1987-08-25CITY OF MOUND
MOUND, MINNESOTA
AGENDA
MOUND CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
7:30 P.H..~_TUESDAY,
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AUGUST 26._~87
Pledge of Allegiance
Approve the Minutes of the August 11, 1987 Regular
Meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CASE 187-660:
Delinquent Utility .Bills
Jim Thompson, 1959 Shorewood Lane, Lots
15 and S 1/2 of 16, Block 7, Shadywood
Point
~equest: Variance Request
CASE 187-661:
D & R Construction, re: 6230 Deerwood
Drive, Lot 3, Block 2, Woodcrest Third
Addition
~equest:
Consideration of moving a single family
dwelling from Orono into the City of Mound
CASE t87-658:
J. Thomas Lepisto, 5325 Waterbury Road
Lot 54, Whipple Shores
~equest: Minor Subdivision
Request for Maintenance Permit: Kevin & Jayne
Hetchler, 4913 Island View Drive, Devon Commons,
Abutting Lot 14, Block 14, Devon
Request for Maintenance Permit: Berg & Associates,
Waurika Commons, Abutting Lots 3, 4, 5 & 32, Block 6,
Woodland Point
Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present
Consider a Resolution Supporting the LMCD Program for
Lake Minnetonka, the LMCD Enabling Legislation, and
the LMCD Lake Management Plan
Pg. 2436-2443
Pg. 2444
Pg. 2445-2456
Pg. 2457-2467
Pg. 2468-2478
Pg. 2479-2482
Pg. 2483-2485
Pg. 2486-2489
Page 2433
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Resolution Appointing Two Additional Election Judges
as Recommended for the Special Referendum Election
September 29, 1987
Pg. 2490
Set Date for Public Hearings:
Budget - Suggested Date September 8, 1987
Assessment Hearings - Suggested Date September 22, 1987
Central Business District Assessment
Unpaid Tree Removal
Delinquent Utility Bills
Unpaid Lot Clean Up
Unpaid Boarding Up of House
License Renewal - On-Sale Beer: Mound Lanes & Pizza
License Approval for Sept. 11, Mound Police Reserve Unit
A. Public Dance - Waive Fee
B. Charitable Beer Permit
C. Set-Up Permit - Waive Fee Pg. 2491
~Payment of Bills
Pg. 2492-2505
INFOR~ATION/~ISCELLANEOUS
Financial Report for July, 1987, as prepared by the
Finance Director Pg. 2506-2507
B. Article from the Mpls. Star & Tribune and letter from
the City Attorney regarding Doe v. City of Mound Pg. 2508-2510
C. Report from the Dock Inspector regarding commercial
and multiple dock inspections - 1987 Pg. 2511
D. REMINDER: The Council is to meet with the Planning
Commission on August 24, 1987, at 7:30 P.M. to
jointly interview Planning Commission applicants.
We only have I applicant so far.
E. Letter from the City of Albertville inviting the
Council to attend the League of Minnesota Cities'
regional meeting on September 17, 1987. It starts
at 2:30 P.M. Please let Fran know soon if you plan
to attend. Pg. 2512
League of Minnesota Cities', Regional Meeting Issue
Paper Pg. 2513-2530
Page 2434
G. Planning Commission Minutes of August 10, 1987
H. Park Commission Minutes of August 13, 1987
I. Article the Park Commission will be publishing
regarding the Commons
Pg. 2531-2534
Pg. 2535-2537
Pg. 2538-2539
Page 2435
134
August 11, 1987
HINUTES - HOUND CITY COUNCIL - AUGUST 11, 1987
The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in
regular session on Tuesday, August Il, lg87, at 7:30 P.M· in the
Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City.
Those present wet. e: Mayor Steve Smith, Councilmembers Don Abel,
Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen and Skip Johnson. Also present were:
City Manager Edward O. Shukle, Jr., City .Clerk Fran Clark, City
Attorney Curt Pearson, City Planner .Mark Koegler, Building Offi-
cial jan Bertrand and the following interested citizens: Kurt
Berglund, Eric Berglund, Gary Brown, Tim Miller, Mark Lundgren,
Mark Luger, Theodore Luger, Allen Shay, Gay Hofteig.
The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in atten-
dance·
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited·
HINU'TES
HOTION made by Abel, seconded by Smith to approve the
minutes of the July 28, 1987, Regular Meeting, the August 3,
August 4, 1987, and the August 8, 1987~Special Meetings, as
presented. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.'
PUBLIC HEARING: PROPOSED ZONING HAP AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE
..... -"~-~i~-~'--~-~TI--~-~'F-~[OCKS 1, AND 11~ ALL OF
)[~:~-~__A£'L IN SIE~ON~A~-~-T-IO~ FROH R:4 MULT[:-
~AH---~L--Y-~ESIOENTIAL TO R-2.j_. SINGLE FAHILY
RESIDENTIAL ~ASE #87-64 Z
The City Planner explained the request. The Staff recommends ap-
proval of the rezoning subject to the following conditions:
-1. The Rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendment shall include
all of the R-4 designated land along Kildare Road·
2. The City Engineer shall review the proposed lots to ensure
that the provision of streets and utilities is feasible·
3. Lots shall front on an 'approved public street prior to the
issuance of building permits·
Review of the "Lot of Record" status by the City Attorney·
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
135
August 11, 1987
Kurt Berglund, representing the applicant, stated he is in
favor of the rezoning because it will eliminate a spot
zoning area and will be reducing the density·
The Mayor closed the public hearing·
Abel moved and jansen seconded the following:
ORDINANCE 16 AN ORDINANCE REZONING CERT&IN LANDS FROH
NULTI-FANZLY RESIDENTIAL (R-4) TO SINGLE
FANILY RESIDENTIAL (R-2)
The vote was'unanimously in favor· Motion carried,
PUBLIC HEARING: APPLICATION FOR A REVISION OF CONDI~ONA____L USE
PERHIT TO ALLOW ON SITE OPEN STORAGE 5300-5340
SHOR~'[r~'~ BLVD., PID ~13-117-24 34 0076 {CASE
/87-655 - BALBOA NN CO.). ~
The City Planner explained that Balboa is proposing to establish
a'4900 square foot trailer s'hort term parking area along the west
end of the parking lot on the north side of the building. They
would install a five~foot wide concrete pad to handle the load.
The area Would have a capacity of 12 trailer~s, all of which would
be backed up to one another for security purposes.
The Planning Commission recommended approval with the following
conditions:
All existing construction debris within the area shall be
removed immediately. -
'Dust,free surfacing in the trailer parking area shall be
maintained at all times.
P6ior to issuance of the Conditional Use Permit, Balboa Min-
nes6ta shall* submit a landscaping plan showing screening
along Lynwood Boulevard for review and approval by the City
Planner.
Trailers and trucks within the parking area and on the
remaining Balboa property shall be directly involved with
tenant businesses.
No trailers shall be allowed to remain parked on the site
for longer than 30 days.
The Mayor opened the public hearing.
136
August 11, 1987
Allen Shay, 5348 Lynwood Blvd. complained about the
following: some of the trailers there at the present have
been there for 6 months; there is debris sitting around;
there is a lot of noise from dropping trailers during the
night and early in the morning; in the winter the trucks
leave their motoring idling for long periods of'time; the
grass is not mowed.
Gay Hoftieg, 2216 Noble Lane, agreed with Mr. Shay.
Mark Lundgren, representing Balboa MN., stated that this
short term truck parking area is needed-or they could lose
Toro and C R Mfg. as tenants. He stated they are working on
the cleanup of the area. He stated .he agrees with the 5
conditions the Planner had outlined. :
The Council discussed Mr. Shay' complaints and decided to add the
following conditions to the 5 already proposed:
Keep the area trash free.
Restrict the. hours for activity in the truck parking area
from 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M.
Have the landscaping to screen the site from the residential
area completed within 60 days of the ~date of this resolu-
tion.
Smith moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION t87-145
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING
COHHISSION TO APPROVE A REVISION TO
THE CONDITIONAL USE PERNIT GRANTED TO
BALBOA MN. CORP. IN RESOLUTION 85-87,
SUBOECT TO CONDITIONS
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
-CASE ~87-654: JIN LUGER. 6195 SINCLAIR LANE~ LOT 6~ BLOCK 17~
THE H I GHLANDS_.j. vAR~E A~'~'-Li-~XT~§R
The City Planner explained that approval of the request would
require the granting of 5 variances. He then pointed out that
under the ordinance Mr. Luger could add either attached bedroom
space and an attached garage to the existing structure or could
add attached bedroom space and a new detached garage without any
variances.
The Planning Commission and the Staff recommends denial because
the proposed variances do not meet the Criteria for Granting
Variances found in Section 23,506.1 of the Zoning Code.
137
August 11, 1987
Mr. Mark Luger stated that there are other properties on the
block who have garages with apartments over them. The Planner
explained that these are also nonconforming uses and if they were
destroyed by a natural disaster they would not be allowed to be
rebuilt.
The Planner also stated that originally the applicant had applied
for a Conditional Use Permit for this item and he should have ap-
plied for a variance. The difference in the fee is $150.00 which
should be ap.proved by the Council for refund.
HOTION made by Johnspn, seconded by Abel ~o. deny the request
'for a variance on Lot 6, Block 17, The Highlands and to
refund $150.00 to the applicant. The vote was 4 in favor
with Mayor Smith voting nay. Motion carried.
CASE ~87-63Z: DONALD LOBDELL, 3367 WARNER LANE, LOTS ! AND 64_~.
.. BLOCK 1~ DOUGLA~'~P~ ~'HO~ES,, V~-~R~[- -
The 'Planner explained that in May the Council asked that the
proposed resolut.ion address the.factual findings to 'allow a
variance. After extensive review by the Planner and the City At-
torney, they are recommending denial of the variance and a refund
of the variance application fee because the sole purpose for
.granting this variance is for an economic~ reason which is not
valid to sustain the hardship test.
The Planner and the City Attorney are also recommending that in
future applicable variance applications that the proposed lan-
guage in Exhibit 2 be used for the resolution. The City Attorney
suggested that the 4th and 'Sth W'hereas' be inserted after the
"Now, therefore, 'be it resolved" paragraph. The Council agreed.
MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Jensen.to deny a varianCe
request at 3367 Warner Lane (Case t87-631) and refund the
variance application fee of $50.00 to Donald Lobdell. The
VDt& was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
EXTERIOR STORAGE ORDINANCE DISCUSSION
The City Planner reviewed the proposed draft of the exterior
storage section of the Zoning Ordinance as modified by the Plan-
ning Commission.
The Council discussed the following:
The number of pieces of equipment allowed.
The items included in the definition of recreation equip-
ment.
138
August 11, 1987
3o Front, side and rear yard setbacks.
NOTION made by Smith, seconded by Johnson to set Tuesday,
September 8, 1987, at 7:30 P.N. for a public hearing on the
exterior storage section of the Zoning Ordinance. The vote
was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT
Tim Miller, 3149 Inverness Road, complained that he cannot park
his bobtail trailer at his home according to the Zoning Or-
dinance. The Planner stated that most commupities do not allow
this.
ORDINANCE REGARDING CONPLIANCE OFFICIALS
The City Attorney explained the reason for this ordinance°
johnson moved and Jensen seconded the following:
ORDINANCE ~7. AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTIONS 250:25, 230:55
AND 210:20 TO THE CITY CODE, ADDING SPECIFIC
AUTHORITY FOR CITY CODE ENFORCENENT OFFICIALS
TO ISSUE CITATIONS IN: LIEU OF ARREST OR
DETENTION
The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
APPOINTNENT OF ELECTION JUDGES
Jessen moved and Abel seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #87-146 RESOLUTION APPOINTING ELECTION JUDGES
AS RECONMENDED FOR THE SPECIAL REFEREN-
DUM ELECTION SEPTEMBER 29, 1987
· The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
PROPOSED PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY SITE
The Council explained that due to opposition by the business com-
munity, they have decided to delete the Bickmann site and the
preparation of that site for outdoor storage of materials from
the proposal. The outdoor storage of materials will remain at
the Lost Lake site for now. This will reduce the cost of the
proposed facility to $790,000.
The City Manager explained that along with the cost amendment to
the Resolution #87-110 the Council will need to change a polling
139
August 11, 1987
place· Precinct ~6 is generally the Hennepin County Library, but
the Library is holding its annual book sale so the Precinct tS
polling place· will be at Westonka Community Services 5600 Lyn-
wood Blvd. '
Smith moved'and Abel seconded the following resolution:
RESOLUTION #87-147 RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION #87-110
The vote was unanimously in favor· Motion carried.
The City Manager then sta~ed that he has an Option Agreement' for
the Riley Bus Garage. The price will be $172,000, plus the spe-
cial assessments for a total of $178,000.
NOTION made by Jensen, seconded by johnson to authorize the
Mayor and City Manager to enter into an Option Agreement to
purchase PID ~13-117,24 33 O030.{Lot 12, lying east of the
road, and Lots 13, 14,'and 15, Koehler's Addition to Nound,
Lake Minnetonka, according to the duly recorded plat
'thereof) from James A. Riley,.for $172,000, plus the'special
assessments. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion
carried.
.PAYMENT_OF BILLS
NOTION made by Abel, seconded by Jensen to approve the pay-
ment of bills as presented on the pre-list, in the amount of
$131,151.41, when funds are available.
INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS -
'Monthly Reports for July as prepared by the Dept. Heads.
Notice from the Board of Hennepin County Commissioners about
a Vacancy on the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board.
The'City Manager stated that now there are two vacancies on
this board. The Council, discussed having publicity put in
the newspapers asking that anyone interested in serving send
in a resume and letter of interest. Mayor Smith stated he
would also ask at the Mayor's Meeting on September 12, if
there are any candidates from other cities in the area.
Notice from Dowden Cablesystems regarding a restructuring of
their services, increasing rates and adding new services.
Notice from AT&T regarding changes in their rate structure.
F ·
140
August 11, 1987
Memo from Patrolman john McKinley regarding the Region 12 K-
9 Trials where they placed 2nd overall.
Planning Commission Minutes - July 13 and July 27
Article from Business Week Regarding No Smoking as furnished
by Councilmember Liz Jensen.
HOTION made by Abel, seconded by ~essen to adjjourn at 9:I5
P.H. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.
E~ward J. Shukle, jr., 'Ci'ty Manager
Fran Clark, CMC, City Clerk
BILLS
AUGUST 11, 1987
Batch
Batch
874073
874074
Computer
Computer
run dated 8/5/87
run dated 8/6/87
5g,O01.83
72, 4 .5
Total Bills
131,151.41
11 O01 1769 41
11 007 1709 71
11 O13 1730 12
11 O19 1673 02
11 O19 1676 31
11 O19 17OO 11
11 022 1562 92
11 046 1743 41
11 064 4945 53
11 067 1904 81
11 070 1969 53
11 073 4716 10
11 085 4956 73
11 085 4973 22
11 085 5084 71
11 109 5936 61
11 112 5917 O1
11 112 5941 O1
11 112 5966 72
11 139 6200 32
11 199 2149 O1
11 202 2212 82
11 205 5513 91
11 205 5517 O1
33 439 2431 11
41 199 213611
41 199 2142 91
Delinquent Water and Sewer
Jack Diesing Pd.
Greg Eckert Pd.
Dan Rohricht
Harvey Howard
Robert Shanley
Charles Carlson Pd.
Wm. Howell
John Anderson
Brian Johnson
Wayne Burkhalter Pd.
Norton Hatlie
Norman Hemerick Pd.
Mark Wilette
Danny Martin Pd.
Mike Swanson
Frank Reinen
Thomas Jerde
James Swanson
Pat O Neil
Carol Reckinger
M. Mittelsteadt Pd.
Mike Jackson
Ron Anderson
Ron Anderson
James Lassek
R.K. Carlson
R.K. Carlson
$149.19
2O7.25
165.65
117.33
81.57
47.37
106.27
103.56
121.77
135.90
200.31
122.74
83.39
108.81
123.45
331.26
142.98
138~84
102.14
130.54
147.02
79.62
101.27
102.14
176.90
354.76
284.79
1769 Lafayette Ln.
1709 Baywood Ln.
1730 Avocet Ln.
1673 Canary Ln.
1676 Canary Ln.
17OO Canary Ln..
1562 Dove Ln.
1743 Sumach Ln.
4945 Glen Elyn Rd.
1904 Shorewood Ln.
1969 Lakeside Ln.
4716 Beachside Rd.
4956 Three Pts. Blvd.
4973 Three Pts. Blvd.
5084 Three Pts. Blvd.
5936 Hillcrest Rd.
5917 Gumwood Rd.
5941Gumwood Rd.
5966 Gumwood Rd.
6200 Short Rd.
2149 Belmont Ln.
2212 Fern Ln.
5513 Church Rd.
5513 Church Rd.
2431Wilshire Blvd.~
2136 Belmont Ln.
2142 Belmont Ln.
42 361 2346 11
42 404 556~ 32
42 404 5533 91
Charles Carlson
Wm Alexander
Century Auto Body
Pd.
