The URL can be used to link to this page

1989-03-28-CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA MOUND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING 7:30 P.M., TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 1989 COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. Pledge of Allegiance. 10. Approve the Minutes of the March 15, 1989, Regular Council Meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: Delinquent Utility Bills. Presentation by Hennepin County Department of Transportation on Proposed Signal Lights at Lynwood Blvd. and Commerce Blvd. CASE ~89-803: Gregory & Sandra Bastien, 2551 & 2541 Lakewood Lane, Part of Lot 2 and all of Lot 3, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit D, PID #24-117-24 21 0043. Pg. 886-891 Pg. 892-893 Pg. 894-914 REQUEST: Minor Subdivision. Pg. 915-921 CASE ~89-805: Joseph Lemmerman, 5950 Bartlett Blvd., Lot 55, Auditor's Subdivision 168. REQUEST: Minor subdivision & variance, lot width and front yard setback. Pg. 922-935 CASE ~89-804: Mark & Stacey~Goldberg, 4853 Island View Drive, Lot 4, Block 14, Devon. REQUEST: Variance nonconforming lot, side yard setback, and front yard setback. Pg. 936-961 ~UBLIC HEARING: Proposed Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Year XV Program. Request for Street Access and Utilities for Minnetrista property owned by Mark Neilson (western boundary of Mound). Comments & Suggestions from Citizens Present. Pg. 962-971 Pg. 972-977 Page 884 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Set Date for Public Hearing to Consider a Conditional Use Pe it for a, Class II Restaurant, Fast Food and Convenience Drive-Up Window in the B-1 Central Business. District located at 5307 ,Shoreline Blvd. (SUGGESTED DATE: April 11, 1989) Pg. 978 Approve Purchase of 1989 Street Sweeper. Pg. 979-980 Set Bid Opening Date for 1989 Seal Coat Program (SUGGESTED DATE: March 31, 1989, 10:00 A.M.) Pg. 981 Commercial Dock License - Chapman Place Marina Pg. 982-999 License Renewals - Tree Removal - Hawker/Food Vendor Pg. 1000 Payment of Bills. Pg. 1001-1015 INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: ao Be Ce. February 1989 Financial Report as prepared by John Norman, Finance Director. Pg. 1016-1017 Hennepin Couhty Advertising Campaign f~r Promotion of Recycling. Article from Mpls. Star Tribune - March 20, 1989. Pg. 1018-1023' REMINDER: Please attend the Planning Commission Meeting on'Monday, March 27, 1989. Meeting begins at 7:30 P.M. Agenda includes a conceptual public hearing on housing and property maintenance issues. The meeting is being conducted by the Planning Commission, but it is a j6int meeting with the City Council. REMINDER: Economic Development Commission interviews will be held Saturday, April 1, 1989, 9:30 A.M., City Hall. Enclosed are eleven letters and/or resumes from the applicants. The new ordinance also requires a Council- member to serve on the Commission. Please be thinking about who that person should be. Also enclosed is a copy of the adopted ordinance. Pg. 1024-1050 E. Planning Commission Minutes of March 13, 1989. Pg. 1051-1056 F. Park Commission Minutes of March 9, 1989. Pg. 1057-1063 Page 885 29 ,:arch 15, 1929 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - F~RC~ 15, 1989 The City Council of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Wednesday, March 15, 1989, at 7:30 P.M., in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Steve Smith, Councilmembers Andrea Ah- tens, Liz Jensen, Phyllis Jessen, and Skip Johnson. Also present were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr, Building Official, Jan Bertrand; Police Chief, Len Harrel!; Finance Director, John Norman; Liquor Store Manager, Joel Krumm; City Engineer, John Cameron; Acting City Clerk Linda Strong; City Attorney Curt Pearson, and the following interested citizens: Robert Cuthill, Charles Stanisich, Clyde Wallin, Jim and Denise Roberge, Richard indritz, and Stephen Burke. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in atten- dance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. MINUTES MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Ahrens to approve the minutes of the February 28, 1989, Regular Meeting as sub- mitted. The vote was unanimously in-favor. Motion carried. SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES RECOGNITION Mayor Steve Smith had attended a banquet and awards ceremony Sponsored by Senior Community Services.' He presented two' plaques the City had received recognizing the City's support of this program. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Street Vacation: Unnamed Extension'of Arbor Lane~ Southeasterly 12 feet of Southwesterly 40 feet of Lo~ 1, Skarp .& Lindquist,s Ravenswood. John Cameron updated the'Council on this issue and presented the resolution. He estimated the amount needed in escrow to be $1060, with a refund if these funds were not used. The Planning Commission and Park Commission recommends approval. The Mayor opened the Public Hearing. Richard Indritz, attorney for Mr. Wallin spoke on his behalf and he agreed with the resolution. The Mayor closed the Public Hearing. Jessen moved and Johnson seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #89-27 RESOLUTION VACATING THE CITY INTEREST IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY TWELVE (12) FEET OF LOT 1, SUBDIVISION OF LOTS I AND 32, SKARP AND LINDQUIST'S RAVENSWOOD AND AUTHORIZING CONVEYANCE OF SAID PROPERTY 3O March 15, 1989 TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CASE ~89-801: STEPHEN BURKE, 1741 BLUEBIRD LANE, LOTS 11 &' 12 EXCEPT THE WESTERLY 2 FOOT, BLOCK 9, DREAMWOOD Request: Fence Height Interpretation & Possible Variance Jan Bertrand, Building Official, explained the history of the case. The motion made by the Planning Commission to approve the variance ended with a split vote, therefore, it was not approved. Jim and Denise Roberge spoke against approval of the variance, due to the fence being over 72 inches as it states in the Fence Ordinance. The Council discussed possible solutions. Jan ex- plained that due to interpretation of the Fence Ordinance, that it was difficult to enforce, since the ordinance also states to allow space for drainage. Roberge's diminished lake view was discussed. However, these are not "lakeshore" properties. The Council discussed the need for the wording of the Fence Ordinance to be clarified. This will be referred to the Planning Commis- sion for clarification.of'interpretation, reqarding ma~er~al length, allowable drainage space and maximum height of fence. Motion made by Johnson, seconded by Jensen to deny the request for a fence height variance. The motion passed with Ahrens, Jensen, Johnson and Smith in favor., Jessen opposed. Motion made by Jessen, seconded by Johnson to support the Building Officials interpretation of the Fence Ordinance pursuant to Section 23.502. The motion failed with Jessen in favor and Ahrens, Jensen, Johnson and Smith opposed. COMMERCIAL DOCK LICENSE - CHAPMAN PLACE MARINA City Manager, Ed Shukle, introduced this item and Mr. Bob Cuthill. Mr. Cuthill 'stated that the LMCD had approved their plans for the dock configuration. The management of this marina is Waterfront Specialities, Inc., a totally separate business from-the Chapman Place Association. Mr. Cuthill explained that the dock count has been reduced from 51 to 27 and confined within the appropriate area. The marina land is a separate tax parcel from the Chapman Place Complex. The boat slips would be avail- able to the general public, not just Chapman Place residents. The Council was concerned about information needed from the LMCD that was unavailable at present. Motion made by Johnson, seconded by Ahrens to table this item until the March 28, 1989 meeting when the Mound repre- sentative of the LMCD could attend. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. March 15, 1989 1988 DEPARTMENT HEAD i~NNUAL REPORTS The following Department Heads presented their 1988 annual reports to the City Council: Joel Krumm, Liquor Store Manager; Len Harrell, Police Chief and John Norman, Finance Director. PARK COMMISSION REPORT, PHYLLIS.JESSEN, CITY COUNCIL LIAISON Councilmember Phyllis Jessen reported that the Park Commission renewed 1989 contracts with Community Services for lifeguards and the summer parks program. The April 13, 1989 meeting of the Commission will be at A1 & Alma's at 7:00 PM, to discuss Chester Park and they will not reconvene at City Hall that evening. The parks that will be receiving new playground equipment are: Seton Park, Langdon Park and Tyrone Park. The Park Commission would like to have the jurisdiction over the recreational use of the wetlands. The Commission would like the police department to en- force the "no motorized vehicles on the park lands" to stop snow- mobiles from driving all over the parks. The suggestion was to set up some kind of trailways for this use. COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT There were no comments or suggestions. RESOLUTIONS REGARDING REDUCTION IN STATE AID ROAD FUNDS The Council discussed the proposed resolution that would go to the State Legislature to not remo=e the "sunset" provision so state aid would continue to go to the City streets and county roads. Jessen moved and Jensen seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #89-28 FUNDING FOR STREET CONSTRUCTION IN MIN- NESOTA The vote Was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. DISCUSSION: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DATES The Council discussed the next date for the Committee of the Whole meeting. The date was set for Tuesday, April 18, 1989 at 6:30 PM. PAYMENT OF BILLS MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Ahrens, to authorize the payment of bills as presented on the pre-list in the amount of $156,101.59, when funds are available. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 32 March 15, 1989 CITY NEWSLETTER City Manager, Ed Shukle, asked the Council for input on the name of the new upcoming Mound Newsletter'. There was no action .taken at this time. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION City Manager, Ed Shukle, stated that he has received 11 applica- tions for the six positions on the new Economic Development Com- mission. The Council decided on Saturday, April 1, 1989 at 9:30 AM to conduct interviews with these applicants. Mr. Shukle also mentioned that a representative from the Council needs to be ap- pointed for this commission. SET PUBLIC HEARIN~ DATE City Manager, Ed Shukle, stated a public hearing date needed to be set. to consider a conditional use permit for a Class II res- taurant fast food and convenience drive-up window in the B-1 Central Business District located at 5307 Shoreline Blvd. The restaurant would sell .salads and sub sandwiches.- Motion made by Ahrens, seconded by Jessen to set April 11, 1989 at 7:30 PM, for a public hearing on the conditional use permit for a Class II restaurant fast food convenience drive-up window, 5307 Shoreline Blvd. .The vote was unanim- ously in favor. Motion carried. RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK AS THE 1988-1989 PRESIDENT OF THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL CLERKS & FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND COMMENDING HER FOR THIS HONOR City Manager, Ed Shukle, stated that Fran Clark had completed a most successful year as the President of the MCFOA, and asked the Council to pass this resolution as such in her honor. Smith moved and Jessen seconded the following resolution: .RESOLUTION #89-29 RECOGNIZING FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK AS THE 1988-1989 PRESIDENT OF THE MINNESOTA MUNICIPAL CLERKS & FINANCE OFFICERS AS- SOCIATION AND COMMENDING FRAN FOR THIS HONOR The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. PROCLAMATION TO DESIGNATE APRIL 9 - 15, 1989 AS "NATIONAL BUILD- ING SAFETY WEEK" Building official, Jan Bertrand, informed the 'Council that during this week, several respective building officials from around the metro area will be conducting information seminars at local 33 March 15, 1989 building stores, her area being Knox in Hopkins. She then played a video tape about building codes and their importance. This tape may be shown on local Cable during that week to help inform the public. Jessen moved and Johnson seconded the following resolu%ion: RESOLUTION #89-30 ADOPTION OF PROCLAMATION TO DESIGNATE APRIL 9, 1989 THROUGH APRIL 15, 1989 AS "NATIONAL BUILDING SAFETY WEEK" The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: ae February 1989 Monthly Reports as prepared by the Department Heads. B. L.M.C.D. mailings since last packet. Notice of Public Hearing on Tipping Fee Reduction Schedules, Solid Waste Hauler Liceose Fee and Special Fees in Accord- ance wi~h Hennepin County Solid Waste Designation Ordinance - Tuesday, March 14, 1989, at 10:00 A.M. in the County Board Room at the Government Center downtown. REMINDERS: Senior Community Services Volunteer Recognition Party on Wednesday, March 15, 1989, 4-6 P.M., at the Eisenhower Community Center, 1001 Highway 7, Hopkins. March 14th regular meeting has been rescheduled to Wednesday, March 15. League of~Minnesota Cities 1989 Legislative Action Conference - March 29, 1989, at the Radisson Hotel in St. Paul. If you plan to attend, please let Fran know by March 20, 1989, so that advance registration can be made. On-site registration is $10.00 more per person. Discussion regarding Hennepin County proposal to install signal light at Commerce Blvd. and Lynwood Blvd., removing crosswalk at Ben Franklin and blocking pff entrances to Coast to Coast lot from 'Commerce Blvd. will be held at the March 28, 1989, regular Council Meeting. Hennepin County officials will be here to present the proposal. A news release will be issued in the March 20th editions of the Laker and Sailor. F. Monthly Report from L.M.C.D. Representative, Tom Reese. 34 March 15, 1989 MOTION made by 'Jessen,seconded by Johnson, to adjourn at '11:20 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager Linda Strong, Acting Clerk g?/ Delinquent Water and Sewer 22 2320 122 $ 63.85 22 2320 242 188.28 22 2320 362 124.70 22 2320 722 108.26 22 2320 841 87.05 22 2350 333 138.15 22 2380 664 127.74 22 2382 393 163.63 22 2382 481 87.00 22 2470 031 93.98 22 2560 063 115.93 22 2590 481 76.96 22 2592 511 99.46 22 2592 993 69.38 22 2596 273 210.87 22 2596 484 140.20 22 2596 841 344.77 22 2598 751 393.09 22 2620 091 224.63 22 2680 064 64.68 22 2740 032 226.14 22 2740 124 88.46 22 2800 301 134.08 22 2800 601 225.75 22 2830 482 112.71 22 2860 152 131.77 3/23/89 22 2860 212 22 2980 121 22 3010 ~34 22 3100 182 22 3100 331 22 3100 541 22 3102 395 22 3102 422 22 3102 545 22 3102 634 22 3130 091 22 3160 062 22 3160 091 22 3160 543 22 3162 061 22 3200 122 22 3230 031 22 3370 242 22 3460 031 22 3630 041 22 3730 092 22 3730 151 22 3730 331 · 22 3880 781 22 4040 213 $118.95 153.07 100.91 84.43 303.74 213.64 86.78 76.36 212.07 132.90 87.15 77.87 332.95 161.13 112.68 102.43 196.78 134.72 87.94 101.28 270.19 198.43 108.36 79.86 149.78 $7525.92 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WOF P(S 320 Washington Ave. South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 935-3381 February 2, 1989 Mr. Lan Harrell, Chief Mouqd Police Department City of Mound 53~! Maywood Road Mound, MN 59364 Dear Chief Harrell' In respohse to your request of December 7, lP88 our department has reexamined the pedestrian crossing problems on CSAH IlO and CSAH i5 in Mound. Your request was prompted by the continui.ng pedestrian accident incidents at the midblock cross- walk on Commerce Boulevard between Shoreline Boulevard and'Lynwood Boulevard, and pedestrian complaints at the House of Moy crossing located on Shoreline Boulevard one half block east of Commerce Boulevard. Pedestrian crossing problems in Mound, particularly at the Commerce Boulevard midblock location, have been'of concern and the'subject of study for quite some time. The attached report, "CSAH l!O Pedestrian Crossings in City of Mound - Report Number 2", is the latest of such investigations. This report was being prepared at the time of your contact in Oecember, iP88. "Report Number 2" outlines previous reports that have been prepared, discusses the results of meetings and actions taken in efforts to reduce the pedestrian hazard; and examines the most recent endeavor of attempting to develop a traffic signal warrant at the intersection of Commerce and Lynwood. The report concludes that technically such a warrant cannot be developed even though the adjacent parking lot .traffic might all be diverted to Lynwood in order to gain access to and from Commerce Boulevard. Despite the ~tudies and reports that have been prepared, the various actions (or inactions) that have (or have not) been undertaken, and the attempts to justify traffic signals, the perplexing pedestrian crossing hazard persists. As you are aware, the pedestrian accidents that have occurred at this location are typified by a vehicle southbound in the left lane on Commerce stopping for pedestrians within the midblock crosswalk crossing Commerce from east. to west. The pedes- trians being shielded from view by the stopped vehicle, step out in front of a second vehicle southbound in the right lane. The awareness of the presence of the pedestrians by the involved motorist, and vise versa, is obviousl'y missing. Five such accidents have occurred within the past five years at this location. The latest two happened last fall. The first occurred on October 12, and the second on November ii. HENNEPIN COUNTY on equal opportunity employer Mr. Lan Harrell, Chief February 2, 1989 Page.2 Suggestions have been made for the installation of special signs or flashing lights at this mtdblock crosswalk, However, experience has shown that such devices would only provide superficial treatment and could not be expected to contribute to solving the safety problem. A flashing light, if installed, could even aggravate the problem due to its close proximity to the railroad control signal at the Dakota Line crossing and the traffic signal at Shoreline. South- bound Commerce traffic could be subjected to conflicting traffic indications from the three devices, Furthermore, special signs or flashing lights would not address the shielded pedestrians - right lane vehicle awareness problem. Neither device could be designed to forewarn the motorist or the pedestrian of this hazardous condition. The persistence and severity of the problem begs for more positive control. The conflict of the pedestrian/vehicle movements must be eliminated. The following recommendations will achieve that objective: Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Commerce and Lynwood. This device would be equipped with pedestrian WALK-DON'T WALK indications for all four crosswalks. The ~outh crosswalk of this intersection plus the north crosswalk of. the existing signalized intersection at Commerce and Shoreline would serve as the exclusive pedestrian crossing locations within this block. 