10,200 lineal feet
Concrete Driveway Aprons
$18,954.00 - 1,O00 square yards
Concrete Sidewalk (50% of cost) $31,629.49
$31,629.49 - 44,500 square feet
Storm Sewer
$130,599.37 - 1,750,000 square feet
= $
= $
= $
= $
5.04 per lineal foot
18.95 per square yard
0.71 per square foot
0.075 per square foot
PROPOSED ASSESSMENT - TYPICAL 80' x 100' LOT
Concrete Curb and Gutter 80 LF $ $ 5.04/LF
Concrete Driveway Apron 17.78 SY $ $18.95/SY
Concrete Sidewalk 320 SF $ $ 0.71/SF
Storm Sewer 8,000 SF $ $ 0.075/SF
Proposed Assessment (80' x 100' Lot)
$ 403.20
336.93
227.20
600.00
$ 1,567.33
PROPOSED STREET LIGHT IMPROVEMENT
HENNEPIN COUNTY ROAD NO. 15
COMMERCE BOULEVARD TO FAIRVIEW LAhE
TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COST ................................. $127,353.00
CITY SHARE OF RROOECT (50%) .................................. $ 63,676.50
AMOUNT TO BE ASSESSED TO PRIVATE PROPERTY (50%) .............. $ 63,676.50
RROPOSED ASSESSMENT
AMOUNT TO BE ASSESSED $63,676.50 WITH COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ASSESSED AT 1-1/2
TIMES TP~ RATE OF RESIDENTIAL F~OPERTY
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY .................................. $ 14.58 PER LINEAL FOOT
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ................................. $ 9.72 PER LINEAL FOOT
TYPICAL ASSESSMENT
COM~RCIAL PROPERTY (150 FT FRONTAGE) .............................. $ 2,187.00
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY (80 FT FRONTAGE) .............................. $ 777.60
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 87-647
RESOLUTION NO. 87-
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO ALLOW A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING NON-
CONFORMING SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR LOT 8, WHIPPLE
SHORES; PID NO. 24-117-24 43 0056 (5060 Tuxedo
Boulevard) P & Z Case No. 87-647
WHEREAS, Dianna L. Wilson, applicant, and Clara P. Hartkop, owner of
the propert~ has requested variance approval to recognize an existing 2.33 foot
side yard setback to allow the construction of a screened in porch at the north-
west corner of the existing structure; and
WHEREAS, the City Code requires a lO foot and a 6 foot side yards for
lots of record, 50 foot setback to the Ordinary High Water Elevation, a 30 foot
front yard setback and a 10,O00 square foot lot area in the R-1 single family
zoning district; and
WHEREAS, the property described has an existing side yard setback of
2.33 feet and 3.04 feet to the east property line; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does
recommend recognizing the existing nonconforming side yard to allow a screened-
in porch addition to the structure.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve recognizing the existing nonconforming
side yard setback to allow a screened-in porch addition to the north side of
the structure upon the condition that the addition to the home have conforming
setbacks to lakeshore and sideyards for Lot 8, Whipple Shores; PID No. 24-117-24
43 0056 (5060 Tuxedo Boulevard) to afford the owner reasonable use of the property.
JB/ms
CASE NO. 87-647
TO:Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
Bertrand, Building Official ~
FROM:
Jan
Planning Commission Agenda of June 8, 1987
CASE NO. 87-647
· APPLICANT: Dianna L. Wilson
LOCATION: 5060 Tuxedo Blvd.
LEGAL DESC.: Lot 8, Whipple Shores; PID No. 24-117-24 43 0056
SUBJECT: recognize an existing non-conforming side yard setback
EXISTING ZONING: R-1 Single family residential
The applicant, Ms. Wilson, a~d the owner, Clara B. Hartkop, as requesting
a variance to'Yecoghize and existing 2.33 foot side yard setback to
allow the construction of a 12' by 24 ' screened in porch with
conforming setbacks of 50 feet to the 929.5 N.G.V.D. raparian to Lake
Minnetonka and 10 feet to the side lot lines.
The zoning code for the R-1 district requires a 10 foot and a 6 foot
side yards for lots of record with a lot width of less than 50 feet.
The present structure was constructed between 2.33 feet ~nd 3.04 feet
to the east propeFty line.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends granting the variance request to
allow the screened-in porch with conforming property line setbacks
and recognize the existing non-conforming setback of 2.33 feet to
afford the owner reasonable use of the'property.
The abutting neighbors have been notified.
This will be referred to the City Council on June 23, 1987.
Planning C~-~ission Minutes
June 8, 1987
11.
Case No. 87-647 Variance to recognize existing nonconforming side yard set-
back at 5060 Tuxedo Boulevard; Lot 8, Whipple Shores; PID 24-117-24 43 0056
Applicant was not present.
The Building Official reviewed 'her repoz~ stating that Ms. Wilson has a~lied
for her mother, Mrs. Hartkop, for a variance to recognize an existing' 2.33
foot side yard setback to allow the construction ~ of a 12 by 24 foot screened-
in porch with conforming setbacks. Staff rec~..~ends approval to afford the
owner reasonable use of her property:upon' the condition that survey be revised
to assure a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water elevation of 929.5.
Sob_ns moved and-Smith seconded a motion to rec~umnd accepting the staff's
recuumendation. The vote was unanimously in favor.
This will be referred %o the City Council on June 23, 1987.
CITY OF MOUND
LICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
Please type the following information)
Street Address of Property 5060 Tuxedo Blvd.
Fee Paid
Date Filed
Legal Description of Property: Lot
Addition Whipple Shores
OO8
Block --
PID No. 24-117-24 43 0056
Owner's Name Clara B. Hartkop
Address 5060 Tuxedo Blvd.
Day Phone No.472-1594
Applicant (if other than owner):
Name Dianna L. Wilson
Address 12062 Robin.Road
Type of Request:
Day Phone No. W- ~)~S)-q~I!
(-~)d~ Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit
( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review
(.') Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D.
*if other, specify: Building Permit for screened-in porch
~resent Zoning District
Existing Use(s) of Property
(..) Amendment
( ) Sign Permit
(X)*OtherBuilding
Permit
Residential
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property?. Don't know 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 J~CL4~Q_(_.~;~ Date5/18/87
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Date
Council Action:
Resolution No.
1571
Date
Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2)
Case
Locat|on oF= S;gns, easements, underground util;tles, etc.
E. Indicate North compass direction
Fo Any addltlon~l information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zonlng Ordinance.
III. Request for a Zonin~ Varlance
A. Ali information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general
application must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled.
B. Does the present use of. the property'conform to all use regulations for
the zone district In which it is located? Yes (~/) rio ( )
If "no", specify each nOn-conforming use:
-C.
Do the existing structures comply with all area h~.ig~t and bulk regulations
for the zone district in'which it is located? Yes (~/) No ( )
If "no", specify each non-conforming use:
Which unique physlcal characteristics of the subject property prevent Its
_~able 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 (~Xj~l If yes, explain=
F. Was the hardship created by any'o~h~r 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 pecutiar
only to the property described in this petition? Yes .(¥i No ( )
If no, how many other properties are similarly affected?¥~ IU~r~OL~
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.)~u~C(~ O~d ~'~bX~ ~ru~E~::x~fc~3c~ [c(~{~_
Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property ~n the
same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
.~.
$CHUELL & MADSOb,', iNC.
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY '°" .... ' .....
WE: HEFIEBY CERTIFY THAT THIS 15 A TRUE: AND COHRECT HEPFIESENTATION OF" A SUI~VEY OF THE:
BOUNDARIES OF:
AND OF' THE: LOCATION OF' ALL, "IUILDINGS. IF' ANY. THEREON. AND AL,I. VISIEll.E: ENCROACHME:NTS. IF'
ANY. ~RO~ OR O~ SA,D LAND. /.~.,~ .~..~m/~/- ~
AS SURVEYED eY U5 THIR , DAY OF' 10____
0
· oo
'-.o MIDDLESEX
I
II
0
-/
RESOLUI~O~ N0. 87
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TO RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING
NON~ING BUILDING SETBACK FOR ~ 18 & 19, BLOCK 6, WODDLAND
POINT PID %13-117-24 12 0128 (1599 Bluebird Lane) P S Z Case 87-648
WHEREAS, Michael and Judy Gardner, the owners of property described as
Lots 18 ar~ 19, Block 6, Woodlar~ Point PID %13-.117-24 12 0128 have applied
for a variance to recognize existing nonconforming building setbacks in order
to construct an addition to the principal dwelling; and
WHEREAS, the existing principal structure is nonconforming due to a 13.5
foot rear yard setback, a 4 foot side yard setback along the north side and a
7 foot side yard setback along the south; and
~I~EAS, the subject property is located in the R-2 zone which requires
a 15 foot rear yard setback, a 6 foot side yard setback along the north and a
10 foot side yard Setback along the ~4)~h-; and
~/~_AS, application of the Zoning Code results in a 1.5 foot rear yard
variance, a 2 foot side yard variance and a 3 foot side yard variance; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has requested a variance to construct a new
secor~ level, all of which will be built in accordance with required setbacks;
W~EREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does
recommend the variances to recognize the existing nonconforming setbacks since
the new construction will be totally conforming and as such, does not extend
or intensify existing nonconforming portions of the structure.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, does hereby recognize the existing nonconforming setbacks
for Lots 18 & 19, Block 6, Woodland Point. upon the cond|tion that the
add|tion to the structure be constructed w|th conforming setbacks to the
property ]~nes.
8080 Harbor Lane Nor{h,
Suite 104
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441
612/553-1950
TO: Planning Co~mission and Staff
FRCM: 'Mark Koegler, City Planner
DATE: June 2, 1987
SUBJECT: Variance Request
CASE NO: 87-648
VHS FILE NO: 87-310-A18-ZO
APPLICANT: Mike and Judy Gardner
LOCATIoN: 1599 Bluebird Lane
EXISTING ZONING: Single Family Residential (R-2)
(I)MPREHENSIVEPLAN: Residential
PROPOSAL: In April, the applicant submitted a Variance Request (Case No.
87-627) to add a second story to the existing one-story residence. The request
was subsequently denied due to the fact that the proposed addition represented
the intensification of non-conforming setbacks.
Mr. Gardner has modified the request to include a second story over a portion
of the existing structure and a new t~o-story addition in the front yard area
including a garage on the ground level. The new addition is proposed to be
constructed within the required yard areas.
~ATIoN: The proposed expansion represents an acceptable compromise to
allow the owner reasonable use of the property without adding additional
non-conforming portions of the structure. Staff recommends approval of the
request as proposed.
H E C E ! V E D .'? ~',!. $ - !987
Planning Commission Minutes
June 8, '1987
12.
Case No. 87-648 Variance to recognize existing nonconforming side and
rear yard setbacks for 1599 Bluebird Lane; Lots 18 and 19, Block 6, Wood-.
land Point; PID No. 13-117-24 12 0128
Michael Gardner was present.
The City plahner reviewed his report stating that Mr. Gardner has modified
his request to include a second story over a portion of the existing struc-
ture and a new two-story addition in the front yard area including a garage
on the ground level. The new addition is proposed to be constructed .within
the building, envelope and would not intensify the nonconforming setbacks as
it did previously. Staff rec~L~,endation would be for approval of the request.
C~ission c~m,ented that this plan %fas really nice.
Smith moved and Meyer seconded a motion to recoalLiend aCCepting the staff'
recc~iaendation for approval. The vote was unanimously in favor.
This will be referred to the city council on June-23, 1987.
'~ ~-'~' Y~,, · CITY OF HOUND
:t r-! IAY 8 I
jc-t'"(~'(~ Ik~,'~tCATION TO PLANNING S ZONING COHHISSION
~_.~ ...... ~.(.Please type the following in,oration)
Street Address of Property~ ~.~ c,J
Legal Description of Property: Lot
Addition
3- Owner's Name' ~J~ltCi4~ ~ ~OOH
Address I ~"~ ~ ~ L¢~4,4~ L~J
q. Applicant '(if other than owner):
Name'
Case .No..
Fee Paid dre
Block 6
PID No. j%- Ii~-~° t~' OIL~
Day Phone No. ~2--~--?~
Day. Phone No.
Address
5. Type of Request:
(~) Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit
( ) Zoning Interpretation $ Review
( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D.
( ) Amendment
( ) Sign Permit
( )*Other
*l'f other, specify:
Present Zoning'District'
Existing Use(s) of Property
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or condltlonal 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 al.1 of the above statements and the statements contained in any required
papers or pla~s to be submitted herewith are true and accurate. I consent to the entry in
or upon the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City
of Hound for t~e purpose of inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such
notices as may be required by law.
· Signature Of Applicant
Planning Commission ReGommendation:
Date G-8-87
Council Action:
Resolution No.
157 -
Date 6-23-87 ·
Request for Zon|.ng Variance Procedure
Case
D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilitles, etc.
£. Indicate North compass direction
F. Any additlonal Information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
III. ~equest for a Zonln9 Variance
A. All information below, a site.plan, as described in Part '11, and general
.appllcatlon must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled.
B. Does the present use of. the property'conform to aLI use regulations for
the zone district In which it Is located? Yes (X~) Ho ( )
If t~no", specify each n~n-conforming use: "
Ce
0
Do the existing structures comply with all area height, and bulk ~egulations
for the zone ~istrict in which l't Is.located? Yes ( ) No (~) '
'If "no", s~eclfy each non-conforming use:
Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its
rea~.onable use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district?
(/~) .Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soll
( ) Too. small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface
..( ) Too shallow (-) Shape.. .. ( ) Other: Specify:
Was the hardship d~scrlbed above created b~ the action of anyone having
property.interests in the land after 'the Zoning Ordinance was adopted?