$212.79
1~0.27
326.08
2346 Cypress Rd.
5571 Shoreline Blvd.
5533 Shoreline Blvd.
$~u~, ,91
11 001 1769 41
11 007 17o9 71
11 013 1730 12
11 o19 1673 02
11.019 1676 31
11 019 1700 11
11 022 1562 92
11 046.-1743 41
11 064 4945 53
11 067 i904 81
11 .070 1969 53
11 O73 4716 10
11 O85 4956 73
11. 085 4973 22
11 08'5 5084 71
11 lo9 5936 61
11 112 5917 O1
11 112 5941 01
11 112 5966 72
11 139 6200 32
11 199 2149 01
11 202 2212 82
11 205 5513 91
11 205 5517 01
33 439 2431 11
41 199 2~36 11
41 199 2142 91
42 361 2346 11
42 404 5569'32
42 404 5533 91
$149.19
207.25
165.65
117.33
81'.57
47.37
106.27
103.56
121.77
135.90
200.31
122.74
83.39
108.81
123.45
331.26-
142.98
102.14
13o.54
147.02
79.62
101.27
102..14
176.~0
354.76
284.79
212.79
130.27
326.08
$4785.78
DELINQUENT WATER AND
SEWER 8-19-87
'3030 Harbor Lane North,
Suite 104
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55441
612/553-1950
DATE: August 5, 1987
SUBJECT: Variance
· Planning Commission and Staff
Mark KoeGler, City Planner ~
Jim
1959 Shorewood Lane
87-660
V~S FILE NO: 87-310-A40-ZO
(~IVE PLAN: Residential
EXISTING ZONING:
Single Family Residential (R-l)
BACK6~)UNI~.. In 1985, Creigh Thompson (no relation to the current applicant)
applied for and received a subdivision and lot size variance to establish two
new lots from Lots 15, 16 and 17, Block 7, Shadywood Point. Under the terms
of the approval, Mr. Thompson was required to bring the existing home on Lot
15 and the south half of Lot 16 (Parcel B) up to current building code
standards. Mr, Thompson complied with that request and currently, Jim
Thompson is. applying for a variance to expand the existing structure.
~rce.1 B.contains adequate street frontage but has 7,332 square feet of lot
area in lieu of the required 10,000 square feet. Additionally, the existing
house has a non-conforming front yard setback (20..9 feet vs. 30 feet required)
.and a non-conforming accessory garage structure which abuts the south property
exih.ea.pplicant is proposing to add 1,154 square feet.of living space to
XlStlng 528 square foot house. Additionally, the a. ppllcant will relocate t~~
sting non-conforming garage to make it a conforming structure.
(X)MMF~ITS: Ail variances must prove hardship. In this case, sin~ th~ City
approved the ~division a~d lot area variance for the property in 1985, it
seems consistent to allow reasonable use of the lot. The proposed
improvements will enhance both the existing home and the surrounding area. It
is appropriate, however, to ask if the proposed plan represents the minimum
variance to allow reasonable use of the property. In recent similar cases,
additions to structures have been required to meet all current setbacks and
variances have been granted only to recognize the portion of the property
containing existing non-conforming setbacks. If this pattern is followed in
the Thompson case, the new addition would have ~to observe a 30 fogt front yard.
setback, a 10 foot side yard setback and a 15 ~oo~c' rear yard setback. This
would result in a .staggered front wall on the home. Presumably, this option
is physically possible although it may require a redesign of the addition and'
the retention of an architect. In the recent case on Bluebird Lane, the City
required the addition to conform to current setbacks despite comments that it
would require additional design. The resulting addition not only further
enhanced the neighborhood but also did not intensify the existing
non-conforming situations. ..
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that
a variance'be approved to recognize the existing non-co~forming setbacks for
Parcel B subject to the following conditions:
addition shall not contain more than 1200 square feet and shall
The
meet all current required setbacks.
The non-conforming structure.shall be
existing
accessory
garage
moved to a location on the lot which observes current setback
requirements.
Planning Commission Hinutes
August 10, 1987
BOARD OF APPEK~ '
1. -Case No.. 87-660 Yarianc~ request for 1959 Shore~6od Lane
Loft's.15 and $. ~ of 16, 'Block 7, Shadywoo~.. Poi.hr; PID ~ 18-117-23 23 0070
Jim Thompson was present. .'
The City Planner reviewed his report on the request for a variance ~o
recognize a nonconforming structure (applicant is proposing a substantial
expansion of the existing structure) and gave a little background--in
1985,: there was an approval of a subdivision and lot size variance to
· ' establish 2 lo~s from Lots 15, 16 &..17, Block 7, Shadywood Point. The
.structure on drawing in packet (shown as'.Parcel B) was require~ to be
brought up to building code standards. This parcel has 7,332 square feet
rather than required 10,000 square fe.et; it has a nonconforming front yard
of approximately 21 feet instead of. required 30 feet and there is an acces-
sary (garage) building with nonconforming setbacks. He stated applicant
is proposing an addition of 1,154 square feet to the 528 square foot house
and he will, relocate the garage to make it a conforming structure. Staff
reco~,ends approval with two conditions: 1) Addition contain not more
than 1200 square feet and meet all current required setbacks and 2) Garage
be relocated to meet current.setbacks. ~e suggested discussion of the
or. dinance requirement that variance represent the absolute minimum to allow
· ' reasonable use of the property. He also noted that having the new addition
me. et the current setback requirements will require a redrafting/redesign
· of the plans to have more of a staggered front wall possibly by an archi-
tect.
Jim Thompson thought if they jog addition back, they would not have suffi-
cient space for the house and still be able t0 relocate the garage; they
also are planning on grading lot so drainage, is toward the street rather
than to the neighbor's house. The Com.,dssion discussed distance required
between the structures and didn't see a problem. Greq Hawks, half owner
of property, stated they think it is more economical to build a 2 car
garage than relocate old one; they want a 3 bedroom home built as reason-
ably as they can with standard materials and feel that breaking up front
line and the added roof line would add undo expense. Jay Westlinq, 1927
Shorewood, thinks aesthetically it is better to have house straight on
the street; not added onto like a cabin. The Co~mission discussed and
asked questions including what setback would be on other Parcel A if they
allo~ed a variance for 'a 21+ front yard setback on the addition to the
existing house. Thompson thought setbacks on Parcel A could be conforming
and yet blend' because of the curvature of the road. Koegler stated Code
does allow averaging, but not less than 20 feet. Further discussion fol-
lowed including that ult'imately the City wants to get houses to conform.
Thal moved and Jensen seconded a motion to approve the staff's recommenda-
tion. The vote was Jensen, Sohns, Thal and Reese in favor; Andersen,
Meyer and Michael against. Motion carried to require conforming setbacks
(jog) on addition.
This will be referred to the City Council on August 25, 1987.
CITY OF HOUND
Case' G ¢
Da~e Filed
CATION TO PLANNING & ZONING COHMISSION
[ease type the following information)
1. Street Address of Property 1959 Shorewood Lane
2. Legal Description of Property: Lot 15, 5o.½ o£ 16 (24)
Addition Shady Wood Point
Owner's Name Jim Thompson
Address 4856 Island View Drive, Mound
Block 7
PID No. 1811723230070
Day Phone No. 648-2752 or
472-1155.-or
472-6020
Appl icant "(if other than owner):
Name
Add tess
Day Phone No.
Type of Request:
(~) Variance ( ) ConditiOnal USe Permit
( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review
( ) Wetland Permit ( ) P.U.D.
( .) Amendment
( ) Sign Permit
( )*Other
*If other, specify:
Present Zonihg District ~-~'
7. Existing Use(s) of Property ~in_~le family residence
8. Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? yes If so, list date(s) of
list date(s) of appl ication, action taken and provide Resolution No. (si October 7,' 198
lot subdivision & lot size variance approved. Resolution no. 85-121
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 requ i ry~.
· ' Date 7/20/87 _.
'Sig'na~cure of Appl icant V.,~¢~'
'' c~'~en ' - "'~'
Plannlng Commi ssion datJon:
Date
Council Action:
Resolution No.
Date
Request for Zoni.ng Variance Procedure (2)
O. Location of: Signs, easements, underground utilities, etc.
E. Indicate North compass direction
F. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the Clty Staff
and applicable Sections of the Zoning Ordinance.
/11..Request for a Zonin~ Variance
A. All Information below, a site plan, as described in Part II, and general
application must be provlded before a hearing will be scheduled.
B. Does the present use of. the property'conform to all use regulatlons for
the zone district In which It Is located/ Yes (~) Ho ( )
If ""no"', specify each nOn-conforming use: '
Case # ~7-&~,c
Ce
Do the existing structures' comply with all area height and bulk regulations
for the zone distrlct In which it is.located? Yes ( ) No' (~)
If "no'a, s'peclfy each non-conforming use: 1)Min±mum square footage of house
is non-conforming 2)Garage location 3)Frpnt yard setback
D. Which unique physical characteristics of the Subject property prevent Its
reasonable'use for any of the uses permitted in that zoning district2
.( ) .Too narrow (~) Topography ( ) Soll
(~) Too. small . (~) Ora lnage ( ) Sub-surface
· (~) 'Too shallo~ ($) Shape. (~) Other: Specify:
see attached sheet
Was the hardship d~scribed above createdby th~ action of anyone having
property Interests in the land after'the Zoning Ordinance was adopted?
Yes ( ) No (~) If yes, explain:
F. Was.the hardship created by'any'other man-made change, such as the reloca-
tion of a road? Yes ( ) No (~) If yes, explain:
Are the conditions of hardship for'which you request a variance peculiar
only to the property described In this petition? Yes .(~) No ( )
If no~ how many'other properties are similarly affected?
H..What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area-bulk regulations
that ~ll] permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using
maps, site plans with dimensions and ~r|tten explanation. Attach addltlonal
sheets, If necessary.)
see attached sheet
Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property In the
same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance?
111. Request for a Zoning Variance
The location and layout of the existing house which pre-dates the
present zoning ordinance provides the necessity that the addition
follow the existing front line of the house. This also applies
to the addition in relation to the depth of the lot to allow
proper, footage for the garage to meet the existing zoning
requirements.
Hm
The location on the lot of the existing house pre-dates the
present zoning ordinance in relation to the thirty-foot front
yard setback. The present structure has been renovated and .
brought up to code as requested by the Planning Commission in all
respects except the minimum allowable square footage. This
addition (as illustrated on the attached drawing) would bring the
presently non-conformant square footage Of the existing house
(648 sq. ft.) beyond the present minimum, thus complying-with the
Planning Commission's Resolution No. BS-121,1A-8. Building the
addition as such would allow adequate area in the back yard for
the presently non-conforming garage to be relocated so as to be
in compliance with the present zoning ordinance.
The Building Inmpector has viewed the house and recommended that
the foundation on the north side of the house be repaired (from
the front corner back 20 ft. toward the west corner). The
construction of the foundation for the new addition would result
in replacing rather than just patching this f~undation wall.
In contrast to the condition of the existing dwelling, the
aesthetics of the new dwelling would be pleasing, blend
harmoniously with the neighborhood and provide adequate space for
an average size family.
I
I I
'/
:
ELK RIVER CONCRETE PRODUCTS ' 7575 GOLDEN ¥&LLET ROAD, IINNEAPOLIS, Nil. 55427
(612) 546'~'JZ * IlIWI, RO
RiTE
\
x,
~/~OU d b
'r
0
~, ..r -t
ELI( IIIV£R CONCR£T£ PROOUCTS · 7675 GOLDEN VALLEY ROAD · MINNEAPOLIS, liN. 6~427
(612) 54~-6972 · INWARD WATS - 800 + 652-1158
BATE
200
October ?, 1985
RESOLUTION NO. 85-121
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITI~ THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
APPROVE THE LOT SUBDIVISION AND LOT SIZE YARIA~GE FOR
LOTS ~5, ']6, A~ ]T~ BLOCK 7~ SH~OOD POINT, P~ ~
, 8-1 T-23 23 00 o ( 959 S O 00D
WHEHEAS~ Crei~h and Cheryl Tho~pson~ applicant a~d
owners of ~he propert~ described as' Lots 15~ 16~ and ~T~ Block T~
Shad~wood Po~nt~ have applied for subdivision of Lot ]6 and lo~
size variances in order to oonstruct a new dwell~n~ for ~/2 of
Lot ]6 and Lot 15 and 1/2. of.Lo~ 16 and Lot 1T; and '"
.. ~HEREAS~ Exhibi~ "A" has also been subm~ed to indicate
the ~eques~ed subdiv~s~on and lo~ size variances ;~ and
WHEREAS, the City Code requires ~ lot size of ~0~000
square feet of area In the R-1 ZoninB Distric~; and
WHEREAS~ an appli~ation t'o waive the subdivision
requirements contained in Section 22.00 of the Ci~? C°~e has been
filed with the City of Mound by the applioan%~ Crei~h and Sheryl
Thompson; and
WHEREAS~ said request for waiver has been reviewed by'
the Plannin~ Commission and' the City Council; and -' '!
WHEREAS~ it is hereby determined that there are special
circumstances effectinB said proper~y ~su~h ~ha~ the
application of the ordinance would dep~ve the owner of the
'reasonable use of his land; and that the waiver is necessary for
the preservation and enjoyment of the subs~antial property ri~h~;
and that ~ran~in~ ~he waiver will not be de~riment-al to the
public welfare or tn~ur$ous ~o the other proper~y owners.
NOW~ THEREFORE~ BE IT RESOLVED by the C~y. Coun~l of
the City of Mound~ Minnesota:
The request of the'City of Mound for a. waiver from the
provisions of Section 22.00 of the City Code and. the
request to subdivide property o~ less that 5 aores,
described as follows: Lots 15,-16 and 17, Block ?,
Shadywood Point, 'is hereby granted to permit the
subdivision in the following manner; Parcel A. Lot 15
and 1/2 of Lot 16, Block ?, Shadywood Point and Parcel
B. Lot l? and 1/2 of Lot 16, Block ?, Shadywood Point;
upon the condition that:
A survey be submitted of the boundaries, area and'
legal description of the newly created parcels plus
utility connections for the existing structure and
the newly created site.
Oct~ober 17, 1985
The subdivided Lot 16, be combined 1/2 to Lot 15
and .1/2 to Lot 1~.
The lot size
feet (plus or
feet (plus or
~A~.
variance be limited to 2,668 square
minus) for Parcel B and 1.965 square
minus) for. Parcel A shown on Exhibit
Any deficient unit charges be paid or assessed to
the newly created site· .
No park dedication fees be assessed against ..the
newly created site·
The subdivision must be filed with the Hennepin
County Recorder or the Hennepin Register of Titles
within 180 days.
Variance approval is valid fo~ one year·
The existing accessory building and'. principal
building shown on Lot. 15 be brought up to current
code.
It is determined that the foregoing subdivision'
.will constitute a desirable and stable community
'development and it is in harmony with the adjacent
properties.
10.
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 Registrar
of Titles of Henne~in County to show compliant with
the subdivision regulations of the City.
: The foregoing resolutibn was moved by Councilmember
Paulsen and seconded by Mayor Polston.
: 'The following Councllmembers voted in the affirmative:
Jessen, Paulsen, Polston and Smith.
The following Counci.lmembers voted.An the negative:
none. ·
Councilmember Peterson abstained.
Mayor
Attest: City Clerk
CITY OF MOUND
Mound, Minnesota 55364
CASE NO. 87-661
NOTICE OF HEARING ON.THE CONSIDERATION
OF MOVING A SINGLE FAHILY DWELLING FROM
ORONO TO 6230 DEERWOOD DRIVE IN THE CITY
OF MOUND
NOTICE IS HEREBY G'iVEN that onTuesday,'~ugust_25,:1987,.at 7:30 p.m.
at the City Ha1]',.5341Maywood Road, Mound, Minnesota, a hearing will be held
per C.lty Code Section 300:25 for the consideration of moyin9 a single famil~
house from..Orono into the City of Mound to be located at 6230 Deerwood Drive
legally described as: Lot 3, Block 2, Woodcrest Third Addition; PID 23-117-24
23 0095.
All persons appearing at"said.hearing will be given the opportunity
to be heard. "
Fr~nc~e ~. C'~ark,
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 87-661
RESOLUTION NO. 87-
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE
THE RELOCATION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING INTO MOUND AT
6230 DEERWOOD DRIVE; (LOT 3, BLOCK 2, WOODCREST THIRD ADDN.)
P & Z CASE NO. 87-661
WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a permit to allow the relocation
of a single family dwelling from the City of Orono to be placed at Lot 3, Block 2,
Woodcrest Third Addition, PID No. 23-117-24 23 0095; and
WHEREAS, the existing structure is required to meet the Uniform Building
Code State of Minnesota, Section 104 for compliance wi~h new structures; and
WHEREAS, the City Code Provision .Section 300:25 requires the Planning
Commission and Ci'ty Council recommendation for approval to relocate structures;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council have reviewed
the proposal and have held .notification to property owners within 350 feet of the
site and those wishing to be heard, have been heard.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council, City of Mound, Minne-
sota, that the structure from Orono to be'relocated at Lot 3, Block 2, Woodcrest
Third Addition, PID No. 23-117-24 23 0095, is approved to be relocated upon the
following conditions:
1. The Contractor i.s to submit letters of reference from previous clients.
2. The Builder agrees to comply with the Building Official's letter dated Aug. 10,
1987 marked Exhibit I. ~
EXHIBIT "'1"
CASE NO, 87-661
TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff ~)4:::~;~/Li)N~'v
FROH: Jan Bertrand, Buildi.ng Official ~
CASE NO. 87-661
APPLICANT: D & R Construction
LOCATION: 6230 Deerwood Drive
LEGAL DESC.: Lot 3; Block 2, Woodcrest 3rd Addn.; PID 2'3-117-24 23 0095
SUBJECT: House to be relocated from.3061.Casco..Point Road, Orono
EXISTING ZONING:. R-1 Single Family Residential
~hen a structure.is moved or relocated, it'must conform .to,the-requirements
for a new structure under the provisions.of the Uniform.Building Code, State
of Hinnesota,'Section lOq. I'have made an inspectionon Ju)y '23, 1987 of the
structure in Or0no. I have found the roi. lowing alterations,, replacements,
and repairs which must'be made to this struct'ure, if relocated'into the City
of Hound.
A moving permit for the City.of.Hound.would be Obtained by a State li-
censed house mover in the,mount .of $$0.00 plus proof of insurance and
'cash deposit or bond to move.the structure over the City streets·
Yard grading inJluding soddi.ng, sidewalks, new house entry'stoops are to
be provided. .
0
A new foundation would .be required under the stYucture with beam and sup-
port systems in compliance with the'building codes; the structure would
be required to be properly anchored {not concrete beam filled or as it
was on its location), damp-proofing applied to the foundation walls, and
foundation insulation properly placed where necessary.
Constlruction blueprints will be required to permit approval of the alta. ra-
tions to the floor plans {including use of each room), heating layout,
survey, information as per attached; a cross section, foundation, energy
calculations'as'per new construction information is attached for your con-
venience.