2) Eliminate the driveways on the east side of Commerce which serve the parking lot in the southeast quadrant of the Commerce-Lynwood intersection and erect a continuous fence (no openings) on the east Commerce property line immedi- ately behind the sidewalk from Lynwood to the Dakota Line crossing. The fence would serve as a deterrent for midblock pedestrian crossings between the parking lot and the west side businesses, and would help direct pedes- trians to the protected crossings at the traffic signals at either end of the block. Access to the parking lot would be regulated to Lynwood Boulevard. 3) Install signs at appropriate locations along both sides of Commerce directing pedestrians to cross only at the signalized intersections. Please-review these recommendations from the City's perspective. We will be most happy to meet with you to further discuss the recommendations and their ramification at your convenience. ~nn~e.rely' County Traffic Engineer OLH:gk Attachment cc: Patrick B. Murphy CSAM !10 Pedestrian Crossings in City of Mound - Report Number Background A report entitled 'CSAH 110 Pedestrian Crossings in City of Mound' was prepared in December of 1987. The report was prepared in response to concerns of pedestrian safety on CSAH 110 (Commerce Blvd.) between the intersection of CSAH 15 South (Shoreline Blvd.) and CSAH 15 North (Lynwood Blvd.). The report found that neither a traffic signal nor a four-way stop could be justified at the intersection of Commerce and Lynwood. However, in order to achieve greater pedestrian safety the report recommended that; 1) the mid-block crosswalk on Commerce between Shoreline Blvd. and Lynwood Blvd. be eliminateO, 2) a pedestrian crosswalk be established at"the normal south crosswalk location of the Lynwood junction, and 3) WALK-DON'T WALK pedestrian indications be provided at the north crosswalk of the signalized Shoreline intersection. A copy of the report appears as Attachment A. The report was submitted to the City of Mound for review. On May 26, 1988, Vern Genzlinger and Dennis Hansen appeared before the City Council'of Mound to discuss the findings and recommendations of the report. Precipitating from this meeting was agreement to proceed with recommendation 3 of the report, and to undertake further study into the possible development of a traffic signal.warrant at-the intersection of Commerce and Lynwood. It became quite apparent that the City Council would be reluctant to accept report recommendations 1 and 2. The Council is convinced that the businesses along Commerce are dependent upon the existing mid-block crosswalk for easy access to their establishments. Further Studies Further traffic stOdies were undertaken to determine if a traffic signal warrant could be developed at the Commerce/Lynwood inte:rsection. It was reasoned that if traffic using the parking lot in the south east corner of this intersection were unable to leave (exit} the lot via the Commerce driveways, all such traffic would be "forced" to use Lynwood for access to Commerce. By superimposing the traffic leaving the parking lot onto the existing Lynwood traffic, comparison of the resultant traffic volume could be made with the signal warrants. Traffic. entering and exiting Commerce from the parking lot was counted between the'hours of 6:00 AM and 10:00 PM on August i? and i8, i988, typical weekdays {See Attachment B). During this study the number of pedestrians crossing Commerce was also recorded. During the i6 hour study period, 625 vehicles entered the parking lot directly from Commerce; however, only 368 left the parking lot accessing directly onto Commerce. 428 pedestrians crossed Commerce - 329 in the marked mid-block crosswalk while 99 "J-walked" between the crosswalk and Lynwood. Study Results Attachment C shows the results of superimposing the traffic leaving the parking lot onto the existing Lynwood traffic. The basis used for the Lynwood traffic was a 16 hour turning movement study taken at the Commerce/Lynwood intersection in October of 1987. As may be seen on Attachment C, pages 1-3, the combination of Commerce and Lynwood traffic does not yield eight simultaneous hours of warrant when compared to the requirements of either Warrant 1 or Warrant 2. The resultant volumes were also weighed against Warrant il, Peak Hour Warrant, but again the traffic volume fell somewhat short of warrant (See Attachment-C, pages 1 and ~). Thus, even though additional traffic can be-diverted to Lynwood by imposing parking lot egress restrictions, this additional traffic movement is not of sufficient magnitude to create justification for a traffic signal at the Commerce/Lynwood intersection. Attachments OLH:gk 1/20/89 Mound r oou,.. ,. 1 on Pedestrian crossings of CSAH l!O (Commerce Boulevard) in the vicinity of its Junctions with 6SAH i5 in the City of Mound have become of concern, This concern was intensified wlth a recent pedestrian accident that happened on September 30, 1987. This mishap occurred at the designated pedestrian crossing of Commerce Boulevard located midway between ~ o ~h. north and south Junctions of CSAH !5. This reoort will examine the current pedestrian crossing situation in this vicinity and set ror:h recommendations for remedial action to help alleviate the hazard faced by the pedestrian in crossing Commerce Boulevard. Road,'ay Data CSAH 110 between the north and south junctions of CSAH 15 is 48 feet wide curb to curb. The roadway is paint striped for four lanes of moving traffic (two lanes in each diYection). Sidewalks are inplace on both sides of the route. A traffic signal controls traffic at the south CSAH 15 junction. The north CSAH 15 Junction is controlled by a two way stop with CSAH 15 (west) and tynwood Boulevard stopped and CSAH 110 traffic uncontrolled.- The distance along CSAH i10 between the north and south junctions of CSAH I5 is approximately 350 feet. A painted and signed pedestrian crosswalk across CSAH 110 is located approximately midway between the CSAH i5 intersections. A railroad track crosses CSAH !!0 jus~ north of ~he south CSAH 15 junction. Traffic volumes on CSAHs llO and 15 are shown below. CSAH 15 (Eynwood 3,150 CSAH 15 (Shoreline Blvd.) 12,100 0000 .~ 1986 Average Annual Daily Traffic Volume · ATTACHMENT "A" page 2 Studies Studies gathered to assist in the evaluation of the pedestrian crossing problem on CSAH 1!0 were as follows' 1) A full 16 hour turning movement study was obtained at the intersection of CSAH 110 and the north junction of CSAH 15 (Lynwood Blvd.). .The study was taken between tme hours of 6'00 AM and 10'00 PM on TuesOay, October 6 and Thursday, October 8. 1987. A complete review was made of accidents that have occurred along CSAH 110 (Commerce Boulevard) at and in the vicinity of the north and south junctions of CSAH 15 for the years 1982-86. In addition, existing file studies within this area were reviewed and observations of pedestrian crossings and traffic operations were made. The results of the 16 hour turning movement study showed that the intersection is somewhat below the traffic volumes necessary to warrant more stringent traffic control such as a traffic signal or a four-way stop. Pedestrian movements across Commerce Boulevard at this intersection were observed to be 99 during the 16 hour period. 80 of these were made in the north crosswalk of the intersection and 19 in the south crosswalk. It should be noted that the south-crosswalk is not striped with crosswalk paint markings. Accident 'recorCs of the two intersections of Commerce Boulevard with CSAH 15 and the mid-block area between were reviewed. 'The table below shows an annual break down dC vehicular and peCestrian accidents'at th~se locations. 1982-86 Accidents - CSAH 110 and CSAH 15 Scut'h Junction Mid-Block North Junction- TOTAL Vehicular Pedestrian Vehicular Pedestrian Vehicular Pedestrian 1982 5 ~ 1 0 . 2 0 11 1983 3 0 0 1 4 0 8 1984 4 0 1985 5 Includes one bicycle, accident. The three 1982-B6 mid-block pedestrian acciOents plus the mishap that happened on September 30, 1987 are described as follows. The information was obtaineO from the police accident reports. June 8. 1983. Wednesday. 3:55 P.M. - Vehicle #1 was entering CSAH 110 from a parking los on the eest side o? CSAH 110 and was attempting to turn left to proceed south on CS~H 1!0. A pedestrian in the mid-block crosswalk was attempting to cross from the west side of CSAH 110 to the east side. Vehicle ¢2 southbound on CSAH 110 blocked driver ¢!'s vision-of the pedestrian. Vehicle ¢1 struck the pedestrian. Pedestr.ian sustained injury but the accident report does not state the severity. -ATTACHMENT "A" page 3 ;,;ne 2, !95~.. Saturday, !:40 P.M. - A peoestrian was crossinG CSAH 1!0 From east to west near the railroa~ tracks (not in the marked crcsswslk~. A soutnbounO truck in ~otorc¥cle which w~s southbound in the riQht l~ne. Hotorc~cle ~trufk pedestrian. Vet7 minor injur7 to the pedestrian. Seotember 22. !986. Monday, 4'40 P.M. - Vehicle #1 was southbound in right lane of CSAH !~O. vehicle #2 southbound in left lane of CSAH 110. Vehicle ~2 blocked Vehicle ~i's vision. Two pedestrians ages 5 and 2 years in'the crosswalk ran into the left fender of Vehicle ~!. Pedestrians sustained some injuries but were checked and released by ambulance attendents .from Waconia. September 30. 2987. Wednesday. 4:40 P.M. - Vehicle #l was southbound in right lane of CSAH ~0. Vehicle #2 southbound in left lane of CSAH 110 stopped for pedestrians in the crosswalk. Vehicle ~2 blocked Vehicle fI's vision of two peOestrians ages 5 and ~ years crossing the roadway from east to west in the crosswalk. Pedestrians stepped' out in front of Vehicle ~. Vehicle #1 struck both bedestrians. Both bedestrians were injured but the report states that both were moved before officers arrived. One characteristic that is evident in all of these accidents is that the driver's vision of, the pedestrian(s) was obscured by another vehicle. This is not an uncommon occurrence on a multilane roadway particularly when the first vehicle stops to allow pedestrians to cross and the driver of a following vehicle in an adjacent lane has the vision of the pedestrian bl-ocked by the stopped vehicle. The unaware pedestrian can easily be 'set up' in this type of situation. Examination of the ~ccidents-a~ the south junction of CSAH 15-and CSAH 1!0 revealed that three pedestrians and one aicycle'accident had occurred during the five year accident stuCy period. This intersection is under the control of a traffic signal. the north junction of CSAH 15 (Lynwocd Blvd.) and CSAH 110 no pedestrian or bicycle )cidents occurred in the 1982-86 studY period. Recommendations The !6 .hour traffic count at the north junction of CSAH !!0 and CSAH 15 falls somewhat short of the volumes necessary to justify more stringent traffic control. Therefore, the installation of a traffic signal or a four-way stop cannot be Justified and is not recommended. The following improvements are recommended to help improve pedestrian safety in this vicinity. 1) Eliminate the mid-block crosswalk on CSAH iiO between its north and south intersections with CSAH l~. Attempt to discourage pedestrian crossings at this mid-block location by posting signs stating "Cross Only In Marked Crosswalks.' These signs may be supplemented by a sign with a double headed arrow pointing north anO'south along CSAH 1!0. Establish a pedestrian crossing at the normal south crosswalk location of the north CSAH 13 junction. This location would have a painte~ crosswalk and be signed as 'a pedestrian crossing. :~ Provide WALK-DON'T WALK pedestri'an indications in thj north crosswalk of (he signalized south intersection. This will encourage pedestrians crossings at this location where traffic is controlled. DLH:gk . ATTACHMENT~ "B" page 1 page F ATTACHMENT "B" page 3 ~t- ~'~ ATTACH/~~_'B" pag.e 4 ATTACHMENT "B" page 5 · ATTACHMENT "B" page 6 ATTACHMENT. "B" page 7 _ooc~o oooooooooooooooooooooooo~o0 page ATTACHMENT'"C" page 1 SIGNAL WARP, ANT REVIEW LOCATION CSAH l l0 ~ CSAH 15 (N. Jct.) STUDY ~ 1636 SP~ED LIM.~T 30 MPH $ ? ------D $TUD¥ N/A DATE August, 1988 WAR-~-a~NT # 1. FIIN. VEH PLAINLINE MINOR CONCURRENT 9 1/4 Hr. 2 1/4 Hr.' 2 1/4 Hr. WAR.~A~.NT ~ 2 INT. OF T.R.AFFIC 3 1/2 Hr. 14 1/4 Hr. 3 1/2 Hr. WAR.q.A_NT % 11 900 Veh 150 Veh P -~.A K HR None WARR-~.NTS.MET None NOTE: Driveway traffic added to EAST approach volume. O' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~NOH S393IH3A · ATTACHMENT page 2 0 > I-,. 0 > · ATTACHMENT "C" page 3 Lt.J Z Z "r' C~ O C:) C~ i I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C:~ 0 0 0 0 DATE: >~rch 21. 1989 Public Hearing Herme~in Coumzy Highway Depa:'tment Co,~merce Boulevard Light/Crosswalk Issue ,~].:e .~ael!er/Phi!i~ Lkn_nsing O;~r~ers: Tonka-West Center on Con~merce Eoulevard We will be out of the state at the time of this hearing, therefore we are presenti~ our views via this correspondence. I ~mderstmnd the concern for public safety in providing a safe n._~desnris_n ~Lk-~y across Commerce Boulevard. I have spoken with Dermis Fmm..~en, the HemneDin County Highway Engineer, regarding the proposed so!uticns to thc tr~ffic congestion (both pede£-:rian n.nd vehicular) on Conzmerce .~,ouievard between L?mwood Boulex~rd and the existing "T" intersection at Comnty P~ad 15. Hennepin County proposes to only allow pedestrian crossing at either end of the block, which m~d~.es good ser~e. However, to accomplish this task, the County prcposes to use signa~_e and as a further deterrent to mlace a ~=ti or fence between the current East sidem~lk ~nd the city-leased lot fcr dommt o~m parkin~. A .~destrian wishing to cross from Ben Franklin to the city-leased parking lot would not be deterred from crossing, midstreet by a ~11 or fence beyond the sidewaY{ on the ,East side-. So,. if th~ fence won't sera'e as ~barrier, ~M install it? It only deters fr°m the attractiveness of do~to~. In my conversation with ~. Hanson on ~rch 20th, he suggested that we provide · access across our prik-ately-o~ed property for the traffic coming from Commerce BoUlevard via L)~wood Boulevard to the neighboring properties (D~ota Rail, Coast-to-Coast ,~,nd the City-leased parking lot) which, due to the ~1! or fence, would become landlocked. This situation would be the result of the County eliminating the current access to those areas directly from a public street. ~. H~ns~n did not, however, offer any Hi~ay fundir~ to us for h~dling the increased traffic across our.property and the subsequent more frequent maintenance to our lot. This is urmcceptable. In addition to the l~ndlocked Parcels, the ineffectiveness of the wall or fence as a deterrent ~nd the unsightliness of the actual barrier, it seems foolish to thi~ that by removing two accesses to a parking lot from a heavily-used'road, traffic problems will. be alleviated or the public's safety will be improved. orcmosed "improvements" of building a barrier wall, etc. will aid ...... ~ zttzr4 values". aac.:,icr~l assessments to the t~es duc to so-called "~' ' ' te,,mn~=~ +~ of our buildin2_, local businessDeoDle,. . will bear the burden of and do not view this "improvement' as beneficial. Walls and fences are for ~rehouse districts. >1o'~:.d's busi:'[ess ccmm'mnity inciudinz Commerce Square, To;~-~a-West Center and other dc~,mtown businesses Lave spent a ~reat deal of time crud moneX successfully revitalizing its ,Jc;~-n%o:,m. A wall or fence alon~ nnin street would not be "'~ ...... bus a £t,ap Lack:cards. P.S. To the Hound Cit}? Council Members: We th~-PJ~ you for )-our past support a_nd request [,-our continued support of }k'~n'.d's bu~it'.,css ccm~,~niZ}-, l,;e res~ctful!y recuest that ~. entrance to thc ~rking are~ from ~merce Bo~evard be retained ~d %hat thc ccnstr'uc%icn of a ~rricade wall or fence in do~mtcm~ Homnd not be ~rmit%ed. I b~-ve resided in Mound ~nd o~erated a business here for the ~ms% 32 }-earz. ~ ~o ..... ~.~t, h~s m~de n~crous pro~sals to divert +~ "~ ~=.f~c away from the do~tc~ shoppi~ area, ~{e ~e concerned abou% the safety cf our m~ny senior citizens~ as ~,~el! as other p:,destri~%s d~-~+~- ~nd the safety of ~ople ~ivi~ in the dc~.~to~.