Yes ( ) No (.~) If yes, explain:
Was the hardship created by any'other man-made change, such as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (~) If yes, explain:
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?, lO
H. What is the '~mlnimumI~ modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulatlons
that will permit you to make reasonable use'of your land? (Specify, using
maps, site plans with dlmenslons and written explanation. Attach additlonal
sheets, if necessary.)
? ,
I. Will granting of the variance be materlally detrimental to property in the
same zone, or' to the enforcement of this ordinance?
°'-,_.%
/~$o
CAA/,~,~ V "
AR~ )
/'
?^~'T OF ~2
COMMON
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 87-6q9
RESOLUTION NO. 87-
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AND APPROVE A VARIANCE TO'RECOGNIZE AN EXISTING
NONCONFORMING LOT SIZE, SIDE YARD, AND FLOOR AREA
FOR LOT:11, BLOCK 14, PEMBROKE; PID NO. 19-117-23
33 0161 (3137 Donald Drive) P & Z Case No. 87-6~
WHEREAS, James McCrehin, owner of the property, has requested a variance
to recognize the existing nonconforming side yard, lot area and minimum floor area
to'allow structUral'modifications to the rear west bedroom of the structure and to
add an addition to the building; and
WHEREAS, the City Code'requires a 10,000 Square foot lot area, a side
yard setback of lO feet and 6 feet for lots of record,'and a minimum floor area
of 840 square :feet in the R~l'slngle family residentlal district;'and
WHEREAS., the property described has an existing 6,365 square foot+ lot
size, a floor area of 672 square feet and a.2.25 foot side yard setback to'he
south line; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and does recom-
mend the requested variance to'afford the owner reasonable use of his property.
NOW, THEREFORE,'BE ITiRESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound.
Minnesota, does'hereby approve, the recognition of an existing 2.25 foot setback to.
the south property line, a lot area of 6,365 square, feet, and an existing floor area
of 672 square .feet, to allow structural modifications to the rear west bedroom of
the structure upon the conditibns that an addition be constructed with conforming
setbacks to the prope~t~-'lln~ ~r~ng t~e building to the 'm~nimum 840 square foot
living area requirement and to'bring the existing building to minimum building code
requirements for Lot 11, Block 14 Pembroke; PID No. 19-117-23 33 0161 (3137 Donald
Drive). '
CASE NO. 87-6491
TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official p
Planning Commission Agenda of June 8, ]987
CASE NO. 87-649
APPLICANT: James.McCrehln
.LOCATION: 3137 Donald Drive
LEGAL DESC: Lot 11, Block 14, Pembroke; PlO #19-117-23-33 0161
SUBJECT: .Recognize existing non conforming lot area, structure size and
Setbacks
ExiSTING ZONING: R-l, Single Fami.ly Residential
The applicant is r~questing a variance to allow structural repairs to the
existing dwelling footings under an addition on the back of the house, size
12' x 12'. He would also like to add an addition within six feet of the
property line, approximately 7½' x 12'.
Th'e R-1 zoning district requires a 10,000 square foot lot area. The lot area
in lot 11 is approximately 6,365 square feet. The 40 foot lot width would
require a 10 foot side yard and a 6 foot side yard; the structure setback is
2.25 and approximately 15.5 feet. The minimum floor area in the structure is
840 square feet; the existing floor area is 672 square feet.
The existing building needs structural modifications to the rear of the
structure as the floor to the west bedroom is laying on the dirt. This area
Will need to be excavated and new frost footings installed underneath that
portion of the dwelling. The additional square footage to be added of 7½'
x 12' (90 sq. ft.) will bring the floor area to 762 square feet.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff does recommend the structural modifications to the rear
west ~edroom as it does. have conforming setbacks to the lot lines and further
would recommend that any addition to the building would bring the structure to
the minim6m 840 sq. ft. of living area with conforming setbacks to the property
.lines to afford the owner reasonable use of his land. Upon the condition that
a survey be submitted before any additional structural modifications be made
to the structure.
The abutting neighbors have been notified.
This will be referred to the City Council on June 23, 1987
JB:ls
/88
Planning C~,L,~ssion Minutes
June 8, 1987
Case No. 87-649 Variance to recognize an existing nonconforming house, size,
tot. Size and.', setback for 3137.Donald Drive; Lot 11, Block 14, Pembroke;
Number' 19-117-23 33 0161; Applicant's Father, Ralph M~-Crehin was present
The Building 'Official explained 'the applicant is requesting a variance on
an undersized lot and house size. to allow structural repairs to the existing
dwelling footings under an 12 by 12 foot addition on the back 'of .the house
and also to add'a' 7% by 12 foot .addition within 6 feet of the property line.
Staff does recou~,,end the structural modifications to the rear bedroom as
it does have conforming setbacks to the lot lines and also reccmmlends that
any addition to the building sho~I~bring structure to the minimum 840 square
foot of liv~.ng area with conforming setacks to the property line conditioned
that a survey be suhnitted before any additional structural modifications be
made.
The C~dssion discussed and questioned if house would be brought up to
building code and where property lines were. Bill Smith, neighbor on the
north, stated McCrehin will have problem getting equipment in for work with-
out damaging his property.' Ralph McCrehin thought he could take out concrete
step and get the equil~nent in. Bill Smith asked if there was someway it
would be guaranteed that house would be completed within a specified time.
Jensen moved and Michael seconded a motion to recoum-~nd that the staff recom-
mendation be-approved, and that the house be brought up to building code.
The vote was Reese opposed and all others in favor.-
This will be referred to the City Council on June 23, 1987.
CITY OF MOUND
case No. ?-
D~te Filed
APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COMHISSION
(Please type the following information)
Street Address of Property ~-~ x ~ ·
Legal Description of Property: Lot
Addil~ion ~_~v~
Owner's Name' '~_~'2'~2//'~J .,/~. ~"~I~
Address
Block
Day Phone No.
/4. Applicant (if other than owner):
Day Phone No.
Name ''
Address
Type of Request: ~ Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit ( ) Zoning interpretation & Review
( ) Wetland Permit ( ) PoU.D.
( . ) Amendment
( ) Sign Permit
( )*Other
*If .other, specify: .. ..
Present Zoning District' ,~ 'J"/I
7. Existing Use(s) of Property .~'~-~ _/)~/~/~//
8. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditlonal use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? ~F~~ If so, list date(s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolutlon No.(s)
o
Cop'les 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, oc of posting, maintaining and removing such
notices as may be required by law.
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Date
Council Action:
Reso. lution No.
Date
Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2)
D.
E.
F.
Case # /~?
Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, e~c.
indicate North compass direction
Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections. of the Zoning Ordinance.
I!1..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 (~) No ( )
If "no", specify each non-conforming use:
'C.
Do the existing structures comply with ail area height and bulk regulations
for the zone district in which it is located? Yes (Y') No ( )
If "no", ~ecify 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?
(~) .Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soll
( ) 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 (~) If yes, explain:
F. Was the hardship created by any'other man-made change, such as the reloca-
tion of a road2 Yes ( ) No (~) If yes, explain:
/~re 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 slmilarly affected?
'~What
'~.~.~hat will permit you to make reasonable use of your land?
is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations
(Specify, using
maps, site. plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additiona]
she'ets, if necessary.)
I. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property jn the
same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
/8~8
!.
RD~
.p
.?
6 5'4
t6
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 87-650
RESOLUTION NO. 87-
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WiTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD VARIANCE AS REQUESTED FOR
LOTS 1, 2, 3,'4 AND 7, 8LOCK 3, ARDEN; PID NO.
24-117-24 44 0029 (3i03 DEVON LANE) P & Z Case
No. 87-650
WHEREAS, Mark Jerome Robertson, owner of the property, has requested
a variance to allow structural repairs to a nonconforming structure with a 13.6
foot front yard setback; and
WHEREAS, the City Code requires the existing principal structure to be
30 feet to both street front property lines, in the R-I single family zoning dis-
trict; and
WHEREAS~ the Planning' Commission has recommended approval of the vari-
ance due to the shape of the lot.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, does hereby concur with the Planning Commission recommendation to approve
a variance to recognize existing nonconforming 13.65 foot front yard to allow struc-
tural repairs to the foundation for Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7, Block 3 Arden PID'No
24-117-24 44 0029 (3)O3 Devon Lane). ' ' '
JB/ms
Planning Ccx~nission Minutes
June 8, 1987
Case No. 87-650 Variance to recognize an existing nonconforming setback to
do structural repairs at 3103 Devon Lane; Lots 1,2,3,4 and 7, Block 3,. Arden;
PID No. 24-117-24 44 0029; Mark Rober~son was present
The Building Official explained this home has been before the
several times in the pas~ few years; the foundation in one area of home
under northwest corner of porch is failing and needs repairs.
Andersen move~ and Sob_ns seconded a motion to ~eommend approval of the
request.. The ~ote was unanimously in favor.
This will be referred..__to_..the city council on June 23, 1987. ,.
CITY OF HOUND
~ee Paid ,~'~. 40
APPLICATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COHHISSION
' (Please type the following information)
1. Street Address of Property
~te Filed
2. Legal Description of Property:
3. Owner's Name ' ~ ~A~
Address
Lot 4,,7~, ~t, lY~,- ?
Block
PlO No., ~c/
Day Phone
q. Applicant (if other than owner):
Name-
Day Phone No.
Address ..
Type of Request:
(~') Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit' (
( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review (
( ) ~etland Permit ( ) P.U.O. (
) Amendment
) Sign Permit
)*Other
*If other, specify:
Present Zoning District
·
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? ~¢$
list date(s) of application, action taken"and provide eesolut,on No.(s)~.~
Copies of ~revious resolutions shall accompany present request.
I certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required
papers or plahs to be submitted herewith are true and 'accurate. I consent to the entry in
or u~on the premises described in this application by any authorized official of the City
of l~ound for the purpose of inspecting, o~ of posting, maintaining and removing such
notices as may be required by law.
· .Signature Of Applicant ~//~4'~ ,~'~ ~
Planning Commission Recommendation:
Date
Council Action:
Resolution No.
Date'
Request for Zoning Variance Procedure (2) , Case #
D. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
E. Indicate North compass direction
F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the City Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
III. Request for a Zonin9 Variance
A. All information below, a site plan~ as described in Part II, and general
applicatlon must be provided before a hearing will be scheduled.
S. Does the present use of the property conform to ~I use regulations for
the zone district in which it ls located? Yes (
If "no'~, specify each non-conforming use:
Ce
structures comply with ~11 area heigh¥ and bulk ~egulations
Do
the
existing
for the zone district in which it is located? Yes-~(~/~ No (. '
If ~no~, specify 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 distrlct7
( ) .Too narrow ( ) Topography ( ) Soil
( ) Too small ( ) Drainage ( ) Sub-surface
( ) Too shallow (~V/) 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 (J) If yes, explain:
Fe
Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (~/) If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for which you request a variance peculiar
only to the property described in this petition? Yes (~) No ( )
If no, how many other properties are similarly affected?
What is the ~minimum'~ modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations
that will permit you to make reasonable use.of your land? (Specify, using
maps, site plans with dimensions and written explanation. Attach additional
sheets, if necessary.)
I. Will.grant.lng of the variance be materially detrlmental to property in the
same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
": i. '"'- ..... :" - .....
.:. :'~ '.. :i.! '~.::....: '-:'
· =~ .-~ ~' . ..'.. ,.e~ ,.~:. ' "'" .. ' .~-' ., . ' o~ ' -': -. . ..'.- .
': ~ * · · . · ........
LL£.BENNiS'::.:? ' ,'1~]:'~-"_:_..__ .-'.'. -.';: · ','.... -r,.....'-: -?'-. :-..
.., ,T',~ ' re~ ~¥~I'ORS~:'" :.'."-- ,~*,&::".', . · ';..'"'.', - ~-',;. .....:
· ' .... .,. ' ....... · ,.' ~. ,;"~.. . i~-~. .i..' .. -~ ..
,. ~, . . ::...~ ;; '~
. .:. :. .. ~. :'.;..:.,'. ~. . _ -.
· ... ~t.,..~-:,. .' .... -;, ... ,.'.? .., ,-.~;.: ::,'-.~J~.- :- ;. . ,
~ ',,,...:-., '~.~-- .... , , -. ... ~ · ~,... ,~ .... .~- ~. · ~ .., .. ,.. .
,~,.k<f?~:..: -;--:-~ .!.'~..::..' ,j..:--.: ,:. ,~::-..~-~.,.~.~....:.: . ;,~ . :.l.. .-':
t.:c.'.~',- : ~; : .:~ - . ' -: ,- .-, , '~,.?~,' = .... :: .- , -.. ,~ I · .:-;..._.'. ::%'
...L;',.-:... ,........- , ;'.. :... . ,'' . · ... , ~,~' .. _~ ~.~..... :
.: ..,-._,.~ . , .- -. -:..' ...~.. ~. ~ ...... '*' .,.....
,~"..'_'....-..'*o.-.'. ..- ..*. ~.;~ e;.,-; .- ... ,,: ~.~l~',.ie ... _ ap~.~* ~ ~ '
'~ .' '- · '"'.~ ' 1 '~',*' ~','. '~ J;W ~x. -. , . - . jr_: ~_ -~ ~. ~, . . .~'- ..... "
· . ' ' - ' -- ~' ~eZj ~'J '~'. ", · · I ' '~ ~/,~' ~e ~ %3 "' · ''~' ~ '"'
~ .... . .-; ,
:-.~:..., , . . '~~2,' .~ .~..~.... ~ ~.~' ?. · ~.,..: ~.:. z---~,
%.?//x,,~. ;-:"'~.' ,. ,~...:.:...-....-
.'-."d" ' '- ' -'.: ~-~.. ~.~--~'~, -'-. . '~" ~ "' ' ",' '"
~/'~ , -'i · , L(' , .... i ..,~' :. ::'.-"
. ,~ . ~,.. '~ --' ---" -"!~ '
. £^',u -' ~ '. l~ ~; .