5~
The new site would require 2 off street parking stalls (650 square feet
· of area minimum); the survey would require an indication of a future
garage if an accessory building were not planned at the time of the
building relocation.
Provide a new basement stairway and handrail to code.
7. The insulation of the structure must meet model energy code, 1985 Edition
of State Building Code (see attached energy calculation worksheet).
You have indicated that the redwood lap siding will not be replaced and the
sheetrock interior walls will be just repaired where cracked from the moving.
The new energy code does require a minimum of a .1 vapor barrier throughout
the buildilng.~ Walls and floors adjacent to heated space, run continuously·
To accomplish this vapor barrier provision, you will need to address some
method of accomplishing the code requirement. (Page 1 of 3)
August 25, 1987
TO Whom It May Concern:
Over the past three months, D & R Construction has been in
the process of building our new home in Orono. We have found
D & R Construction, and Rollie Mattson in particular, to be an
extremely good builder from a quality standpoint. He is also
on time, in fact ahead of time, for our October 1, 1987 closing.
Our experience to date has proven him to deliver on promises
made and to be on time and within budget. Others we talked
with prior to selecting him made similar claims.
Should you have any questions or concerns, please don't
hesitate to call.
Todd Waters
471-8698
TODD WATERS & CO. INC.
119OO WAYZATA BLVD SUITE 206, MINNEAPOLIS MINNESOTA 55343
TELEPHONE (612) 546-O421
CASE NO. 87-661
August lQ, 1)87 - Page 2
The structure backgK0und is as follows:
The age of the dwelling is approximately 1930 with permits issued for an
addition and remodel in 1~59. The building is 2q by 50 feet+ with no attached
or detached garage plan. The roof structure has 2 by q ceili--ng joists and
iroof rafters at'16 inch o.c.. Wall studs are 2 by q's 16 inch o.c. with a 2
inch building insulation blanket~
The floor joists are. a-Doug Fir 2 X 8 16 inch o.c. The wiring in the building
is greenfield metal. conduit with the electrical service removed. ..
The existing plumbing pipes are cast itoh'waste and vent with copper water
piping.
The windows throughout the buJlding"have stationary units with most of them.
being'double hung with. putty holding in the.glazing. ;The windows have alumi-
num CombinatiOn storms and.screens ~ttached.
It appears to be redwood type lap siding conti'nuous around the building, one
metal exterior and one wooden storm'door on the building. There is a flag-
stone and block fireplace in the building.
The woodwork in the building.is painted with the birch kitchen cabinets, oak
and birch :interior. doors'.
There are existing appliances .in t'he building such as: garbage.disposal,
dishwasher, refrigerator, range, water heater, fUrnace, 'air'cond|tioner,
exhaust fans. The furnace is somewhere between 15 and 20 years o.ld. The
water heater is 7 years old. Some of .the other appiliances could be. approxi-
mately 10 years old. The flooring in the structure is finished with asphalt
tile', ceramic tile, carpet.
The walls have oak paneling,.mostly sheetrock, and ceramic tile in the bath.
The floor joists were cut off in the bathroom area and will need to be re-
pa i red.
The rooms have over 10~ window area and will probably need some removed to
comply wlth the energy code. The window putty in some areas i.s falling out
and al'l windows will need re-puttying, window stops replaced where rotted,
and painted.
The threshold at the front door is cracked and will need to be replaced.
All sheetrock where cracked due to. the relocation must be repaired.
The roof is slightly sagged at the 2 X q's and additional rafters will need
to be installed and bracing to raise the roof level.
The windows throughout the building, where cracked, will' need to be replaced.
The vanity in the bath will need to be sanded and refinished. All plumbing
fixtures appear to be in good condition as well as the carpet and floor tile
(Page 2 of 3)
CASE NO. 87-661
August lQ, 1987 - Page 3 r
and ceramic tile throughout.
The structure will need to be thoroughly cleaned throughout with walls
washed, carpet and'flooring cleaned.
The. flagstone fireplace'wi]] need.to be inspected and certified by a
chimney sweep company before'the bul]ding lower supports are'constructed
after setting the structure on a new foundation.
The bui]ding appliances that you want t° be-reused, including exhaus~'fans
and filters', must. be in. working order, tested; I believe the furnace i.s
.close to 20 years old and.should be replaced.
This structure wi]! need to be located on ~ wide lot as the home would not
fit on'a narrow'configuration property.
All plumbing,'wlring, and heating.systems including the.new utility-services
must met all requirements for'new construction. This would include 100 amp
electrical service., 20 amp kitchen Circuit, ground fault interrupters at
wet locations.' A11 electrica].fixtureS,.inter.ior and exterior, must be in
good conditions, The'water piping must be properly sized including-no lead
solder connect-ions for the water distribution.
If You'have further questions regarding a public-hearing and neighbor noti-
fication, please contact, this Department before Friday, July 3]st.
JB/ms
(Page .3 of 3)
Planning Commission Hinutes
August 10; 1987
Case No..87-661 Public .Hearing on moving single family dwelling from0rono
~o 6230 Deerwood Drive in Mound; Lot 3, Block 2, Woodcrest 3rdAddition;
PID~ 23-117-24 23 0095: Stephen Peper of D & R Construction~as present.
The Building.Official, Jan Bertrand, reviewed her report on what is required
of any house being moved into Mound, the condition of this specific house,
etc. ~
The Chair opened the public hearing and the f~lowingpersonshadco~m-nts
or questions: ~
Stephen Peper, representing D & R conStruction, showed pictures of the
house and stated everything will meet code; the house will get a new face
and tie-in a garage and landscaping. He had sketch of how'it will look with
the garage up front with something over the entry; he stated there are
several similar structures in the area and feels it would fit into the
neighborhood. Mike Delmore stated hi~ concern}ishaving something that
doesn't look good in the neighborhood. Klm Truax asked about time frame
for having'everything completed if it was moved in. Michael questioned if
it would not be less expensive to build a new house; Peper stated this home
Mas in very good condition and Meyer stated he knew the original owner and
'the house was in excellent repair, well constructed and a beautiful hc~e.
Peper stated house would be completed before the snow; October or November.
Gary Paulsen questioned if performance bond should be required? Commission
discussed and Paulsen suggested Jan ask for letters of reference since this
is a new company. Tom Albert questioned if appraised value of this home is?
and what estimated value would be after completion? Jan stated house was
appraise~ at $52,360. Peper thought selling price with lot would be $120,000.
The Chair closed the public hearing.
Jan con~nented that the Council public hearing on this would be Sept. 8th;
Commission discussed and as time frame to get house out of 0rono is tight,
they suggested sending mailed notices to all neighbors and rec~,~,end that
Council have it on their August 25th agenda. Ail concurred.
Jensen moved and Meyer seconded a motion to recaLls,end approval of moving
the house into Mound subject to the provisions of the Building 0fficial's
letter on Case 87-661. The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor.
It was noted that SectiOn 300 of the Zoning Code states a public hearing
may be required; but it is not mandatory. Council Representative asked the
neighbors to go have a look at the house and than if they had concerns, come
to th~ Council meeting.
JUN 2 6 t987 -? !:I ' '
~Z.__~ ~..~_.~_~'~' t D~te Fi led~?
O'P/ O~O~:'r' ~ AP~'CATION TO PLANNING ~ ZONING 6OHHISSION lease type the following infor~tion)
1. Street Address of Property
2. Legal DesCription of Property: Lot
Addi i°n
Block
PID No.
Day Phone No. ~'~n~-~...6'ji
4. Applicant (if other than owner):
Name Day Phone No.
Address
Type of Request:
( ) Variance ( ) Conditlonal USe Permit
( ) Zoning Interpretation & Review
) P.U.D.
( ) Amendment
( ) Sign Permit
fi*Other
(') Wetland Permit (
*If other, specify: .
~resent Zoning District
Existing Use(s) of Property J',~/-~
Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, or conditional use permit or
other zoning procedure for this property? If so, list date(s) of
list date(s) of application, action taken and provide Resolutlon 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 ~~~.~, ~ ~ ' Date ~/~7_
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval for moving house into the City of Mound
subject to Building Officlal~s recommendations.
8-I0-87
Date
Council Action:
Resolution No.
Date 8-25-87
4182
LOT c,., .... ::'~ ?S CO~ ~AN¥, INC.
LAND
D & R CONSTRUCTI~N
I~EGISTEI%ED UNDER LAWS OF S?L',".'E OF MINNESOTA
Denotes Wood Hub Set'...'7601 · ?3rd Avenue North 560-3093
For Excavation Only
~ Denotes SurfaCe Drainage / Minneapolis, Minnesota 55428
~ D~not~s Proposed Elevation ~llrtll~Dl'lt
ooo.~ D~not~s Existing Elevation
Type of Building - Full Basement
/
/:,~..o
/
Sanitary sewer,service Invert El. = 9S2.3*(city records)
Lot ~, Block 2, W0ODCRESTOF HOUND 3RDADDITION
I ECEIVED AU( 4 1987'
CONTINENTAL DIVERSIFIED SALES, INC.
900 Sixth Avenue Southeas{' Minneapolis, MN 55414 USA
jOhn J. Ackelson
Vli:e President
OPerations
(612) 37g-06~08 :TEL. F.)( ~g.~0644
October 10, 1986
-To the Clients-o~Mr. Rodney_Lund:
· Mr. Rodney L~nd~.~eveloped an extensive set of plans for ma~or additions
t~o my lake~ome..The project was complex and requi~_ed ~reat deal of
-: imagination and'~the ability to combine'the additions with..an Unusu~
'strU~tu~e~wi~b~building' techniques not normall¥.~sed.
I'm very pleased with the results and found Rod flexible, and willing to
put forth the extra effort required to make-the project successful
before, during, and after the project had been .completed..
I plan to use Rod in the future and wo.uld have no problem in discussing
the results of his work if you w.o~L~dn..-~.a.~e..: any. ques~.t.~s.
PAINE 'RECEIVED AUG ! 4 t987
WEBBER ................
JACKSON
&CURTIS
~_a~'_shed~S~ ~ tk. wvodtS~-~e.d~mse,~r-andC~e~~
320 Opus Center, 9900 Bren Road East, Minnetonka, MN 55343 (612) 936-4800
September 16,1985
To Whom it May Concern:
We are quite satisfied with services of'Rodney LUnd
in planning and design of a house for us.
Rodney's ability to listen to our ideas and transform
these ideas into practical designs were particularly
con~nendable.
Guy Sasanfar
V.P. Marketing
,/ o
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 87-658
RESOLUTION NO. 87~
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR LOT 54,
WHIPPLE SHORES; PID NUMBERS 25-117-24 21 O154/O153
(5325 WATERBURY ROAD & 3301 WARNER LANE) P & Z CASE
NO. 87-658
WHEREAS,. the minor subdivision for Lot 54, Whipple Shores, has been
sHbmitted in the manner'required for platting of land under the City of Mound
Ordinance Code, Section 330 and under Chapter. 462 in the Minnesota State Statute
and all 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
Commission and the City Council; and
WHEREAS, it has been determined that there are special circumstances
affecting said property such tha.t the strict application'of the ordinance would
deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; and that the waiver is
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the 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 the waiver:from the provisions of
Section 330 of the City .Code and.the request to subdivide property of less than
5 acres, described as follows:
Parcel A: That part of Lot 54, Whipple Shores, which lies weSterly of
a line drawn from a point on the northerly line of said Lot 54 distant 141.60
feet westerly from the. northeast corner of said Lot 54 to a point on the southerly
line of said Lot 54 distant 83.10 feet, westerly from the southeast corner of
said Lot 54.
Parcel B: That part of Lot 54, Whipple Shores, which lies easterly
of a line drawn from a point on the northerly line of said Lot 54 distant 141.6
feet westerly from the northeast corner of said Lot 54 to a point on the southerly
line of said Lot 54 distant 83.10 feet, westerly from the southeast corner of
said Lot 54.
A. It is hereby granted to permit the subdivision in the following
manner as per Exhibit "A":
Parcel A: That part of Lot 54, Whipple Shores, which lies westerly
of a line drawn from a point on the northerly line of said Lot 54 distant 101.60
feet westerly from the northeast corner of said Lot 54 to a point on the southerly
line of said Lot 54 distant 120.10 feet, westerly from the southeast corner of
said Lot 54. (Lot area 9600 square feet)
PROPOSED RESOLUTION
CASE NO. 87-658
Page 2
Parcel B: That part of Lot 54, Whipple. Shores, which lies easterly
of a line drawn from a point on the northerly line of said Lot 54 distant 101.60
feet westerly'from the northeast corner of said Lot 54 to a point on the southerly
line of said .Lot 54 distant 120.10 feet:, westerly from the southeast corner of
said Lot 54. (Lot area 7980 square feet)
B. Upon the further following conditions:
1. Parcel A'subdivislon line between Parcel B must conform to within
l0 ~ of the 1'0,000 sq. ft. minimum for the R-1Zonl.ng District.
2. The utility shed shall have.conforming setbacks to the property
lines.
City Engineer sha.ll~approve the newly described legal descriptions.
C. It is determined that the foregoing subdivision will constitute a
desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with
adjacent properties.
D. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this
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.
E. This lot subdivision is to be filed and recorded within 180 days
of the adoption date of this resolution.
!
CAS[ NO. 87-658
TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff
[ROg: .,lan l~ertr~nd~ i~uilding Official
Plannlng Commlssion Agenda 'of July 12t, 1~87
CASE NO. 87-658
APPLICANT: J. Thomas Lepisto
LOCATION: 5325 Waterbury Road ..
LEGAL DESC.: Lot 54, Whipple Shores; PID Numbers 25-117-24 21 0154/0153
SUBJECT: Hinor Subdivision
· EXISTING ZONING: R-1 Single Family Residential
PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting to re-subdivide Lot-,$4 in the following
manner: .~
~That part of Lot 54, Whipple Shores, which lies. westerly of a line drawn from
a point on the northerly line of said Lot 54 distant 101.60 feet westerly from
the northeast corner of said Lot 54 to a point on the southerly line of said
Lot'S4 distant 120.10 feet', westerly from the southeast corner of said Lot 54;
and "That part of LOt $4, Whlpples Shores, which lies easterly of a line drawn
from a point on the northerly line of said Lot 54 distant 101.60 feet westerly
from the'northeast corner of said Lot $4 to a point on the southerly line of
said Lot $4 distant 120.10 feet, westerly from the ~outheast corner of said Lot
54.
The lot area would be 8,925 square feet and 8,175 square feet respectively.
COHHENTS: The Zoning Code for the R-l'Zoning District requires 10,000 square
feet of lot area. Lot width of 60 feet.
This property was subdivided in 1981 under Resolution 81-127 which created one
parcel of'8,082 square feet and'one parcel of 10,092 square feet. Copy of the
resolution is attached.
In 1985 and in April of ~987, the vacant parcel received variance approval to
allow a 20 foot front yard to Waterbury Road (North side), a 6 foot setback
to the south, and conform|ng setbacks to the east and lakeshore setback. Copies
of both resolutions are attached.
If the new subdivision of this property is made, the shed located on the survey
would have nonconforming setbacks. The applicant is requesting to use the
existing'curb cut off of the Waterbury Road.
RECOHHENDATION: Staff recommends that the division line between Parcel A and
Parcel B to al. low the vacant parcel to conform to the 10,000 square foot minimum
lot area and waiver of the public hearing. Thls would allow a Parcel B of 8,100
square feet, conforming setback for the utility shed, and approval of the legal
descriptions by the City Engineer. ~,i~0
CASE NO. 87-658
P. lanni~g Commission, Applicant'.and Staff
Report on 5325 Waterbury Road .- Page 2
The abutting neighbors have been'notified.
This will be referred-to the'City Council.on July 28, 1~87.
JB/ms..
McCombs-Knutson Associates, thC,
12800 Industrial Park Blvd,
Plymouth, MN 55441
612/559-3700
1-800-328-8322 Ex~ 784
July 20, 1987
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
Ms. Jan Bertrand
Planning & Zoning
City of Mound
5~41 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
SUBJECT:
Subdivision of Lot 54
Whipple Shores, Case #87-658
~<A #2115
Dear Oan:
As requested, we have tried to verify the lot'areas sho~n on the two
different surveys for the above property. Enclosed iS'a copy of a revised
survey dated Ouly 16, 1987 from Schoell & Madson which shows Parcel A at 9600
S.F. and Parcel B at 7980 S.F. for a total area of 17,580 S.F. This area was
measured to the normal high water elevation of 929.5. The total area of 18,174
S.F., as shown on the survey by Carlson & Carlson dated September 22, 1977, was
evidently measured to the actual water line on that date. The water level of
Lake Minnetonka on September 22, 1977 was 927.78, which, as you will note, is
almost identical to the lake level shown on this current survey. It appears
the difference of 594 S.F. between the two surveys is because the areas were
computed to different points on the property. The 1977- survey showing 10,092
S.F. for the lakeshore lot should have shown approximat=ely 9,500 S.F. The
City's present zoning ordinance calls for areas to be figured to the ordinary
high water elevation of 929.5; therefore, the present survey showing a total
area of 17,580 S.F. should be used.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact
me.
Very truly yours,
McCO~S-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC~
3ohn Cameron
$C:djk
Enclosure
~lanning Commission Hinutes
August 10, 1987 ~
Case No. 87-658 .. Minor subdivision for 5325 Waterbury Road; Lot 54, Whipple
Shores; PI])Numbers 25-117-24 21 0154/0153.
Thomas Lepisto ~as present.
The Building 0fficial explained the request stating that Lot 54 was sub-
divided in 1981 and how at the last meeting we talked about how.two dif-
ferent surveys had been suhnitted; one was prior to the ordinance for
flood plain, management which established a given elevation which accoun~
for the COntroversy in numbers. The present division is proposing 9600
square feet for Parcel A and 7980 for Parcel B. They created an undersized'
parcel in. 1981 (used 1977 survey before the fl'0od plain). The change basi-
cally is a deflection line to use an existing Curb cut off of Waterbury"
Road from Lot 54. Sometime a~o, ~.the hbuse was given a~gafiance to put a
6 foot side .yard on the south side of property and'a 20 foot setback to
Waterbury. The east sideyard would be more than 10 feet and lakeshore
Setback is .in excess of 50 feet (89 feet to water line); the shed on Parcel
B-was going 'to be relocated to have confoming setbacks. The vacant par-
cel will be within 10% of,the required 10,000 square"feet. She's recoAL~ending
that', waiver of a public hearing and legal descriptions be reviewed by the
City Engineer and shed be moved to conform. to s~tbacks. The C~L.~,~ssion dis-
cussed at length. Mr. Lepisto stated he just ..wanted to rotate the lot line.