~ area. ~,'e kindly request that you ask Hennepin Co'~ty to restudy the c~rcnt proposal ~ni re-explore the pcssibiiit}- of rcrcuti:~ thc dcstructiYe traffic buildup awa}~ from the primary business district. This request 'is shared by the large majority of ourHound business community, I will gladly volm~teer my time if I can be of assis.tance to.the cit}? in this matte~. Proposecl Jqesolul:ion Case No. 89-803 RESOLUTION #89- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE MINOR SUBDIVISION OF LOT 2, EXCEPT THE SOUTHWESTERLY 6' THEREOF, SAID 6' BEING MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2 AND ALL OF LOT 3, BLOCK 3, SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT D, PID #24-I17-24-2]-0043/0042 P&Z CASE NO. 89-803 WHEREAS, the minor subdivision of part of Lot 2 and all of Lot 3, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit D, PID #24-117-24-21-0043/0042 has be~n submitted in the manner required For platting of land under City of Mound Ordinance Code, Section 330 and under Chapter 462 of the Minnesota State Statute and all proceedings have been duly conducted thereunder; and : WHEREAS, an application to waive the subdivision require- ments contained in Section 330 of the City Code has been Fi]ed with the City of Mound; and WHEREAS, said request For waiver has been reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that there are special cir- cumstances affecting said property such that the strict applica- tion of the ordinance would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of his land; and that the waiver is necessary For the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right; and that granting the waiver would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the other property owners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE 'IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City-of Mound, Minnesota: The request of the applicant for a waiver From the provi- sions of Section 330 of the City Code and the request to subdivide property of less than five acres, described as Follows: Lot 2, exbept the Southwesterly 6' thereof, said 6' being measured at right angles to the Southwesterly line of said Lot 2 and all of Lot 3, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit D, PID #24-I17-24-21-0043/0042 Proposed Resolution Case No. 89-803 It is hereby granted to permit the subdivision in the Following manner as per Exhibit "A" (survey): Parcel A: Lot 2, except the Southwesterly 6.00 feet thereof, said 6.00 feet being measured at right angles to the Southwesterly line of said Lot 2; ALSO except that part of said Lot 2 lying Northeasterly of a line Orawn from a point in the Southeasterly line of saiO Lot 2 distant 45.50 Feet Southwesterly from the most Easterly corner of said Lot 2 to a point in the North- easterly line of said Lot 2 distant 200.00 feet Northwesterly From said most Easterly corner, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit D. Parcel B: That part of Lot 2 lying Northeasterly of a line drawn From a point on the Southeasterly line of said Lot 2 distant 45.50 feet Southwesterly from the most. Easterly corner of said Lot 2 to a point on the Northeasterly line of said Lot 2 distant 200.00 Feet Northwesterly from said most Easterly corner, and 811 of Lot' 3, Block 3, Shirley Hills'Unit D. It is determined that the Foregoing subdivision will constitute a desirable and stable community development and it is in harmony with adjacent properties. The City Clerk is authorized to deliver a certified copy of this resolution to the applicant For filing in the office of the Register of Deeds or the Registrar of Titles of Hennepin County to show compliance with the subdivision regulations of the City. This lot subdivision is to be Filed and recorded within 180 days of the'adoption date of this resolution. Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 1989 Page Two Andersen informed the Commission that the ringing is heard over the speaker, and added he can hear it when ne is at his store which is approximately two blocks away. Cossette offered a solu- tion stating he could add a volume control device to the system to reduce the noise, l~ was also suggesteO that the ringing be removed From the speaker system. Concern was expressed in regards to work being done outside the building, Cossette stated they clean, buff, and do mechanical work on vehicles/boats outside. Sohns suggested Cossette explore more alternatives to reduce the noise level, and that the Commis- sioners visit the site and listen to the paging system. Chair Meyer closed the public hearing. Jensen reviewed the City Council discussion stating that the City Council was more con- cerned with the speakers.being used to advertise'sales, etc, The City Council also discussed the future of Lost Lake and how this · paging system would affect a nearby park. MOTION made by Sohns, seconded by Thai, to table the request For a 'Conditional Use Amendment for two weeks so Mr. Cos- sette may look at other alternatives for the operation of his loud speaker paging system.' Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the Planhing Commission as a con- tinued public hearing at their meeting on March 27, 1989. Case No. 89-803: Gregory and Sandra Bastien, 255! & 2541 Lakewood Lane, Part of Lot 2 and 811 of Lot 3, Block 3t Shirley Hills Unit D? P[D #24-117-24-2]-0043. MINOR SUBDIVI- SION.. Building Official, Jan Bertrand, reviewed the applicants request to subdivide the lots to remove the driveway access off From Lot 2 to' allow them to sell the remainder of Lot 2. In previous years six Feet of the southwesterly portion of Lot 2 was sold to remove the neighbors garage from the platted Lot 2. Both lots meet the required lot size of lO,O00 square Feet with Parcel A having 25,850 square Feet and Parcel B having 42,?00 square feet. Parcel A has a 60.4' lot width at the 30' Front yard setback. Parcel A does not have water. Staff recommended approval of the minor subdivision. MOTION m~de by Michael, seconded by Jensen to approve the staff recommendation. Motion carried unanimously. Case wi 11 be heard by th nci 1 March 28, 1989. CASE NO. 89-803 TO: Planning Commission, Applicant and Staff FROM: Jan Bertrand, Building Official ~ DATE: Planning Commission Agenda of March 13, I989 CASE NO.: 89-803 APPLICANT: Gregory and. Sandra Bastien LOCATION: 2551' & 2541Lakewood Lane LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of Lot 2 and all of lot 3, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit D, PID #24-117-24-21-0043 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision EXISTING ZONING: R-I Single Family Residential PROPOSAL: The applicant has applied for a minor subdivision to remove their driveway access off From Lot 2 to allow them to sell the remainder of Lot 2. In previous years, 6 Feet of the south- westerly portion of Lot 2 was sold to remove the neighbors garage From the platted Lot 2. The R-I zoning district requires 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size with a lot width minimum of 60 Feet. Parcel A has 25,850 sq. ft. and the proposed division line wi)l allow 60.4' lot width at the 30' Front yard setback. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivi- sion as requested for Parcel A and B. The abutting neighbors have been notified. This case will be referred to the City Council on March 28, 1989. OB:pi APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION OF LAND Sec. 22.03-a VILLAGE OF MOUND FEE OWNER ~:/~:~'~/~y' /(: ~'4J'7/£/~.x PLAT PARCEL Location end complete legal description of property to be divided: ZONING All support;n~ documentst such as sketch plans~ surveys~ attachments~ etc. must be submitted in 8½" X II" size end/or 14 copies plus one 8½" X I1" copy. (attach survey 'or scale drawing showing adjacent streets, dimension of propesed building lites, square foot area of each new parcel designated by number} A WAIVER. IN LOT SiZE IS REQUESTED FOR: New Lot No. From Square feet TO Square feet RIiS~: Applicant's interest in the property: O~Oner- DATE This application must bi signed by ell the OWNERS of the property, or en expir- ation given why this is not the cass. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approved staff RecommendaTion. DATE 3- 13-89 COUNCIL ACTION Resolution No. DATE APPROVAL OF THIS DIVISION I$ DEPENDENT ON THE LEVYING OF ANY DEFICIENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS BY WAIVER, THE FILING OF THE DIVISION AS APPROVED AND 'FHE NECESSARY PAYMENTOF TAXESBY THE FEE OWNER WITHIN t YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE RESOLUTION OR IT BECOMES NULL AND VOID.. -~\.. \ X~o / , ',~ darie~ cf Lc~ 2 exceot ~he .qouthwesterlv ~ 'feet ~o,-eoc said 6 r,~,-~. ~einc measured at ricn~ anc!es ~c ~he Scuthw,~terlv line of said Lot 2, and al! ef Lc% 3, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit 2, and the lo~atlO~ of all ex~s~ug huild~nq~ anti n drovc~a,~ rherf:on. 15 does Sc~!e: i" = '2".~ :,1,':rk S. (;rot:ri,arq :,5: . l'..'. '.;o. Datum: City cf :qo;::d ' PROPOSE2 LEGAL DE~CRZ~S'IO~<S' (Cnec~ ',,'iuh 'Per:-,:: s of f zee, A. Lct 2, e:<ceDt t~e So:thweszerly 6.(',0 fc,,t ther~.o~, .4::;-: d.00 fc.e~ }, ~nq measured at right angles to the Southwesterly linc ~f ':,~r~ Lot 2; ,'.L~::, ~:>::-, ~,~ =:t~-~ p:,r: Lot 2 iF'lt.: Kcrtheast~rlv of a lihe dra'.,~ :,-c:, a pol:r tn the S ,uti n[;terlv !ir.e cf said Lot 2 distant 4~.50' feet Southwesterly from the host k~aster]v corner ~f said Lot 2 %o a Doir. t in the Ncrtheasterlv !~.(. c f sa~d L<~ i ~l~s,:a~'. ~'~': .9'~ fcct wcsnerly frcr said r~cs~ Eas%.zi:~'.' ccrnc]r, Rlcck 3, Shlri2:. Hiiis Uh'~t_ D. B. That sar~ cf Lot 2 lying Ne~theaster!v :f a line draw: :rcn; a :c.i::~ e;~ the iq2.Sl ::=.-i X~:r~h'..ezl.~rly fr~:- :%::: ; : ~' 21;;,,.: i ::1 : , 2 ! ' i ti :, ShLrlev NLiiS l:'.il 2. ~9 PAR'," ,...OT ~:C ~3 2 (.4.'~e CO , I --I ~'~/i / 30/ / / Plann"~g Commission Minutes March ]3, 1989 Page Four The applicant, Mark Goldberg, spoke on his behalf. Mr. Goldberg submitted a letter signed by three abutting neighbors which states they have reviewed, and approve of his plans for construc- tion which include the second story addition, and garage and kit- chen extension. The Commission clarified that the neighbor's garage, on the west side, is 4' from the mro~erty line and the nome sits towards the west side of the lot. Sohns expressed a concern considering the existing nonconform- ities and expanding outside the existing footprint of the build- ing. Expanding outside the Footprint would intensify the noncon- =ormity. Possible options were discussed and it was determined that tM8 applicant has already researched his alternatives. MOTION made by Andersen, seconded by Jensen to approve the staff recommendation. Motion carried wit~ seven in..fav.or .. (AnderseB, Sohns, Meyer, Jensen, Clapsaddle, Smith, and Michael), one opposed (Thal). Thal oppose'd because he did not Feel: the deck on the west side was necessary, and did not Feel a Varian. ce'-should be granted to allow its construction. This case will be heard by the C!ty Council on March 28, 1989. d. Case No. 89-805: Joseph Lemmerman, 5950 Bartlett Blvd.~ Lot 55, Auditors Subdivision 168, PID #23-117-24-I3-0032. MINOR SUBDIVISION & VARIANCE? lot width and front yard setback. City Planner, Mark Koegler, explained the applicants request as seeking.'approval to subdivide an existing lot into two parcels. Parcel 2 contains an existing home, Fronts on Bartlett Blvd., and has a total lot area of 13,280 square Feet. Parcel ! lies north of the existing home and contains t9,925 square Feet. It also presently contains a structure which has been rented as a residence in the past. Parcel 1 connects to Bartlett Blvd. via a 25 foot wide "neck". The survey indi. cates that an easement will be created over the neck to provide access to the garage on the existing residence. Another applicant proposed to divide this property in May of 1987 in essentially the same configuration. When the case went to the City Council, the application was denied. This case also involves two variances: l) the existing residence currently has a 20 Foot setback From Bartlett Blvd., the required Planning Commission Minutes March 13, 1989 Page Five setback is 30 Feet, and 2) Parcel 1 has a proposed 25 Foot lot width at the front setback from Bart)ell Blvd., the required width at the setback is 60 feet. Both proposed parcels exceeO the minimum I0,000 square Foot lot area requirement. Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision incluOing waiver of public hearing requirements for the creation of Parcels ! and 2 as shown on the Certificate of Survey For Lemmerm~n Con- struction. Additional)y, approval of a 35 ¢oot )ct width variance For Parce) ) and recognition of the existing !0 foot front yard variance for the existing house on Parcel 2 including the conditions stated on the recommendation. The possibility of subdividing Parcel I has been eliminated since the proposed lot size is l'ess than 20,000 square Feet. The Commission reviewed some points of discussion From the pre- vious request and noted some concerns which were raised, such as: the possibility of subdividing Parce] ) For future use, and the · "bottle neck" effect. DoWothy Hallin, of 59)2 Bart.tett Blvd. submitted a letter to the Commission stating reasons why s¼e is opposed to the subdivision. Her main reason For being opposed is decreased privacy to the abutting neighbors. · The Commission noted a letter also received From James Lewis of 592) Beachwood Road. He is also'opposed to the subdivision due to possible loss of privacy and diminishing openness and spa- ciousness of adjoining lots. Beatrice Tangen of 5949 Bartlett Blvd. also spoke in opposition to the proposed subdivision. Setting a precedent For creating "bottle neck" lots in Mound was discMssed.' What would the impact be in Mound if a precedent was set? How many of these lots exist? MOTION made by Sohns, seconded by Thai to deny the staff recommendation for approval. Motion carried five in favor (Andersen, Sohns, C1apsaddle, Jensen, an~ Michael), three opposed (Smith, Meyer, and Thal). Case will be heard by the City Council on March 28, I989. Clapsaddle commented that he would like to Follow-up on research- ing the impact on these type of "bottle neck" subdivisions. Meyer asked the City Planner to keep this in mind For Future dis- cussion when the Comprehensive Plan is completed. March 12, 1989 i{~'}und A' visory Planning Commission Mound City Offices }!ound, ~innesota Dear Commission Officers: ! would like to respond to Agenda item 2. d. regarding Case No. 89-805 to be considered at your Honday, March 13, 1989 meeting at City Hall. I am sorry I cannot be present for the m~ecing to express my position in per$o~ so please accept my written expressions of concern. I would like to oppose the request for a subdivision of Lot 55, Auditors Subdivision 168, PID 923-117-24-13-0032 by owner Lemmerman on {he following grounds: !. At a City Council Meeting of some two years ago a request similar, .if not identical, was opposed by all the neighbors present for hearings and was denied by the City Council. I do not believe there has been any change in the sentiment of the neighbors and I would need to hear a very good. explanation from City officers now if they were to vote to reverse the decision that was rendered then. 2. I once again oppose the subdivision on the grounds this changes the openness and spaciousness of our adjoining lots. Space is important to me. I purchased my lot [Lot 46, Auditors Subdivision 168, PID 23-117-24-13-0021] because it provided a context of space which is so essential to privacy. As you diminish space, you diminish privacy. 3. If it be argued that the request should be granted since subdivision will increase tax revenues to the city, consider the potential negative effect of such a decision on property values if other property owners decided to subdivide and build homes on their property as well. For example, if both Mr. Shidla and I decided to request permission to subdivide on our lots contiguous to the Lemmerman lot and if that were granted (see note) I believe property values would be negatively impacted. I do not wish to see that happen. [NOTE: Unless I am mistaken, there is more than ample space for each of us to subdivide if the same exceptions were granted to us that are being requested by Mr. Lemmerman] I thank you for your consideration. I know you will do what is in the best interest of the neighbors and what is in the best interest of the City of Mound. /Jam6's F. L~wis -~-i Beachwood Rd },found, MN 55364 TO: Planning Commission Members City Staff FROM: Dorothy Hallin, 5912 Bartlett Boulevard DATE: March 13, 1989 SUBJECT: Case No. 89-805 Joseph Lemmerman 5950 Bartlett Boulevard P.I.D. 23-117-24-13-0032 ISSUE - Minor subdivision and variance: setback. lot 'width and front yard INTRODUCTION - As you may recall the previous owner of this property made application for a similar subdivision and variance request in 1987 (Case No. 87-622). At that time the abutting neighbors brought forward several issues regarding their objections to the proposal at the Planning Commission's meeting and on May 26, 1987 the City Council denied the application. DISCUSSION - Most of the original concerns regarding the subdivision of this. lot remain. These include: 1. Shared driveway access for parcel 2. 2. Lot width variance from required 60 feet to 25 feet on Bartlett Boulevard. 3. Installation of sewer and water lines to parcel 1 plus the possible necessity' of a lift station. 