; I
!
' i ..;' ,.
· I
13ESCRIPTION~ LOTS 1,2,3,4 A.ND 7, BLOCK 3, ARDEN.
''' WE HEREBy CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND'CORRECT REPRESENTATION.."
.OF A SURVEY OF THE BOUNDARIES OF' THE LAND ABOVE ' '
T~IE LOCATION OF ALL BU'IL'DINGS-~ IF iANY~ THEREONt DESCRIBED AND-OF.. "~;=j
THIS 27TH DAY OF' MARCHt 1975, ..AND ALI. VISIBL.~E."
ENCROACHMENTSt IF. ANY~ FROM OR ON SAID LAND, AS SURVEYED BY US--:
'~ ' .. ./-/-,"~'--"--~;'~ .~-."~z~-~;"
'MJNN REG. NO..5648
· 18~3" .. ' --'--
77-210
5-10-77
RESOLUTION NO. 77 - 210
RESOLUTION TO CONCUP. :','!~-I THE PLANNING COM-
MISSION RECOMMENDATION APPROVING A VARIANCE
TO'THE FRONT SETBACK
%VHEREAS, owner Douglas K. Thelen, of pr6perty ¢Lescribed as Lots 1, Z, 3
and 4, ~lock 7, Arden has request~ed a street.front variance, and
~;HEREAS,. said property is zoned A-l, 10,000 square feet and it is recom.~.
mended that the garage be built as far to the southerly end of the
existing structure as possible.
NOW, 'THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF MOUND,
MOUND, MINNESOTA
That the Council concurs wit~ the tmlanning Commission
recommendation of approving a variance to the front set-
back, providing the garage is built as far to the southerly
end of the existing structure as possible.
Said request for variance is covered in City Ordinances
October 18, 1983
RESOLUTION NO. 83-193
RESbLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
TO APPROVE THE FRONT YARD VARIANCES AS REQ~TED
FOR LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4 AND 7, BLOCK 3, ARDEN
,, PID ~24-117-24 44 0029
WHEREAS, Douglas Thelen, the owner of'property described as Lots 1, 2,
3, ~ and 7, Block 3, Arden (PI]) #24-117-24 44 0029), has applied for a building
setback varianceof 12.4 and 16.35 feet to the ~reet fronts to allow for the
removal of an 'existing portion of the home and'to ~econs?uct, at the same
1.ocation,~a.two story 12 foot by 30.3 foot addition, and ,
WHEREAS., the City Code requires the existing principal structure to be
'30 feet to both street front property lines in the R-1 Zoning District; and '
WHEREAS, {he Planning Ccmmission recommended approval oD the
variances, due to topography and unusual shape of the lot Of record.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, does hereby concur with the Planning Cq~mission reconxnendatlon
to approve a 12.4 foot variance to the Devon Lane (east) property line and
a 16.35foot variance to the Glasgow Road (north) property'line as requested,
· . 'The foregoing resolution was moved by Counciimember Peterson and
.and seconded by Councilmember Paulsen.
The following'Cduncilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Charon, Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson and Polston.
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative.
Mayor
Attest: ' City Clerk
September 18, 1984
RESOLUTION NO. 84-142
RESOLUTION GRANTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION
OF RESOLUTION 83-1R3
WHEREAS, on October 18, 1983, the City Council approved
R~'$o~ut±on f~83-1 93, approving front yard variances for Mr.
Douglas Thelen, owner of property described as Lots 1, 2, 3, 4,
and 7, Block 3, Arden (PID ~24-117-24 44 0029); and
WHEREAS, a request has now been received by the City for
an'extension of Resolution #83-193 for one year, because the
owners were not able to do the remodeIing of their home during
the previous one year.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Mound, Min.n. esota, to grant, a one Y.ear extension Of
Resolution ~/83-193.to OCtober 18, 1985. ~
The foregoing resolution was 'moved by Counci:lmember
Pau!sen' and seconded by Councilmember Peterson.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Charon, Jessen,-?aulsen and .?eterson.
. The following Councilmembers voted in the negative.
Mayor Polston was absent and excused.
Mayor Pro Tem
Attest: City Clerk
is block is oil marth
~TON RD~
~o
M~
RD
This black is all marsh
fo' .:./- .....
CUMBERLAND -/s/,~.o.- RD
LANARK
CITY OF HOUND
Mound, Minnesota
CASE NO. $7-638
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED VACATION
OF DORCHESTER ROAD FROH'STRATFORD LANE TO ESSEX
LANE
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there will be a public
'hearing at.the City Hall, 5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota,
.at 7:30 P.M. on the. 14 Iday of Ju]%i 1987, to con~.|der the
vacation.of a portion of Dorchester Road from the East lot
lines of Lot l, Block.7/Lot. 30, Block 6 to the West Lot lines
of Lot ]5, Block 7/Lot 16, Block 6, all in Wychwood (between
Stratford Lane and Essex Lane). Road abuts the property with
address of 2925 Stratford Lane, PID # 19-117-23 32 0169.
Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to
the above will be heard at this meeting.
Fr~ncene C. Clark, City Clerk
/?oo
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND ~ MI NNESOTA
CASE NO. 87-640
NOTICE OF.PUBLIC HEARING FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
EXPANSION.OF CABINET SHOP AND'
OFFICE AT $$$8 AUDITOR'S ROAD
PID NO. 13-117-24 33 0005
NOTICE IS HEREBY' GIVEN that a public heaFing will be held on
TuesdaY~ July 14thi, 1587, at-.the Mound City Hall 53/~l-May~ood Road
Mound, M-lnnesota, for a Conditional Use Pea[nit for floor area expan-
sion of' cabinet shop and office et 5558 AUDITOR'S ROAD; lega.lly des-
cribed: Lot 2 and 14est /~$ feet front and rear of Lot 3,~ Auditor's
SUbdivision 170' (PID No. 13-117-24 33 0005).
All ·persons appearing at said hearing wil 1 be giVen an
opportunity to be heard.
Francene C. Clark, City Clerk
CiTY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
CASE NO. 87-641
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED ZONING
MAP AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE ZONING OF A
PORTION OF BL0CKS':I AND 11, ALL OF BLOCK 2,
ALL IN SETON ADDITION', FROM R-4 MULTI-FAMILY.'
RESIDENTIAL TO R-2, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, July 14, 1987, at
7:30 P.M. at the Mound City Hall, 5341Maywood.Road, Mound, Minnesota,
a hearing will be held to consider the ~ezonlng of Lots 6, 7 and 8,
Block 1; All of Block 2; and Lots 10 through 37, Block 11; all in
Seton Addition; PID Numbers 19-117-23 21 0020/OO21/OO22; 19-117-23 22
0005/0006/0007/0008/0009/0010/0011/0032/0036/0037/0038/0039/0040/0041/0031
from R-4 Multi-Family Residential to R-2 Single Family Residential.
All pe[sons-appearing at said hearing will be given an opportunity
to be heard.
Francene C. Clark, City Clerk
CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
CASE NO, 87-646
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED VACATION
OF PORTION OF'.LONGFORD ROAD'BET14EEN KINGS LANE
AND BLACK LAKE LANE :(WEST SIDE OF LOT 23 TO
EAST SIDE OF LOT 10, BLOCK 11, SETON) AND THAT
PORTION OF KERRY LANE NORTH FROH LONGFORD
TO. WHOM IT HAY CONCERN:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there,-w~-11 'be a public
hearing.at. ~he"Mound City Hal.l, $341.Maywood Road, Hound, Minnesota,
at 7:30 P..H. on Tuesday, the l~th day of July, 1987, to consider the
vacation of a portion of L°ngford.Road between KTngs Lane and Black
Lake Lane (West side of Lot 23 to East side of Lot 10, Block 11,
Seton), and that portion'of Kerry Lane North from Longford Road.
Such persons as desire to be heard with reference to
the above will be heard at this meeting.
Francene C. Clark, City Clerk
CITY, 0F HOUND
Hound, Hinnesota
CASE NO. 87-644
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON THE APPLICATION
TO AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW BAIT
AND TACKLE SALES.AT 4831 SHORELINE BOULEVARD
PID NO. 13-117-24 44 O014
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on_?uesday,.Ju!y 14, 1987, at.7:30 P.M.
at the Mound City Hall, 534] Maywood Road, Mound,Minnesota, a hearing
will be held to consider the application for amending the conditional
use permit to all'ow bait and tackle sales With exi~'ln9 ServiCe
at 4831 Shoreline Boulevard on site l'egally described as follows:
Lots 1 through 4 inclusive and Northeasterly 0.75 of Lot 5, also
Lot 21 and that part of Lot 20 lying Easterly of the Westerly 0.75
feet thereof including adjacent vacated alley, Block 1, Shirley
Hills Unit A; PID No. 13-117-24 44 O014
All persons appearing at said hearing will be given an Opportunity
to be heard..
Fran~erte C. Clark, City Cl~rk
NOTICE OF HEARING
CITY.OF HOUND
HOUND, HN.
"Notice is hereby gtven that Henneptn County and the Ctty of.. HOUND
~dll hold a'publtc hearing to constder a proposed aznendment to PROJECTS
XII &
funded.in Program'Yearsx~ under Title ! of the Housing and Comuntty
Development Act of 1974 as amended.
Citizen Participation Plan is available at C~ty Hall to ~sstst in .your
participation in the hearing.' ,.. ,.-
The hearing ts to be held on Ju..]¥ 14, 1987
Ctty Ha11 located at 5341Hay~ood Road
at 7:30
p.m, tn the Hound
This public hearfng is be~g held pursuant to a ]otnt cooperation agreement
between Henneptn County and Hound.
r ncene C. Clark, CFTC', City ~ierk
Publish In The Laker June 22, 1987
75 YEARS
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MN 55364 (612) 472-1155
June 19, 1987
TO:
FROM:
RE:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ~..~.
ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER
CHECKLIST FOR PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY REFERENDUM
At the June 9, 1987 City Council meeting, I indicated"that I would
bring back to you a'check llst of items that.need to be carried out
prior to the September 29th referendum. The following is a llst of
items that I believe are important in preparing for the referendum:
1. Preparation of a fact sheet similar to the document that was pre-
paredfor the November 4, 1986 referendum. This would include
basic facts about the need for the facility, the proposed facilities
and cost estimates regarding the proposed facility. It would not
have to be anything fancy. I don't believe we need to direct mail
it to.the residents of Mound, rather provide copies at the various
meetings that we will be scheduling as well as running advertisements
in the paper with the fact sheet as the advertisement.
2. Preparation of bonding costs and related tax information that would
be either listed on the fact sheet or as a separate document. These
were also done previously and would give residents an idea of what
type of an increase there would be based upon estimated market
values of properties in Mound. We would also provide information on
commercial and industrial properties and multlple family housing
properties.
3. Preparation of the site plans and architectural drawings. These
-would be prepared by McCombs-Knutson and Associates and would be
available at the various public meetings that would be held.
4. Schedule and hold'two public information meetings at City Hall.
5. Schedule and hold meetings with the various service clubs and
organizations in Mound, i.e. Rotary, Lions, League of Women Voters,
Senior Citizens, Fire Department, etc.
CHECK LIST FOR PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY REFERENDUM MEMO
JUNE 1~, 1~87
PAGE 2
'7.
Se
12.
Preparation of presentation materials to be used at the infor-
mation meetings. These could include slides of the existing
facilities and proposed site and facilities. The fact sheet would
also be available along with the tax data on how the bond issue
would affect taxes on the various pieces of property in the City.
Schedule and hold staff meetings with city of Mound employees so
that they are familiar with the proposal and so that they can
answer questions from various citizens who call city hall, stop
by, etc. This was very effective in the last referendum, and I
think it is important that we keep our employees, particularly
the Public Works Department who are directly affected by the pro-
posal, informed as to what the City's intent is.
Preparat'ion of press 'releases for the local newspapers.
Preparation of advertisements for the local newspapers.
Arrange for the Local Access Studio to televise public meetings
and place them on channel 20.
Preparation of cost estimates for building construction and related
costs including design fees, legal fees, bonds, advertising for bids
and all other related costs.,
Meet with the Planning Commission to discuss various zoning issues.
Keep the Planning Commission informed as to the City's intent on
the Public Works Facility issue.
I believe it is important that not only the staff be involved in preparation
for the referendum, but that also the mayor and city council take an active
role in supporting the proposed facility and becoming involved by taking
part in the various meetings that will be held later on this summer.
I have suggested on the attached cal. endar, what person or groups should be
involved in the various tasks that have been described above. I have also
suggested tentative dates in which the tasks begin and when they are to be
completed.
Please review this information for our discussion Tuesday evening and if
I receive approval from you to proceed in this direction, we will begin
our tasks immediately.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
ES:ls
PROPOSED.PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY $998,000 G.0. BOND ISSUE
EXAMPLES OF OTHER TYPES OF TAXABLE PROPERTIES
The following is a breakdown of what the increase in taxes would be
for selected properties in the City of Mound if Referendum is passed:
MARKET ASSESSED ANNUAL TAX
VALUE VALUE ~ INCREASE
RESIDENTIAL
NON-HOMESTEAD 102,OOO 28,560 39.00
174,000 48,804 66.00
TYPE I & II
APARTMENT.