Jensen moved and Andersen seconded a motion tO rec~a,end approving the
staff rec~,,endation. The vote was unanimously in favor.
.This w~ll be referred to the:City. Council on August 25, 1987.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 13, 1987
0
Ca'se No. 87-658 for minor subdivision for 5325 Waterbury Road Lot.54 Whipple
Shores, ~ID 25-117-24 21 0154~0153. Mr. Lepist0 was not present.
Bertranddiscussed applicants request to subdivide two properties into 8925 &
8175 sq. ft. They recommend the deflection line be moved, the legal descriptions
be approved by Cameron, City Engineer, and that the Public Hearing by waived.
COmm. "discussed that this would be creating two undersize'd lots of which only
one is'currently undersized. There is a question as to the legal size of the
lot. Comm. ..... has decided to table the subdivision until they receive more in-
formation and verification of the lot size.
Jensen motioned the table and Weiland seconded. It~fwas carried ~nanimously.
July 27, '1987 Minutes
Case No. 87-658 Minor Subdivision at 5325 Waterbury Road
Lot 54, Whipple Shores; PID Numbers 25-117-24 21 0154/0153
Applicant, Mr. Lepisto, was not present. ..
The Building Official clarified a 'portion of the subdivision; prior to 1977,
the original surx, ey was done by Carlson & Carlson and this was prior to the
flood plain ordinance adoption. In 1987, Schoell and Madson redid the surwey
and that is where the discrepancy came in, as nothing below the flood plain eleva-
tion could be used to compute lot area. When Carlson and Carlson did the survey,
· they assumed where the line was; it was not set by ordinance as it is now. (929.4
Ordinary high water elevation of Lake Minnetonka). When subdivision was approved,
lakeshore lot was 10~092 square feet and it should have been 9,600 square feet.
She stated.her report should show that if he redivides, the angle should be no
less than 9600 on that lakeshore lot as was previously approved by the 1977 sub-
division. She stated actual real difference in lot area caused by using OHW was
594 square fee%. It .was discussed that Engineer stated present ~urvey area of
17,580 square feet should be used. Parcel A (lakeshore) lot would be 9600 S.F.
and Parcel B (off of Warner Lane) would be 7,980 S.F. The Cormnission discussed
at length.
Weiland moved and Meyer seconded a motion to table indefinitely until the
applicant can be present. Ail voted in favor except Michael who was opposed
to the table.
APPLICATION. FOR' suBDIVISION · Sec. 22.03-a
· VILLAGE OF MOUND .
PLAT PARCEL
Locati°n and complete legal description of property to be divided:
To be divided as follows:
.if larger copies than -8:} X' ]l l'nch a.re subml, tted.for supporting documents,' such as .sk
plans, survey, etc., please submit 15 copies plus lone copy that Is 83 X 11 Inches.
{attach survey or scale drawing showing ~djac~nt streets, dimension of proposed
" . building sites, square foot'area of eaoh new parcel designated'by number)
A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED FOR:
New Lot No. From
Square feet TO sqiJare feet
Reason:
APPLICA TEL. NO. ~/'7~ -" ~d' ~'7
*DDRE~ ~ ~<::, / ~ ~z"~_- 'DATE ~. ~ 7
Applicant's interest in the properly:
This application must be slgned by all the OWNERS of the property, or an explan-
ation given why this is not the case·
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: -. ·
J. THOMAS LEPISTO
EXISTING DESCRIPTIONS:
PARCEL A
That part of Lot 54, "WHIPPLE SHORES", which lies westerly
of a line drawn rrm a point on the northerly line of said
Lot 54 distant 141.60 feet westerly from the northeast
corner of.said Lot 54 to a point on the southerly line of
said Lot 54 distant 83.10 feet, westerly from the southeast
corner of said Lot 54.
PARCEL B
:
That part of Lot 54, "WHIPPLE SHORES", which lies e~sterly
of a line drawn from a point on the northerly line of said
Lot 54 distant 141.6 feet westerly from the northeast corner
of said Lot 54 to a point on the southerly line of said Lot
54 distant 83.10 feet, westerly from the southeast corner of
said Lot 54.
PROPOSED DESCRIPTIONS:
PARCEL A
That part of Lot 54, "WHIPPLE SHORES", which lies westerly
of a line drawn from a point on the northerly lin~ of said
Lot 54 distant 101.60 feet westerly from the northeast
corner of said Lot 54 to a point on the southerly line of
said Lot 54 distant 120.10 feet, westerly from the southeast
corner of said Lot 54.
PARCEL B
That part of Lot 54, "WHIPPLE SHORES", which lies easterly
of a line drawn from a point on the northerly line of said
Lot 54 distant 101.60 feet westerly from the northeast
corner of said Lot 54 to a point on the southerly line of
said Lot 54 distant 120.10 feet, westerly from the southeast
corner of said Lot 54.
OA'"I ~
.&
N3OBC~
RECEIVED AUG
6 1987
CITY OF MOUND
MOJND, MINNESOTA'
MAINTE[,,~ANCE PERMIT
For
Contlnuin9 the Present Use of a Structure
or Improvement on Public Lands or Commons
· ~3UYT:I2kq LOT~ ~ ~.~ ']~OSi~ ~q' SUBDZLrI'sION, ,~-~_ O ~ K.~'" """~{:':"':'..
. .-.. :. :~ :.,, .
l?a.s a permit issued to authori'ze 'the constructi.o~_ of this improvement or strut-'
es, month andye~": ~~ t~u ~ · ":'"'"
tier,?. If y O ' ~ ~J :'-'..'-':':.'.
copy of permit issued to autho{ize constr6ction. .. '
One plot plan drawn to scale'shm, in9 dlmensio~s of the'structure/ .
improvement.and location of same. ..
AP~_ICANT I.~ST FURNISH THE FOLLOWi~.IG:
1.
2.
One set of plans'and specifications of sufficient clarity and d~tail to
indicate the nature and extent of the structure or improvement. Show
foundation'plan, floor plan,, front and side el~vation~ wall and rog~
section detail.
Photographs of existin§ structure/ improvement,
P...t~K CO?,iMISSION RECO~,E~NOAT~ON: DATE 8-1~-87 ::'""::!:2':
~ ' ...:'..!:: -..
Allowing ~etaining walls with the Bu|ld|ng Inspector's/£ng|neer's ~pproval on.the -" '..:'.7~
plans fnr rnn~r,,~t~. =~ + .... ~ thc7 ~,~ - ' ' " '
publid' use. ~ DATE
FCLLO'.-."-U P Ac'rIO)!:
CASE NO. 87-618
L-----I- ~- '-I
~,-; ~F~ ] ~'_
~'- ~ --'-~'-~'~ -
!
RECEIVED AUG
CITY OF MOUND
MO3ND~ MINN 'E.SOTA '
MAINTENANCE PERMIT
For
Continuing Lhe Prescn~ Use of ~ Structure
or Improvcmant on Public L~ncls or Common~
Do you have Pn improvement or structure on Public LPnds or Commons? .~¢~''i:'~:'''J'?''.'-'
l'i~.s s permit issued to authorize the con.str%{cti°n o~' this improvement or s. tru¢-
thru?, ~e~ If yes, month ~nd ye~: ~Ob~ 8~
AP~_ICANT MUST ~RN~H T~ F~LOW~G: '
1. Copy of pz~it issued to ~uthorlze constr~ction. ~T~.. ]&~q '""
2. On~ p!ot plen dr~wn to sc~l~' showin~ 'dimensions
the'
O~
improvemeht..~nd loc~tion of seine.
One set of plans a'nd specifications of sufficient clarity and detail to
indicate the nature ~nd extent of the structure or improvement. Show
foundatlon'plmn, floor plan,, front and side elevation, wall and rog~
section detail.
Photographs. of existing structure/ improvement.
· .. :.:: .
P:.'.~RK CO?,~ISSION RECOMF~NOATION: DATE
8--13-87
Allowing thl.s.:request~wil;h...tb~ Park Director's r~cqmmcndation~ and aoinq to
~ ~'~ ,~1~ .., ~,, ~,m~ ~,olil ul
ccowc~ AortIC)>]: R~SO.1ITION NO. DATE
FCLLO'.'."-U P A... r.[O,l:
GRAD I NG .APPL I CAT I ON
ADDRESS: "
S/8q
P. HONE 4: ..
SITE ADDRESS:
LEGAL 'D.ESC. RIPTION: ?/N-iL'~ OT" L,~r~'-~
(See reverse Side for instructions) L
OTHER AGENCY APPROVALS:
NUHBER OF CUBIC"YARDS TO BE ~OVED: '~~~~ 7~~OS. .
FEE: $
BOND REQUIRED: $
I hereby ac~nc~vledge ~hat ! have' read this applJcat.|on, and state that the informa-
tion is correct and agree to comply ~ith the City of Hounds.Codes and the State of
Einnesota La~s.
OWNER: S ee
./' I V' '
PLAN CHECKING FEE $ ,
GRADING PERHIT FEE '.
TOTAL FEE $
APPROVED BY
PERHIT TO EXPIRE ~ITHIN 1 YEAR OR 180 DAYS AFTER FILL PLACEHENT IS DISCONTINUED.
LINE
TER LY
LOT 32
SOUTHE
CORNER OF tOT 52
I. A,~I~-
Resolution #
City of
A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING
THE LMCD PROGRAM FOR LAKE MINNETONKA,
THE LMCD ENABLING LEGISLATION, AND
THE LMCD LAKE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Model
Resolution
2-26-87
WHEREAS, the Governor's Task Force and the Metropolitan
Council's Task Force on Lake Minnetonka have recommended
that the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD)
assume a stronger role in management of Lake Minnetonka;
and
WHEREAS, the LMCD has proposed the following program
to implement the Task Force recommendations:
1.'--T~re~~nnetonka Co ' 'c ~evy
s~ould ions - muL, iuipal tax levy~
.2. The District should receive boating safety funds
for planning, research and regulation.
3. The District should receive authority to set fees
and require permits for watercraft use of Lake Min-
netonka to support Lake-related programs.
4. All agencies and political subdivisions of the state
should be required to notify the District prior to
conducting research on Lake Minnetonka and to keep
the District informed about the progress and results
of such researc~,,~ ~ ~.~ ' ~ ~
O~ 5. e is -. ..... ~e-~ew' ~uthc_i~7 ~r~ y
~ar~h~or other project h~ ~%
6. The District should request that both boating safety
funds and their allocations to high activity areas-~-k~
Fe increaSed by the legislature. ~.~t~
7. The District should request that boating safety and
other state and county funds allocated to the Water
Patrol be increased and distributed by usage and
activity to support an expanded program.
8. The District should request that Lake maintenance
funding for the county be supported from boating
safety or from other special funds established by
the state and county, and be increased.
9. Th~..D~Id re-~.uest re~io~unding- for
p~b~X-in~cess ~.~.~-----~
10. '~tr. ict should re%~est that its authorit~be
~ for~lannin ' , acquisi-
O~-~' ~ _ - s lp and operation of
~~ ~ o~ ~~c access
11. The District should request that the boat registra-
tion procedure should be updated, be made more
efficient, and that license fees should be
increased.
12. The District--ggTOu4~L. r,q,,og~ -er ~--'--n expense
a/~or Board members. ~
13. The District should request authority to assess a
property 'owner to recover costs for removal of
dilapidated docks, boats, other structures, or
fallen trees from the Lake.
and
WHEREAS, the LMCD has proposed the following amendments
to its statutory authority:
To require permits for all watercraft using the Lake
and set permit fees.
To contract for the removal of substandard or
dilapidated docks, boats, or other structures or
fallen trees within the Lake er ~:ithin ~~
4~ after notice and opportunity for hearing
to the owner of the property on which the condition
exists, and to certify the costs of removal to the
county auditor for extension on the tax rolls
against the appropriate lot or property, collection,
and payment to the district as other taxes are col-
lected and paid;
To review, approve, and monitor any state agency,
department, or political subdivision project having
impact on the Lake.
m o
To acquire by purchase or lease, develop and operate
launching facilities and public access sites on the
Lake.
g o
and
Each board member may be compensated~o~t.--~a~rate per
day to be s~.~.~ the board not t~o~eW~.c.eed legislative
standards for ear--ay sp.~ttending meetings of
the board ~c~s spe. ci, fical~y autho-
rized by the b ao r.d~, and m~'a~.~be reimbursed for all
reasonable ex--es incurred ~f~--tt!e performance of
duties a the board.
The municipalities may each levy a tax not to exceed
one mill for LMCD funds in addition to any other
limitations provided by lawo
WHEREAS, the LMCD is proposing to develop a comprehen- \
sive plan for the management of Lake Minnetonka; and
WHEREAS, such a program is deemed to be in the best in-
terests of the City and the general public use of the
Lake;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City of
that the City hereby encour-
ages and supports the Lake Minnetonka Conservation
District program, ]~g~, and Lake Management
Plan.
Adopted by the Council of the City of ~
this day of
1987.
ATTEST:
Mayor
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRIC'r
402 EAST LAKE STREET WAYZATA, MINNESOTA 55391 TELEPHONE 612/473-7033
FRANK MIXA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
BOARD MEMBERS
Robert Rascop, Chairman
Shorewood
JoEIlen Hurr, Vice Chairman
Orono
Mark Westlund, Secretary
Wayzata
Wally Clevenger, Treasurer
Uinnetrista
Marvin Bjorlin
Tonka Bay
Jan E~oswinkel
Minnetonka Beach
Richard J. Garwood
Deephaven
Peter Hill
Victoria
Ron Kraemer
Spring Park
Richard Nelson
Greenwood
Robert K. Pillsbury
Uinnetonka
Thomas W. Reese
Mound
Robert E. Slocum
Woodland
Carl H. Weisser
Excelsior
August 6, 1987
The Honorable Steve Smith
Mayor, City of Mound
2710 Clare Lane
Mound, MN 55364
Dear Steve:
Subj: LMCD Legislative Program
This spring we met with your village council to
discuss the proposed LMCD legislative program,
and the need for strong municipal support to the
success of those legislative proposals.
To date we have not received a response from your
city.. We hope that your response will be forth-
coming.
Enclosed is a copy of a resolution supporting
the program. We would appreciate= receiving an
executed copy of the resolution along with any
additional comments you would care to make.
We are in the final wrap-up in putting this
program together. Your response is essential.
The legislative draft will be circulated before
being proposed for legislative action.
Thanks again for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Robert Rascop
Chairman
enc: resolution
c: JoEllen Hurr
August 25, 1987
RESOLUTION NO. 87-
RESOLUTION APPOINTING TWO ADDITIONAL ELECTION JUDGES AS RECOMMENDED
FOR THE SPECIAL REFERENDUM ELECTION SEPTEMBER 29, 1987.
BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of
Mound, Minnesota, does hereby approve the two additional election
judges for the Special Referendum Election September 29, 1987.
Leatrice Cooper
Thelma Gunderson
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
Information for August 25, 1987 Council Meeting
August 20, 1987
LICENSE RENEWAL -- Expired 6-30-87
On Sale Beer
Mound Lanes & Pizza
2346 Cypress Lane
Mound, Minn.
New License Period 7-1-87 to 6-30-88
Mound Police Reserve Unit requests the following Licenses for Sept. 11, 1987
Please waive the fee for two of them as indicated.
Public Dance - Waive Fee~
Charitable Beer Permit
Set-Up Permit - Waive Fee
BILLS ...... August 25, 1987
Batch 87~081 Computer run dated 8/19/87 77,792.55
Batch 874082 " " 50,731.~1
Lutz Tree Removing elms
Contel Tele
SuperAmerica gasoline
ComputoService Computer
Tota 1
Bills
1,175.00
1,015.26
778.13
4,880.80
136,373.65
Z
0
t~
0 ~'
Z
0000
0
Z
o 4[-
I
,. M
-J
O0
O0
,#.~
I
i,i
0
0
I
I
0.1
}-
0
0.
000
00000
oo0~
I
o
0J
Z
0
Z
I-
Z
0
00000
Z
0
bJ
LU
O0
0 o
~~oo~oooo~
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I !
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
000000000000000
000000~00000000~
000000~00000000~
o
0
0
U.
v
Z
0
1-
00000
000000000000000
i
cO
cs,
Z
Z
I-
Z
0
ZZZz
O3
Z
Z
bJ
Z
0
D-
UJ
UJ
-J
bJ
o
Z
.J
bJ
Z
3::
Z
i..4
I
I
0
..J
LU
Z
Z
-I
0
0
I-
0
I
Z
~J LU b,J
...I .J .J
<:
Z
0
/:
o °
oo
oo
oooo
oooo
· I'1
# I~.
·
·
I-
Z
0
I=-
Z
0
ZZ
0000000000
~00000000~
~ooo~o~o~
O~
.:,,
0
fl.
t-
I I
o o
OJ~'l
~-~j
I I
or-
Z
0
0
0
X
0
n~
X
oo
0~0~
o
X
IJJ
X
Z
uJ
Z
I.d
W
v
'r
0
Z
·
Z
,.i
~Z
O0
fi.B.
C>
oo
Z
;0
0
gl..
O~
Z
0
-J
>-
I,-
0
,If,.
oo
oo
0
,-}
m
00000
00000
ZZZZZ
00000
00000
Z~ZZ~
m,
Z
0
oo
oo
ZZZZ
ZZZZ
IIII
0000
&
00000
0000
I
o
Z
0
0
000000
ZZZZZZ
~ZZZZZ
IIII11
000000
~0~0~0
Z
o
Z
0
Z
UJ
X
0
>=
-J
~=~
I
o
(ti
I
.J
U
.J
o
Z
oo
o o
Z
X
UJ
0
0
UJ
DF.