4. The proposed subdivision will not conform'to the existing lots in the neighborhood. It will deny privacy to the abutting neighbors. CONCLUSION - The proposed subdivision will not meet the existing neighborhood platting. It will put severe limitations on parcel 2 such as; a.) Shared driveway. b.) No privacy - front or rear yard. Bartlett Boulevard carries approximately 6800+ vehicles per day. With the anticipated development of a Hennepin County Park in Minnetrista this traffic count will undoubtedly increase. In addition the issue of utilities and drainage easements will need to be addressed. The applicant is to be commended for the improvements he has made to the property. But the ~roposed subdivision, as submitted, will have a detrimental affect on the abutting properties resulting in a decreased market value on these properties. It would seem appropriate that a newly created lot would be held to the standards set for subdivision and that they not be approved when a variance is required. PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Hark Koegler, City Planner DATE: March 7, 1989 SUBJECT: Minor Subdivision, Lot Width Variance and Recognition of Existing Front Yard Setback Variance APPLICANT: Joseph E. Lemmerman LOCATION: 5950 Bartlett Boulevard CASE NUMBER: 89-805 VHS FILE NUMBER: 89-310-A7-Z0 EXISTING ZONING: R-1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking approval to subdivide an existing lot into two parcels labeled I and 2 on the Certificate of Survey. Parcel 2 which contains an existing home fronts on Bartlett Boulevard and has a total lot area of 13,280 square feet. Parcel I lies north of the existing home and contains 19,925 square feet of area. It also presently contains a structure which has been rented as a residence. Parcel one connects to Bartlett Boulevard via a 25 foot wide "neck". The survey indicates that an easement' will be created over the neck to provide access to the garage on the existing residence. Another applicant proposed to divide this property in May of 1987 in essentially the same configuration. When the case went to the City Council, the application was withdrawn. In addition to the requested minor subdivision, this case involves two variances. The existing residence currently has a 20 foot setback from Bartlett Boulevard. The R-1 provisions of the zoning ordinance require a 30 foot front setback. Parcel I has a proposed 25 foot setback from Bartlett Boulevard. Zoning standards, require 60 feet. Both Parcels 1 and 2 exceed the minimum 10,000 square foot lot area requirement. 30'30 Harbor Lan. e North 91d,9.11, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN.. 55447-2175 612/553-1350 Lot 55 contains a total area of 33,205 square feet. Due to the configuration of the lot, it is possible to split the property into two equally sized parcels both having approximately 69 feet of frontage on Bartlett Boulevard. This can only occur, however, if the existing house on proposed Parcel 2 is demolished or moved since it would straddle a lot line. The other alternative for splitting the parcel is to create what is commonly known as a neck lot. Neck lots are merely lots with an extension or "neck" that provides frontage to an approved public right-of-way. A number of municipalities such as the City 'of Minnetonka allow neck lots as a part of their zoning provisions. The Hound Zoning Code does not have a provision on neck lots so all parcels are required to meet stated lot widths. When this subdivision was reviewed previously, concern was expressed that Parcel i could be split into two lots in the future. Because of the size of Parcel 1 as now proposed, a lot split in the future could not be accomplished without a lot area variance. That variance may or may not be granted by a future City Council. RECOMHENDATION: Lot 55 has adequate land area to support more than one building site. The proposed division creating the neck lot is a reasonable plan in this case due the location of the existing house and the topography of the site. Concerns regarding use of the Parcel I and the'access ca~ be addressed as part of conditions of approval. Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision including waiver of public hearing requirements for the creation of parcels i and 2 as shown on the Certificate of Survey for Lemmerman Construction. Additionally, approval of a 35 foot lot width variance for Parcel 1 and recognition of the existing 10 'foot front yard variance for the existing house on Parcel 2 is recommended subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall immediately submit legal descriptions conforming to the lot arrangement shown on the Certificate of Survey. 2. The existing building on Parcel I shall be removed prior to issuance of any building permits for new construction. 3. Gradin'g, drainage and utility plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to building permit issuance. 4. One single family residential park charge will be due at the time of building permit issuance. 5. The applicant shall establish a perpetual easement in the area noted as "easement" on the certificate of survey. The easement document shall be reviewed and approved by the City Attorn6y. MayOr and city council TO: City staff Do=otbY Hallin ]~ROI~: Ma~Ch 17, 19B9 D&TZ: , No. 89-805 S~jECT: CaS~_~ JoseF~_.~lett D~ ~_003~ P .~ .~- lot width and front yard · vision and variance: hen of this ~{nor subd~ _.~vioUs °w..a va~ai.nce_ IS$~-. ~"- --~11 the ~j~iv~sion .~k-abutt~n~ ~e~ueSU ~_ h¢ougnu- ~he p~o~ ~he C~== ob~ eR~o"and on meet~n~ _~.~ ~ega~d~ng the aPPl~cat~°n ..~= o~ the ~¢~g~hese ~ncluae _.~a~sl°n o~ A- u . -- moe~ _ _ oposeO neignu The ~ a~ o~ B: --ed lOt pl --- the ~-~e ~ The 1 · _~nO hO~S ~ = ~ em r~ ,_. m ~lt~o ~- ~ .~e~~ _ :~O~ ow~e~ W ·nces- utting P~°pe=t~es will e vacua ~ the ab -ket valUeS%_~ D. The~_~e~intal_ ~,,~lt on t have a de~e=e bo oe_~'1 eSta~e _ o~se w ~ r~ _ ~ %~ ~e ~eW h ~-~ a tot .... ~ ~x W-.~ city ~ _ ~°u~ ~"--r and oer yes,f_ "0 ~e~ --ely 6,S00 __~ _ Bar~ ~ ,.,fth the ~__A traf~u~:_~ the %=~tS mee~ C0N~er day an~ C he ~pc~e~ by Minne%~ ~r ope~ ty [~soaper. ~2~ufremen~ to anY_3 ~n the ~%~j' ~ootage ~'stinP=~i~a sqUan= -' 6. All common driveway areas within the easement area shal7 be constructed to a minimum width of 16 feet of bituminous or concrete surfacing. 7. Pr'ior to this case being placed on the City Council agenda, the applicant shall post an escrow with the City of Mound to cover the cost of the engineering and legal review. The amount of the escrow will be determined by the City of Mound. 8. The shared driveway arrangement is adequate for only two residences. Any future request for a variance to further divide Parcel 1 will not receive a favorable recommendation from staff. :~-~ ~rec, ~o~oq i a~CaT~ON ~0~ SUBD~V~S~O~ O~ ~a~D ~2.~q.:..~ Sec. 22.03-a G3; ~ ~.~:~ D,~/t,,".-~: ~ VILLAGE OF MOUND PLAT FEEOWNER :~o-5~PH E LEm~7~r~W Location and complete legal description of property to be divided: To bedivided as follows: ,Alt supportln~ document.s, suc'h as sketch planst surveys, attachments, etc. must be submitted in 8:~." X )1" s~ze end/or ltl cop~es plus one 8½" X il" copy. (attach survey or scale drawing showing adjacent streets, dimension of proposed building sites, square foot area of each new parcel designated by number) A WAIVER IN LOT SIZE IS REQUESTED'FOR: New Lot No. From Square feet TO Square feet Ap PLIcANT(~ ADDRESS Applicant's interest in the property: {signature) TEL, ~. DATE This application must be signed by all the OWNERS of the property, or an explan- ation given why this is not the case. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Den i ed. COUNCIL ACTION Resolution No. DATE 5- 13-89 DATE APPROVAL OF THIS DIVISION IS DEPENDENT ON THE LEVYING OF ANY DEFICIENT SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS BY WAIVER. THE FILING OF THE DIVISION AS APPROVED AND THE NECESSARY PAYMENTOFTAXESBY THE FEE OWNER WITHIN 1 YEAR FROM THE DATE OF THE RESOLUTION OR IT BECOMES NULL AND VOID. . A list of residents and owners of properly wthn. 350 feet--u-~.~e-~ttached. Cell 348-3271 to order a certified l;st from Hennepin County Prooertv ~tvlslon. I TY OF M3UND PART II Date Fi lecl c:~?-~. Fee $50.00 VAR I ANCE APPL I CAT I ON PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type or print the following information.) Address of Subject Property.S- © Alu& Owner' s Name L.-~c? P~ Owner's Address ~// Applicant's Name (if otheff than owner) Block No. Z%-II -Zq- I% Address Day Phone taring Use o¢ ProPerty: Zoning District Has an application' ever been made for zoning, variance~ conditional use permit, or other zoning procedure for this'property? ~y~ / no . If yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, and provide r~e~olution number(s) \\ // (Copies of= previous resolutions must accompany this application.) I cert i fy that a 1 1 of the above statements and the statements contai ned t n any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are true and ac- curate. ! consent to the entry in or upon the premises described in this app] ication by any authorized official of the City o~: Hound for the purpose of inspecting, or of: posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by ~aw. Applicant's Si'gnature : ~~ Date IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIitl/I/!11111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIII/1117111/1111111 FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Planning Commission Recommendation Denied, )uncil Action: Resolution No. Date VARIANCE APPLICATION Does the present use of the property conform to ~ red.u la.t ions for the zoning district in which it is locat~ Yes ~ No-~. IF no. speci~=y each non-conforming use: Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes (), No (~'. IF no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics of the subject property prevent its reasonable use for a~y of the uses permitted in that zoning district? (\/) tcx:) narrow ( ) topography ( )-soil i_ ,( ) too small (.),drainage ( ) sub-surface ( ) too shallow ( ) Shape (' ) other: specify Was the hardship desc, ribed above created by the action o'F anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted?. Yes' ( ), No (~/~. If yes, explain Was the hardship created by any ot~ep man-made change, such as the relocation of a road? Yes ( ), No (.~.' ~ IF yes, explain ~ANCE APPLICATION C~ase No. Are the conditions of hardship for which you remuest a 'variance peculiar only to the property described in this. petition? Yes No ( ). If no, how many other properties are similarly affected? What is the "minimum" moOification (variance) from the area, bulk, and setback regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use of your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and writ- ten explanat ion. Will granting of the variance be materially detrimental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement of this ordinance? PART I I I SITE PLAN INFORMATION: All supporting documents such as sketch plans,_ attachments, etc.? must be submitted in 8-1/2~xll~ size. If larder drawings are sul:~itted, one must be 8-1/2~xll~, and 15 larger size copies must be provided. For each requested zoning variance procedure, a sire'plan must be attached at a scale large enough for clarity show- ing the following information: Location, area, and dimensions of existing and proposed: (Lot(s), building(s), driveway(s)/street access, off-street parking, and utl. lities. Existing and proposed elevations. Distance between: building and front, side and rear lot lines; principal· building and accessory buildings; principal building and prinbipal buildings on adjacent lots. Location of: signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. Indicate "north" compass direction. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the city staff and applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Survey for:, ~1~ I~A ~J ~Ol~J~i-' Job No. ~ Bk. ~'.%'5- pg, __ Lo'l" I 'RECEIVED., FEB 2 ;7 ~ I I-IF_RF.J]y CERTIFY THAT THIS I$ ~ TRUE ~NI:) CORRECT REPRESENTATION OF TILE[ 80UNDARIF..~ OF' ' "/-A-/' ~5, AuTITo.~. 5 .5~B o/u/~ /~J Ho. )~, ~ COUN'FY, MINNESOTA SURVEYED BY ME THIS DAY OF ,19~. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 320 Washington Ave. South Hopkins, Minnesota 55343-8468 935-3381 March 3, 1989 Joe Lemmerman 6241 Oeerwood Drive Mound, Minnesota 55364 Re: Access to Bartlett Boulevard Joe: As we discussed, Henneptn County approves the concept o? a shared driveway to serve the lots at 5950 Bart]att Boulevard, County Road 110, in the City of Mound. An easement for a~cess to serve Parcel 2 should 6e executed to ensure permanency and we strongly recommend widening the driveway to 16 feet or more to ease circulation, at least within the easement area and out to Bartlett. On site turnarounds should also be provided to preclude backing onto Bartlett. Thanks for the timely inquiry and please call with any questions. Sincerely, David K. Zetterstrom Entrance Permit Coordinator DKZ: pi cc: Jan Bertrand, City of Mound HENNEPIN COUNTY an equal oppodunity employer ~z) RD EAST OD .~P (4) 7O I2; 74 I~ I I oO 3 tist Summe, 82 80 ,,(Z) ?? ,sse PROPOSED RESOLUTIO~ CASE NO. 89-804 RESOLUTION 89- RESOLUTION TO RECOGNIZE A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AND TO ALLOW THE ADDITION OF LIVING SPACE, STORAGE SPACE AND DECKS FOR LOT 4, BLOCK 14, DEVON; PID #25-117-24-11-0037 (4853 ISLAND VIEW DRIVe). p & Z CASE #89-804. - , WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for a variance to recognize existing nonconforming front and side yard setbacks and allow expansion of the structure to include additional garage storage space, additional living space on three different levels and decks on two levels, collectively requiring the following variances: A variance from the requirements of Section 23.404 (8) to expand the first floor level (basement) northward a distance of approximately 20 feet. This expansion will not change "the existing exterior d~mensions of the structure. On the west side of the structure, expansion of the garage, living space on levels two and three, and a deck on level two, all within an approximate .5 foot setback requiring a 5.5 foot variance.. Expansion of the third level of the structure to the north within 18.4 feet of the property line requiring a 1.6 foot variance and the addition of a deck with an approximate size of 8 feet by 8 feet on the southwest corner of the structure. 4. Recognition of the existing front yard setback (garage with doors perpendicular to street) of 1.11 feet resulting in a .6.99 foot variance; and, WHEREAS, the property received a variance in t979 (Resolution #79- 484) to allow expansion of the garage on the property; and, .WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request and recommends approval after finding that strict application of the Hound Zoning Code would present practical difficulties to the property owner.in the use of his land. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: That the city does hereby authorize the variances as noted in items 1 through 3 above at 4853 Island View Drive. PID #25 117-24-11-0037. ~ ~ , - The City Council authorizes the existing structural setback violation identified in item 4 above and authorizes the additions to the structure pursuant to Section 23.404, Subdivision (8) with the clear and expressed understanding that the use remains as a lawful, nonconforming use, subject to all of the provisions and restrictions of Section 23.404. It is determined that the livability of the residential unit will be improved by authorizing the following alterations to a nonconforming us'e property due to the narrowness and total size of the lot: Expansion of the first level (basement) to the north with approximate dimensions of 20 feet by 20.4 feet. Expansion of the second level garage on the west side totalling an area approximately 3.4 feet by 8.5 feet. Expansion of second level living areas on the west side' of the s~ructure with approximate dimensions of 7.6 feet by 8 feet and a deck on the south end of the new construction with an approximate size of 8 feet by 8 feet. Expansion of the-third level living areas within an envelope generally defined as being 18.4 feet from the north property 'line, .5 feet from the west property line extending approximately 44 feet from the north property line and over the existin'g second level of the home- with approximate dimensions of 20.4 feet by 36.5 feet. Additionally, a deck will be constructed at the southwest corner of level 3 with a approximate dimensions of 8 feet by 8 feet. This variance is granted for the following legally described property: Lot ~, Block 14, Devon PID # 25-117-24-11-0037 This variance shall be recorded with the county recorder or the Registrar of Titles in Hennepin County pursuant to Minnesota State Statutes, Section 462.3595., Subdivision (4). This shall be considered a restriction on the use of this property. The property owner shall have the responsibility for filing this resolution With Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. The building permit shall not be issued until proof of recording has been filed with the City Clerk. Planni%g Commission Minutes March ]3, ]989 Page Three Case No. 89-804: Mark and Stacev Goldber~, 4853 Island View Drive, Lot 4. Block ]4, Devon, PID ¢25-t 17-24-l]-0037. VARIANCE: NonconForminq lot, side yard setback, and fronl yard setback. City Planner, Mark Koegler, explained the the applicants request. Mr. Goldberg is seeking variances to expand an existing noncon- Forming residential structure. At the present time, the house sits 1.il feet From Island View Drive, has a side yard setback along the west side of .4 feet and has a total lot area of 4,000 square feet. The Mound Zoning Code requires 6 foot side yard setbacks, a 20 foot Front yard setback For the attached garage and 6,000 square Feet of lot area. The proposed modifications include expansion of the existing garage and '].iving spac~..on three different levels. Exhibits. l and 2 were assembled by staff to outline the applicants proposal. The variances being applied For are: 5.6' west side yard variance: including a 3.4' x 8.5' ex- pansion of the garage to "~quare up" the garage space, a 7' extension on the first level to the west to accommodate a kitchen expansion, a second level cantilever, and a second level deck. 2) 1.6' second level Front yard setback variance. 