1~890,OO0 642,600 872.00
787,000 267,750 363.00
TITLE II
NATIONAL HOUSING 1;122,OOO 244,980 332.00
COMMERCIAL
188,300 80,969 110.00
2,357,900 1;013,897 1375.00
PUBLIC UTILITY
LAND & BLDG. 296,300 118,409 161.00
City will finance the project by selling bonds to be repaid over a 20
year period. The fo]lowing are examples of anticipated yearly costs
on several market value properties. Homestead property is assessed
at 17~ of the first $68,000 market value, plus 27~ of the excess.
Est. Market Value
Assessed Value
Est. Annual Tax Increase
50,000 $ 8,500 $12
75,000 13,450 18
1'00,000 20,200 27
125,000 26,950 37
150,000 33,700 46
O~
.,40
~j L.
s..O
~..~
C
C
0
0
aO
t~
75 YEARS
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155
June 19, 1987
TO:..
FROM:
RE:
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
ED sHUKLE, CiTY MANAGERF''i'
RESOLUTION REGARDING 1988 BUDGET
When we met in our work session on June 15, 1987, we discussedsome
budget goals or guidelines for the development of the 1988 budget.
The numbers which you provided represented two scenarios and the third
scenario is to be the budget that I recommend.
After that meeting, I reviewed those numbers and I think there may be
some misunderstanding regarding these in relationship to the total
City budget. The figures that were discussed should only represent the
general fund. The general fund budget for 1987 is $2,073,720, THIS
IS GENERAL FUND ONLY. Other funds that we budget for include the
enterprise funds (water fund, sewer fund, liquor fund} as well as Special
Revenue Funds which include (cemetery fund, pension fund, area fire
service fund and building fund). These enterprise funds and special
revenue funds aredescribed on pages 8, 9 and lO of the 1987 adopted
budget. They are then detailed on pages 43 through 65 of the 19B7
.adopted budget. Thus, I want to make it clear that unless you establish
goals that include these other funds, the goals that you established
on the lSth only reflect the general fund. I thought I should make this
clear at thls point since we are in the initial stage of the preparation
of the 1988 budget.
With regard to these other funds, the following is a breakdown of what
was budgeted in total:
Enterprise Funds
Water Fund
Sewer Fund
Liquor Fund
Total
$294,140
$688,220
$173,240
$1,155,600
1988 BUDGET RESOLUTION MEMO
JUNE 19, 1987
PAGE 2
Specia! Revenue Funds
Building Fund $52,000
Area Fire Service Fund (Mound share only, which includes operating
costs, rescue vehicle costs, relief association contribution and
fire truck payments) $156,085.21
Cemetery Fund $4,340.00
Pension Fund ....
Total Special Revenue
Funds
$212,425.21
You may want to establish some guldellnes separate from the General
Fund to account for these different funds, or you may want to combine
figures with these specla] revenue funds and enterprise funds to Come
up with grand total budget guidelines.
Attached is a proposed resOlution from Mayor Steve Smith regarding
budget policy directions, goals and objectives for 1988.
Due to the fact that the amounts listed only reflect general fund
expenditures, the term "general fund" should be stated. Also, item
#7 should be added stating that the City Manager shall al.so develop
the City Manager's Recommended Budget.
We should discuss this matter on Tuesday evening prior to adoption
Qf, a budget resolution.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
ES:ls
COUNCILMEMBER JENSEN'S PROPOSED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICY DIRECTIONS, GOALS
AND OBJECTIYES FOR THE CIT~ MANAGER ON
DEVELOPING THE 1988 BUDGET REQUESTS
WHEREAS, the Mound City Council has established a Policy
on Budgeting that calls for establishing budget guidelines and
setting policy directions, goals, and objectives for the City
Manager so the Department Heads may begin to develop their budget
.requests; and
WHEREAS, the Mound City Council desires to establish as
its goal to preserve and protect, and expand where possible, the
present level of services provided to the residents of Mound so
that the taxes paid by the citizens of Mound are expended to
provide the fullest measure of service and protection for all
residents of Mound; and
WHEREAS, the Mound City Council desires to establish as
a goal to preserve and support fully the services provided by the
City Departments; and
WHEREAS, the Mound City Council desires to establish as
a goal to provide City Employees with compensation that reflects
level of responsibility and job performance; and
WHEREAS, the Mound City Council is mindful that certain
unforseen events or financial developments may on occasion
require spending increases, the Mound City Council desires to
establish as a goal that the City Manager achieve a budget in
1988 as follows;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLYED that the Mound City
Council hereby establishes the following policy directions, goals
and objectives for the City Manager in the preparation of
the 1988 Budget for the General Fund:
1. Do not cut current level of city services·
Adjust City Employee's compensation to reflect job
r~sponsibility and job performance.
Allocate sufficient funds to the City Departments to
achieve their goals and the services each is
assigned. These goals are to be defined in their
budget requests, and progress reviewed in their
annual reports.
Develop 3 General Fund Budget scenarios for 1988 as
follows:
Overall spending at $1,990,000 and describe
impact on city services.
COUNCILMEMBER JENSEN'S PROPOSED RESOLUTION
b. Overall spending at $2,129,000 and describe
impact on city services.
~Overall spending at the City Manager's
recommended level and describe impact on city
services.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember
and seconded by Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING POLICY DIRECTIONS, GOALS
AND OBJECTIVES FOR THE CITY MANAGER ON
DEVELOPING THE 1988 BUDGET REQUESTS
WHEREAS, the Mound City Council has established a Policy
on Budgeting that calls for establishing budges guidelines and
setting policy directions, goals, and objectives for the City
Manager so the Department Heads may begin to develop their budget
requests; and
WHEREAS, the Mound City Council desires to establish as
its goal to preserve and protect, and expand where possible, the
present level of services provided to the residents of Mound so
that the taxes paid by the citizens of Mound are expended to
provide the fullest measure of service and protection for all
residents of Mound; and
WHEREAS, the Mound City Council desires to establish as
a goal to preserve and support fully the services provided by the
City Departments; and
.AW E~EAS, the Mound City Council desires to establish as
a goa~t~"~otection of each of the City employees providing
said services with reasonable cost-of-living pay adjustments; and
WHEREAS, the Mound City Council is mindful that certain
unforseen events or financial developments may on occasion
require spending increases, the Mound City Council desires to
establish as a goal that the City Manager achieve a budget in
1988 as follows;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mound City
Council hereby establishes the following policy directions, goals
and objectives for the City Manager in the preparation of
proposed spending requests for the 1988 Budget:
1. Maintenance of city services.
Reasonable ~c-~ .of.li~ing pay adjustments for city
employees·
No cuts to essential services.
AllOcation of sufficient funds to the City
Departments to achieve the goals and services each
is assigned.
The 1988 overall spending requests shall be held at
$1,990,000.
The City Manager shall also develop a Budget with
spending requests not to exceed $2,129,000.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councllmember
and seconded by Councilmember
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
The following Councilmembers voted in the negative:
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
75 YEARS
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155
July 1, 1987
Dear Developer:
The City of Mound is requesting proposals from developers who are
interested in the development of a Country Inn on the Lost Lake
property in Mound, Minnesota. The City of Mound is the owner of the
Lost Lake property.
The City hired Maxfield Research Group, a professional market analysis
firm to do a thorough study on what the highest and best use of the
property should be. One of the alternatives Maxfield recommended was
a Country Inn. Maxfieid compared this idea to the White Bear Inn in
White Bear Lake, Minnesota and the Schumacher Inn in New Prague, Minn-
esota.
The Mound Planning Commission and City Council reviewed the Maxfield
Study in detail, and agreed to go forward with requesting proposals for
a Country Inn development.
The City of Mound believes that the Lost Lake site is an asset to the
City and want this property to be a'real attraction to the City. Mound
has many things to offer, particularly its accessibility to Lake Minne-
tonka and the downtown Central Business District. We believe that this
property is prime commerica] real estate and a Country Inn will be a
unique addition to this area.
The Request for Proposal (RFP) that follows will give you a better
understanding of what development we desire. We hope you recognize
the development potential of the Lost Lake site and look forward to
receiving your proposal for the development of a country inn in Mound.
Sincerely,
Steve Smith
Mayor
Edward J. Shukle, Jr.
City Manager
Contents
The Opportuni ty .........................
Project Background .......................
Community Location Map .....................
Site Location Map ........................
Project Objectives .......................
Market Potential ........................
Site Characteristics
Lost Lake Area Map
Potential Incentives
eeeeee®eeeeeeeee®eeeee
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Submission Requirements ..................... 10
Selection Process ........................ 11
Evaluation Criteria ....................... 12
The Opportunity
The Lost Lake Area in downtown Mound is located approximately 19 miles
southwest of downtown Minneapolis. The City has a population 0~ 9,742 (1986
estimate) and the retail trade area which generally includes Minnetrista, St.
Bonifacius, Spring Park, Navarre and Minnetonka Beach contains approximately
18,000 residents.
Within the past four years, downtown Mound has seen significant changes. In
1984, the Shoreline Plaza Shopping Center, which contains 30,000 square feet,
was expanded and remodeled and is now 100% occupied. Tonka West Market, which
was recently remodeled, was substantially vacant in 1984 as a result of a
major tenant relocation. Tonka West Market is now 100% occupied. In 1985,
the City approved its first tax increment project involving the removal of
12,000 square feet of older, ineffective retail space and medical offices and
the construction of Commerce Square which is a new 55,000 square foot center.
Leasing of the new center is occurring at the present time.
The change in downtown Mound which has had the most media and public exposure
is the closure of the Tonka plant. The Tonka plant, which manufactured toys,
closed in 1984. Since that time, the plant which occupies 600,000 square feet
has been completely renovated and is now the home of six manufacturing and
business operations employing over 450 people.
Concurrent to the expansion of the commercial sector, residential development
within the downtown area has also been occurring. Within the past three
years, two new condominium/apartment projects have been constructed, one on
Lake Langdon serving senior citizens and the other on Lake Minnetonka.
This "Prospectus" offers you an opportunity to join the partnership of private
and public interests involved in the continued development and redevelopment
of downtown Mound. Following a review of specific proposals and
qualifications, a developer will be selected to undertake the project.
Appropriate incentives will be made available to the selected developer to
ensure that the complete~ project represents an attractive investment
opportunity.
1
Project Background
The Lost Lake Site (see map enclosure) was owned, at one time, by Our Lady of
the Lake Catholic Church, Mound, Minnesota. In 1952, the property; wa~ d~d~d
by quit-claim deed to the City of Mound. Included in the deed was the
stipulation that the property be used for public purposes only. If this
stipulation was violated, the property would revert back to Our Lady of the
Lake Catholic Church.
On November 21, 1985, the district court of the fourth judicial district,
ruled that Minnesota Statute 500.20, Subdivision 2, is in "controlling" and
the restriction or stipulation expired January 17, 1982.
Therefore, the City of Mound is the owner of the Lost Lake property. The City
Council has taken formal action to sell approximately 3.15 acres of the
property for development purposes. The total area is approximately 40 acres,
but development of the country inn is required only on 3.15 acres. The site
adjacent to this 3.15 acres is owned by Balboa of Minnesota, Inc. There are
approximately 2 acres of land available between Lost Lake property and
SuperAmerica. This two acres of land is available for sale by Balboa of MN.,
Inc.
The remaining 36.85 acres of property is wetlands. It is important that these
wetland areas be retained. However, the City of Mound is very interested in
development of a trail system which would wind around and through the wetland
area. This trail system could serve both pedestrians and bicycles.
In addition, the property may be accessible by water through the Lost Lake
Channel from Lake Minnetonka.
The City Council, Planning Commission and a Good share of local citizens are
in support of the country inn development. Many hours have been spent by
Council, Planning Commission, citizens and staff with re~ard to the study of
the Lost Lake property and coming up with a suggested list of possible uses.
The Park Commission has also been involved in relationship to the wetlands
area. Thus, the project has full support of the City of Mound.
2
Community
Scale (miles)
Location Map
Site Location Map
4
Project Objectives
The primary goal of this Prospectus is to facilitate the continued
redevelopment and enhancement of the Mound downtown area through the
development of a country inn on the Lost Lake site. Other facilities, such as
specialty shops, restaurants and entertainment may also be appropriate to
complement both the country inn and the downtown area.
TWo supporting objectives have been identified to reinforce the primary goal:
Development within the Lost Lake area should be designed to
complement and reinforce the existing strengths of downtown Mound.
The development project will have to be carefully integrated into
the surrounding Lost Lake area wetland environment in order to
establish a unique and visually appealing project.
®
The net economic benefit of the development project should be
positive to the community as a whole over a reasonable period of
time. Although the city has a commitment to see that the project is
developed, the direct and indirect costs to the community must be
reasonable and justifiable.
5
Market Potential
The Mound City Council retained Maxfield Research Group, Inc., a Minneapolis
consultin9 firm to oonduct a HiGhest and Best Use Study for the Lost Lake
property. The study, which was completed in October of 1986 concluded that
"there are two private business uses that have likely potential to succeed if
developed on the Lost Lake site. The two alternatives are either mid-market
priced apartments or a country inn."
The study indicated that "currently, there are no hotel or lodging facilities
in Mound or the surrounding area. The site suited for a country inn on Lost
Lake would be 25 to 30 units. It is also assumed that the subject inn would
offer restaurant and bar facilities as well as banquet space for meetings and
receptions, etc. The market is believed capable of supporting a restaurant
and bar area that would seat 90 to 120 people and banquet space sized between
1,500 and 2,000 square feet."
A copy of the HiGhest and Best Use Study for the Lost Lake Property is
available to interested persons upon request.
6
Site Characteristics
The Lost Lake area includes approximately 40 acres of land, 3.15 acres of
which are developable. The balance of the site consists of an expansive
wetland and an open channel to Lake Minnetonka. The City envisions the
eventual development of a park in and around the wetland area with trails and
walkways serving both pedestrians and bicycles.