UJ
Z
0
.d
Z
t
0
o..
X
o o
Z
Z
k-
oo
o o
4.4-
.d
?
O~
.J
0
0
bJ
Z
0
0
Z
h-
Z
<:
.d
Z
L~ Ld Ld
N
_J
2:
UJ
O
000000
000000000
00000000~
000000000
0000000000
0
I
w
0
ZZZ~
ZZ~Z ZZZ Z Z Z ~ Z
! ! !
o I~1 FI
~ ~0 ~t'
u./ I,d bJ
Z
UJ
o~,
O~
..J
I
o
!
o
~J
00000
0
Z
I-
Z
0
',r'
o00000
000o00
0000
ZZZZ
0000
~ZZ~
0000
0
I-
Z
n,.
I--
Z
ZZZZ~
00000
00000
:z
0
000000
0000
0000
0000
0000
0 O0
Z O'~ ~', ~, O~
1:3
0
~~ -- ~'
~~ 0000
000000 ~
000000 ~
ZZZZ
~~ 0000
000000 0000
ZZZ
Z
Iai
Z
-r'
0
0000 0000 0 0
ZZ
O0
ZZ 3::
3::I: r,,
O0 ..J
U,l LIJ
~0~ O0 000
000 ~ 000
o
o
!
I
I,d
0000000
0
Z
I1
Z
0
I"
o000000000
000
000
oooooooooo
oooooooooo
,oooooooooooooo
Z
0
I-
Z
0
000000
000000
ZZZ~
~~ 0000
I
I.I.
Iii
,n,,
0
Z
'1 :1 I
· 1~ ,Iq
I I ' I
0
:0
C~
0
Z
0 ·
's"'
Ii.
I-'
Z ~0 0
0 n~
~- 0 Z
~- bi Ld
0 ~- Ld
n- Z
~' 0
O0 0000 0000 0000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4~
OJ 0.1 OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ ~ *
I-
0
0
U
CI
0
Z
~o~ooooo~o~
Z
0 bJ
0
75 YEARS
CITY 01= MOUND
5341 MAYVVOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364 (612) 472-1155
August 24,.1987
TO:
FROM:
RE:
MAYOR AND CITY,COUNCIL ~I.
ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY - SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS
Attached is a calendar with dates that have been set for
appearances by the Mayor and City Council and John Cameron,
City Engineer regarding the proposed Public Works Facility.
In addi'tion to the dates and groups listed on the calendar,
there still may be a program available for you to appear at
the Mound Rotary Club, which meets every Thursday noon, at the
Lafayette Club. I have been unable to schedule a date so far,
but am still.working on that one. The League of Women Voters
decided that they would prefer to not have a presentation, since
there were going to be two publlc meetings at City Hall. They
have requested however, a press release for their newsletter,
which I will put together for them. If you can think of any
other groups that I haven't contacted, please let me know.
I would.suggest that you use the same approach that you did with
the Mound Business Community, utilizing the slides that we have
available. I have gone ahead and deleted the slides that refer
to the outdoor storage site. I also have fact sheets and tax
data that you can. hand out at these meetings. I believe that
the Local Access Channel will also be televising the two public
meetings on September 9th and September 24th. I spoke with
Sally Koenecke some time ago and she indicated that they would
be planning to do that. I will confirm that for you.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
ES:ls
!
eded to
VILLAGE OF HOUND
Mound. Union Cemetery
Kathy Li]iedah] Uir;cl<
1036 Manning Ave. S., Alton, MN. 55001
· ision A Lot
:e 6-10-86
Burials
Graves
I ,2,3,/4,
City Council approved transfer of these
graves from Gertrude C. Koehler, heir of S. W. Koehler.
Age Date of D~th
B&C
Mortician
Mich0el J, O~lur~,
40 2-6-87 Hube? Fune?~l Ho~e~ Mound
McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc.
12800 Industrial Park Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55441
612/559-3'700
1-800-328-8322 Ext. 784
August 21, 1987
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
Mr.'Ed Shukle, Or.
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
SUBOECT:
Mound, Minnesota
1987 Seal Coat Project
Final Payment Request
MKA #6173
Dear Ed:
Enclosed is Allied Blacktop's Final Payment Request in the amount of
$35,333.43 for the 1987 Seal Coating. Since this work is fully completed, we
are not recommending any amount be retained.
We have reviewed the project with you street superintendent and find that
the work was done in accordance with the Plans and Specifications. It is our
recOmmendation that the Contractor be paid in full for this project.
If you have any questions, please contaCt us.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Oohn Cameron
OC:djk
Enclosure
O'H
I ~-
O0
Z
~-00~
ID.
(D
rn>Z
0~'
4-;
~-~
Z~
h-
z
o
(D
August 26, 1986
RESOLU¥10N NO. 86-102
RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARI-
ANCE FOR LOTS 9 AND lO, BLOCK 2, AVALON ADDITION
PID # 19-117-23 2q 0011 (4568 Denbigh Road) P S Z
Case No. 86-533
WHEREAS, Nancy L. O'Brian, owner of parcel described as Lots 9 and 10,
Block 2, Avalon Addition, PID #'19-117-23 24 Oll, has applied for an 20 foot front
yard setback variance to allow the construction of a 26 by'26 foot detached accessory
building with conforming side yard.setback; and
WHEREAS, the City Code requires a 20 foot front yard setback and a 4 foot
side yard setback for accqssory buildings; and
WHEREAS, the property d~scribed as an existing garage 3.7 feet into the
dedicated public rlght-of-~ay with topography problems to the north; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewe~ the request and. does recom-
mend a front yard setback variance of 18 feet.to afford the property owner reason-
able use of her property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED tha.t the City Council of the City of Mound,
Minnesota, does herebG approve an )8 foot front yard setback variance to allow the
construction of a 24 by 26 foot accessory building due to the topography of the lot
and to afford the owner reasonable use of the land for Lots 9 and 10, Block 2,
Avalon Addition (4568 Denbigh Road) .PID # 19-117-23 24 OOl'l, upon the condltion ''
that the existing garage on the property be removed and also recognlzing the exlsting
nonconforming side yard s6tback of 3.6 on the existlng principal structure.
The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Jessen and
seconded by Councilmember Peterson.
The following Councilmembers voted in the affirmative:
Jessen, Paulsen, Peterson, Polston and Smith.
The fol]owing Councllmembers voted in the negative:
none.
MayoF
Attest: City Cler'~ -
CITY OF MOUND
1387 BUDGET REPORT
EXPENDITURES 58.3 ~ of Year
JULY' 1387
UNEN-
CUMBERED PER CENT
JULY YTD
BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENSE EXPENDED
GENERAL FUND
Council
City'Manager/Clerk
Elections
Assessing
Finance ..
Legal
Cable TV
Recycling
Police
Civil Defense
Planning/Inspectio-
Streets
Shop & Store
City Property
Parks
Commons Docks
Hound City Days
Contingencies
Transfers
Computer
$50,460 1,970 31,250 19,210 61.9
111,430 12,729 62,731 48,699 56.3
500 82 207 293 41.3
46,170 578 4,509 41,661 9.8
134,010 13,853 76,128 57,882 56.8
83,750 2,136 34,150 49,600 40.8
6,430 119 5,460 1,030 84.2
18,320 1,322 9,576 8,744 52.3
626,130 63,682 345,314 280,816 55.2
2,300 30 449 1,851 19.5
104,600 15,852 66,920 37,680 .64.7
390,730 39,002 207,836 182,894 53.2
50,810 5,856 29,476 21,334 58.0
85,320 2,537 42,707 42,613 50.1
144,760 22,238 86,524 58,236 59.8
54,100 1,486 41,032 13,068 75.8
3,500 -- 3,485 15 99.6
17,140 -- 534 16,606 2.4
143,200 9,1767 68,367 74,833 47.7
--- 18,004 32,732 (32,732) --
GENERAL FUND TOTAL ...$~2,073,720
211,243 1,149,387 924,333' 55.4
Area Fire $223,940
Service Fund
Liquor Fund 149,340
Water Fund' 296,910
Sewer Fund 693,150
16,023 152,414 71,526 68.1
14,447 86,704 62,636 58.1
18,346 164,678 132,232 55.5
6,989 341,324 351,826 49.2
.CITY OF MOUND
1987 BUDGET REPORT
Jill Y 1987
58.3
~ of
yea r
BUDGET
JULY YTD
REVENUE REVENUE
VARIANCE
PER CENT
RECEIVED
GENERAL FUND
Taxes $975,893 --- 485,755
Intergovernmental 771,057 351,952 370,417
Business'Licenses 13,OOO 40 6,236
Non-Business
Licenses and
Permits 108,100' 11,804 103,.076
Genera) Gov't
Charges 33,300 1,530 15,644
Court Fines 94,000 9,316 49,242
Charges to Other
Departments 20,870 1,O89 8,304
Other Revenue 57,500 1,869 11,408
TOTAL REVENUE $2,073,720 377,600 1,050,082
490,138
400,640
6,764
5,024
17,656
44,758
12,566
46~O92
1,O23,638
49.8
48.0
48.0
95.4
47.0
52.4
39.8
19.8
50.6
LIQUOR FUND
WATER FUND
SEWER FUND
$755,000 80,732 441,233
$300,000 31,429 173,550
$565,000 46,668 331,512
313,767
126,450
233,488
58.4
57.9
58.7
"A ""~ ...... ' I'""~'~"-~*'!.~)rtt { '
OUple'S . i t.
suit again
Mounel '
'dismissed i;'
A .federal "j~fi~;. 'WCd~eSda;! ~i~
missed the remaining 'dafendan~.
fmm a lawsuit brought by a Mound
couple wfio claimed authorities ~
lal~xl their righm by temporarily ~; ~-
moving two Children from their
home. ~: ;'. :.. ;. . ,.:~..[ ,.
'U'~S: DistriCt Judge Diana MurPhy,
citing an Appeals Court decision in
suits over the-Scott County sexu~al
abuse cases, had dismissed the la~-.
s.uit against Hennepin County last
month. Her decision yesterday-d~'
misses the lawsuit against Mound.
'damages after social workers took
their tw6 children for 16 days'l)7.-
cause of allegations of sexual abusb.
...They said in their suit, filed' in 198~,. -'
that authorities did almost no inver,-
tigation.befom laking the child.?t.
At first, Murphy allowed the ca~ to'
proceed. But citing the Eighth U.~.
(Court of Appeals decision giving
'Scott County officials immunity
'from suits, additional evidence in tl}e
Mound case and new arguments .by
the Mound couple's attorneys; Mur-
phy last month dismissed Hennepin
County as a defendant. '
In her decision yesterday, she turn ,~d
doWn a request by the Mound cou-
ple's attorneys for her to reconsider'.
The couple's attorneys had argu .~1
she misapplied the Appeals Court,'s
ruling.
A. THOMAS WURST. P.A.
CURTIS A. PEARSON. P.A.
~IAI,,I~'S D. I--~.RSON. P.A.
THOMAS F. UND£RWOOD, P.A.
CRAIG M. HERTZ
ROGER U. ~ELLOWS
LAW OF FICI='S
WURST, PEARSON, LARSON, UNDERWOOD & ~VJERTZ
lIOO FIRST BANK F~LACE WEST
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
August 13, 1987
(61Z) 338-4200
Mr. Ed Shukle
City Manager
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
Re: Doe v. City of Mound
Dear Ed:
Earlier this week there was a front page story concerning the City
of Mound and the case of Doe v. Mound. You will recall that this is a 22
million dollar lawsuit commenced by people alleging that our police chief
and one of our police officers participated with Hennepin County in
removing two children from a home based on the allegations of a neighbor
that the children were being sexually abused. This has caused a great deal
of heartache to the representatives of the City of Mound who strongly feel
that they did absolutely nothing wrong and merely participated with the
County in investigating the serious charges.
I have previously written you and indicated that Hennepin County
has been dismissed from this lawsuit on the basis of holdings by the Circuit
Court of Appeals relating to the Jordan sex abuse cases. Judge Murphy was
overruled in those cases and directed by the Circuit Court of Appeals to
dismisscharges against investigative officers and prosecutors who brought
these cases. The City of Mound has now brought a Motion before Judge Murphy
to be dismissed and that probably led to the story which appeared in the
Minneapolis paper this week.
On Wednesday, August 12, 1987, I was advised by Mr. Rolf
Gilbertson, attorney for our insurance company, that he had received a call
from Judge Murphy indicating that the City's Motion for Summary Judgment
and Dismissal would be granted. The Judge indicated that a Memorandum and
Order would follow in the next couple of days.
WUR~T~ PEAR$ON~ /ARSON~ UNDERWOOD 6~ IV~ERTZ
I thought I should advise you of this in lieu of the story, and I am
copying Bill Hudson in the Police Department who has had to live with this
problem for a number of years. Hopefully it will be over, although the
Plaintiffs will have appeal time and I am not sure whether that is 30 or 90
days. Mr. Gilbertson will advise me of that when he sends me copies of the
Order. I will keep you informed as we proceed.
~. Pearson
~ity Attorney
City of Mound
CAP:kl
cc: Mr. Bill Hudson
,:).G Io
COMMERICAL AND MULTIPLE DOCK
INSPECTION REPORT - 1987
AUGUST 11, 1987
MINNETONKA BOAT RENTALS AND EDGEWATER MARINA
4850 Edgewater'Drive - Charles Jones
44 docks in excel)ant shape, electrica) hookups good, fire extinguisher
in gas storage area is O.K.
AL AND ALMA'S SUPPER CLUB
5201 Piper ROad - Merrlt Geyen
24 dockS in good shape. Found one electrical cable connector in water.
DRIFTWOOD SHORES ASSOCIATION
1756 Lafayette Road - Sylvia 0gren
10 docks in good shape, one bad board. Electrical hoOkups good.
LAKEWtNDS ASSOCIATION AND DONNIES ON THE LAKE
4379 Wilshire Blvd - Beret Henningsgaard
43 docks .in good shape, one bad board.
16 docks of Oonnles were not put in the water.
SEAHORSE CONDOMINIUMS
5440 Three Points Blvd - Evertt Konrardy
77 docks in good shape, one bad boa..cl..
CHAPMAN PLACE
2670 Commerce Blvd. - Butch Essig
36 docks in fair to good shape. G~s line needs some new chain hangers.
Found open elelctrical box. Fire extinguisher not in place.
Notices were sent to all of the above on August 17, 1987.
Deli Rudolph
Dock Inspector
CITY OF ALBERTViLLE
P. O. BOX 131
ALBERTVILLE, MINNESOTA 55301
PHONE: (612) 497-3384
August 6, 1987
Dear City Official:
I wish to extend to you a cordial invitation to attend the League of Minnesota
Cities' regional meeting hosted by the city of Albertville on September 17,
1987 at St. Alberts Parish Center.
The afternoon program, beginning at 2:30 pm, will be a roundtable discussion
focusing on findin9 solutions to your local problems. League staff will
be prepared to discuss such issues as the newly enacted naturalization
and immigration laws, the dramatic rise in water quality permit fees,
the solid waste landfill contingency action plan, the newly created state-
wide insurance plan, the levy limit restrictions placed on cities by the
1987 legislature, and many more. Please come to discuss any of your city's
problems and exchange your valuable ideas. This brainstorming session
will help you ifnd the answers you need.
From 4:~0 - 5:30 pm there will be a session on how to lobby effectively
and how' the League's district contacts and coordinators program can benefit
you, your city, and the League.
We will be serving dinner at 6:30 pm and the evening's agenda will focus
on legislative issues of importance to municipalities. City officials
will be asked for input for the development of the League's 1988 City
Policies and Priorities for Legislative Action. League staff will review
and discuss issue papers on transportation funding, a uniform election
day, economic development tools, the homestead credit program, property
taxes, land use and planning issues, and voting equipment. The League's
video, "How to Lobby" and the door prize drawing will round out the program.
To make reservations for your city, please return the enclosed registration
form as soon as possible. In case of cancellations, please notify Maureen
Andrews at 497-3384 by September 14, 1987. Your city will be billed for
those who hid not attend and did not cancel their reservations by the
aforementioned date.
Look forward to seeing you on September 17th!
Sincerely yours,
Enclosure
THE CITY OF ALBERTVILLE
Loretta Roden
Mayor
Make our City. ....... Your City
gte invite Home. Industry. Business
league of minnesota oities
August 14, 1987
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Mayors, Managers, and Clerk
Donald A. Slater, Executive Director
Regional Meeting Issue Papers
Last year at the League's regional meetings we presented materials on
policy issues which were being considered by the LMC legislative policy
committees. We took votes on those issues and presented the opinions
of the regional meeting participants to the policy committees as they
completed the League's 1987 Legislative Policies and Priorities for
Legislative Action.
At the conclusion of this process, we evaluated the results of a survey
asking regional meeting participants how they felt about working on
legislative policy issues at the regional meetings. The responses were
overwhelmingly in favor of continuing the involvement of the regional
meetings as an integral part of the policy process.
The League Board of Directors agreed to extend the consideration of
policy issues to the 1987 regional meetings, but asked that the staff
work on methods to improve the process. To give you advance information
on the issues to be considered, League staff have prepared issue papers
on policy questions designated by each of the LMC legislative policy
committees. We have also developed voting cards so that we may get a
more definitive expression of opinion on each of these issues. We are
looking for other ways to improve the quality of the presentation of
these materials to regional meetings, and I am most interested in your
suggestions for improvement.
Attached are the issue papers for the 1987 regional meetings. Please
distribute these to your councilmembers and be prepared to cast your
votes on these issues at the regional meeting you will be attending.
If you are unable to attend a regional meeting, please fill out the
voting card and return it to Lynda Woulfe, League of Minnesota Cities,
183 University Avenue East, St. Paul, MN 55101 by September 14.
I look forward to your participation in this very important aspect of
developing the League's 1988 Legislative Policies and Priorities for
Legislative Action.