3) Recognize existing l.ll' Front yard setback for the garage. 4) 2,000 square foot lot size variance. 5) Construct a conforming lakeside deck on second level. 6) Expand the basement,leve] northward approximately )2 feet. Staff recommends approval of these variances conditioned upon the following' l) The applicant shall secure all required building permits. 2) ' The garage doors will continue to Face in an easterly direc- tion. 3) The existing boathouse is to be removed from the commons. Discussion The Commission examined each variance individually. They deter- mined the proposed plan For the garage was the most feas.ibly pos- sible arrangement considering the space available. The garage was reviewed positively since it al lows storage and will eliminate vehicles being stored outside. Planning Commission Minutes March I3, 1989 Page Four The applicant, Mark Goldberg, spoke on his behalf. Mr. Goldberg submitted a letter signed by three abutting neighbors which states they have reviewed, and approve of his plans For construc- tion which include the second story addition, and garage and kit- chen extension. The COmmission clarified that the neighbor's garage, on the west side, is 4' From the property line and the home sits towards the west side of the lot. Sohns expressed a concern considering the existing nonconform- ities and expanding outside the existing Footprint of the build- ing. Expanding outside the Footprint would intensify the noncon- Formity. Possible options were discussed and it was determined that the ~pplicant has already researched his alternatives. MOTION made by Andersen, seconded by Jansen to approve the staff recommencl~tion. Motion carried with seven in favor - (Andersen, Sohns, Meyer, Jansen, Ciapsaddle, Smith, and Michael), one opposed (Thai). Thal opposed because he' did not Feel the deck on the west side was necessary, and did not ~eei a variance shOuld be granted to allow its construction. This case will be heard by the C!ty Council on March 28, t989. d. Case No. 89-805: Joseph Lemmermant 5950 Bartlett Blvd., Lo% 55, Auditors Subdivision 168, PID #23-117-24-13-0032- MINOR SUBDIVISION & VARIANCE, lot width and front yard setback. City Planner, Mark Koegler, explained the applicants request as seeking approval to subdivide an existing lot into two parcels. Parcel 2 contains an existing home, Fronts on Bartlett Blvd., and has a totdl lot area of 13,280 square feet. Parcel ! lies north of the existing home and contains I9,925 square Feet. It also presently contains a structure which has been rented as a residence in the past. Parcel ] connects to Bartlett Blvd. via a 25 ~oot wide "neck". The survey indicates that an easement will be created over the neck to provide access to the garage on the existing residence. Another applicant proposed to divide this property in May'of I987 in essentially the same configuration. When the case went to the City Council, the application was denied. This case also involves two variances: l) the existing residence currently has a 20 foot setback From Bartlett Blvd., the required PLANNING REPORT TO: Planning Commission and Staff FROM: Mark Koegler, City Planner~'l~ DATE: March 7, 1989 SUBJECT: Front and Side Yard Setback and Lot Size Variances APPLICANT: Mark Goldberg LOCATION: 4853 Island View Drive CASE NUMBER: 89-804' VHS FILE NUMBER: 89-310-A8-ZO EXISTING ZONING: R-2 COHPREHENSIVE PLAN: Single Family Residential BACKGROUND: The applicant is seeking variances to expand an eXisting nonconforming residential structure. At the present time, the house sits 1.11 feet from the' right-of-way, has a side yard setback along the west side of 0.4 feet and has a total lot area of 4,000 square feet. The Mound Zoning Code requires six foot side yard setbacks, an 8 foot~ front yard setback for the garage and 6,000 square feet of lot area. The modifications proposed include expansion of the existing garage and living.space on three different levels. Exhibits 1 and 2 were assembled by staff to outline Mr. Goldberg's current proposal. At the ~resent time, the house has a walk out and first floor level on the south side. The applicant is proposing to expand the basement (walk out) level northward approximately 12 feet (see Exhibit 1)~ This excavation will occur under the existing home and will not change any of the exterior walls. Additional first floor construction is proposed along the west side of the structure. In this area, a 3.4 x 8.5 expansion 'of the garage is proposed to "square up" the garage space. The west garage wall is also proposed to be extended another 7 feet to the south to accommodate a kitchen expansion. :~030 Harbor Lr~ne North Bldg.l!, Suite 104 Minneapolis, MN. 55447-2175 612/553-1950 Expansion of the house by adding new second floor space is also being proposed. Exhibit 2 identifies the second floor expansion. Along the west side of the home, the second floor expansion.will exten-' ~he we~t-wall of the house a total d~stance ~ app~×~ma~ly 30 feet. The proposed second floor expansion will result in a second floor front setback of approximately 13.5 feet. COMMENTS: In 1979, the City of Hound granted a variance for this property to expand the structure to permit more covered storage space. At that time, the City Council formally recognized the existing front and west side yard variances. The current proposal would intensify both the front and side yard variances due to the southerly expansion of the western garage wall and the second floor expansion which will encroach to the north into the required front yard setback area. In reviewing these types of requests, the Planning Commission and City Council need to interpret the ordinance to determine if either hardship exists or if strict application of the ordinances imposes a "practical difficulty" to the property owner. When t~e City granted the variance in 1979, it essentially determined that reasonable use of the property would be allowed. Again, the question arises as to whether or not the expansion of the living space that ~s.proposed is still reasonable use of the property. The.proposed construction will essentially only impact the western and northern sides of the site. To the west, the adjacent lot contains a garage. The living space of the abutting westerly lot is on the other side of the garage and will not be significantly impacted by the proposed construCtion. The expansion along the west will, however, expand the nonconforming situation by extending the alignment of the wall to the south. The expansion will also impact the north side of the property. The right-of-way for Island View Drive is only 18 feet wide. A number of the properties adjacent to the Goldberg residence have garages that are virtually on the property line. The building setbacks and the narrow width of the street combine to create a very tight space along the front of the residence. This situation creates both aesthetic and traffic concerns. Because of the past issuance of the variance and the circumstances of this case (principally the layout of the property to the west), some expansion of the existing home should be allowed to afford the owners reasonable use of their property. The key question becomes, how much is too much on a 4,000 square foot lot? As was mentioned previously, the western expansion will not significantly impact the adjacent property nor will it be visible to the general public. The northern expansion of the second floor will, however, further limit the normal open space that occurs in front of a residence. Since the right-of-way is so narrow, the appropriateness of such an expansion appears questionable. As a result, staff feel that the applicant should consider expanding the second floor without encroaching over any of the existing garage. This would result in a second floor area that is approximately 18.4 feet from the right- of-way line instead of the 20 feet that is required by ordinance. In his current plan, the applicant is requesting to build within approximately 11.4 feet of the right-of-way line. RECOMMENDATIOn: Staff recommends approval of the requested west side yard variance to allow expansion of the garage and portions of the first and second floors of the residence in substantial conformance with Exhibit 1. It is further recommended that all new construction on the second level occur at least 18.4 feet from the right-of-way line resulting in a variance of 1.6 feet. Additionally, a lot size variance of 2,000 square feet should be recognized to accommodate the referenced improvements. This recommendation for approval is conditioned upon the following: 1. The applicant shall secure all required building permits. 2. The garage direction. doors will continue to face in an easterly i 3'L.,4MD VIEW DE , , co uo s I I LAKE t',4f MMETOMK.4 DEIdOT£$ fROM MOklUMEIJT ,.SET DE::IJOTES IROLI MOk/UME'k/T FOUl,ID i,~LA~D VIEW D~. ,~, L~KE NIl KIKIETOIdKA DELIOT£,..q I/~OLI MOUUMEUT $£T DI~IJOTE$ IROLI I~OL]UlVtEUT FOULID ~ITY OF ~OUND PART II Fee, VARIANCE APPLICATION PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION (Please type or print the ~ollowing inForm~tion.) Address of Subject Property q ~ 5 ~ ISL~ ~'l~ ~ LOt ~' Block Ig Addition $so. oo Owner's Address > ~ E Appl fcant's Name (if other' t'han owner) Address Day Phone' ' tsting Use of~ Property: Has an apolfcation ever been made ~.for zoning, variance, conditional use permit, or o~her zoning procedure Cdr ~his'property? ~ / no . l¢ yes, lis~ da~e(s) o¢ application, action ~aken, and provide resolution number(s) (Cop i es o~ prey j pus reso 1 ut J ohs must accompany th J s 8pp 1 i cat i on. ) I cert i ~y that a 1 1 of the above statements ~nd the statements contai ned i n any reeuired p~peps oF plans to be submitted herewith are true and curate. . ] consent to the entry Jn or upon the premises aescr~bed ~n this ~Ppl JcatJon by any authorized o~icial o~ the City o{ Mound ~or the purpose o~ inspecting, or of posting, maintaining and removing such notices as may be required by law. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: Planning Commission Recommendation Approved staff recommenda¢ion. Date 3-13-89 Jncil Action: R~solution No. Date VARIANCE APPLICATION Does the present use o~ the property conform to ali regulations for the zoning district in which it is locate? Yes ( ), No (~). i~ no, specify each non-conforming use: ~~ /~ /' /~.~ s~L~~. ~s~ Do the existing structures comply with all area, height, bulk, and setback regulations for the zoning district in which it is located? Yes ( ), No (~). ]f no, specify each non-conforming use: Which unique physical characteristics o~ the subject property prevent its reasonable use for a~ of the uses permitted in that zoning district? ( ~ ) tcx~ narrow ( -(~) too sma11 ( ('~) too shallow ( ) topography ( ). drainage .... ( ) ~hape ( ) soil ) sub-surface ) other: specify Was the hardship desc. ffibed above created by the action of anyone having property interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopt.ed?' Yes' ( ), No (~. IE.yes, explain Was the hardship created by any other man-made change, such as the relocation dE a road? Yes ( ), No (~). If yes, explain IANCE APPLICATION Are the conditions of hardship For which you request a variance peculiar only to the property described in this petition? Yes ( ), No (~). IF no, how many other properties are similarly affected? What is the "minimum" modification (variance) from the area, bulk, and setback regulations that will permit you to make reasonable use oF your land? (Specify, using maps, site plans with dimensions and writ- ten explanation. Will granttng of the variance be materially detrlmental to property in the same zone, or to the enforcement oF this ord!nance? PART III SITE PLAN INFORMATION: All supportinq documents such as sketch plansT attachments, etc. T must be submitted in 8-l/2"xll" size. IF larpeF drawinqs are-submitted, one nx~st be 8-.l/Z"xll"? and I5 larqer size copies must be provided. For each requested zoning variance procedure, a site plan must be attached at a scale large enough For clarity show- ing the Ed]lowing information: Location, area, and dimensions of existing and proposed: (LoT(s), building(s), driveway(si/street access, off-street parking, and uti-lities'. Existing and proposed elevations. Distance between: building and Front, sloe and rear lot lines; principal building and accessory buildings; principal building and principal buildings on adjacent lots· Location of: signs, easements, underground utilities, etc. Indicate "north" compass direction. Any additional information as may reasonably be required by the city staff and applicable sections of the Zoning Ordinance. , 527 November 13, 1~79 Councilmember Withhart moved the followi, n~ resolution, RESOLUTION NO. 79 - 484 RESOLUTION TO CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE THE NONCONFORMING USE WHEREAS, owner of property described as Lot 4, Block 14, Devon, Plat 37870, Parcel 5125, PID #25-117-24 11 0037 has requested expansion of a nonconforming use, and WHEREAS, existing nonconforming use pertains to a 6.89 ft street front variance and a 5.47 west sideyard variance and request would enable owner to move an existing wall forward 7 ft between garage and structure for additional storage space in a covered area. r~OW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND MOUND,. MINNESOTA: ' That Counci.1 concurs with the recommendation of the Planning Commission to'recognize the existing nonconforming use of the street front and west side yard variances and approve the request to allow expansion of 7 feet between garage and house for additional covered storage space. A motion'for th~ adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council- member Polston and upon vote being taken thereon; the following voted in favor there- of; Lovaasen, Polston, Swenson, Ulrick and Withhart, the following voted against the same; none, whereupon said resoluti.on was declared passed and adopted, signed by the Mayor and his si.gnature attested b~ the City Clerk. ArteC: CMC City Clerk s/Tim Lovaasen Mayor 0 · I VIEW I I t,,~.,~,~ COMMOtd$ LAKE MI IdLIETONKA :. D£1JOTE$ IROI,.! ~O~JUMEldT SET D£LIOTE$ IROkl NIOILIUNIELIT FOUI, JD I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of the boundaries of: Lot 4, Block 14, DEVON., Hennepin County, Minnesota. thereon, and~ all visible encroachments, if any. from or on said And of the location of all buildings,~, day of land. As,Urveyed by me this Z'~ ~'~ ~/ ~nd Su~eyor, Minn. Reg. No. ,,c. © !- CITY of MOUND March 24, 1989 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND. MINNESOTA 55364 (612) 472-1t55 TO: FROM: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER'- RE: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM - YEAR XV It is again time to consider programs for the Community Develop- ment Block Grant Program administered by Hennepin County. This is the 15th year of the program, hence Year XV. CDBG funds may be used to support and implement a wide range of housing and ,community development activities. CDBG funds are federal monies, distribUted from the Department of Housing and Urban Development to urban Hennepin County. We work with County staff on determining eligibility of programs, technical assis- tance, etc. For the past four to five years, the City of Mound has been in- volved with the continuing program .which involves the Westonka Senior Center and its operation. This center is also funded by the cities of Orono, Spring Park, and Minnetrista. In addition to the Center, we have been involved with the Senior Citizen counseling program and Westonka Rides, which is a primarily Senior utilized bus program. In addition to the Senior Center and counseling program,, we have also spent money on Economic Development activities, rehabilitation of private property and assistance to a local domestic abuse program. Neighborhood park improvements have also been performed with CDBG monies. Attached y'ou will see several documents relating to the Year XV Program for your consideration and a resolution recommending ap- proval of these programs for Year XV. The following programs are proposed: Westonka Senior Center/Operation Senior Citizen Counseling Rehabilitation of Private Property Economic Development Westonka Intervention Social Services - Facility Rental $15,291 4,457 19,259 15,000~ 5,700 4,800 TOTAL CDBG FUNDS YEAR XV AVAILABLE $64,507 Please note above that the Social Services Facility rental repre- sents payments to community Services for an office in their lower level to house a social service coordinator supplied by HennePin County. This project'is in response to a local request made' by a committee of local clergy, community volunteers, area police departments and others who have identified a need for social services in our area. These services are not being provided cur- rently in the area. Persons requiring assistance must find transportation to Ridgedale or downtown Minneapolis. This is difficult to arrange. Poverty levels are very high in our area and services need to be provided. An office staffed by a County employee on a regular basis will assist in addressing this serious problem. Please note in the attached resolution that the $4,800 being requested is subject to change if Hennepin County needs to reduce or eliminate funds in the public service programming area. Larry Blacksted, Hennepin County CDBG Program Representative, will be present at Tuesday's hearing to answer any questions on the proposed Year XV program. March 28, 1989 RESOLUTION NO. 89- RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PROPOSED PROGRAM FOR YEAR XV URBAN HENNEPIN COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS AND AUTHORIZING ITS SUBMITTAL WHEREAS, the City of Mound, through execution of a Joint