The topography of the Lost Lake area is essentially flat with a gentle slope
toward the wetland area. The site has received fill in past years and a
detailed soils report is available upon request.
Primary access to downtown Mound from the Twin Cities metropolitan area is via
U.S. Highway 12 and County Road 15. At the present time, U.S. Highway 12 is
being upgraded to 1-394 which will provide direct freeway access from downtown
Minneapolis to the County Road 15 interchange. County Road 15 is currently
being upgraded with new pavement, additional turn lanes, new curb and gutter,
lighting improvements and additional sidewalks. The 3.15 acre Lost Lake
parcel contains approximately 1500 feet of frontage along County Road 15.
Additionally, the parcel may be accessible by water via the Lost Lake channel
from Lake Minnetonka. The City is currently investigating providing water
based access through discussions with the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Lake Minnetonka
Conservation District.
7
LOST LAKE CHANNEL
Potential Incentives
The City of Mound has recognized that the development of a country inn on the
LOSt Lake property may require financial incentives to attract interested
developers. Thus, the City Council will be willing to discuss financial
incentives as part of the development of the country inn project. Nothing
specific was stated by the Council. However, more specifics would be
discussed with the developer once negotiations were initiated. The City wants
to be able to encourage creativity by prospective developers and not to lock
itself into any specific package of financial incentives. In relation to this
area, the City of Mound will require detailed financial information indicating
how the requested incentives will fit into the workings of the total
development package. In other words, any financial assistance must be
justi f iable.
9
Submission Requirements
To be considered for designation as Developer of Record for the Lost Lake
Project, a developer must submit all of the following materials:
Letter of Interest indicating a willingness to develop the Lost Lake
parcel.
0
Brief statement of Developer's general development orientation and
approach to the Project.
Name, address, phone number, contact person, and legal entity
(corporation, limited partnership, joint venture, etc.) by which the
developer proposes to do business in Mound.
Name and address of architectural firm and other professionals
anticipated to be working with the developer as part of the Lost
Lake development team.
Identification of the developer's project manager and other key
staff persons to be assigned to the project.
A description of overall qualifications, including examples of
experience with similar projects successfully completed by the
principals of the development team. A list of references (by
project) must also be provided.
e
A Preliminary Site Plan which ~raphically shows the general concept
of the proposed project.
Evidence to demonstrate the developer's capability to finance a
project of this size.
Description of the type of financial incentives required from the
City to make the proposed project work.
10. Any additional information that will substantiate the development
team's capabilities.
Ail developer proposals must be submitted to the City Manager of the City of
Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota 55364, by September 1, 1987, 4:30
p.m.
10
Selection Process
Selection of a developer for the Lost Lake parcel will be made by the Mound
City Council. The following procedures will be employed in the selection
process:
Letters of Interest and all other required proposal materials must
be submitted to the City of Mound by the deadline date.
e
Upon receipt of all submittals, the Mound City Council will conduct
a review and invite a selected number of development teams for
interviews.
Following the interviews, the City will select a developer to be
designated as the "Developer of Record." Once so designated, that
developer shall have the exclusive right to negotiate with the City
for the implementation of a mutually satisfactory Lost Lake Project.
e
The selected Developer of Record must be prepared to promptly enter
into an "Agreement for Exclusive Negotiations" with the City for the
development of a specific proposal for the Lost Lake Project Area.
The exact terms of this Agreement shall be formulated by both the
developer and the City.
0
A detailed proposal for the Lost Lake Project will then be developed
under the terms of the Agreement. The developer will be expected to
undertake the major efforts, with the City providing support and
continuous feedback. The detailed proposal should include, but not
be limited to, the following items:
Basic Project Design
Required Public Improvements
Site Acquisition
Financing Pro Forma for Public and Private Improvements
Assignment of Public and Private Sector Responsibilities
Project Timing
A period of 90 days will be provided to the developer for
performance under the terms of the Agreement. The City will retain
the right, at its sole discretion, to extend the negotiations beyond
the original time period if substantial progress has been made and
it appears that such an extension is necessary to continue good
faith efforts. In the event the City and the developer cannot make
adequate progress towards a satisfactory Development Proposal, the
Agreement for Exclusive Negotiations shall be terminated in
accordance with the terms contained therein.
After the City and the Developer have created a mutually agreeable
development plan for the Project Area, both parties will negotiate a
formal "Development Agreement." This agreement will specify each
party's specific roles and obligations in the implementation of the
Project. The time frame for these negotiations will be subsequently
determined. I I
Evaluation Criteria
Ail prospective developers will be evaluated in accordance with the following
criteria:
Developer Expertise
Priority will be given to the development team that demonstrates the expertise
required to successfully develop a country inn on the Lost Lake site.
Developer Quality
Priority will be given to the developer that demonstrates a track record of
high quality development, sensitivity to the needs of the public sector and
design excellence.
Experience with Similar Projects
Experience developing similar projects will be considered a definite asset,
but is not an absolute prerequisite.
Or9anization and Personnel
The personnel assigned to the development team and the manner in which they
will be organized and managed for the Lost Lake Project will be considered in
the evaluation of developers.
Financial Capability
The financial capability of the developer will be a factor in the City's
evaluation. Subsequent submission of additional financial data may be
required prior to designating theDeveloper of Record.
12
Information for June 23, 1987 Council Meeting
June 18, 1987
NEW LICENSE APPLICATION
Tree Removal License - License Period 4-1-87 to 3-31-88
Bridgewood Tree Service
LICENSE RENEWALS - ExPiring June 30, 1987. 'New License Period 7-1-87 to
Off-Sale Beer 6-30-88
A1 & Alma's
Brickley's Market
PDQ Food Store
SuperAmerica #4194
On-Sale Beer
Al & Alma's
House of Moy
Club License
American Legion -- Bookkeeper Statement regarding Sales
VFW #5113 --
On-Sale Liquor
Donnies on the Lake -- CPA Statement. regarding Sales
Sunday Liquor
Donnies on the Lake
VFW #5113
Set-Up
A1 & Alma's
Wine
Al & Alma's --CPA Statement regarding Sales
House of Moy --
BILLS
JUNE 23, 1987
Batch 874061
Batch 874062
Computer run dated 6/13/87
Computer run dated 6/17/87
91,071.52
'q0'290.71
~uper America Hay gasoline
698.54
132,060.77
To: Suburban Hennepin County Parks Board of Commissioners
From: Tom Reese
Subject: Lake Minnetonka Regional Park
Date: June 23, 1987
I will be out of country on the date of the hearing in Mound on the Lake Minnetonka
Regional Park. I would like to take this opportunity to make the following observations
concerning the project.
o No good case can be made for the need for the off -lake portion of the proposed full
scale park. The off-lake acreage will not look much different from the existing acreage in the 3500
acre Carver Park Preserve which adjoins. No different nature experiences would be had by users
in the off lake areas of the new park, versus what could be made available on existing, presently
owned land. Carver Park Preserve with its beautiful, rolling, wooded acreage and 8 lakes is
presently under used. While I am aware of the "Preserve" nature of Carver, I am not convinced
that the dedication of a portion equivalent to the Halsted portion of the new park would have any
significant impact on the Preserve, and the savings in cost and lost tax base would be enormous.
o Access is certainly a large part of the push behind this project. The access opportunities
on the Halsted portion are minimal at best. The natural beach cannot be purchased. Boat trailer
access to the water and attendant parking would require sacrifice of substantial numbers of trees
and shoreline amenities, and might run afoul of the Minnetrista clear cutting ordinance.
o Other than my letter to the Tribune (which was heavily edited, changing the logic of
some of the arguments) I have not seen any mention of the existing Lake Minnewashta Regional
Park, 5 miles away, closer to the city from the proposed Lake Minnetonka Park. This park of 350
acres is presently owned by Carver County and is in the process of being developed. Lake
Minnewashta, some 750 acres, is a beautiful and largely unused lake. My conversation with the
Carver Director of Parks discloses that this park is greatly underutilized. They would like to build
its use significantly, so they can justify faster development. We should support Carver in this
endeavor, and not be in competition with them, both spending tax dollars.
o Lake Minnetonka is presently over utilized and not in good shape: ie. debris and noise
pollution, excess traffic, low water, excessive weed growth. To-add yet another large increase in
usage without attendant programs to improve the lake's condition is unconscienceable.
For all these reasons, and others, I recomend that only that portion of the new park that lies
east of the new Hy 44 be developed, and that this be done in conjunction with some lake
improvement support in terms of county dollars for such items as greater enforcement effort, weed
cutting, watershed nutrient runoff analysis and control, key area dredging and erosion control etc.
The time table for such development should take into account the ongoing development of the Lake
ff/~°_ m/k~,..~ 5641 BeeSartl~epresentative,LMCD Mound, MN 55364
To: Suburban Hennepin County Parks Board of Commissioners
From: Tom Reese
Subject: Lake Minnetonka Regional Park
'Date: June 23, 1987
I will be out of country on the date of the hearing in Mound on the Lake Minnetonka
Regional Park. I would like to take this opportunity to make the following observations
concerning the project.
o No good case can be made for the need for the off-lake portion of the proposed full
scale park. The off-lake acreage will not look much different from the existing acreage in the 3500
acre Carver Park Preserve which adjoins. No different nature experiences would be had by users
in the off lake areas of the new park, versus what could be made available on existing, presently
owned land. Carver Park Preserve with its beautiful, rolling, wooded acreage and 8 lakes is
presently under used. While I am aware of the "Preserve" nature of Carver, I am not convinced
that the dedication of a portion equivalent to the Halsted portion of the new park would have any
significant impact on the Preserve, and the savings in cost and lost tax base would be enormous.
o Access is certainly a large part of the push behind this project. The access opportunities
on the Halsted portion are minimal at best. The natural beach cannot be purchased. Boat trailer
access to the water and attendant parking would require sacrifice of substantial numbers of trees
and shoreline amenities, and might run afoul of the Minnetrista clear cutting ordinance.
o Other than my letter to the Tribune (which was heavily edited, changing the logic of
some of the arguments) I have not seen any mention of the existing Lake Minnewashta Regional
Park, 5 miles away, closer to the city from the proposed Lake Minnetonka Park. This park of 350
acres is presently owned by Carver County and is in the process of being developed. Lake
Minnewashta, some 750 acres, is a beautiful and largely unused lake. My conversation with the
Carver Director of Parks discloses that this park is greatly underutilized. They would like to build
its use significantly, so they can justify faster development. We should support Carver in this
endeavor, and not be in competition with them, both spending tax dollars.
o Lake Minnetonka is presently over utilized and not in good shape: ie. debris and noise
pollution, excess traffic, low water, excessive weed growth. To add yet another large increase in
usage without attendant programs to improve the lake's condition is unconscienceable.
For all these reasons, and others, I recomend that only that portion of the new park that lies
east of the new Hy 44 be developed, and that this be done in conjunction with some lake
improvement support in terms of county dollars for such items as greater enforcement effort, weed
cutting, watershed nutrient runoff analysis and control, key area dredging and erosion control etc.
The time table for such development should take into account the ongoing development of the Lake
Minnewa~a Region~k.
~, 5641 ~artlett Blvd LMCD
~eese,(//ou~'~nd Representative,
Mound, MN 55364
O0 000
~ ~.0
N
--I
G.
L~
Z
_1
W
\ S
W
W
T
000000000000000
I'll
I-
:,
:::)
Z
U 00000
ZZZZZ
00000
Z~Z~Z
00000
::3
0
-r'
I,-
D:
I--
Z
C)
Z
0
Z
0
bJ
Z
0
I I
· 0 0
=~ tlJ a:)
o o
o o
ooo
ooo
~o~oo~o oo
ooooo
oo
J OJ OJ ,",' * ! O.J (~J ('g
ZZ~ZZZZ~Z~
O0
oo
oo
! !
~LIJ
ZZ
0
0000000000
0000000000000
0000000.00~ O0 O0
0
Z
X
Z
UJ
Z
0 000000 00000 0000
0000 0 0 0 .0 .0 0 0
M ~q M
'*0 CO cO o:~ CO O) · CO ~ID a) I~
o o o o o o 0 ~ oo0 ,ON o o 0 0 0 0 0 0
o o o o o o OJ ~' ~r ~r I.~ ~ 1~- r~. I~. I~- ~. I~'
o o o o o o Od 03 o
, , , , , , , , TTT , T T T T T T T
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~-~ 0 ~- $- ~- ~' ~' ~' ~'
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I t I
Z
0
~- 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0
hi IJJ
hi U,,I bJ
n Z tn
O0 O0 O0 ~ ~0~ ~ O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0
~ O0 O0 ~ ~0~ ~ O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 O0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0
o? o o o
Z
0
0
%
Il.
oo
0~0~
O0
! i
~roJ
I I
Z
0
~ -
Z
0
0
Z
~n
,J
0
t--
0
ILl
I--
0
Z
0
UJ
ZZ
O0
ZZ
..J--I
'3''1'
O0
I--
Z
0
000
ooo
f"- I'- f'-
I-
Z
0
I_i
I I I
I I I
rq rq ~1
I I I
Z
0
UJ
=J
000
I--I--J--
ZZ:~
000
UJ~UJ
ZZ~
ZZ~
0
s'-
0
~, "r
ooo
0000000000000
I-
Z
0
I I
Ld
Z
Z .J
0
o
.~-
0
Z
Z
O0
Ztd
O~
N~.
I
F--
Z
X
Z
0
~-
0
0.
0
X
0
X
0
>..
Z
0
h
3::
Z
UJ
Z
Z
o
I~
~o~o~
cso
oo
o
ooooooo
oooo
o
o
I
Z
I-
-I
m
·
I
N
0
0
Z
Z
~,,J
Z
I-tO
-JO
:3.2
CO I
O-~
I I
NN
I I
LUm
[~1~
O0
ZZ
0
t~
Z
· Z
0000
0000
0000
0
0
-/
ia.