I ~3universiCyavenueeasC. sC. paul, minnesoCa55101 (612) 227-5600
league of minnesota oities
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING
QUESTION: Should the League sponsor responsible tax increment finance
legislation in the 1988 legislative session? _
BACKGROUND
Over 200. Minnesota cities employ tax increment finance (TIF) as a major
development tool. The number of cities using TIF has steadily risen
over the years, particularly in the 1980's. In 1981, 98 cities
operated TIF districts. As of 1987, 216 cities initiated TIF programs.
A majority of these cities are located outside of the metropolitan area
and they fall into all categories of population.
The dramatic growth in TIF projects in Minnesofa has been fueled by the
decline in federal assistance programs, the uncertainty of state aid,
and the flexible nature of TIF. Over the past decade, the federal
government has terminated most of its development assistance programs
and substantially cut funding for its remaining development programs.
Meanwhile, the state has initiated a number of new development
assistance programs only to see these efforts become embroiled in major
political controversies. Recently, the department administering
development assistance, the Department of Trade'and Economic
Development, was.reorganized. This was followed by the creation of a
new economic development effort charged with responsibility for a wide
range of new programs. How cities fit into the new law is unclear.
Tax increment finance, on the other hand., remains the one program which
provides maximum local flexibility and accountability. Although TIF
can be complex and time consuming, city government dictates the pace of
activity, initiates the projects, and controls the local program
without interference from other levels of governments.
TIF, however, has been a lightening rod for state legislative proposals
that would curtail cities' TIF authorities. Even after the enactment
of a major TIF reform in 1979, the Legislature barely let the issue
rest for a session. More recently, during the 1986 session, a
restrictive TIF bill passed the House but died in conference. The
League opposed this bill and worked for modifications in it. During
the 1987 session, the House seemed less interested in TIF but did
consider a proposal to reimburse counties for costs associated with TIF
project improvements. This provision died in conference. The 1988
Legislature is very likely to reopen the TIF issue. A number of
legislative committees have already signaled their intentions to hold
extensive hearings on the issue.
l~3universiCyavenueeast, sC. paul, minnesoCa 55101 (1~12) 227-5600
TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (con't)
The proposed changes in TIF have been numerous. The most frequently
suggested changes have been: to give counties authority to veto TIF
programs; to place a percentage limit on the amount of TIF a city can
engage in; to redefine the soil correction test; to require pre-1979
projects to conform to provisions adopted by the 1979 Legislature; to
reimburse the county auditor for administration of TIF projects; to
change the definition of redevelopment projects.
Current League Position
League policy states that we are willing to work with the Legislature'
to improve the program or correct any problems with it. This begs the
question .of whether the League should initiate legislation or,
alternatively, resist any legislative proposals during the 1988.
YES, LEAGUE sHOULD INITIATE
LEGISLATION.
The League should initiate TIF
legislation during the 1988
session to head off potentially
damaging legislation. The
county~ organization, with
intense pressure from Hennepin
and .'the support of Dakota~
Counties, seeks to severely
limit TIF and several key
legislators support this view.
Unless the League leads and
controls the legislative effort
to responsibly revise the
program, severe limits could
become law. The League has a
reasonable bill already
drafted. It should negotiate
with the county organization,
giving only those concessions
which do not damage city
authority, 'and develop a strong
coalition. The League should
attempt to settle the issue for
the foreseeable future by
b~ilding and maintaining a
coalition to oppose further
tinkering with TIF.
NO, LEAGU[ SHOULD RESIST ALL
EFFORTS TO AMEND TIF IN 1988.
The 1988 legislative session
promises~ to be dominated by
tax issdes which will leave
little time for the tax writing
committees to deal with TIF.
The. House Tax Committee does
.not appear to be interested in
considering TIF at this time.
If the ~ League sponsors a
proposal,{ it could later be
transformed into something
which the League would not
want."Moreover, the Legislature
could still take up a major TIF
reform bill even if the
League-sponsored bill is
accepted as is.
Overall, it's best to leave
well enough alone and not buy
trouble.
L
league of minnesota oities
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTION DAY
QuEsTION: Should the League continue to oppose a Local Government
Election Day.
BACKGROUND:
This proposal would require all city, school district, and special
district elections (including county and municipal judge elections) to
be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in odd
years. Federal and state elections would be held in even years.
Townships would have the option to retain present election days or
change to the local government day. No primaries would be required for
cities under 2500 population unless the city decides by ordinance or
resolution. Primaries for non-partisan offices would not be required
when no more than twice the number of persons to be elected file for an
office. This proposed legislation would supersede all city charters,
special laws, etc. Terms would be extended until the first Monday in
January of the even year.
Currently 642 cities conduct their municipal elections in November of
the even year. Only 98 cities conduct their elections in November of
the odd year. Annual elections are held by 58 cities and 31 cities
have their municipal elections in other months according to charter,
provisions. Of the cities holding their elections in the even year,.
78 percent are under 2500 population. The majority of school district
elections are held annually in May.
CURRENT LEAGUE POLICY:
League policy opposes designating a Local Government Election Day.
YES, THE LEAGUE SHOULD
OPPOSE LOCAL
ELECTIONDAY.
CONTINUE TO
GOVERNMENT
NO, THE LEAGUE SHOULD NOT OPPOSE A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ELECTION DAY
There is ~o proof~ that a Local
Government Election Day would
increase voter participation or
create more interest in local
races. Cities should not have to
conduct elections each year (local
in odd years, state and federal in
even years), thereby doubling their
election costs. Combining school
and city elections could be very
confusing in a city which has
multiple school districts or in
a school district which covers
several cities.
I ~3 univeesiCy avenue ease, sC. paul, minnesota 551 01
Designating a Local Government Day
would be advantageous for the
voter. They would soon realize that
every first Tuesday in November is
an election day. Media campaigns to
get out the vote could be uniform
throughout the state. Local
elections would not get "lost'
among the federal and state offices
voted on in the even year
elections.
(61 2) 227-5600
VOTING EQUIPMENT
QUESTION: Should the League continue to oppose legislation that
would make current voting equipment obsolete by requiring expensive
retrofitting or'reprogramming costs.
BACKGROUND:
In addition to'paper ballots, Minnesota uses three types of'voting
devices: LEVER MACHINES, the oldest form of voting device; ELECTRONIC
VOTING MACHINES, known as PUNCH CARD machines; and. OPTICAL SCAN
equipment, the newest technology recently certified for use. Vendors
submit equipment to the Secretary of State for certification. Once
certified, equipment may be sold to local units~of government. Current
law allows cities to select the equipment which~best suits local needs.
CURRENT LEAGUE POLICY:
The League supports current law and opposes any state-mandated system
of voting equipment. ~
YES, THE LEAGUE SHOULD CONTINUE
TO OPPOSE LEGISLATION THAT
WOULD MAKE OBSOLETE CURRENT CITY
VOTING EQUIPMENT.
Requirements, such as color-coding
ballots to distinguish between
parties, party-row balloting or
other programming changes are
expensive'to cities. They are of no
benefit in.- city elections since
city elections are non-partisan. In
addition, the timing of legislative
mandates often makes the equipment
unusable for a particular election.
Designating party affiliation on
the ballot is sufficient for state
and federal offices. Additional
designations are superfluous and
unnecessary.
NO, THE ~LEAGUE SHOULD NOT OPPOSE
LEGISLATIVE MANDATES REQUIRING
RETROFITTING OF EQUIPMENT TO
HELP VOTERS IDENTIFY CANDIDATES OF
POLITICAL PARTIES.
Cities should not oppose
legislation that is designed to
help the voter select the
candidates they wish to vote for.
Color-coding of ballots or party
row balloting would be helpful to
the voter in finding the candidate
they wish to vote for on the
ballot. Candidates (and major'
political parties) could use the
color in all their promotion
materials, thereby making
identification easier on election
day. State mandated voting
equipment would provide for faster
tabulation of results. Electio~
and education of voters would b=
simpler.
league of minnesota oities
LAND USE LEGISLATION
QUESTION : Should the League support changes to the state's planning
and zoning laws that would reduce cities' flexibility in structuring
their planning commissions and boards of adjustment, reduce cities'
ability to extend their subdivision regulations, require comprehensive
plans prior to zoning, and consolidate and make consistent various
planning and zoning laws?
BACKGROUND
The Governor's Advisory Council on State-Local Relations undertook a
thorough review of the state's planning and zoning laws. The League
participated in that study. A subcommittee of local elected officials
was formed to review the recommendations developed by a technical
committee composed of planning officials from townships, cities,
counties~, regional development commissions, and the state. Those
recommendations have been collected in a report on land use legislation
~nd draft legislation has been prepared, with introduction in the 1988
session probable.
CURRENT LEAGUE POSITION
The Land Use, Energy, Environment, and Transportation committee is
currently debating the merits of the proposal. Staff has identified
certain issues of substantial importance to cities that may cause
problems if adopted as currently proposed. The Report's
recommendations are in the left column.
YES, THE LEAGUE SHOULD
SUPPORT THE FOLLOWING
RECOMMENDATIONS
NO, THE LEAGUE SHOULD
OPPOSE THE FOLLOWING
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. REQUIRE T~E CREATION OF A
SEPARATE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
1. REQUIRE THE CREATION OF A
SEPARATE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
This board would rule on
variances, etc. which must have
at least one but no more than one
planning commission or council
representative. Appeals from this
separate body would go directly to
district court. This provision is
intended to "depoliticze" the
variance review process.
This requirement
unnecessarily limits the
authority of a city to
establish a structure that
meets its unique situation.
Smaller communities may find
it difficult to recruit board
members. An intermediate
appeal to the council should
be provided.
I ~3 univeesiCy avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 551 01
(61 2) 227-5600
LAND USE (con't)
2. CHANGING THE REQUIREMENT OF UNDUE
HARDSHIP TO AN EASIER STANDARD OF
UNNECESSARY DIFFICULTY.
2. CHANGING THE REQUIREMENT OF
UNDUE HARDSHIP TO EASIER
STANDARD.
This would loosen the current
standard to reflect common practice
in granting variances from the,
strict application of zoning
ordinances.
The existing requirement is
fine. Loosening the
requirement would make it more
difficult to'implement the
requirements of a zoning
ordinance.
3. REQUIRE THE ADOPTION OF A
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN ORDER TO HAVE
ZONING OR OTHER LAND USE CONTROLS.
3. REQUIRE ADOPTION OF
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
The comprehensive plan can be as
little as a statement of goals,
objectives; and policies, and
present and proposed land use
maps. Recent cases have called
into question the common practice
of passing ordinances without a
supporting comprehensive plan.
Metropolitan cities have had this
requirement for several years. ~
Cities would have a five year
grace period, after which failure
to adopt a comprehesive plan would
invalidate all offical controls.
The propgsed requirement is
overly onerous for cities.
Courts will use incon-
sistencies to supercede local
decisions. The five year
grace period is impractical.
4. PROHIBIT THE PRACTICE OF
CONDITIONAL REZONING.
Conditional rezoning is defined
as making a district change
conditioned on the applicant
meeting certain requirements.
An example'is to grant rezoning
from multi-family to commercial
if the applicant agrees to
construct apartment buildings
i.n conjunction with the
commercial development.
4. PROHIBIT THE PRACTICE OF
CONDITIONAL REZONING.
Conditional zoning provides
added flexibility and
safeguards against changes
in development proposals.
league of minnesota oities
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
QUESTION : What changes in the state's transportation funding
mechanisms should the league support?
BACKGROUND
Governor Perpich and other political leaders have listed the lack of an
adequate transportation funding program as the single biggest failure
of the 1987 legislature. Funding inadequacy was almost assured when
the Governor proposed suspending the transfer of the estimated $225
million generated by the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) from the
state's general fund to the highway and transit fund. The Legislature
agreed with the non-transfer of MVET and these MVET funds, along with
an approximate $700 million dollar tax increase, were used to balance
the state general fund.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation recently cancelled
approximately $90 million in proposed highway projects because of the
shortage in road funds. Many of the projects were in Greater
Minnesota. Metropolitan projects were spared somewhat because many
qualify for additional federal funds.
Additional road funding is necessary. The administration has
apparently abandoned as a possible source the transfer of the MVET. An
increase in the gas tax or a one percent sales tax on general retail
sales seem to be preferred at this time. A one cent increase in the
gas tax results in approximately $20 million of revenue annually.
Currently, Minnesota's gas tax is 17 cents per gallon. A one percent
sales tax in the metro area would generate approximately $130 million
annually.
Tied in with the funding issue are the issues of jurisdiction studies
and turnbacks, and potential constitutional amendments regarding
dedication of the motor vehicle excise tax to the highway fund and the
current allocation (62-29-9) of road funds among the state (62%),
counties (29%), and cities over 5,000 population (9%). Jurisdictional
studi%s that attempt to establish the level of use for particular roads
(i'.e., classifying roads as collectors, arterials, etc.) will soon be
completed. Some advocate the assignment of road maintenance
responsibilities to the level of government that best matches the
jurisdictional classification of the road.
CURRENT LEAGUE POSITION
The Land Use, Energy, Environment, and Transportation Committee is
currently debating the funding issue. Existing League policy advocates
dedicating the MVET, opposing large scale turnbacks, requiring all
turned-back roads to be brought up to standards acceptable to the
receiving jurisdiction, and modifying the allocation formula to provide
for the funding of roads located in cities under 5,000 population by
reducing the 29% county share.
university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 551 01 (612) 227-5600
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING (con't)
YES, LEAGUE SHOULD SUPPORT:
NO, LEAGUE SHOULD OPPOSE:
1. METRO SALES TAX
1. METRO SALES TAX
Additional road funding is
necessary. Most road needs
are in the metropolitan area.
A metro sales tax would provide
a stable and adequate source
of funds for the metro area.
A sales tax, unlike MVET
or the gas tax, is not
user based. Rural area
needs would not be ade-
quately funded.
2. GAS TAX INCREASE
The gas tax is a user based
tax, and levied 'state wide,
thus justifying a proportional
split between metro and rural
areas.
3. MVET TRANSFER/DEDICATION
Large~ stable, user based
funding source. Would
implement legislative
policy established 15 years
ago.
2. GAS TAX INCREASE
Minnesota 'already has
one of the highest gas
tax~s in the nation.
Only generates $20
million~per penny.
MVET TRANSFER/DEDICATION
General fund loses
$200 million annually,
fund is dedicated, limits
discretion in use of funds~
4. JURISDICTIONAL REASSIGNMENTS
Would make users of roads
responsible for owning, upkeep;
local roads-local governments,
state roads-state government.
Would reduce funding pressure
on state. Promotes good
government, efficiency.
4. JURISDICTIONAL REASSIGNMENT
May not reduce overall
mileage of roads in state.
to property tax payers.
Would shift responsibility
for road upkeep from users
to property tax payers,
create new local problems.
5~ CHANGE 62-29-9 FORMULA,
REDUCING COUNTY SHARE TO FUND
SMALL CITY ROADS
Current allocation does not
provide direct funding
to cities under 5,000 and
townships. Assumes all
roads in those jurisdictions
are either local roads or are
on county and state aid systems.
5. CHANGE 62-29-9 FORMULA
Current allocation method
is fair, balances mileage
and level of use. Fund-
ing for a state system,
not local roads. Would
require constitutional
amendment to change.
L
of minnesota oities
HOMESTEAD CREDIT
QUESTION : Should the League oppose changes in the homestead credit
adopted by the 1987 Legislature?
BACKGROUND
The 1987 Legislature adopted major changes in the homestead credit
program. 'Beginning in 1989, the current residential homestead credit
program will be eliminated. For the homeowner, the homestead credit
will be replaced by a "homestead value exemption." This means that a
certain value of the homestead property will be exempt from property
taxes -- for 1989,~ this exempt value would be 52 percent of the
assessed value of the first $68,000 of the market value of the home.
The homestead credit shown on the homeowner's tax bill will be equal to
the total local mill rate (including city, county, school and town
portions of the property tax) multiplied by the exempted value. The
city and other local governments will spread their levies and determine
their mill rates by excluding the assessed value exempted under the new
program.
For cities and other units of local government (counties, schools, and
townships), the old homestead credit program will be replaced by a
"homestead credit replacement aid." In the first year of
implementation (1989), the homestead credit replacement aid paid to a
city is supposed to be roughly equal to what it received in the prior
year. However, due to formula changes, high-mill rate areas will
generally receive more aid in 1989 and low-mil~ rate areas will
generally receive less aid. In 1990 and all future years, this base
amount of homestead credit replacement aid paid to a city will be
increased only by two escalator factors : 1) inflation and 2) growth
in a city's exempted homestead values. Increases in a city's mill rate
will not increase the homestead credit replacement aid.
CURRENT LEAGUE POSITION : The Revenue Sources Committee is currently
debating whether to oppose the new homestead credit replacement aid or
take a more c~utious approach, urging the Legislature to be aware of
all the effects of the new credit before implementing it.
l ~3 university avenue east, sC. paul, minnesoCa 55101 (1~12) 227-5600
HOMESTEAD CREDIT (con't)
YES, LEAGUE SHOULD OPPOSE
HOMESTEAD CREDIT PROGRAM
T~E NEW
NO, LEAGUE SHOULD NOT OPPOSE
HOMESTEAD CREDIT PROGRAM.
Cuts in the new homestead credit
program could be made more easily
because there would no longer be a
direct link between the homestead
credit paid to homeowners and the
reimbursement to cities for revenue
lost through the homestead
exemption. Under the old homestead
credit program, it was difficult
for the Legislature to cut th~
credit without it showing up on the
taxpayer's bill. Under the new
program, however, the Legislature
could cut the homestead replacement
aid to cities, but the credit
appearing, on the homeowner's bill
would remain the same or even
go up under certain circumstances.
The new homestead credit
replacement aid is another "aid"
program,, like local government aid.
Annual battles over formula changes
.are more likely.
It would be easy for the
Legislature to cut the homestead
replacement aid --even in the
middle of the budget year-- with
no warning to cities which depend
upon that source of revenue.
In establishing the initial
homestead replacement aid amount
(upon which all future aid would be
based), higher mill rate areas
would be advantaged and low mill
rate areas would be disadvantaged.