Cooperation Agreement with Hennepin County, is a cooperat- ing unit in the Urban Community Development Block Grant Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound has developed a proposal for the use of Urban Hennepin County CDBG funds made available to it; and WHEREAS, pursuant to notice being given, a public hear- ing was held in accordance with Title I of the Housing and Com- munity Development Act of 1974, as amended, on March 28, 1989, at 7:30 P.M. in the Mound City Council Chambers; and WHEREAS, the following proposed use of Community Development Block Grant funds was developed and presented at the public hearing, consistent with program rules. Sehior Citizen Counseling (Suburban Community Services) Senior Citizen's Center/Operation Economic Development Rehab. of Private Property Westonka Intervention Social Services - Facility Rental $ 4,457 15,291 15,000 19,259 5,700 4,800 TOTAL $64,507- WHEREAS, the Social Service Facility Rental project is a new project in Year XV; and WHEREAS, it is understood and agreed to by the City of Mound and all parties involved that if Urban Hennepin County finds.it 'necessary to reduce.or, eliminate public service project programs in order to comply with federal requirements, the Social Services project proposed in Year XV is subject to reduction or elimination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, approves the proposed use of Year XV Urban Hennepin County Community Development .Block Grant funds as listed above and authorizes submittal of the above proposal to Hennepin County for consideration by the Citizen Advisory Com- mittee and for inclusion in the Year XV Urban Hennepin County Community development Block Grant Statement of Objectives and Projected Use of Funds. HOME OF THE WESTONKA SENIOR CITIZENS, INC. · 5600 LYNWOOD BOULEVARD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364 (612)472-1600 Ext, 247 or 248 March 13, 1989 Honorable Mayor City Council Members Enclosed is a copy of the 1990 Westonka Senior Center and Westonka Rides budget we are submitting for your funding consideration. Though the outreach activities are a part of our program, their request from Senior Community Services will be sent separately. We plan to attend your Community Development Block Grant pub- lic hearing to submit this funding request. Could you please let us know about the agenda time for the public hearing? westonka Senior Citizens, Inc. wish~to thank'the cities for your support in the past and for your anticipated support in 1990. We are proud to be representative of our community. Sincerely, Doris LeGault President Westonka Senior Citizens, Inc. Westonka Senior Center DL:cmb Enclosure ~~ A Non-prof/t Organ/zation Serving The Communities Of Mound 0 0rono ~ Spring Park ~ ~,linnetrista TITLE AMOUNT W.CTR.DIRECTOR$18,110 O0 Fringes $3,121 O0 Printing-posta $900 O0 General Suppli $200 O0 Training $400 O0 Mileage $250 O0 Westonka Senior Center Budget Request for 1990 0.55 0.15 0.15 MOUND ORONO SPRING PK 55~ 15~ lS~ 0.15 TRISTA 15.~ Sub-total $22,981.00 $12,640 $3,447 $3,447 W.Rides Coord $4,820.00 $2,651 $723 $723 TOTALS $27,801.00 $15,291 $4,170 $4,170 A 3~ SALARY INCREASE'OVER 1989 ('fringes increase aCcordingly) $3,447 $723 $4,170 SENIOR COMMUNITY SERVICES 1001 Highway 7, Hopkins,_Minnesota 55343 933-9311 BOARD of DIRECTORS Joseph Dillon President Merlyn 'Doc' Meier 1st Vice President Alison Fuhr Ed Gerber Secretary Connie McCullough Treasurer Senator G, en Olson At-Large Barbara Thatcher . At. Large Leonard Kopp Past President John Blaser Karl Dansky Robert DeGhetto Ed Fuller Commissioner Tad Jude Walter Levesque Bob Miller Steve Rood Ryan Schroeder Thomas Ticen Benjamin F. Withhart Executive Director A United Way Supported Agency February 13, 1989 Mayor Steve Smith and Council City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mayor Smith and Council Members: Senior-Community Services is req'uesting $4,457 for program services to seniors during the year beginning July 1, 1989, and ending June 30, 1990. If 'you have any questions or are' interested in having our staff discuss the Senior Outreach program or other Senior Community Services programs, please let me know. Thank you for your support of the program. We look forward to continuing cooperation between the City of Mound and Senior Community Services. Sincere~ ~e'njamin F. Withhart Executive Director cc: Ed Shukle City Manager Update Report of Westonka Intervention For Period Ending March 1, 1989 Westonka Intervention has again throughout this past year been an ongoing service to the cities' of Mound and Minnetrista. Victims of domestic violence included men, women, and children. Advocates provided help in referring clients to ap?ropriate services, escorting them to court, and in seeking the basic needs of food, shelter, and clothing. Since the folding of the Westonka Board of Christian Services~ the Westonka Intervention phone advocate has had an increase in calls for help in other areas other than domestic violence, increasing the referrals being made by her to other agencies. The crisis phone operates from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. each week- day. Volunteer advocates consisting of a team of eighteen men and women are on call'throughout the weekend and~each weekday from 5:00 P.M. to 8:00 A.M. The program has continued to operate efficiently for the past four years due to the dedication of these volunteers. Once clients meet with a Westonka Interventioh advocate the chances of repeated acts of violence are greatly reduced. In fact, Len Harell, Chief of Police of Mound, feels that there has been a 90% reduction of reoeat calls concerning domestic violence because of Westonka Intervention's'service. Chief of Police Craig Anderson has shown great enthusiasm and support for Westonka Intervention and presently serves on it's Board of Directors. Throughout this past year Westonka Intervention has provided servi.ce for the following groups, of clients. Married with children Married without children single with children single without children parent or sibling ongoing support anonymous misc. housing, food, legal aid etc. twenty three nine fourteen two one Forty in Total twenty seven twenty twenty nine Grand Total One Hundred Sixteen Unfortunately the problem of domestic violence will always continue. Westonka Intervention is planning on continuing to provide it's services. Block Grant monies are being requested to provide the needed funding. ~06~ PUBLIQ SAFETY DEPARTMENT Public Safety Offices 7701 County Road 110 West Minnetrista, Minnesota 55364 612.446-1131 Craig A. Anderson Chief of Police Police/Fire/Ambulance Emergency: ~dl 1 Dispatcher: 544-9511 Crime Stoppers: 45-CRIME Ms. Val Hessburg Executive Director West onka 'Intervention J490 Lythrum Way Minnetr~sta, MN 55S64 Dear Val: Thank you for bringing-to my attention the fac~_ tThat Westonl:~a Intervent] on is app] y[ng for a gr'an~ . We ~hol ,:~ear"ted i v endorse As you are ~ei ! 'aware, social .ser-,.,ice,s ir~ Lt~e Ld,?~.Dtorlka area are very h'm'rd t'o find due to the fact ~.~ha{ ~.r, you need to dr~ ve into Hopkins of a c ! OE.~Ti~' SL.iJ:)~c'L) . Thanks to Westonka Intervention, local citizen~. cauqht in the emotional stress .that surrounds domestic' abuse, have received help. We feel Westonka Intervention is a vita! program that deserv~.~s financial suppor ~. Sincerely~ .(~..~of Poi i ce CAA: I a LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Telephone 472-371 Mound, MN 55364 Dispatch 544-:)511 EMERGENCY 911 May 24, 1988 Westonka Intervention Project P. 0. Box 34 Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ms Hessburg: I am writing to you, on behalf of the Mound Police Department, in support of the Westonka Intervention Project. The police department has had a very positive working relationship with' your. organ.ization for the 'four years that I have been Chief of Police. Officers appreciate that~-ydo'r--db-Uh-selOrs--can be called upon to assist victims of domestic abuse'and provide, additional one-to-one support'for individuals in crisis. Many times the.officers do not-have the time needed to adequately comfort and provide answers to all ora victim's concerns after a domestic incident. The Westonka Intervention Project fills that void and allows officers to return to their other duties. In addition, the departm&'~;~¢&ri'enced a-reduction in domestic assaults and somestic situations in i~'8~lt:-iS my belief that the ~estonka Intervention Project has had a very pos~:t:~?e~-.~-nf]uence in our community. Thank you to your staff dJvolunteers :for a~l your good work. Leonard Harre11 " - . Chief of Police LH/mia McCornbs Frank Roos Associates, inc. Twin Cities St. Cloud 15050 23rd Ave. N. Plymouth, MN 55447 March 7, 1989 Telephone 612~76-6010 Facsimile 612~76-8532 Engineers Planners Surveyors Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Manager City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: Shaw/Neilson Minnetrista Property MFRA #8821 Dear Ed: As requested, we have reviewed the request from Mark Neilson to allow a private driveway within, the Walnut Road right-of-way and utility connections at the end of MapIe Road to serve his ~roperty in the'City of Minnetrista. Enclosed for review are the following: ao Preliminary Plat showing the three parcels; Letter requesting street access and connection to Mound's utilities; Notice of Public Hearing from Minnetrista. As you are aware, this is a third building site that is being created from the Sandquist and Shaw properties which were previously granted approyal for two (2) connections to Mound's sanitary sewer main in Walnut Road. The request for preliminary plat approval of a Class III subdivision is currently under consideration by the City of Minnetrista. The public hearing held by the Minnetrista Planning and Zoning Commission on February 27, 1989 was continued to March 13th with City Council consideration scheduled for March 20th. We have discussed this request with Public Works and have the following recommendations: Street Access - We are recommending that the proposed private driveway in Walnut Road right-of-way not be allowed. Our first choice for access to this proposed building site would be to share the existing driveway to the newly constructed Shaw Residence. This would keep the access within the boundaries of Minnetrista. The only other possibility would be a driveway at the end of Mgple Road, which is improved to within a few feet of the Mound-Minnetrista cooperate line. I believe the Street Department will have additional comments on how they think access should be handled. Utilities - A water connection to Mound's main should not be allowed for the same reason the Shaw's were not granted permission, which was primarily because of low water pressure in this area. We would ,4nEluaJO[)pc.rt.~ ' E'¥; Mr. Edward J. Shukle, Jr. ' March ~, 1989 Page Two recommend approval of the sanitary sewer connection under the same conditions and charges as set forth when Sandquist and Shaw were granted their approval. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact US, Very truly yours, McCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES, INC. John Cameron JC:jmj cc: Jan Bertrand, City or.Mound' Geno Moll, City of Mound'Public Works Department Greg Skinner, City of Mound Public Works Department AC~EEM~-NT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MINNEllRISTA AND THE CITY OF MOUND RELATIVE TO PROVIDING UTILITY SERVICE TO TWO MINNETRISTA PROPERTY OWNERS THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 1988, by and between the City of Minnetrista, a municipal corporation, of the County of Hennepin and the State o? Minnesota, hereina?ter called "Minnetrista", and the City of Mound, a municipal corporation of the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota, hereinafter called "Mound" and Lois B. Sandquist and Earl D. Sandquist, the Owners of property described as the East 172 feet of Government Lot l, except the South 4?8.5 feet of the East 6~ feet thereof, Section 15, Township ll? North, Range 24 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, P.I.D. #15-117-24 41 O001, and Lawrence C. Shaw and Ingrid Mae Shaw, the Owners of property described as the West 141.5 feet of the East 313.5 feet of Government Lot l, Section 15, Township ll7 North, Range 24 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, P.I.D. #15-117-24 41 0002, hereinafter called "Owners". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Mound has inplace a sanitary sewer line within 100 feet of the Mound City limits along its boundary with Minnetrista; and WHEREAS, said properties in Minnetrista are isolated from existing sanitary sewer in Minnetrista and is owned by the parties requesting connection to City sewerl and WHEREAS, Mound has indicated that they will allow a sanitary sewer connection to the Mound inplace line so that the existing and proposed home on said properties in Minnetrista can be served by said service; and WHEREAS, the parties have mutually agreed that it is in the best interest of public health, safety and welfare to provide sanitary sewer service from the Mound system to the Minnetrista prooerty owners, and that Minnetrista and the Owners of said properties will pay to Mound the following established amounts and will abide by the rules and regulations established for the Mound system and as set forth in this Agreement, NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein described, ZT IS HEREBY AGREED as follows: The entire, cost of the 100 feet of 8" main extension, including construction of a new manhole at the corperate boundary, shall be borne by the Owners of said properties requesting the connection. All construction shall meet the requirements of Mound's Sanitary Sewer Standard Specifications and any special provisions deemed necessary by the Mound City Engineer. e The entire cost of the service connection shall be borne by the Owners of said properties requesting the connection. This agreement shall limit the number of connections to two. Any additional connection request would require further action by both the City of Mound and the City of Minnetrista. Within the limits established in this agreement, the property owners in Minnetrista shall be allowed to connect to and become part of the sewer system of Mound, and shall be subject to the same charges and regulations as property owners of Mound. In addition to all the costs incurred and paid by the Owners for the project as outlined in Paragraph l, the Owner's shall, prior to the time they connect to Mound's sanitary sewer system, pay to Mound the availability and connection charges as follows: CONNECTION CHARGE: I Original Unit Assessment -.-~unit ~ $292.00/Unit Original Footage Assessment - 270 L.F. ~ $9.04/L.F. Availability Charge -.~unit ~ $125.00/Unit TOTAL CONNECTION CHARGE Administrative, Legal and Engineering Expense TOTAL QUARTERLY SE ER USE £H gE To be determined by Mound's regular rate. The current rate for this type of service is $30.25 per quarter. The Owners in Minnetrista connected to the Mound system shall be billed usage charges on the basis of the same sewer rates applicable to users in Hound, said charges to be billed directly to the user in Minnetrista. Minnetrista shall guarantee payment of these charges, subject to the cooperation of Mound in providing information to Minnetrista which will allow Minnetrista to specially assess unpaid sewer use charges against the Minnetrista properties. The Owners in Minnetrista connecting to the Mound systems shall be required to obtain a construction permit from Mound for a sewer connection and shall pay all connection fees in the same amounts and manner as Mound residents. 0 Mound shall not be responsible to any person, firm, or corporation for damages claimed as a result of backing up of sewers in any basement in Minnetrista. 10. ll. Mound will perform all normal maintenance on the sanitary sewer main lines within the Mound corporate boundaries. Minnetrista and/or the property owners will perform all normal maintenance on service connections to said described properties and the sanitary sewer line within the Minnetrista corporate boundaries. Mound's responsibility for repair or maintenance shall end at the corporate boundary. Construction of the service line to the two individual homes shall be the responsibility of the Owners in Minnetrista under the supervision of and subject to all Minnetrista codes and regulations. All sanitary sewer construction by Minnetrista and the Owners in Minnetrista shall meet the requirements of Mound's Sanitary Sewer Standard Specifications, and any special provisions deemed necessary by the Mound City Engineer. 12. Mound agrees to cooperate and make available any and all records, plans, specifications, and other materials which may be necessary for Minnetrista. 13. The Residential Equivalency Unit (REV) charged by the ~0¢ for these two hook-ups shall come from the City of Minnetrista's allotment. 14. This agreement and provision of sewer service shall not be considered as evidence in any detachment or annexation proceedings. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto authorized and entered into this Agreement upon authority of the City Council of the City of Minnetrista and the City Council of the City of Mound. IN THE PRESENCE OF: CITY OF MINNETRISTA BY: Mayor BY: City Administrator - Clerk/Treasurer STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPZN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1988, by Walton Clevenger and Charlotte Paterson, the Mayor and City Administrator - Clerk/Treasurer of the City of Minnetrista, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the municipal corporation. IN THE PRESENCE OF: CITY OF MOUND BY: Mayor BY: City Administrator - Clerk/Treasurer STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1988, by Steve Smith and Edward $. Shukle, Or., the Mayor and City Manager of the City of Mound, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the municipal corporation. IN THE PRESENCE OF: OWNE]R BY: Earl D. Sandquist BY: Lois B. Sandquist STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1988, by Earl D. Sandquist and Lois B. Sandquist. IN THE PRESENCE OF: OWNER BY: Lawrence C. Shaw BY: Ingrid Mae Shaw STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 1988, by Lawrence C. Shaw and Ingrid Mae Shaw. · 141.5 o 172-- 440 430 · :v:., .