.d
.J
Z
I-
Z
~C
o o
oo
r-oh-
0
t~
0
)-
L~
O~
o oo
0,1,~
I I
oo
0JOJ
I I
o1',-
I
U~
I
o
Z
0
~' I.-
0
Z
)-
X
0
~LIJ
ZZ
I-I--
O0
(LO.
WUJ
I
.d
0
Z
0
h-
0
0
0000
o o
Iii
bJ
U
Z
n,,
0
Z
bJ
b~
.J
U
0
-J
bJ
U
0
CO
U
I
4~
U
I
U
I
#
4~
0 ~ O0 O0 O0 O0 O0 ~ ~
~0~0~0000~ ~
~00~00000~
75 YEARS
CITY OF MOUND
5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155
June 15, 1987
TO:
FROM:
RE:
ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER
JOHN N~RMAN, FINANCE DIRECTOR
MAY 1987 FINANCIAL REPORT
There was nO significant increases in department spending during May.
JN:ls
'CITY OF HOUND
1987 BUDGET REPORT
HAY 1987
?
41.7
~ of
Yea r
BUDGET
MAY
REVENUE
YTD
REVENUE VARIANCE
PER CENT
RECEIVED
GENERAL FUND
TaXes
Intergovernmental
Business..Licenses
Non-Business
Licenses and
Pemlts
General Gov't
Charges.
Court Fines
'Charges to Other
Departments
Other Revenue
$975,893
771,O57
13,O00
108,1OO'
33,300
94,000
20,870
57,500~
594
11,56o
3,247
11,360
1,o85
9,245
32,831 943,o62
13,241 757,816
2,451 10,549
80,429 27,671
12,418 20,882
30,562 63,438
5,857 15,013
11,454 46,046
3.4
18.9
74.4
37.3
32.5
28.1
19.9
TOTAL REVENUE
$2,073,720
37,091
189,243 1,884,477
'9.1
LIQUOR FUND
WATER FUND
SEWER FUND
$755,000
$300,000
$565,000
72,821
28,620
45,149
284,133 470,867
117,400 182,600
232,385 322,615
37.6
39.1
41.1
BUDGET
CITY OF MOUND
1987 BUDGET REPORT
' EXPEND I TURES
~AY 1987
MAY
EXPENSE
YTD
EXPENSE
4T.7 ~ of
UNEN-
CUMBERED
EXPENSE
Yea r
PER. CENT
EXPENDEO
GENERAL FUND'
Council' $50,460
Clty'Manager/Ct6rk."103,800
Elections' 500
Assessing 46,170
Finance 128,880
Legal 83,750
Cable TV 1,490
Recycling 18,320
Police 610,850
Civil Defense 2,300
Planning/Inspection 102,120
Streets 385,170
Shop & Store 49,750
City Property 85,320
Parks 143,920
Commons Docks 54,100
· Mound City Days 3.,500
Cont'ingencies 60,120
Transfers 149,200
3,576 27,917 22,543 55.3
10,728 41,114 62,686 39.6
--- 124 376 2'4.9
485 3,425 42,745 7.4
14,936 52,117 76,763 40.4
5,670 25,300 58,450 30.2
36 530 960 35.6
1,929 6,891_ 11,429 37.6
42,393 239,7~8 371,132 39.2
492 1,808 21.4
9,078 40,434 61,686 39.6
24,258 138,605 246,565 36.0
4,754 20,246 29,504 40.7
25,027 36,882 48,438 43.2
7,949 52,649 91,271 36.6
613 38,866 1'5,234 71.8
--- 3,244 256 92.7
3,435 11,510 4.8,610 19.1
9,767 48,833 94,367 34.1
GENERAL FUND TOTAL A2,o7~,72o
164,634
788,897 1,284,823
38.0
Area Fire
Service Fund
Liquor Fund
Water. Fund
Sewer Fund
$223,940
$147,240
$294,140
$688,220
14,412 120,608 103,332
12,265 60,375 86,865
13,106 111,123 183,017
44,720 267,599 420,621
53.9
4!.0
37.8
38.9~
EE
h. 0
,,c
-]
c
0
C)
C~ 0
0
c
0 0 0 0 0
0 ~ 0 0 ~
0 0 0
0 ~ 0
0 0
0 ~)
0 0 0 0 0
~ 0 0 0 ~
0 0 0 0 0
~ 0 0 ~) 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 ~ 0 0
~) 0 O~ ~ 0
0 0 0 0 0 ~) 0 ~1
0 ~ 0 ~ 0 (~ O~ ~
0 0
0 0
0 0 ~ 0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0
~0 0 0
0 0 0 0
~) 0 0 0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0
~ 0 0 ~ 0 · · ~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ 0 0 ,~ 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
~0 0 0 0
-1 C:
0 ·
0 '~
~ h 0 0 [0
0 0
0 ~
0 0
~ 0
0
0 0 0 0 0
c~ 0 ~ ~ 0
0 0 ~ 0 0
~ 0 ~ '.~ 0
0 0 ~ 0 0
tD 0 --~ ~ 0
-ri
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 ID
~ cO ~ 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 ~ ~
0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0
m
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 ~O ~1 · ~0 ~ ~ 0 · CO
'~ ~1' 1%1 lO ~ ,-~ ~ ~ ~ ,~
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 ~O
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 ~ 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 I~ ~ cO · ~ · ~) ,~ · ~
0 ~ "~ ~ .~ ~ ,~ 0 I1') ~.
0 0 0 0 0
0
I,,
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 ~ ~') ~ ~ (~1 ~)
0
0
~)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 ~) 0 ~ 0 '~ 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0 0
0 ~) 0
0 0
0 ~)
0
0
0
~)
0 0 0
0 ~ 0
M
0
M
0
0
0
0 ~0
~fl~88888~88§8~
0
m
0 0
0 ~1
0 '~
°o ~o
o
oo ~o
,C
O~ 0
C
0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 cO 0 ~
8~88~
0
,.1 OI
,.~ C
I0 .-1
0 (11
c
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 cO
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 ~
~q 0 ~
0 0 0
0 0 0
~q 0 ~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 ~ 0 ~ O,
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ 0 0 ~) 0 ~ 0 '
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 ~ 0
0 ~0 ~0 ~ ~0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 ~) ~ 0
0 0 0 0
0 ~ 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 '~ 0 0 ~)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 ~0 ~ 0 0 ~
0 0 ~1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
cO 0 ~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 ~0 0 0
~0 ~ -~ ,~ 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 ~) 0 0 0 ·
O~ 0 ~ ~ ~ O~ cO
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 ~0 0 0 0
~ 0 ~0
0
0 0
C O~
0 O~
h m
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1~
~ 0 cO O~
0 0 0
0 0 ,= iN
~ 0 O~
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 ~
0 0 ~ O~
in o
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 tO 0 0 m 0
~' ~' ,~' ~' .'~ O~ 0 cO cO ~ 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ 0 0 0 0 0 (x~ 0 0 ~ 0
~) '~ · '~ 0 ~ '~ ~ m ~) 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cO 0
t~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cO 0 0 ~ 0
1~ 0 0 ~D 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 O~ ~
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 iN 0
0 iN 0 ~0 0 ~ l~ ~ 0 0 ~ Y)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (~ 0
tD ~ 0 0 0 ~ (~ ~ 0 0 O~ iN
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 M 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 cO
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 ~ 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 ~0 0 0 ~
0 ~ ~D ~D 0 O~
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 ~ ~) ~) 0 ~D
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 '~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~'~ 0 0 0 ~ 0 0
0 ,~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tO 0 0 0 ~ 0 0
0 '~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 ~ .-m 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I~ 0 ~ 0 0
0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 ~' 0 ~0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 I~ 0 IN 0 0
.0
0 I~ 0 0 0 0 0 tO
~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~
0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~) 0 O~
0 tO 0 0 0 0 0 0
~q ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 .~ 0 0 0 0 0 0
~q 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~
0 O~ ~) ~q ~0 ~) ~ .~
0 0 ~0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 ~q ~0 0 0 0 0 0 t~
0 ~q ~0 0 0 0 ~ 0 I~
0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 ~q ~q 0 0 0 0 0 ~q
0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~q
0 (N O~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~
June 16, 1987
Mr. Edward Shukle, Jr.
City Manager
City of Mound
5341Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Ed:
Thank you for your help, support, and participation in
the Mound City Days events of this. past weekend.
Some examples of the help received from the staff at
City Hall include Fran Clark digging information out of
old records for the history section of the booklet, Geno
and his crew hanging street banners and other duties,
Linda Strong and others selling booklets and buttons,
and Chief Harrell and his entire staff for arranging
parade routes, directing traffic, and countless other
duties. These people and all others at City Hall who
helped should be congratulated. Their help has been
very much appreciated by all City Days Volunteers and
residents alike. .'
On behalf of Harold Meeker and all City Days Volunteers,
thank you very much! I believe this celebration has
set the beginning of a new feeling of City Pride .and a
new spirit of community cooperation among all area
residents. Lets keep this momentum going!
Very Sincerely,
City Days Volunteer
PM:jh
P.O. Box 258/2313 Commerce Boulevard, Mound, MN 55364
(612) 472.5544
.ng.: ~ _.ng )and coOr~
?":(requir'ed:~[~:° A~range details suOh as th~-selecti°'~:~0f'~'th~ .........
parade r6ute,.., statiOning of safety, vehicles, coordinating
crowd' 'e0~ror;'-~a helping with~'th~'"'nunareas ' "' ...... ' ....
whichare critical yet go un-n~ticed, from the gene~9~)~..~ '
Publi6.~W~r~ essential":to the success of this
~' '" ~ -aaai~k-o'~' ,-~-h~r-~-i-9::.bOg., Prese~ati~h:'_~as.'abSolu~i
the professional manor in which' your department res
t-'-; ~,,~. -Event'chairman, Harold Meeker,_.'has asked ~e to'Say
'--. i:';i'~'i~:.~ ': .'You"to'eac~ and every~one of yoU.';. We"could n~
:~ ;i~: ~ .~:;~. ~j '(-~..:~ "~_ had..~.su~h ~.a.:; S%ccessfu?~ event wi~h-0'Ut: your; ~hel
'~' 2~-- '- ': .-': ...... Resident', City Days -Volunteer, :-:-:~',-~ · .
'.. "' ::~- [~'- ~ :~:%:' [ ~ ' .'- · '2'"':;-'.' ~::f:'~,'~ ~ ~-,'::.:.?, ;]-'.L ' ~:.~,, .'~ ..'~' [ ~ .... ~- .~-. Vt..',.' '.
' "'" ' ~ ' . :': }~i;~: '.-. ~ '-.'..
.,.. .- - . ? [ ,
" :--~.?: P. Box 258/2313 COmmerce Boulevard, MoUnd, MN 55364
:~.:~:.~_ .: .: . :.:~ ~....,,. :.. :...:.-: .'- ' ~.' (612) 472-5544
MINUTEs OF THE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIN~
June 8, 1987
Present were: Chairman Thomas Reese; Cc~,~ttissioners Vern Andersen, William
Meyer, Geoff Michael, Kenneth Smith, Brad Sohns, William Thal and Frank Weiland;
Council Representative Elizabeth Jensen; City Manager Ed Shukle; City Planner
Mark Koe~ler; Building Official Jan Bertrand and Secretary Marjorie Stutsman.
Also present were %he following interested persons: John Peterson, T~m and
Veronica Geyen, Jim and Katie Fox, Alyce and Lavon Cooper, Ralph McCrehin, Jim
and Deb Kutzner, Harold and Lucille Kutzner, Mohamed Hamoude, Sally Bosiger,
Arvin Senne, C. J. Johnson, .Gordon Wolf, Norman T. Berglund, T~m Kelly, Steven
A. Williams, John and Kristi Dzik, James J. Laniel, Bill Smith, Mark J. Robert-
son, Mark Lawrence, Judy Zimdars, Robert Lund, Jane Weisman and Michael Gardner.
MINUTES
The minutes of the Planning C~,ission meeting of May 11, 1987 were presented
for consideration. Michael moved and Weiland seconded a mo%ion to approve the
minutes as published. The vote %fas unanimously in favor.
BOARD OF APPEALS
1. Case No. 87"631 Variance to recognize existing nonconforming set~acks at
3367 Warner Lane; Part of Lot l, Block 12, Douglas and Lot 64, .Whipple
Shores; PID No. 25-117-24 24 0056 (The City Council at their May 26th
meeting referred this request back to the Planning C~,~ission because
the City Attorney stated they have not addressed the factual findings to
allow a ~-ariance. )
The Chair stated that he did not understand the Attorney's c~,.,ent and
the difference between nonconformancies which we have recognized all the
time. The Planner stated the Attorney questioned that there is any hardship
that is evident in this particular case since the applicant is not. pro-
posing to change anything; it is simply on the economic basis that it
would make it easier to not have to obtain insurance on the mortgage and
that was not grounds for a v~riance. The issue the Planner asked for
clarification on w~s difference 'between a. nonconform.ing use and a %rariance
and when you grant a ~-ariance,do you alleviate the nonconforming, use por-
tion of %he ordinance? The response ~as that would take more review, but
the feeling w~s if a w~riance were granted and the structures were des-
troyed by an ac% of nature, it could be reconstructed in the ex~c~ loca-
tion it is in now.
The Co~x~ission discussed the case including that when Island Park %fas
annexed, the structures became nonconforming under the provisions of the
ordinance. Koe~ler stated apparently the Attorneys .feel there is a dif-
ference between granting a ~rariance and having a nonconformity and the
point they brought up waS that every nonconforming property could now
come in for a v~riance and than they would not have a nonconforming struc-
ture anymore; than there would be no room for this body to review the
property; when an applicant is seeking to do something,~ there is grounds
for a ~-ariance based on the proposed change and that is considered a hard-
ship. Con~ission discussed using "practical difficulty" for gr~nting a
~-ariance.