In the future, a city which has
~rowing needs and must increase its
mill rate will not receive
increasing homestead credit
payments. This could force large
and abrupt increases in the taxes
paid on non-exempt property
(commercial/industrial property,
the non-exempt portion of homestead
values, renters).
It is good policy to sever the link
between homestead credit payments
and property tax levels of local
governments. The old program
provided too much of an incentive
to local governments to raise their
taxes since, in most cases, 54 % of
the tax increase was picke~ up by
the state through the homestead
credit.
The Legislature will be able to
have more direct control over
expenditures" for the new homestead
credit replacement aid since it can
easily change or, if necessary,
temporarily suspend the two
escaltor factors in the homestead
credit formula.
Expenditures for the homestead
credit program will be mo~e
predictable since the homest
credit will no longer be linked to
local property tax levels. This
will he~p stabilize the state ' s
budget s~-ituat ion.
If the state faces budget problems,
expenditures for the homestead
credit program could be easily cut,
providing the state with a better
tool for dealing with budget
'crises.
In the past, some argued that
cities were not accountable for
their tax and spending increases
since local property taxpayers were
partly protected against local tax
increases by the homestead credit.
With this new homestead credit
design, no one can make that
argument.
league of minnesota oities
QUESTION: Should the League designate the elimination of levy limits
as an A priority, proposing legislation and making it a high priority?
BACKGROUND:
The 1987 Legislature imposed a very tight three percent levy limit on
all cities for payable 1988. The new levy limit is more severe than
prior limits because first, most "special" levies (previously allowed
outside the limit) are suspended for one year (except for bonded debt
and certain pension costs) and second, the new levy limit is imposed on
small cities (under 5000 population) for the first time since 1982.
Despite legislators' assurances that tighter levy limits would be
temporarily imposed for only one year, the new tax law actually imposes
tighter levy' limit restrictions beyond 1988. Smaller cities (under
5000 population) would be permanently subject to levy limits. The
impetus for tighter limits came largely from legislators' fears that
local property tax levels would increase dramatically next year because
of changes in the school aid formula, the loss of federal assistance
(particularly general revenue sharing), and limits the state placed on
state aid through the LGA and homestead credit programs.
'YES, ELIMINATING LEVY LIMITS SHOULD
BE AN "A" PRIORITY FOR LEAGUE
NO, ELIMINATING LEVY LIMITS SHOULD
NOT BE AN "A" PRIORITY FOR LEAGUE
Of all revenue issues (including
LGA, homestead credit and property
tax reform), tight levy limits have
the most harmful effect on cities'
abilities to operate financially
and to provide the services their
residents need. They are
particularly unworkable for small
cities which have small budgets and
can experience large year-to-year
increases in their budgets.
Tight levy limits force cities to
issue more debt which is not always
the most economical or most
appropriate manner for financing
expenditures. Levy limits also
prevent many cities from building
up adequate reserves.
Levy limits are severely limiting
cities' abilities to compensate for
cuts in state and federal financial
aid as well as making it impossible
to deal with rising costs forced by
state and federal mandates.
Levy limits are inconsistent with
the principles of local
self-government and local
accountability.
Levy limits are arbitrary when
applied uniformly to all cities
since cities vary markedly in their
needs and abilities to raise
revenue.
I ~3 univemsiCy svenue ease, st. psol, minnesoCa55101
Designating the elimination of levy
limits as an A priority will take
away from the League's resources to
lobby against harmful changes in
the homestead credit program and to
lobby for increases in the LGA
program.
Since the school aid formula
changes which are likely to force
up local property tax levels will
have their most dramatic effect in
1989, it is unrealistic to make a
major effort to eliminate levy
limits for 1989. The League should
wait until the "dust has settled"
on the school aid changes.
Certain key legislators on the tax
committees strongly oppose the
removal of levy limits. These
legislators are in a position to
single-handedly block any bill
eliminating levy limits no
matter what the League does. They
argue that they will not consider
the removal of limits until
comprehensive property tax reform
is achieved.
Rather than making a major effort
to eliminate levy limits, the
League should try to get
incremental changes in the law that
would at least temporarily loosen
up the limits.
(61 2) 227-5600
CITY SERVICE CHARGES FOR TAX-EXEMPT PROPERTY
QUESTION: Should cities be able to impose a service charge on
tax-exempt property?
BACKGROUND=
Last year the House included in its tax bill a proposal to grant cities
the ~n to impose, by resolution, a service charge for 'basic
municipal services' provided to tax-exempt properties. This was designed
as an option which cities could voluntarily exercise. Service charges
collected by the city would be deducted from the city's levy limit.
In exercising this option, the city could not be select~ve in applying
the charges. They would have to apply equally to all tax-exempt property
in the city. However, the city could not impose service charges on
buildings owned by federal, state, or local 'governments, Indian tribes,
or on buildings subject to payments in lieu':of property taxes. Under the
proposal, basic municipal services would be.the amount a city spends for
'police, fire, street and road construction and maintenance, street
lighting, sanitation, or other similar property related public services.'
Service charges would be related to the assessed value of the tax-exempt
property and the total costs of basic municipal services.
CURRENT LEAGUE POSITION:
League supports requiring tax-exempt property (except houses of worship)
to reimburse cities for costs of police, fire and street services.
YES, THE LEAGUE SHOULD CONTINUE TO NO, LEAGUE SHOULD NO~ SUPPORT
SUPPORT IMPOSING SERVICES CHARGES IMPOSING SERVICE CHARGES ON
ON TAX-EXEMPT PROPERTY TAX-EXEMPT PROPERTY
It is clear that
property benefits
services (police, fire
and street services).'
tax-exempt
from city
protection
It is inequitable to provide free
services' to tax-exempt property.
Other city property ends up bearing
higher tax burdens as a result.
Certain cities have a high
concentration of tax-exempt
property and are in a particularly
disadvantaged situation.
Most tax-exempt property,
particularly charities and
hospitals, are dedicated to serving
the public and shouldn't be charged
for services.
The proposal is "all or nothing."
It does not allow cities to pick
and choose among the tax-exempt
properties in assessing services
charges. Thus, unfair burdens will
fall on certain tax-exempt
properties, that cities may want to
protect.
Some tax-exempt properties, such as
hospitals or nursing homes, are
almost like profit-ma~ing
businesses.
This proposal is not really helpful
since any revenue a city gains from
services charges must be deducted
against its levy limit. Hence, it
is not new money.
This proposal really only benefits
cities which have high
concentrations of tax-exempt
property.
RELATIVE PROPERTY TAX BURDENS FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF PROPERTY
QUESTION: Are local property tax levels for certain types of property
too high, especially in relation to other types of property?
BACKGROUND:
Wide disparities often exist between the tax burdens of various types
of property in certain communities. Listed in the table below are the
statewide average effective property tax rates (that is, the tax burden
in relation to the property's market value) that are projected by the
House Research Department for 1988.
EFFECTIVE PROPERTY TAX RATES BY TYPE OF PROPERTY, 1988'
Type of Property
Effective Tax Rate
Residential Homesteads ................
Residential Non-homesteads ............
Apartments ............................
1.30 %
3.41
4.07
Agricultural Homesteads ............... 0.83
Agricultural Non-homesteads ........... 1.42
Commercial/Industrial under $60,000... 2.96
Commercial/Industrial over $60,000 .... 5.05
* Based on House Research computer simulation, SCM
-- over --
l~3universicyavenueeasC, sC. pauI, minnesoCa55101 (612) 227-5600
RELATIVE TAX BURDENS FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF PROPERTY (con't)
RESIDENTIAL HOMESTEAD BURDENS
Property taxes on homestead are low,
but it is important to keep them low
since homeowners vote. Many home
owners are elderly and cannot afford
higher property taxes. While.home
owners' property taxes may be low,
they have high sales and income tax
burdens, especially relative to
businesses.
RESIDENTIAL NON-HOMESTEADS/APARTMENTS
Property taxes on rental buildings are
too high. These high taxes are often
passed on to residents in the form of
higher rents. Renters'are often
low-income persons or elderly living
on fixed 'incomes.
AGRICULTURAL HOMESTEADS
Tax burdens for homesteads are
too low and need to increase
somewhat so that the property
taxes for businesses can be
lowered. Ultimately, a
community's ability to retain
businesses will affect jobs for
local residents and local
growth and wealth.
The renters' credit, and circuit
breaker programs are designed
to provige.proper.ty tax relief
to renters. If more. relief is
needed it should be given with
these programs rather than
directly reducing Property
taxes for apartment owners who
may not pass on these tax,cuts
to their renters.
Property taxes for homesteaded farms
should remain low, particularly since
many farmers, especially small farmers,
are-experiencing financial stress.
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
Effective'Property tax rates
for farms are about the lowest
for an~ type.of property.~ They
could ~e increased without
hurting farmers who are under
financial stress since the
income tax is designed to help
out low-income persons.
The high property taxes which many
businesses'must pay are an
excessive burden and may discourage
some businesses from locating or
remaining in a community. This
causes loss of jobs and economic
activity for a community. Small
business can be particularly hard
hit, especially if they are located
in already depressed areas where
rapidly declining farm values have
caused tax burdens to shift to
the businesses in.cities.
Although businesses may pay more
in property taxes than home-
owners, businesses tend to pay
relatively less in corporate
income taxes. Thus their
combined property and income tax
burden is no greater. Reports
show that over half of all MN
corporations paid no corporate
income tax in 1984, including
192 of the top corporations
with annual earnings over
$50 million.
LOCAL OPTION TAXES
QUESTION: Should the League support granting cities a local-option to
raise other non-traditional taxes, such as local sales or local income
taxes?
BACKGROUND:
Local governments have traditionally relied on the property tax and
state aids for a major portion of their revenues. Since 1971, local
governments have been generally prohibited from levying local sales or
income taxes. At the same time (1971), property tax levy limitations
were imposed on local governments. These tax reforms (known as the
"Minnesota Miracle") were enacted in exchange for a state commitment to
use state-raised sales and income tax revenues to finance property tax
relief for local governments. In recent years, however, state budget
problems.combined with political pressure to hold down state income and
sales t~xes have led to substantial reductions in state aids. The
esult has been that cities have been forced to rely more heavily on
local property taxes.
CURRENT LEAGUE POSITION: ~
League policy recommends that cities be given local option to raise
other non-traditional revenue sources, such as sales taxes, to enhance
local financial flexibility. Policy states that local option taxes
should supplement, not replace, the traditional revenues of cities.
YES, LEAGUE SHOULD CONTINUE
SUPPORT LOCAL OPTION TAXES
TO
NO, LEAGUE SHOULD NO LONGER SUPPORT
LOCAL OPTION TAXES
As state and federal aids are cut,
cities need to turn to other
sources of regenue, nOt just the
property tax, to fill the revenue
gap. Property taxes are already to
high in many places.
Allowing local-option taxes would
mean rich communities would get
richer and poor communities poorer
since it is richer communities that
would likely have more sales
activity and local income to tax.
Strict levy limits are also
preventing cities from using the
property tax when they need to in
order to maintain services. Local
ption could alleviate that
taxes
situation.
With the availability of local
option taxes, the state would cut
back on state aids even more.
Income and sales tax revenue are
not reliable revenue sources since
they fluctuate widely depending
upon economic conditions.
university avenueeesC, sC. paul, minnesota 55101 (612) 227-5600
LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES LEGISLATIVE ISSUES VOTING CARD
City: Name:
Attending Regional Meeting at:
Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
Support Oppose
League-sponsored TIF legislation
Voting Equipment
Support
Oppose
Local Government Election Day
Support Oppose
Land Use Legislation
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Oppose
Oppose
Oppose
Oppose
Oppose
Oppose
Support
T~ansportation Funding
Support
Support
Support
Support
Support
Oppose
Oppose
Oppose
Oppose
Oppose
Oppose
Legislation
making current voting
equipment obsolete
Continue.to oppose a local
government election day
1. Separate Board of Adjustment
2. Change definition of undue
hardship
3. Requirement for comprehensive
plan.
4. Prohibit conditional zoning
5. Zoning controls consistent
with comprehensive plan
6. Change the ability of cities
to extend subdivision
regulations
7. Fringe Area Growth Proposal
1. Metro Sales Tax
2. Gas Tax Increase
3. MVET Transfer/Dedication
4. Jurisdictional Reassignment
5. Changing the 62/29/9
allocation forumla
Homestead Credit Program
Support Oppose
Levy Limit Legislation
Support Oppose
Changes to or new homestead
credit program
Should the League make the
removal of levy limits an
"A" priority
City Service Char~es for Tax-Exempt Property
Support Oppose
Should cities be able to
voluntarily impose service
charges on tax-exempt
property
Relative Tax Burdens for Certain Types of Property
Residential Homestead taxes are:
Too High About Right
Residential Nonhomestead/Apartment taxes are:
Too High About Right
Agricultural Homestead taxes are:
Too High About Right
Commercial/Industrial taxes are:
Too High About Right
Too Low
Too Low
Too Low
Too Low
Local Option Taxes
Support
Oppose
COMMENTS:
Should the League support
local option taxes?
MINUTES OFTHE
MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
AUGUST 10, 1987
Present were: Chairman Thomas Reese; C~,uLLissioners Vern Andersen, William
Meyer, Geoff Michael, Brad Sob_ns and William Thal; Council Representative
Elizabeth Jensen; City Manager Ed Shukle; City Planner Mark Koe~ler; Building
Official Jan Bertrand and Secretary Marjorie Stutsman. Commissioner Frank
Weiland was absent and excused. Also present were the following interested
persons: Jay Westlund, Gre~ Hawks, Sue Routhe, Jim Thompson, Stephen Peper,
Tom Lepis. to, Mike Delmore, Tom & Patty Albert, Klm Truax and Gary Paulsen.
MINUTES
The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of July 27, 1987 were present'ed
for consideration. Michael moved and Andersen seconded a motion to accept the
minutes of Julys27, 1987 meeting as sulmuitted. The vote was unanimously in
favor. ~
BOARD OF APPEALS
1. .Case No.. 87-660 Varianc~ request for 1959 Shore~6od Lane
LoGs. 15 and S. % of 16, Block 7, Shadywoo~. Point; PID $ 18-117-23 23 0070
Jim Thompson w-as present.
The City Planner reviewed his report on the request for a variance to
recognize a nonconforming structure (applicant is proposing a substantial
expansion of the existing structure) and gave a little background--in
1985,. there was an approvml .of a subdivision and lot size variance to
'.establish 2 lots from Lots 15, 16 &~17, Block 7, Shadywood Point. The
structure on drawing in packet (shown as .Parcel B) w-as required to be
brought up to building code standards. This parcel has 7,332 square feet
rather than required 10,000 square feet; it has a nonconforming front yard
of approximately 21 feet instead of-required 30 feet and there is an acces-
sary (garage) building with nonconforming setbacks. He stated applicant
is proposing an addition of 1,154 square feet to the 528 square foot house
and he will relocate the garage to make it a conforming structure. Staff
recon~nends approval with two conditions: 1) Addition contain not more
than. 1200 square feet and meet all current required setbacks and 2) Garage
be relocated to meet current setbacks. He suggested discussion of the
ordinance requirement that variance represent the absolute minimum to allow
· reasonable use of the property. He also noted that having the new addition
me. et the current setback requirements will require a redrafting/redesign
of the plans to have more of a staggered front wmll possibly by an archi-
. tect.
Jim Thompson thought if they jo~ addition back, they would not have suffi-
cient space for the house and still be able to relocate the garage; they
also are planning on. grading lot so drainage.is towmrd the street rather
than to the neighbor's house. The Commission discussed distance required
between the structures and didn't see a problem. GreqHawks, half owner
of property, stated they think it is more economical to build a 2 car
garage than relocate old one; they wmnt a 3 bedroom home built as reason-
ably as they can with standard materials and feel that breaking up front
line and the added roof line would add undo expense. Jay Westlinq, 1927
Shorewood, thinks aesthetically it is better to have house straight on
the street; not added onto like a cabin. The Con~nission discussed and
asked questions including what setback would be on other Parcel A if they
Planning Commission Minutes
August 10; 1987 - Page 2
allowed a variance for a 21+ front yard setback on the addition to the
existing hous.e. Thompson thought setbacks on Parcel A could be conforming
and yet blend because of the curvature of the road. Koegler stated Code
does allow averaging, but not less than 20 feet. Further discussion fol-
lowed including that ultimately the City wants to get houses to conform.
Thal moved and Jensen seconded a motion to approve the staff's recon~enda-
tion. The vote was Jensen, Sohns, Thal and Reese in favor; Andersen,
Meyer and Michael against. Motion carried to require conforming setbacks
(jog) on addition.
This will be referre~ %o the City Council on August 25, 1987.
e
Case No..87-661 Public Hearinq on moving single family dwelling from0rono
to 6230DeerwoodDrive in Mound; Lot 3, Block 2, Woodcrest 3rd Addition;
PID% 23-117-24 23 0095; Stephen Peper of D & R Construction was present°
The Building.Official, Jan Bertrand, reviewed her report on what is required
of any house being moved into Mound, the condition of this specific house,
etc.
The Chair opened the public hearing and the following persons had ccn~nents
or questions:
· 'Stephen Peper, representing D & R Construction, showed pictures of the
house and stated everything .will meet code; the house will get a new face
and tie-in a garage and landscaping. He .had sketch of how-it will look with'
the garage up front with something over the entry; he stated there are
several similar structures in the area and feels it would fit into the
neighborhood. Mike Delmore stated hi.~ concern }is having something that
doesn't look good in the neighborhood. Klm Truax asked about time frame
for having' everything completed if it was moved in. Michael questioned if
it would not be. less expensive to build a new house; Peper stated this home
was in very good condition and Meyer stated he knew the original owner and
the house was in excellent repair, well constructed and a beautiful home.
Peper stated house would be completed before the snow; October or November.
Gary Paulsen questioned if performance bond should be required? Conm~ission
discussed and Paulsen suggested Jan ask for letters of reference since this
is a new company. Tom Albert questioned if appraised value of this home is?
an~ what estimated value would be after completion? Jan stated house was
appraised, at $52,360. Peper thought selling price with lot would be $120,000.