~..'L". · ~.-".-'_.,'. ~ ? .~-.- '5~.-~~ t - -~,,.,~ ......... ... .,,.",1.~'~--::---- :':.,,:::.. . ..:..~;..-,~:~...;,;-..: .~:..-.:?~ .~ - :... .: .. ...... ",:':'- . ...... '~':;~;""': '" ":':"~z~". ~'-' '. ' · z~.z: !~.~," ::7. '~d':.--:.T.~..%"~/.:: ";.'~"-.:~--~"~"~'.t .-.'T..;~_- :.,. .o .--- :~/ ..... .-- ..... .,-:3. ............ . .~~'-I '~- --~-. -~.~ ..... ~ ~.:4::1 --'..:.~,. .... . ._ - .. ....... -.'1 .~,~' :~:;'. ~- · . -- / L.C~T I ,: COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. Sl./I:IYE¥1NG, ENGINEEI~ING AND LAND PLANNING 482-A TAIMAFIAGK AVENUE 473-4141 February 22, 19~9 City of Mound 5341 idaywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re' Mark Nie!son b[ark Nielson is proposing to build a house on a parcel Minnetrista just west of the Mound border. He is proposing to construct a 12 foot wide'driveway through the platted 30-foot right-of-way of Walnut Road. Some fill would be needed as well as raising the existing sanitary sewer manhole and. constructing a culvert to maintain drainage through the swale. Details are shown on the attached plan. Also, he is proposing to extend sewer and water serv£ces from the exi~itng Mound utilities in Maple Road to his house. If. any other information is needed, please contact me. Sincerely, COFFIN & GRONBERG, INC. Mark S. Gronberg MSG/lh (nielson) 110 w · MINNETRISTA,-MINNE$OTA 55364 · 4~' 50. FOR PUBLICATION ONE TIME THE LAKER 2/13/89 City of Minnetrista NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING CLASS III SUBDIVISION FOR LAWRENCE SHAW Notice is hereby.given that the Minnetrista Planning and Zoning Commission'will 'hold a public hearing on Monday, February 27, 1989, at 8:15 p.m. at City Hall to consider the request of Lawrence Shaw, 6440 County Road 15, for preliminary plat approval of a Class III Subdiuison which whould Create an additional building site on property with the following Hennepin County Property Identification Number: 15-117-24-41-0001 (~410 County Road 15) If you wish to express your concerns, it may be done so at this time or by letter received in this office no later than 4:30 p.m. on Monday, February 27, 1989. William Turnblad city Planner 7701 County Rd 110 W Minnetrista, MN 55364-9552 N Section 15. Township 117 lvortll, Range ~r~J ALSO. t~ East 172.~ '~t 478.50 f~t of t~ East 66.~ Scale: 1" · 50' COFFIN CITY of MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD --O~ MOUND. ~'" N~',ESC-'''~ (612) 472-11,55 March 7, 1989 TO: FROM: SUBJECT' Ed Shukle City Manager Greg Skinner Water & Sewer Supt. Mark Nielson Pr0pBrtY' This is in regards to Mark Nielson Property (Gov.'t, Lot 1, Section ~ in Mindetrista. He would like to connect to the City of 15-117-24,. Mounds'water' and sewer.. He also is proposing to put.in.a 12' private driveway off of Walnut Road. There are a couple of problems that come up with the 12' driveway. One is snow removal, we. already have a problem with it at the present time. With the addition of this driveway it will create aA even bigger problem. The second is storm water run off. His proposal does not state who will maintain the proposed culvert. Also we feel that this could cause problems for existing property owners in the event of a plugged culvert. There is also the possibility of a new house that could be built on the south side of the 30' right-away of Walnut Road in the future. As far as hooking up to the City's sewer I have no problem with that. The water is another matter, as you may be aware of we have a pressure problem in this area. We are having a hard time now maintaining a constant pressure. My recommendation is to allow Mr. Nielson to connect to the City's sanitary sewer on Maple Lane, to deny this request for City water, to meet with the 'property owner on the west about sharing the driveway off of County Road 15 and then branching off to the north of his property instead of putting the proposed 12' driveway. PUBLIC HEARING NO%ICE CITY OF MOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A CONDITIONAL USE ~ER- MIT FOR A CLASS II RESTAURANT FAST FOOD AND CONVENIENCE DRIVE-UP WINDOW IN THE B-I CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT LQCATED AT 5307 SHORELINE BLVD., SHIRLEY HILLS UNIT "F", 'BLOCK 3, LOT 1, 2, & 3, PIg #13-li7-24-34-0038, 0039, & 0040. NOTICE 'IS HEREBY GIVEN, that the City Counc. i I of the City of Mound, Minnesota, will meet in the Council Chambers, 5341May~ood Road, at 7:30 p.m. on Tuesday, April Il, 1989 to consider the is- suance OF a condition~l..'use permit For the iFstal lation and operation of a. Class Ii restaurant Fast Food and convenience Orive-up window in the B-I central business district located at 5307 Shoreline Blyd., legal description: Sh'irley' Hills Unit "F", Block 3, Lot I, 2, & 3, PID #13-117- 24-34-0038, 0039, and 0040 All persons appearing at said hearing with reference to the above will be heard at this meeting. Francene C. Clark, City Clerk Published in, "The Laker," March 27, 1989 and April 3, I989. C2iTS' of MOUND MOUND, f,/:i~,,t~FS,DTA 553,54 ¢6!2' 472-" '~ 55 March 23, 1989 TO: FROM: RE: Ed Shukle, City Manager and City Council John Norman, Finance Director [~'~¢v/ Purchase of Street Sweeper The purchase of a street sweeper wa.s approved duriDg the 1989 budget process. There was discussion whether it would be advantageous to purchase the sweeper outright or issue certificates of indebtedness over a 3 year period. The determining factors are the adequacy of the fund balance and the amount of interest to be paid over the term Of the certificates. Fund Balance if 3 year Certificates Issued - Balance 1-1-89 $ Projected increase in fund balance Balance 12-13-89 (projected) $ Fund Balance if purchased outright - Balance 1-l-89 $ PrOjected decrease in fund balance Balance 12-31-89 (projected) 75O,OOO 20,000 770,000 75O,OOO 730,OOO Payment of sweeper outright Total payment 3 year certificates (8.25% estimated) Approximate interest cost over 3 year period 63,700 72,000' 8,300 5'?7 RE: Purchase of Street Sweeper Page 2 Advantage of issuing 3 year certificates - Fund Balance would increase during 1989. Interest would be earned on the higher Fund Balance. Advantages of Purchasing Sweeper Outright - Outstanding debt of the City would not increase by $60,000. Interest payments of approximately $8,300 would not be paid. In conclusion, / am recommending that the Council approve the purchase of this sweeper outright. The projected fund balance of $730,000 would still be adequate to meet our needs. Also, we would not increase the outstanding debt of the. City during 1989. Advertisement For Bids Mound, Minnesota 1989 SEAL COAT PROGRAM MFRA #6173 Sealed bids will be received, publicly-opened, and read aloud at the Mound City Hall at 10:00 AM., Friday, March 31, 1989 for application of approximately 34,000 gallons of bituminous material and 1,700 tons of seal coat aggregate. The bids will be considered by the City Council at their meeting Tuesday, April 11, 1989 at 7:30 PM. Ail proposals shall be addressed to: Fran Clark, City Clerk City of Mound 5341 Ma~'ood Road Mound, MN. 55364 And shall be securely sealed, shall be endorsea on the outside with the statement "Proposal..for 1989' Seal:Coat Program, City of. Mound" and shall be on the Proposal'Form included in the specifications for the project. Copies of the plans, specifications and other proposed contract documents are on 'fite with the City Clerk and at:the offices of McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., Consulting Engineers and'Surveyors, 15050 23rdAvenue North, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447. Plans and specifications for use in preparing bids may be obtained at the office of the Engineer upon deposit of $20.00. The full amount of the deposit will be refunded to each bidder who has made a deposit and has filed a bid with the Owner upon return of the plans and specifications within ten (10) days after the bids are opened. Each bidder shall file with his bid a certified check, or bid bond in an amount not less than five (5) percent of the total amount of the bid. No bid may be withdrawn within sixty (60) days after the bids are opened. The Cit~ or'Mound reserves the right t° reject any or all bids and waive any informalities or irregularities therein. CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA By: Fran Clark, City Clerk For March 15, 1989 Council Meeting March 3, 1989 COMiMERCIAL DOCK -- License Period 3-31-89 to 4-1-90 Chapman Place Marina - 27 Slips in Water Chapman Place Association Inc. & Waterfront Specialties Inc. 2600 Commerce Blvd. Mou~d, .Minn. 55364 LAKE'MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REGULAR MEETING TONKA BAY VILLAGE HALL February 22, 1989 Co STANDING COMMITTEES 1. °Water Structures & Environment. Rascop moved, Reese seconded that the action report of the meeting of February 1t, 1989 be accepted as presented. The motion to adopt the ac:ion items carried unanimously. a) Chapman Place Fimdimgs of Fact, Conclusiom & Order, and revised dock plam. Applicant Robert Cu:hill was present for any questions or com- ments the Board may have had. Cuthill explained the necessity for revising the dock plan to adjust the setback requiremenZs, and in the process it also discovered the necessity for enlarging some of the slips staying within the setback requirement. This came as a result of prior dock occupants indicating they would be needing larger slips for 1989. Rascop moved, Keese seconded that the Findings of Fact, Conclusion and Order and revised dock plan for Chapman Place be accepted as presented. The motion carried unanimously. LAKE ~,'tJ'JJNt~'Tt,.?~. f.~N~IiRYATItJN DIS:,.'Rit~'r !I~ RE: .~.i'FLiC:VI']O,'; t.:l; Wt-,, .... fO,.',) FROPER:?IES, INC, FJ.NII,, .... OF F'AC't' A!;D ('ONCLUS]OIIS ~".,:. f.~p;,!!~.~-'r~. _. st ~:c~7~ p.2:. Wednesday,. . ~l.'~r,zh ~'==.,, tq[',e,,, at the Tonka Bay ,.,Jl~ge Hall, Mr. Rc,~;s Fefe'tcorn aFpear~ ior ~he Appllcant, 21~e Applicant Ama 7hre~. T~e msri~a wllJ cousin".. ~ of a modlfJcatJ, on to a previously exist- fps mariu~ which wiJ. 1 Include 27 boat storage units. A dl~l,tite at the bearing shoot the legal eo.t!tlement to operate a ~rl'na :~ the sl e has =ince been resolved %n favor of the Applicant by binding arb!tratl'm~. For =:~:ny y,~sru, a coi:m;ezcta] m~r!nk was operated at the site tn conjunc- tlcr, ~Ith a restnu,'~,t', . ., . The marina included .51 ~-.~r~"~'*~=, }~any 'of which Iicen~ed a~ crar~slen~ slips for use hy Fatrons of the restaurant. Several prior c~'ne" of tbs site contl'n,)ed re, operate a co~m~erclal marina at rim ,itt under a lea~e agreement with tho prevtot~g owner withor, t dock licenses from · ~,.~,..'.,c~, ~-c,,use... the testator'ant wa~ discontinued, the 'Board has pte':ious!y dete -"- .. . . r .... r,~d that there ts no .iuuLlf:[cat!on ~'o= a eont~nuatSon of the licensing of the tra~:~ilent slips. Tbls ~q',plJ<at~bn repzese~ts :: zonsiderab]c reduction in th~ size of the ~rarir~a and the impact of tbs marina up~rat!t'n ou the Lake. I2.?.:P t.',.2dc Sect. lo;~ 2.!1 deftne~ v.~t~;~t.~; c~kegorle:~ Ot dock uses including cc.::t~ci~] marina, trar',~e;i[ ~:~d vutlot as~ocfati~n use~. ~he Ccde forbids c.. '- .',. ~ s i:'.:~ .tr.:tn any ~,~ the~,~ c oteg<,r le:~ o! use to a~tuthel cacegoty · without f!rs~ coming iht? e6mpliance with all provi~ion~ of tbs LHCD Code, 7'~erefo~e, It ~ouJd not be [;e~is~Ib!e ~o convert Che operation at the site from co~;~v~e~;cial and transient to an outlot a~;socJ, at~on use. The Applicant ha~ sIL~. T!,l.s contract, tc, g~ther wJt~ other [,vi~ence and assurances ~iwen by the Applicant shews that, if operated Jn accordance w~h the contract and the descrlpt~o~ o~ the re] at/o~hip between the Applicant and WSI, ~o impel~a~ss~ble cc, aversion c~ use w~l] occur. Co~d~tions imposed In this Order are '~mpDsed Lo ensure continuing comp]i~mce with I.MCD Code Section 2.11. ORDER A c°i::mercia1 dock license fc~t o?ezation o[' a commercial marina at the subject site is hereby granted subject to the fol!owin~ conditions. I. The r,'~.rln.~ shall, be constr~,cted and operated in accordance with the dock plan shown ou Attaghme[~t ~e, s~t[~ched hereto and hereby made a part of this Order. 2, To e:~ure con~inu~ng cem~l~,'~c:e w~th ].2. lCD Code '.~ectiom 2.11, the follow- lng [;lip rental policies~and prccedure~ are required: a. The Applicant shall notify the D~ztrl. c[ of any change in it8 con- tractua~ rela%~onmhip, whether written or oral, betwe~c the Appli- cant and WSi or any change in tenc~] practices. 'b, Boat slips shall be available for rental on a nondiscriminatory basis to an.7 me, mbs[ of tbs ~ublic who m~kes timely pa)%nent of fee~ and com~lie8 with reasonable t~ules and regular!ohs of WSI. WS! shall, malnc~lu ~ wa~tlr, g list of app!~cants tot boat ~lips in the order in ~hlch app'lications a~e received and openings ~t slip s'paces shall be offered to pe~son~ on such !~st In the same order. Only indlv!do~ persons may be applicants for or ]_ease slip space. The w~tlng li~[ sho]l be opeo to ir, sFent'[.on by rep~-e~entativem of the I.NCD ~r say lime during normal business hours. No priority cf rJ. gl',t~ to tent space shall be given to n~mb~r~ o[ C.apman ]'lace Asso~'Jatt. un Inc. t,~' any pets:), owuJ-t'~ any interest i~.% [h~ ~ite'at ~h~ch tl:e msrina !~ located, TEL= Mo !eam~¢~ for boat e.t~ps may be- s~.b~et or assigned, and no priority Of ent~tlemen~ ~o a k, oat S~!l:, may be sublet or assigned. Pti. or tO issuance of art annv, al dock ]ice~se, the Applicant shall prov~.~e to the D~strlc[ satJ. sf~ctory a~st~ra~ce :hat the contract bs~ween %'~S] and the Applicant, which Js on file at the District r}tf~ces, is ~he on!,, agreement between :hese parties and that there c~.ler agreements or u~deratandirigs, either written or oral, '~e~ween the partle¢ with ~:spest tc ~he marina er the rental of .:paces at tb~ mari,a. A~suranc. e ~;hall also be given that WS! a~)d "he Applic-an~ are en:irely separar;e organizations and that there ;,o c¢~en ownership of the two. FrJor to lss~a[~ce c-f nhe annual dock l~cemse, the Applicant Chall ~:lso submit a liCt of ali pereon~: t.e whom slip pr~vi]eges hav~ been g~ven and the owners of the boat~ kept at the slips and an identification of an,. of such persons who are also owners, tenants, cr occupants of condominiums, a~ the site er are related ~ffillated with, o~ employed by such owners. All doeke constructed S'ha!! be ~easonal docks and no allowed de-icing shall The i~¢en,~e ~ss,~eC ,he~e~.y shal! grant no vested rights to the u~e of La~e Mlnnet-onkn, Such use shall at all times remain subject to regulatio~ by the l)~tri,:t to assure the'pub!Jo of re~:sonab]¢, a~d equ~takle access to the Lake. By Order of the B<ard of Directors of ~he I.ake Minnetonk. a Conservation District th:Is day of , 198~. L4:OT03ACOI.EI9 gene St~o~en, Executive Director I I '' I I I . FEB 1,_~ i9[,9 Lf,';,.¢,...' .' Revised Dock Plan meeting 20' set back requireme{~ts beyond 100' point per Dock Co~,mtttee resolution of 2/11/89 meeting. ATTACHMENT ONE CITY OF HOUND MOUND, MINNESOTA COMMERICAL DOCK APPLICATION/RENEWAL gAME OF APPLICANT ADDRESS ~b ~ ~r ~ /~(~ ~~ .... ",' ' . .... . ....... EXACT LOCATION OF BUSINESS STREET ADDRESS ~ ~ F d ~6 ~ ~ ~ , ~ c ~/~/ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT BLOCK SUBDIVISION PLEASE ENCLOSE THE FOLLOWING WITH THIS APPLICATION: A drawing to scale of the type, size and shape of the dock proposed, and the location and type of buoy(s) to be used. A.drawing to scale, of. off-street parking provided for each three rental boat stalls, buoys or slips. A statement outlining the manner, extent and degree of use contemplated, for the dock proposed. 4. Payment of permit fee must be included with this application. 5. All applications received on or after March 1 shall be subject to a late fee of $20. New Applicant Fee $200.00 Basic Fee Renewal Number of Slips in Water 150.00 x $5.oo Number of Boats Stored on Land TOTAL x $2.00 = . Name of Firm 7~. _ ~~~'~-/" . -- //~",~ ~ '/~--'~-Date Signature and Title / - THIS STUB MUST ACCOMPANY SECOND HALF PAYMENT. Pay on or before October 15, 1987 to avoid penalty. 2 ND HALF Please read reverse side for payment information, PAY STUB 1987 TAXPAYER OR A~bNT MUNIC MtG CODE WATERFORD PROPERTIES INC 85 4969 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY P~OPE~T~;,~.~Ss MPLS MN 55422 LOAN NUM~E R SECOND HALF 'TAX PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION NO ~_~2_4 14 0130j 2.724.23 2411723140130000000000000272~2324117231401307 DETACH PAYMENT STUB HERE BEFORE MAILING DEPARTMEt,IT OF PROPERTY TAX AND PUBLIC RECORDS HENNEPIN COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER MINNEAPOLIS, MINNE 501A 554 tt 7-0063 Office Hours - 8 to 5 - Monday - Friday Phone 348-3011 OWNER OR ASSESSED NAME 1987 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY TAX STATEMENT TAXPAYER'S COPY WATERFORD pROpERTIES INC TAXPAYER OR AGENT WATERFORD PROPERTIES INC - 4969 OLSON MEMORIAL HWY MPLS MN 55422 PROPERTY IDENTIFICATiON NO. I SCHOOL WATER I MUNIC DISTRICT SHED 23-117-24 14 0130 85 277 3 ADDIIION CONDO NO 0560 LOT BLOCK LICENSED AREA PROPERTY ADDRESS CODE LOAN NO. CHAPMAN PLACE A ACRES & MARINA OFFICE This property description may not be a full legal description, it is used only for tax purposes. 