Smith moved and Michael seconded a motion to grant the ~riance and .the
finding by the Planning Co~m~ission that ~er qualifications in Section
23.506.1 that in fact the circumstances in this case are practical dif-
fic~tty in the use of his land and further condition of this resolution
should be that any additional modifications to structure would have to
Planning Cc~mission Minutes
June 8, 1987 - Page 2
come back to the Planning C~,L~ssion and City Council for approval.
The Commission discussed the case and had questions on consequences of
motion. Jensen stated, that not having a clear definition of what 'practical
difficulty i.~, and being hesitant to oDen that. so we can do anything that
we want to and considering the possibilities of what this could mean given
the nature of the properties we have in Mound, she is hesitant to support
the motion.
Jensen moved and Thal seconded a motion to table and ask applicant and-/
or new owner to be present at the next meeting and further, get informa-
tion on 1) title insurance issue, 2) specifically how this case is dif-
ferent from other nonconforming cases and 3) definition of practical
difficulty. The Chair asked clarification of "significance of recognizing
what a nonconformancy is as opposed to granting a specific wariance".
All were in f~vor of the motion. :.
This will be back on the Planning Cc~L.~Hssion Agenda of June 22, 1987.
Case No. 87-638 PUBLIC HEARING on proposed Vacation of Dorchester Road
from StratfordLane to Essex Lane
Jim Fox, applicant, was present.
The Building Official reviewed the City Engineer's report that states the
City has no reason to retain this right-of-way; Mr. Fox has a driveway
coming in on rig~-R~-~ now.. One neighbor has a play house and split .rail fence
which~:appears.to-TDSYc~ster rlght-of-way;.~he fronts on Manchester, but
has a topography problem and the Building Official rec~iiends, if the Com-
mission considers granting the vacation, it be with condition a private
access easement be granted to these people.:.-Also- Mr. Fox would not have
to comply with a front yard setback rob otb Stratford and Dorchester for
his garage (side yard setback would be applicable on the Dorchester side).
The Chair opened the public hearing. JIM FOX stated Dorchester is a black-
topped street that no one uses. V/~RON~CA_GEYEN stated they.are in favor of
the vacation contingent on their getting an access easement which would be
f~led with the deeds. After some discussion, the Chair closed the public
hearing, and the C~,~uission discussed the proposed vacation.
Thal moved and Michael seconded a motion to recon~nend to the City Council
grantin~ the vacation as requested with the proviso that owners reach
agreement on a private easement to allow the Geyens access. The vote on
the motion was unanimously in favor.
The Council will be asked to set the public hearing for July 14th, 1987.
Case No. 87-639 Side yard and front yard setback variances for 1779 Wildhurst
Lane; Lot 3 and part of Lot 4, Block 13, Shadywood Point; PID 13-117-24 14 0019
Mohamed Hamoude was present.
The Building Official reviewed her report on request for a 4 foot side yard
variance and a 15 foot front yard variance to allow the construction of a
22 by 22 foot attached garage. She stated it appears to her the proposed
garage would have robe shifted to the east or it will be over the lot line.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 8, 1987 - Page 3
The staff is reccm~,,ending granting the side yard and front yard setback
variances due.to the hardship of the topography of the lot with the condi-
tion that applicant sutanit proof of the 10 foot driveway easement on the
west property.
The C~,~,ission disCUssed the problems of driveway and the difficult instal-
lation of the garage. Applicant stated he has not been able to find an
easement recorded for the driveway; it is only access he had to his property.
Also he stated he is agreeable to reducing the size of his garage to 20 by
20 feet. The Commission disCUssed that he'd have to put drive on his own
property and that shifting garage would cover front door. The Planner stated
with the change, he would have a 17"% north facing driveway; the street, eleva-
tion is set as is the building elevation and there is not much you can do
about the grade. Applicant stated he would build up the front yard so drive-
way comes into the garage. He'll have quite a retaining wall and garage
would be higher than the house. C~aL.~ssion discussed at length.
Weiland moved and Thal s~conded a motion to grant a .2 foot side yard vari-
ance and ~ 13 foot front yard variance to construct a 20 by 20 foot
attached garage on the property with applicant working out the specifics.
Commission disCUssed that possibly he could get an easement established;
but if not, he'd be .able to go ahead with the project. The vote on the
motion was all in' favor except Michael abstained from the vote.
Michael thought the variance as requested should be granted.
This will be referred to the City CounCil on June 23, 1987,
Case No. 87-640 .PUBLIC HEARING for Conditional Use Permit. for Expansion of
Cabinet Shop and Office at 5558 Auditor's Road; Lot 2 and West 45 feet front
and rear of Lot 3, Auditor's Subd. 170; PID 13-117-24 33 0005
Arvin Senne was present.
The City Planner, Mark Koegler, reviewed his report and reco~nendation for
the approval of the proposed modification of the CUP to allow expansion of
the floor area for use as shipping area, shop and some office facilities
and the Building Official has requested Item 5 on the Resolution 84-32 be
amended to state the following: "The alternate fire separation between the
A-3 restaurant and H-3 woodworking shop will be reduced from a 4 hour occu-
pancy separation to a 2 hour fire rated assembly under the Unifom Building
Code provisions for partition walls and structural members with a-sound
rating of 50 decibels and the building shall be fully sprinklered throughout''.
Staff is reccan~ending approval with the amendment.
The Chairman opened the public hearing. CURT JOHNSON., owner of office build-
ing to the East, stated he has no problem with expansion except for the
parking; delivery semi's block his parking lot and Senne's customers park
in his lot and that the "no parking" on street was not enforced. ARVIN.
SENNE stated deliveries were received 4 times a week for perhaps 10 minutes
at a time.
Koegler mentioned there was an imense public parking lot across the street.
The Co~nission disCUssed how Senne could get CUstomers to park there;' lot'is
to be blacktopped; also that parking enforcement was not Con~nission's concern,
Planning Co~.~ssion Minutes
June 8, 1987 - Page 4
however, it was mentioned that additional traffic due to expansion of the
business was. The Chairman asked Mr. Senne if it would be unreasonable, as
a condition of this, for him to get a sign made to put on his door that
says, "Cabinet Shop parking across the street"? The Chairman then closed
the public hearing- as there were no other c~ents.
Michael'moved and Thal seconded a motion to recommend to the Council,
with the Building Official's addition of Items 5, approval of the staff's
rec~,~,endation.
The addition of Item 6 (sign) to the motion was discussed. The maker of
the motion stated he did not agree with the addition as he didn't see 'the
necessity for $ 6,. a directional sign.
Reese moved and Thal seconded amending the motion to add $ 6. The vote
on the amendment ~s Michael opposed, all others in favor. Amendment
carried.' The vote on the motion as amended was ~:h~usly in favor.
The public hearing will be set'for July 1~, 1987.
Bo
Case No. 87-641 PUBLIC HEARING on proposed Zoning MapAmendment to change
zoning from R-4 Multi-Family to R-2, Single Family Residential of Lots 6-8,
Block 1, Lots 3-6, Block 2, Lots 11-20 and 27-36, Block 11, all in Seton.
Applicant Norm~n. Berglundwas present.
The City Planner Mark Koegler reviewed his report on the proposal to rezone
28 lots from R-4 to R-2 With the specific intention of selling the property
for development of singlefamily residences; under the R-2 zoning, property
can be divided into a maximum of 10 building sites (40 by 200 feet deep).
Additionally, as applicant has also petitioned for a vacation of Longford
Road and part of Kerry Lane; if granted, many of the lots will have lots
attached to them on Black Lake and would result in their being 340 feet deep.
Koegler stated Mr. Bergland's land comprises the majority of R-4 land, but
does not include all of it which would result in a number of little spot
zoned parcels and suggested the Conxnission could recon~nend the City Council's
public hearing be published as one that would focus on rezoning that entire
area of R-4 to possibly R-2. The staff reco~nends approval of the rezoning
and also amending the comprehensive plan designation from multiple-family to
single family residential for the property subject to the 4 conditions in
t~e Planner's report.
The Chairman opened the publichearing. The following persons had co~nents
and generally objected to the rezoning because of the density and narrow-
ness of the proposed parcels: JIM KUTZNER, JIM LANIEL, SALLY BOSIGER, HAROLD
KUTZNER and GORDON WOLF. NORMAN BERGLUND stated all the lots are 40 foot
wide; they are requesting R-2 Single Family Residential Zoning because that
zoning is all around this area of R-4; they also want to reduce the require-
ment for side yard setbacks from 10 feet and 6 feet (R-4 requirement) to
6 feet on both sides which is allowed in R-2 Zoning for lots of record in
order to allow the maximum building area on the lots. As there were no
others wishing %o be heard, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
The C~]~-~dssion discussed the proposal and had various c~t..t,ents and questions.
including possibly changing zoning to larger lots, such as R-1 with 60 foot
Planning C~u~-~ission Minutes
June 8, 1987 - Page 5
frontage required on the right-of-way. Some co~,ents were that R-1 would
be spot zoning just as much as the R-4 seems to be; a variance from the
LMCD would be required to put a dock on 40 foot wide lots, etc. The staff
noted that there was a plan drafted 'during the road improvement to provide
street access and utilities to the remainder of those lots in the future and
this or some plan would have to be put in place before those lots would be
issued building permits.
Smith moved and Thai seconded a motion to rec~,end to the City Council
to hold a public hearing on rezoning the entire R-4 area to R-2 Single
Family Residential Zoning rand f~the~.r.__ poi~ ...out, _to_.th9 ~Ci_~y_Co~cil that
the official hearing area will need to be expande.d_:' ............. ~ ~.i. The vote
was Meyer and Weiland oppOSed' -all-.'~t-t~ 'i~% 'favor. Motion carried.
The Council will be asked to set the public hearing for July 14, 1987.
Case No. 87-646 PUBLIC HEARING on proposed vacation of portion of Longf~rd
Road and Kerry Lane north from Longford
Applicant Norman Berglund ~as present.
The City Planner noteed that the City Engineer had put together some comnents
on the proposal to vacate Longford Road between Black Lake Lane and Kings
Lane; it is not. usable for public right-of-way and.part of it is below the
Flood Plain elevation. The City has dock sites on Kerry Lane and Lots 1 and
2, Block 2, Seton are under separate ownership. The City Engineer had stated
a 15 foot wide easement would be adec~_ate for pedestrian access.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and as no one responded, he closed
the public hearing. The Comnission questioned what benefit' there would be
to vacate street. Koegler stated it almost becomes a legal issue that you
would make those lots contiguous rather than have public right-of-way running
in the middle of them. C~,~ission discussed it was probably a matter of
making lakeshore lots out of them for dockage. Mr. Bergland has tried to
purchase Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Seton.
Weiland moved and Sohns seconded a motion to rec~nd denial of the re-
quested vacation. The vote was Smith opposed and all others in favor of
the'denial. Reason given was that it was not needed for access or lot area
to make buildable sites and a concern for protection of public docks and
to give the City some say in what future marina development might be.
The public hearing will be set for July 14, 1987.
case No. 87-642 Fence material variance for 2241 Southview Lane.
Part of Lot 1, Block 12, Mound Terrace; PID 14-117-24 34 0004
Mr. and Mrs. Cooper were present.
Meyer moved and Sohns seconded a motion to reco~nend approval of the staff
recon~endation for fence material variance.
The Commission discussed request briefly and jenSen stated she did not see a
hardship exceptmaybe financial and'that is not considered a hardship. She
feels that maybe ordinance should be changed for large parcels rather than grant
Planning Commis~lon,~inutes
June 8,.1987 ' Page 6 '"
a variance in order to maintain the integrity of our ordinance. Heyer stated
the reason for the motion was. that property is-so unique to Hound; he didn't
think the fence ordinance was.written'to consi, der 5 acre parcels and this
should be looked at as an exception rather'than change'the ordinance. The
Buildi. ng'Official stated Butternut and Southview' Lane are'Unimproved right-of-
ways and any abutting properties would be 30+'feet distant. The Planner stated
this is a case,whe.re Commission couldapply the practical difficulty definition;
he feels there is no basis for a hardshlpL
The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor.
This will be'on the.CitY'Council agenda of ~une 23, 1987.
e
Case No. 87-643 Side yard setback.variancefor'hgXX Edgewater Drive.
West 40. feet of'Lot t7, Skarp & Lindqulst's Ravenswood
John Peterson was present.
The Building Official explained her report on the ~equest for a q foot side
yard variance to allow'construc~'i0n.of a new'homewithin 6 feet of the side
lot 1.ine and a detached garage within 18 feet from the front property line.
-In 1982, lot was divided.and it no longer is considered a lot of record which
would allow 6 foot'side yards. Staff recommends revising Zoning Ordinance'
to allow'6foot'side yard'setbacks'for new lots in the R-2 District; but that
the garage setback.requirement of 20 feet'be maintained.
JUDY ZIHDARS and MARK'LAWRENCE, neighbors, were present. Hrs. Zimdars stated_.
her husband, John, was out of town and he 'wanted to be present tonight and
would like consideration be deferred'to a later date. when he can arrange to
be present, .The.Zimdars and. Hr..Lawrence do not favor'allowing the request,
but are willing to get together to talk.about a solution. Applicant mentioned
that he thought parcel was 45 feet wide when he purchased it.
After considerable discussion of the problems, the following action was
taken:in order to allow neighbors to be heard:
Andersen moved and Weiland seconded a motion to table to the June 22nd
meeting. 'The vote was al1 in favo~ except Jensen and Thai who opposed
· tab]ing because they feel we will not be hearing anything different from
Hr. Zimdars and must make'the decision on what we know as we're a govern-
ment of law, not of people.