The Chair closed the public hearing.
Jan con~nented that the Council public hearing on this would be Sept. 8th;
Commission discussed and as time frame to get house out of 0rono is tight,
they suggested sending mailed notices to all neighbors and recommend that
Council have it on their August 25th agenda. All concurred.
Jensen moved and Meyer seconded a motion to recommend approval of moving
the house into Mound subject to the provisions of the Building Official's
letter on Case 87-661. The vote on the motion was unanimously in favor.
It was noted that Section 300 of the Zoning Code states a public hearing
may be. required; but it is not mandatory. Council Representative asked the
neighbors to go have a look at the house and than if they had concerns, come
to the Council meeting. ~ ~
Planning Commission Minutes
August 10, 1987 - Page 3
Case No. 87-658 Minor Subdivision for 5325 Waterbury Roadi Lot 54, Whipple
Shores; PID Numbers 25-117-24 21 0154/0153.
Thomas Lepisto Was present.
The Building Official explained the request stating that Lot 54 was sub-
divided in 1981 and how at the last meeting we talked about how two dif-
ferent surveys had been submitted; one was prior to the ordinance for
flood plain management which established a given elevation which accounts
for the controversy in numbers. The present division is proposing 9600
square feet for Parcel A and 7980 for Parcel B. They created an undersized
parcel in 1981 (used 1977 survey before the flood plain). The change basi-
cally is a deflection line to use an existing curb cut off of Waterbttry"
Road from Lot 54..Sometime a~o, ~.the hbuse %fas given a.'.ga~iance to put a
6..foot side yard on the south side of 'prOperty and a 20 foot setback to
Waterbury. The east sideyard would be more than 10 feet and lakeshore
setback is in excess of 50 feet (89 feet to water line); the shed on Parcel
B-was going to be relocated to have conforming setbacks. The vacant par-
cel will be within 10~ of,the required 10,000 squ~re feet. She's recon~mending
that, wai~er of a public hearing and legal descriptions be reviewed by the
City Engineer and shed be moved to conform: to setbacks. The C~,,~ssion dis-
cussed at length. Mr. Lepisto stated he just -wa- nted to rotate the lot line.
Jensen moved and Andersen seconded a motion to reco~nend approving the
staff recon~endation. The vote was unanimously in favor.
This will be referred to the.City Council on August 25, 1987.
EXTERIOR STORAGE
The City Planner reviewed the changes that the Planning Co~nission had recom-
mended at their July 27th meeting to Prop6sal ~ 1. ~ The Chairman c~,,,~nted
that he didn't think the Council would adopt the 20 foot front yard setback
minimum. Co~-~-~ission talked about the variance provisions applying. They
thought anything closer than 20 feet to the roadway was dangerous.
REPORTS
The Council Representative reported on derelict autos and parts at certain
locations havebeen'taken care o~-and are gone and also problem onPaisley
Road has .been addressed.
On the Public Works facility, she advised the Council met with th. Business
Community on Tuesday morning and again on Saturday morning.' She stated what
they have done is scaled back the project based on the input received from
the Business people. What will go to the voters will be a request to approve
issuance of bonds to acquire and improve the Riley Bus Garage and some of the
money will be used to improve the Island Park facility which they will need
to keep. In response to a question on the piles'of material, they will stay
where they are right now and whenLostLake site is sold, we'll address that
issue. They have 4 alternatives for storing the piles: 1) Either side of
City Hall, 2) Westedge Boulevard property, 3) The Bickmann property and 4)
Property east of the Riley garage could be acquired. The big issue right now
is storage of .equipment and spending large amounts for rent. The price tag
on public works facility has come down to $790,000.
Plannin~ Commission Minutes
August 10, 1987 - Page 4
The Chairm~n came up with a Comprehensive Plan for the City of Mound
dated 1965.
The City Manauer advised that the City has $20,000 in Block Grant Money to
spend on updating the Comprehensive Plan. The City Planner stated the Co~is-
sion will be working on it in a few months.
The Friday August 21st party wms discussed and it wms decided we should
start at 6 or 6:30 p.m. with outdoor activities such as volleyball, etc. and
ap or luck dinner.
Adjournment
Jensenmoved and Sohns seconded a motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 p.m.;
all were in favor, so meeting wras adjourned.
Attest:
Thomas Reese, Chairman
MINUTES OF THE
HOUND ADVISORY PARK COHMISSION HEETING
AUGUST 13, 1987
Present were: Chair Nancy Clough; Commissioners Shirley Andersen, Cathy. Bailey,
Cheryl Burns, Marilyn Byrnes, Andy Gearhart(lEI, Linda Panetta and Lowel'l Swanson;
City Manager Ed Shukle; Park Director Jim Fackler and'SecretarylMarge S'tutsman.
Counc|l Representative Phyllis Jessen. and Commissioner Delore.s Maas(lEI. were. absent
and excused. Also present were the following interested persons: Bernard Lister,
Jayne Hetchler.and Rick Riley of Berg &.Associates.
M I NUTES
The minutes of the Park Commission meeting of July 9, 1987 were presented for con-
sideration. Bur~s moved and Byrnes seconded a motion to accept the minutes of the
July 9th Park Commission' meeting as presented. The.vote was unanimously in favor.
REQUEST FOR PURCHASE OF ALL OR PART OF LOTS 21 AND' 5~ BLOCK 28, SETON
Bernard Lister., 2721 Tyrone Lane was present and stated he presently owns Lots 6
and 20 (driveWay for his proPerty) of Block' 28., Seton and Lots 1-3 and 10-12 inclu-
sive, B]ock 29', Seton .inciudlng adjoining. 1/2 of vacated Asfibourne. Road; he~s trying
to annex all' or,'part of Lots 2] and 5' to make a building site. Of Lots 6 and' 20,.
only about 12 feet is presently Used for the driveway .and the rest (28 feet) would
be added to the /~0 feet width of Lots 2l and $ and hop._efully that would 9ire him
enough land to do something.with. He commented,.when ~ewer and water came through,
he was assessed on the basis of 3 building Sit'es-and under the present zoning code,
he does not have enough street frontage .for even two building sites. He wants to
acquire enough 'land to bui].d another house on .TyrOne Lane.
The 'Park. Director .explained these parcels (Lots'21, 5 and part of 22 and /~) adjoin
Tyrone Park and are tax forfeit land; it is-a'wooded area, It was noted there is
a drainage ditch between the lots and the park.. (A minimum of /~0' feet on'a public
right-of-way is required 'fora bu'lldab]e site.)
The Commission discussed the request at length. The Commission took no action.
Commissioner Bailey stated her reason for not making'a recommendation was she does-
n'.t wish to give up pa~k land--feels it would set a precedent and there should be
a hardship shown such 'as someone needing access to house, etc.. Host of the Commis-
sion concurred .that they did'not wish to .have land adjacent to a park sold because
in the future, it would be hard to get it back.if park were to be enlarged.
Mr. Lister.questioned if there would be back taxes or assessments.as this would
affect his. decision if the Council approved releasing the land. He stated the land
south of the drainage ditch blended with his land. Also he asked if this could be
referred to the Council on September 8, 1987 rather than on August 25, 1~87.
-MAINTENANCE PERMIT REQUESTS
Request forscul'~ure/or, bench done on damaged COttonwood tree on Commons; applicants
were not present.
The Park Director reported that the winds from the big storm took the top off the
Cottonwood and he had a contractor out to remove it and Jacque]yn Head asked if
there was a possibility to make a sculpture out of it and he told her to make a
request, but the only way he would agree to it was if she'd sign a paper stating if
Commission did not agree with it, she would remove the Stump as we would have had
done to ground level at her expense.
Park Commission Hinutes
August 13, 1~87 -. Page 2 '
The Commission-discussed questioning what kind of sculpture she 'had in mind and
commenting they did not know how long a' sculpture from the Cottonwood would last.
The Commission deferred, action on this request until she ls present at a meeting
to let them know what she proposes to do with the stump. The Park Director will
write her regarding attending the next meeting, September 10th.
Request for retaining walls and'deck on commons adjoining 4~13 Island View Drive;
JayneHetchler was presentJ
Jayne Hetchler explained'that on the West side of the property, there is a lO foot
wide very steep hill going down. from their lot which.they'.would like to terrace-
(rock it and put shrubs in); on .the East side where"it is much wider (probably 18
feet across), they'd like,to put'-a deck out over the top of 'the hill (anchored
into the. hill), and than put Possibly.2 retaining walls in. She stated there is
one existing ) foot-tall concrete wa)) and than the'Commons by the lake is level;
Commons is approximately 50' feet wi.de.
Jim reported that.the Building Official'had made the'following suggestions:
Require.engineer.d~awings on any wall-over'6 feet high; 2) Scale drawings for length
of tie backs and spacing;"3) She doesn'~t recommend al)bwing a de~k structure on the
Commons (no public use) and 4) Kind of.backfill should~be specified.
The Chair commented sometime ago on a similar case, there seemed to be a legal issue
if you go to se1) the property on how 'the survey shows what is your property and
what is. Commons property. ~lt was discussed that deck drawing shows deck to be 12
feet'onto the Commons.' Hrs. Hetchler stated they only have 6 to lO feet of property
on lake side of house ahd she feels the steep bank on Commons-are a hazard. The
CommisSion discussed that it, is classified non-transversible and'talked about what
the recent storm has done to other banks..Hrs. Hetchler said no erosion has occurred;'
but her concern is someone fa]li.ng down the bank.
The Park Director"stated retaining wails have been allowed-in the past, but not decks.
He advised that. if retaining walls are allowed, the mainten~nce repai'r will always
stay with the-current owner'of that house and repairs will be at homeowner's expense.
Bailey moved and Gearhart seconded a motion not to approve the 12 foot deck on
the Commons. It was discussed that attachment of the deck would cause future
problems and be setting a precedent and others would want similar structures.
The vote was unanimously in favor.
Bailey moved and Gearhart seconded a motion to recommend to the Council allowing
'retaining walls with the Building InspeCtor's/Engineer's approval on the plans
for construction as to what they are and with the condition that'walls not deter
public use. The vote was unanimously in favor.
Request for allowing discha'rge'of'extePnal perl-meter-draln tile· system into Commons
area and restore veg~tation't°'fia~ufel'with seedingI' 1547 Bluebird Lane
Rick Riley of Berg & Ass°ciates was present.
Rick Riley statedthe owners of the home being built at 1547 Bluebird adjoining
the Commons have two requests: 1.) Theywant to. fill where area has eroded away and
seed/bring the commons back to Where it was 15 or 20 years ago and 2} They want
external drain tile system that takes any. ground moisture away from the base of the
footings and discharges it, to be run right down tO daylight on the commons.
Park Commission Hinutes
August 13, 1~87 - Page 3
The Park Director stated that there, can be some fill put i.n there to bring the
grade up, but not.a lot otherwise it Will'damage the trees:that are there, l'n
response to a question on the path, he mentioned it was a very steep hill, but
you'd still be able to Use path to come.around. The problem he saw with the
drain tile was that'it came too close to' the t'op of'the hill and suggested it
either be run.'backonto the property so ~t would just' wash naturally over the
bank or else run llne all the way down to rip..rap where it would drain to day-'
light. He.stated fill could be put in there ('it can't go'very high which con-
tractor is aware of) with something to retain the fill such as grass', sodding,
stake it,' etc,'and the natural.way to-run-'the-'drain tile.would.be a!1 the'way
to the shoreline with rip rap aroun.d i.t. .Rip rap has been'done that far. -'
The COmm!s~ion di$c~s~ed.requests..and it .was .noted that some of the neighbors
-extend their dra!n .t!le down to'the, lake.;-'it, was. thought, that probably would be
the best solution'and-not put pressure on'the bank, 'It was questioned if the
homeowner, would, want a. dockand request a'sta'!rway access to-it. Jim stated
that. presently the:homeoWner is'sharing':a.dock with a neighbor.
Swenson moved and'Gearhart Seconded a motion:to.recommend allowing this ~equest
for a maintenance permit with.the:.Park Di, rectorls recommendations and going to
the rip rap w!th the d~ain tile..The.vote was'unani~nously in favor.
REPORTS.
The City .Hanager reported.on the status of the Jennings.Bay DKedge,.Lost Lake
proposa.ls are due back September'l~, the. Public ~orks facilityproposal has.
changed-~plan to build a. 8,000 square'foo.t addition to the .existing 'bus depot
currently leased by'ConteJ and'leave outdoor.storage.at Lost Lake site until a
serious proposal.is received on that p~operty and the cost has been reduced to
$7~0,000. ~-
The'Park Director reported:'1)Our DNR permit for Jennings Bay dredge is good
through June 1~88'and our ~atershed Permit is being updated right now. The pri-
vate group dredge is planned for August, but they have not gotten that far. The
City sent basic, quotes to Bletner and to NicCum to get quotes for our part of
dredge. ~e have sent notes to people'with docks in JennJngs Bay asking them to
remove this year. 2) Black Lake Dredge-~have gotten commitment from neighbors
over there to do.Side casting of the dredge; need to keep it under $15,000 and
keep dredge material within the area. 3) On the .budget--wi. Il have more. specifics
at the next meeting, q)'Keily Hayer will report on the Summer Recreation program
at the September meeting. 5) LHCD has increased their budget qq~ and their fees
will change from $10 per slip to a charge for the length o'f boat--City's fee will
be up from $~.,000 to about $8,000. ~e~11 have a revised dock application at next
.meeting. 6) They are putting together a list of. storm damages on the commons,
etc.---approximately $10,000 in damages.
Commissioners Cathy Bailey and Linda Panetta have written article for publication.
Bailey read'the article and the consensus of the Commission was that article
should be pub,lished with very'minor changes.
The Chair reminded the Commission to meet at 6:30 p.m. Honday, August 21, 1~87,
for tour to Hinnetonka Boat ~orks.
Adjournment
Burns moved and Gearhart seconded a motion to adjourn at ~:30 p.m. All in favor.
MOUND'S BEST KEPT SECRET
The Mound Park Commons---heavily-used by resident boater~---is casually
noticed by most of Mound's population° Yet this property is perhaps the most
%raluable asset that residents own, "a jewel in our crown". Nearly five miles
long and often hundreds of feet deep, the Con, nons touch all the corners of
Mound. With inland lots with small pri~-ately deeded access sites selling for
exorbitant prices, it is surprising that Mound residents don't feel more pride
in ownership of their park Co~m~ns.
~'Traditionally, boat owners have felt this privilege. Over residents
have opted %o pay minimal fees to have a dock site. The Lake Minnetonk~ Con-
servation District regulates the number of sites in Mound to a limit of 420.
Shared docking is allowed and has become increasingly more popular. With
prixrate docking costs soaring to over $2,000, the'minimal fees are a real bar-
gain.
~' Many ask what'the fee is used for. A share goes to pay for the ~ges of
the dock inspector. The dock inspector's responsibilities have grown since
1976 when the .dock ordinance was written. He administrates all the applications,
relegates the dock sites, inspects the quality and safety of the docks, mediates
neighboring dock problems and provides input for improvements on the Con~ons.
Maintenance in the form of rip-rapping, dredging, seeding, upkeep and
cle~n-up is the most costly issue to be covered by the dock fees. In the past
few years, this cost has not been covered by dock fees and has had to be sup-
ported by City funds. The Dutch Elm disease and the erosion of the land has
caused the maintenance costs to skyrocket.
The City Council's decision, Qith the advisement of the Park Co~ission,
to undertake a major rip-rapping program to protect the land, is in it's second
year. Already over has been saved for future generations to appreciate.
One of the major undertakings was the Kildare Co,nons. The Parks Depart-
ment filled, graded and seeded this area and, now, an almost unusable piece of
Mound's Best Kept Secret
Paue 2
property looks like a little slice of Lake Harriet for the neiuhboring resi-
dents to enjoy..
As an advisory arm of a busy City Council, Mound's Park C~,,~,ission helps
to provide study and recorauendations. This group meets on the second Thursday
of each month and encourages attendance by residents with their ideas for park
improvements: They also encourage involvement on the Con~ission itself. A
call or visit to City Hall--472-1155--will provide an application for appoint-
ment o
The responsibility of a park commissioner is not only to deal with recom-
mendations for present problems or plans, but have the foresight our early
platters had to protect and encourage future generations' use of'the co~uOnSo
With green space disappearing, a ~ralk oh the co~ons, a fishing line in
the water or a view of a sunrise or sunset may be a "jewel" to these future
residents.
McCombs-Knutson Associates, Inc.
12800 Industrial Park Blvd.
Plymouth, MN 55441
612/559-3700
1-800-328-8322 Ext. 784
August 21, 1987
Engineers
Planners
Surveyors
Mr. Ed Shukle, Or.
City of Mound
5341 Maywood Road
Mound, MN 55364
SUBOECT:
Mound, Minnesota
1987 Seal Coat Project
Final Payment Request
MKA #6173
Dear Ed:
Enclosed is Allied Blacktop's Final Rayment Request in the amount of
$35,333.43 for the 1987 Seal Coating. Since this work is fully completed, we
are not recommending any amount be retained.
We have reviewed the project with you street superintendent and find that
the work was done in accordance with the Plans and Specifications. It is our
recommendation that the Contractor 'be paid in full for this project.
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Very truly yours,
McCOMBS-KNUTSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Oohn Cameron
3C:djk'
Enclosure.
rtl--.
I.--Z
Z~::~
O~
:eded to
VILLAGE OF MOUND
Mound. Union Cemetery
Kathy Lilledah] Ulrlr_k
1036 Manning Ave. S., Alton, MN.
55O01
vision
~t:e
A Lot
6-]0-86
Burials
89 Graves 1;2;3;4:7 g 8 (-~'"~'~;)
~ity Cnuncil approved transfer of these
A
graves from Gertrude C. Koehler, heir of S. W. Koehler.
Age Date of Death Mortician
B&C
Mich0el J. O~lun~
40 2-6-87
Hube? Fune?¢l Ho~e~ Mound