Case.No. 87-644 PUBLIC HEARING on theapplication to amend conditional use
permit to allow bait and'tacklesales with existing service station at
4831 Shoreline Boulevard; Lots 1-4, 21 andpart of Lots 5 and 20, Block 1,
Shirley Hills Unit A
Applicant, Tom Ke11~was present.
The City Planner reviewed his report and that staff recommends approval of
the Conditional Use Permit to include the sale of bait with two conditions:
1) Bait sales be limited to live bait and sales of fishing equipment includ-
ing but not'limited to rods, reels, boats, motors and boats expressly pro-
hibited; and 2) All signage for service station shall be brought into con-
formance with the Hound-Sign Ordinance. Existing illegal temporary signs
shall be removed immed|ately.~'
10.
11.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 8, 1987 - Page 7
The C~-,ission discussed that the word "only" should be added after "...
live bait" in 'Condition 1.
The Chairman opened the public hearing. Applicant Tom Kelly stated when
he made the request, he inte~ded~.l, to have small amount of bait and miscel-
laneous tackle items. They intend to be service oriented and also supply
customers with small convenience items such as small fishing tackle; they
don't have room to sell those bigger items. As no other persons wished to
be heard, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Reese moved and Jensen seconded a motion to recoil,end approving an amended
conditional use pemit to include live bait and sale of small fishing tackle
expressly exempting sale of reds, reels, boats, motors and trailers. The
.vote was unanimously in favor.
The City Council will' set a public hearing for July 14, 1987.
Case No. 87-645 Subdivisi6n of Land - 5235 Bartlett Boulevard
Tract D & E~' Registered Land Survey .813 and part of Lot 17, Shirley Hills
Unit C; Applicant Robert Lund was present; also Jane Weisman.
The Building Official explained the request that Mr. Lund owns East % of
Lot 17, and Parcel D & E (shown on plat map) and is proposing to split the
east % of 17 and sell south'half to adjoining property owner to west who
owns 18 except the %~est 8 feet and west ½ of 17. The Commission noted the
large parcels, but questioned why we are splitting land and if they intended
to try to subdivide again for one or more building sites. 'Ms. Weisman
stated, for right now, she just wants to insure her privacy, but at some
future time, she planned to build another home on.the lake'.'and sell her
present home. The Commission advised her of the requirement to have 60
feet' on a public right-of-way for each building site, which it appears she
would not have and would need to apply for a v-~riance. Cou,~,ission noted
that was not the request at this time.
Jensen moved and Smith seconded a motion to reco~m,end approval of the
reqUested subdivision of land. The vote %fas unanimously in favor.
This will be referred to the City Council on June 23, 1987.
Case No. 87-647 Variance to recognize existing nonconfoming side yard set-
back at 5060 Tuxedo Boulev-~rd; Lot 8, Whipple Shores; PID 24-117-24 43 0056
Applicant was not present.
The Building Official reviewed her report stating that Ms. Wilson has applied
for her mother, Mrs. Hartkop, for a variance to recognize an existing 2.33
foot side yard setback to allow the construction of a 12 by 24 foot screened-
in porch with conforming sethacks. Staff rec~m~,ends approval to afford the
owner reasonable use of her property ~ upon the condition that survey be revised
to assure a 50 foot setback to the ordinary high water elevation of 929.5.
Sohns moved and Smith seconded a motion to rec~.a~%end accepting the staff's
recommendation. The vote was unanimously in favor.
This will be referred to the City Council on June 23, 1987.
17 3
Planning Commission Minutes
June 8, 1987 - Page 8
12.
Case No. 87-648 Variance to recognize existing nonconforming side and
rear yard setbacks for 1599 Bluebird Lane; Lots 18 and 19, Block 6, Wood-
land Point; PID No. 13-117-24 12 0128
Michael Gardner was present.
13,
The City Planner reviewed his report stating that Mr. Gardner hasmodifled
his request to include a second story over a portion of the existing struc-
ture and a new two-story addition in the front yard area including a garage
on the ground level. The new addition is proposed to be constructed .within
the building, envelope and would not intensify the nonconforming setbacks as
it did previously. Staff recoa~nendation would be for approval of the re, est.
C~Lission c~L~,ented that this plan was really nice.
'Smith moved and Meyer seconded a motion to recou~end accepting the staff'
recc~ca~,endation for approval. The vote was unanimously in favor.
This will be referred to the City Council on June~23, 1987.
Case No. 87-649 Variance to recognize an'existing nonconforming b~use size,
lot. size and~setback for 3137 Donald Drive; Lot 11, Block 14,' Pembroke; PID
Number 19-117-23 33 0161; Applicant's Father, Ralph McCrehinwas present
The Building'Official explained the applicant is requestin~ a variance on
an undersized lot and house size to allow structural repairs to the existing
dwelling footings under an 12 by 12 .foot addition on the back ~f the house
and also to add a 7½by 12 foot addition-within 6 feet of the property line.
Staff does rec~,,end the structural modifications to the rear bedroom as
it does have confoming setbacks to the lot lines and also reco~nends that
any addition to the building sh~Ut~bring structure to the minimum 840 square
foot of living area with confoming setacks to the property line conditioned
that a survey be submitted before any additional structural modifications be
made.
The Con~nission disCUssed and questioned if house would be brought up to
building code and where property lines were. Bill Smith, neighbor on the
north, statedM--~Crehin will have problem getting equipment~ in for work with-
out damaging his property. Ralph McCrehin thought he could take out concrete
step and get the equipment in. Bill Smith asked if there was someway it
would be guaranteed that house would be completed within a specified time.
Jensen moved and Michael seconded a motion to reco~nend that the staff recom-
mendation be approved and that the house be brought up to building code.
The vote was Reese opposed and all others in favor.
This will be referred to the City Council on June 23, 1987.
14:
Case No. 87-650 Variance to recognize an existing nonconforming setback to
do structural repairs at 3103 Devon Lane; Lots 1,2,3,4 and 7, Block 3, Arden;
PID No. 24-117-24 44 0029; Mark Robertson was present
The Building Official explained this home has been before the Co~nission
several times in the past few years; the foundation in one area of home
under northwest corner of porch is failing and needs repairs.
Planning Co.~ssion Minutes
June 8, 1987 - Page 9
Andersen moved and Sob_ns seconded a motion to recou~nd approval of the
request. The vote was unanimously in favor.
This will be referred to the City Council on June 23, 1987.
The Chairman noted that at the June 22nd C~mt~ission meeting, nonconformancies/
variances would be discussed and hopefully clarified.
DISCUSSION IT~4S
1. Sign Ordinance' for co~nercial shopping centers - The Chairman deferred dis-
cussion of this item until a later meeting.
2. ReqUest for Proposal for. Lost Lake - The City Manager c~mt,ented that the
intent was for this to be discussed at this meeting and that the c~',~ents
would be reviewed by the City Council on June 23, 1987.
The City Planner reviewed that this draft of the RFP included suhnission
requirements.,, information on selection .process and so forth and it was
thought the procedures in the RFP are the ones that will lead to a fair and
equitable review of all the proposals.
The Commission had various c~.ents and generally thought the RFP ~s
excelle~at. Some of the comnents made were, in cover letter second paragraph
to omit "in attempting" and in last paragraph chan~e wording to "...under-
standing of desired development." It was questioned if, under Market Potential,
· we had said enough about what we have to attract people, such as the winter
and sunmer .attractions, contests, etc. Under Site Characteristics, it was
suggested that the soon to be upgraded 394 should be mentioned for better
accessibility and westward expansion. Also it was discussed it would be
worthwhile to show that adjacent piece of land is agailable for sale.
Smith moved and Sohns seconded a motion that we rec~.end the draft study
as amended to the City Cou
unanimously in favor.
Commissioner Ken Smith advised t
and sulanitted his resignation ef
Adjournment
Jensenmoved and Smith seconded
Ail were in favor, so meeting wa
Attest:
~cil for its June 23rd meeting. The votewas'
~at he is moving out of state on SePtember 1st
~ective August 1st, 1987.
motion to adjourn the meeting at 12:00 P.M.
adjourned.
Chairman Thomas Reese
LEN HARRELL
Chief of Police
MOUND POLICE
5341 Maywood Road Telephone 472-3711
Mound, MN 55364 Dispatch 544-9511
EMERGENCY 911
June 19, 1987
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Ed Shukle
Len Harrell~
New Officer, Todd Limond
Todd Limond will be starting as a police officer on June 22, 1987.
Todd replaces the position vacated when Kyle Larson accepted a
position on the Maple Grove Police Department.
Todd is 24 years of age, and currently lives in Maple Grove. Todd
graduated in 1985 with a Bachelor of Science degree from Mankato State
University with a law enforcement major and history minor.
Todd previously worked in the safety and security division of Bachman's,
Inc. in Minneapolis. Todd has also worked as a gymnastics instructor.
This will be Todd's first job in law enforcement.
The background on Todd revealed him to be a very likeable and responsi-
ble young man who works well with people and has good communications
skills.
aeeociation of
metropolitan
munici'palitiee
BULLETIN
June 18, 1987
TO: AMM Member City Officals
FROM: Neil Peterson, President
RE: Membership on AMM Legislative Policy Committee
-THE AMM NEEDS YOUR HELP
-BE PART OF THE AMM VOICE
-BECOME INVOLVED
-MAKE YOUR CITYS' POSITION FELT
APPLY FOR A POSITION ON AN AMM POLICY COMMITTEE
We, as city officials, cannot afford to be silent. Please take a
few minutes to read the brief description of the five standing
committees and volunteer a small amount of your valuable time to
make an impact by filling in and returning the attached form. The
committees will meet in August and September approximately four
times each year. The Board of Directors will be making two year
appointments in mid July and would like a clear indication of all
persons who are willing to give a small part of their time and
energy to'serve on one or more of these committees.
Mayors, Councilmember, Managers, and Administrators will receive
this Bulletin individually. However, if other city employees such
as finance directors, housing officers, planners, etc. would like
to serve, please submit their names.
The Board would also welcome any suggestions for specific issues or
concerns to be studied by the committees. If you have questions,
please contact either Roger Peterson or Vern Peterson in the AMM
Office (227-5600).
(over)
183 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 551 01 (612) 227-5600
COMMITTEE DESCRIPTIONS~
1. METROPOLITAN AGENCIES COMMITTEE
Considers legislative issues and non-legislative issues related
to the Metropolitan Council and Metropolitan Commissions, The
Committee looks at the structure and relationship between these
regional entities and local units of government and reviews
amendments to Metropolitan Development Guide Chapters or any
new chapters developed. In past years, the Committee has
developed policy on land use planning, metropolitan
significance, solid waste management, Met Council selection
process, etc.
2. MUNICIPAL REYENUES COMMITTEE
Considers any matter concerning revenues, taxes, and city
expenditures. Included are state aid formulas, state aid
dollars, levy limits, property tax assessments, tax increment
financing, fiscal disparities, and re-development funding
methods. The Committee will be looking very carefully at the
effects of the state aid formula and levy limit modifications.
3. HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Concerns itself with all issues related to economic development
and housing including subsidized housing, affordable housing,
and activities of the Metropolitan HRA. Reviews amendments to
the Metropolitan Council's Housing Guide Chapter with
particular emphasis on low and moderate income housing
concerns. Will review legislation dealing with EDA's, HRA's,
TIF, etc.
4. GENERAL LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
'Examine issues which have impact on metropolitan area cities
outside the scope of other AMM committees. In the past, this
Committee developed policy on municipal self insurance,
municipal consolidation, pensions, cable communications, PELRA
Amendments, etc.
5. TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
Studies major issues related to transportation and transit at
the metropolitan, state and federal levels. The ten (10)
elected officials who represent tht AMM on the Transportation
Advisory Board (TAB) and the eight (8) city staff officials who
represent the AMM on the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
are encouraged to be members of this Committee along with other
city officials.
ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES
(Please return by not later than July 1st.)
NAME
PREFERRED MAILING ADDRESS
CITY POSITION
CITY
(street)
(city)
PREFERRED TELEPHONE CONTACT NUMBER
(zip code)
PLEASE INDICATE COMMITTEE CHOICE
(1st. and 2nd.)
MUNICIPAL REVENUES
METROPOLITAN AGENCIES
HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
GENERAL LEGISLATION
TRANSPORTATION
SUGGESTED ISSUES TO BE STUDIED:
PLEASE RETURN TO:
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
183 University Ave., East
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
Attention: Carol Williams
Q METROPOLITRn
,-- WA;TE
CONTROL
(OITIITII//IOfl
June 19, 1987
Ed Shulke, City Manager
city of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55378
Dear Mr. Shulke:
Annually at this time of the year, the Metropolitan Waste Control
Commission (MWCC) holds a series of meetings in the communities it
serves to share with them the proposed MWCC budget for the coming
year.
This year a "Dutch treat" breakfast will be held:
Date: July 9, 1987
Time: 7:30 a.m.
Place:
Lafayette Club
2800 Northview Road
Minnetonka Beach, MN
I'd like to discuss our proposed budget (and other appetizing
subjects) at this meeting, which is planned for city officials
representing communities served by the MWCC in the Carver, Scott,
western Hennepin and western Dakota Counties.
Please invite appropriate staff to attend. If time allows, I'd also
like to bring you up-to-date on some very important MWCC projects.
We hope you plan to join us. We need your input! Please call
Pauline Langsdorf at 222-8423 to confirm your attendance. I look
forward to seeing you on July 9.
Sincerely,
Peter E. Meintsma
Chairman
PEM/LS
ES6.21
3,50 Metro Square Building, Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101 612-222-8423