1, AMOUNT OF TAX QUALIFYING FOR FORM M-1PR 2. CREDITS WHICH REDUCE YOUR TAX: STATE SCHOOL AGRICULTURAL CREDIT STATE PAID HOMESTEAD CREDIT TOTAL CREDITS (TO LINE 10) DELINQUENT TAX If this box is checked, you owe de- hnquenI taxes and may not a~ply Ior the Property Tax Refund unhl those taxes are paid. or you enter into a con- less{on of judgment to pay those [~xos, VALUE INFORMATION: Market value of new improvement~ Total market value of parcel Total assessed value of parcel 2,000 137,000 49,910 State law requires that you be adwsed that: *THE 'STATE OF MINNESOTA DOES NOT RECEIVE ANY PROPERTY TAX REVENUES. THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REDUCES YOUR PROPERTY TAX BY PAYING CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS TO LOCAL UNITS OF GOVERNMENT. ITEMIZED STATEMENT: 3. STATE' 0,.00 4, COUNTY I ·249.97 5. CITY ?75,,25 6. SCHOOL DISTRICT ~ · 341 ,. 1 3 7. HENNEPIN PARKS 47.05 7A. OTHER TAXING DISTRICTS ~ 1 ~ .. 3 6 7B FISCAL DISP. 822.?0 8 TAX BEFORE CREDITS 9. LESS CREDITS WHICH REDUCE YOUR TAX 10, TAX AFTER CREDITS 11. ADD SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS PRINCIPAL INTEREST 5,448.46 5,448.46 .00 ~2. 1987 TAX PAYABLE 5·448.46 One half ol this tax is due May 15, 1987. Second half is due October 15, 1987, (Tax of $50 or less must be pa,d by May 15, 1987.) PLEASE READ BACK OF FORM FOR PENALTY AND PAYMENT INFORMATION .00 .C~APMAN PLACE MARINA , AGREEMENT AND GRANT OF LICENSE THIS AGREEMENT, dated this / ~ day of 1989, by and between: CHAPMAN PLACE ASSOCIATION, INC. and WATERFRONT SPECIALTIES, INC. RECITALS Chapman 'Place Association, Inc. is the owner of certain property located in Hennepin County and legally described in Exhibit "A" hereto, (the "Property"). Waterfront Specialties, Inc., (hereinafter "WSI"), desires to acquire certain rights with respect t~ the use of certain portions of the Property which are designated as common elements of the Condominium, for the installation, maintenance and operation of public boat dock- ing facilities; and Chapman Place Association, Inc. desires, subject to the terms and conditions hereto, to grant and convey to WSI certain rights. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the agreements hereinafter contained, the parties agree as follows: e o Grant of License. Subject to the terms of this agree- ment, Chapman Place Association, Inc. hereby grants a five year license, annually renewable thereafter at Chapman Place Association, Inc.'s discretion, to WSI over that portion of the Property legally described in Exhibit "A" hereto (the "License Area") for the follow- ing purposes: (a) WSI shall have the exclusive right subject to the terms of this agreement to operate and maintain a public marina, including docking facilities. (b) WSI shall have the exclusive right, subject to the terms of'this agreement and subject to compliance with all state, county and local ordinances, to erect, maintain, and operate as public docks, boat slips and docks in the public waters of Lake Minnetonka adjacent to the License Area, configurations as it deems appropriate, all as if it were the fee owner of such License Area, and further provided that WSI shall be responsible for making application for and obtaining all necessary permits for such dock and boat slips, including a minimum of twenty-seven (27) boat storage slips. Such minimum is subject to change conditioned upon governmental action and severe water droppage. (c) WSI, and its agents, employees, customers, guests and licensees, shall have rights of ingress and egress over the driveway or ways leading thereto located, or to be located, on the common elements of the Condominium and over the License Area for the purpose of making use of the marina facilities allowed for hereunder. Maintenance. WSI shall', at all times during the term of the Agreement, maintain at its expense the docks and the License Area in good, clean and first-class condi- tion and repair~ normal wear and tear excepted. Damage to dock will be repaired within twenty (20) days of notice of damage to WSI. All potential liability prob- lems Will be repaired as soon as possible. WSI is not responsible for damage to dock done by im- proper size boat. WSI rental agreements will provide for.boat owner to cover such costs. Boat Storage Slips Reservation Policies. Parties desir- ing to reserve boat slips for the c~lendar year 1989 shall pay one-half (1/2) by February 15, 1989 for the reservation of boat slips for 1989 and the remaining one-half (1/2) balance by April 1, 1989. For all subse- quent years, one-half (1/2) is due by January 10th of 2 4e Se the year of~ the lease, with the balance due in full by March 10th of the year of the lease. Chapman Place Association,. Inc. and WSI will give their best effort to try to notify previous years renters of this boat storage slip reservation policy. The 1988 list of renters is not available to Chapman Place Association, Inc. or WSI. It is understood that boat slip rentals are available on an annual basis. WSI shall in 1989 and future years, in the event it receives request for boat slips for more than the number of slips available, give prior- ity in rental to parties having previously reserved boat rental slips from WSI and, the earliest year shall be given priority. Boat slips shall be available for rental on a nondiscriminatory basis to any member of the public who makes timely payment of fees and com- plies with reasonable rules and regulations of WSI. WSI shall maintain a waiting list of applicants for boat slips in the order in which applications are re- ceived and openings of slip spaces shall be offered to persons on such list in the same order. The waiting list shall be open to inspection by representatives of the LMCD at any time during normal business hours. No priority of ~-rights to rent space shall be given to 'Chapman Place Assoc., Inc. or any member thereof or any person or entity owning any interest in the License Area. No leases for boat slips may be sublet or as- signed,· and no priority of entitlement to a boat slip may be sublet or assigned. License Fee. WSI shall pay to Chapman Place Associa- tion, Inc. a license fee for the license granted hereun- der. Such license fee shall be equal to 45% of the gross slip rental for the first year 1989 and 50% there- after, of gross slip rentals. Such fee shall be pay- able at such time as the parties hereto agree but, in any event, shall be paid no later than within thirty (30) days of the date or dates on which the boat slip rental payments are paid in full to WSI as provided under Paragraph 3 hereof. Liability Insurance. WSI shall maintain public liabili- ty insurance naming Chapman Place Association, Inc. as an additional insured in such sums as is customary for marina facilities of the kind proposed located in the Lake Minnetonka area, with an insurance company reason- ably acceptable to Chapman Place Association, Inc.; provided, however, that in no event shall such coverage be less than $1,000,000.00 for injury (including person- al injury endorsement) or death to one or more persons; and $100,000.00 with respect to damage to .property. e WSI shall provide Chapman Place Association, Inc. with certificates evidencing that such insurance is in ef- fect, stating that the Association shall be notified in writing thirty (30) days prior to cancellation, materi- al change or non-renewal of insurance. Compliance with Covenants and Ordinances. WSI shall comply with all of the terms and conditions of the Declaration for the Condominium, the bylaws of the Association, and rules and regulations, including but not limited to architectural standards, as the same may be adopted from time to time by the Association and shall be responsible for, and shall make reasonable, good faith efforts towards the enforcement of all such covenants, conditions, restrictions, rules and regula- tions against its agents, employees, customers, guests and licensees. This shall include, without limitation, rules relating to the location, size, intensity and style of any lighting and/or signage. WSI further agrees that it will, at all times, comply with all such licensing, zoning and other statutes and ordinances as may be, from time to time, applicable to the Property and the marina business which it intends to conduct. Utilities, Taxes an'd Special Assessments. Chapman Place Association, Inc. shall be solely responsible for all real estate taxes, special property assessments and utilitY expenses arising out of the operation and main- tenance of the marina facilities, including but not limited to, electricity, gas and water. Default and Termination. In the event WSI defaults in the performance of 'any material term hereof, and such default shall continue for thirty (30) days following written notice of such default by Chapman Place Associa- tion, Inc., the Association shall have the right to terminate the license herein granted. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is understood that WSI cannot antici- pate amendments, modifications or changes in the rules and regulations of governmental agencies affecting the Operation of the marina. In the event of a purported violation of such amended, modified or changed rule, WSI shall, so long as it has otherwise complied with previously existing rules and regulations, be given a reasonable opportunity to comply with such amended, modified or changed regulation or rule. In the event of the termination of this license and agreement, WSI shall (a) immediately discontinue its. business at the Property, (b) surrender possession of all portions of the property which it is then in possession of, and (c) remove from the License Area at its expense, all docks and equipment owned by it within thirty (30) days fol- lowing the date of termination, weather permitting. Any dock or equipment not removed within a thirty (30) 10. day Deriod ~shall become the Dr0Derty of the Association upon the expiration of such thirty (30) day period. Nothing withstanding anything to the contrary herein the Association shall have the option of purchasing the docks and equipment for a reasonable price from WSI prior to the expiration of the thi~-ty (30) day peri. od. Arbitration. Any controversy, except for a default in the payment of slip rental fees pursuant to paragraph 4, which shall arise between the parties hereto regarding the rights, duties or liabilities hereunder of either party shall be settled by arbitration. Such arbitration shall be conducted, upon request of either party hereto, before three (3) arbitrators (unless the parties hereto agree to one (1) arbitrator), designated by the American Arbitration Association and in accordance with the rules of such Association. The arbitrators designated and acting under this agreement shall make their award in strict conformity with such rules and shall have no power to depart from or change any of the provisions thereof. The expense of arbitration proceedings conducted herein shall be borne equally by the parties. All arbitration proceedings hereunder shall be conducted in the county in which the property is 'Located. In the event of a default in the payment of slip rental · fees ~pursuant to paragraph 4, the association shall have the right to pursue any available remedy at law to collect such slip rental fees. In exercising such remedies, the association shall be entitled to collect from WSI all costs including attorney's fees incurred by it in collecting such slip rental fees. Written Notice. Wherever any notice is required or permitted hereunder, such notice shall be in writing. Any notice or document required or permitted to be delivered hereunder shall be deemed to be delivered when actually received by the designated addressee, or regardless of whether actually received or not, when deposited in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, certified mail,' return receipt requested addressed to the parties hereto at their respective addresses, as set forth below, or at such other addresses as they may subsequently specify by written notice. Chapman Place Association, Inc. ("the Association"): At its registered corporate office as the same may be from time to time. Waterfront Specialties, Inc. P.O. Box 99 Victoria, MN 55386 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Assignment by WSI. WSI may not assign the license granted hereunder or this agreement, without the prior written consent of the Association. Covenant to Run with Land. The burden and benefit of this grant of license and agreement are intended to attach and run with, and be binding upon, the Property, and, in any event, this agreement shall be binding in all respects, upon the parties hereto and their respec- tive successors and assigns. ChaDman Place Association, Inc. Cooperation. The Asso- ciation for itself and its successors and assigns agrees, if reasonably requested and at no cost to it, to execute such applications, consents or other documents as are required to enable WSI to maintain a marina license and/or such other requisite governmental approvals for the operation of the marina and docking facilities contemplated hereby. Cost to be Daid by WSI. WSI agrees to pay the follow- ing operating costs of the public marina; all license fees, annual installation and removal Of docks, insur- ance, maintenance of docks and dock area, repairs, advertising, license fee to the Chapman Place Associa- tion, Inc. and installation of lights and water outlet. Right of Purchase. Prior to the removal of the dock after the fifth year, Chapman Place Association, Inc. shall have the right to purchase the initial dock for fifty percent (50%) of the 1989 retail price for the actual equipment on the premises. Such rights shall be exercised by written notice furnished to WSI in accor- dance with this agreement. Such notice shall .be given by October 31, 1993.~ WSI will furnish the actual amount of equipment and price by May 15, 1989. SliD Rental Rates. The basic minimum rates will not be set lower than that which will anticipate gross reve- nues of slip rental at $40,000.00 for 27 slips. In- creases in rental fees must be agreed upon by WSI and the Association. Notwithstanding any provision, Chap- 'man Place 'Association, Inc. will agree to increase rates in the event of an insurance cost increase. Property Damaqe. Storm damage and/or damage caused to docks and related equipment shall be the responsibility of WSI. Individual boat owners shall be responsible for all storm damage to their own boa'ts. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Minimum Receipts~. The Association recognizes the risk assumed by-WSI and agrees to reduce their subsequent year percentage, by an amount necessary to make up th'e shortfall in the event WSI does not receive at least $19,00o.00 for their share of annual receipts f_or the prior season. The following example demonstrates this provision: 1989 Annual Receipts $30,000.00 WSI Share (55%) Minimum Carry Over to 1990 $16,500.00 $19,000.00 $ 2,500.00 1990 Annual Receipts $40,000.00 WSI Share (50%) 1989 Carry Over WSI Share $20,000.00 +$ 2,500.00 $22,500.00 $22,500.00 ~ by $40,000.00 = 56.25% In the event of a shortfall from the prior year or fifth year, -the balance will b& payable upon · termination of this Agreement. Annual Installation and Removal of Docks. The existing wood dock structure will be removed prior to April 1, 1'989. Chapman Place Association; Inc. will be solely responsible for the accomplishment of this goal. Spring dock installation will be no later than May 15th. The only exception to this date would be if ice out occurs after May 4th, then the installation date would be extended by two weeks from the ice out date. Fall dock removal will commence on the 19th of October or later at the option of WSI. Dock StoraGe. Winter storage of docks will be permit- ted on areas of the Association property as designated by the Association, within reasonable distance of the water. Any vertical pipe that is not used after the first year due to a reduction in dock slips may be stored on the premises. All framework and decks shall be returned. Overall Indemnification. WSI agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the association for any and all loss or damage suffered by it as a result of WSI's ownership and operation of the marina. .Approval of AGreement. This agreement is subject to the approval of Lake Minnetonka Conservation District and the City of Mound. 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have place their hands effective the date and year first above written. CHAPMAN PLACE ASSOCIATION, INC. R~bert T. Cuthill Its President WATERFRONT SPE~CIALTIES, INC. Fox Its President ) 'o-~./The foregoing~i~strument was ackn, owledged before me this · '-~Jl''~'~ day of I t/U,t~'~':,~I , 19~, by Robert T. Cuthill, P~~nt of Chapm&n Place .Association, Inc., a Minnesota corpo- ration' °n behalf °f the c°rp'°ra/ti°n' STATE OF · ~ ) ) ss. The foregoing' ins~ument was acknowledged,~ before me 's "~;';'~'f da of ( ~ ~ ~ 19 % '~ , by Jeffrey Fox, President of WaterfrOnt Specialties, Inc., a Minnesota corpora- Notary Public ~ ~:~,~ Er~b~ra A. Wright THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY: Su~e 600, ~&~o=ougb Collocate 3300 ~&~ea~o~s~ ~ 55435 (6Z~) ~35-7000 EXHIBIT That paL-= of Sut~division 2 of Lo= 1, Plat of Subdivision Two (2) Three (3) & Four (4) of Lot 1, Sec. 23..T. 117 N. R. 24 W described as follows~ Commencing at a ~oin~ in =he F.a$=erly line of ~e Avenue as sho~ on =he pla~ of Mound Bay Park, a= a ~in= 200 fee= Southerly ~ong ~aid line from its inte~seg=ion with =he Southerly line of Chap~n Avenue, ~ow as Chap~ Place; ~hence Easterly par~lel wi~h Sou:herly line of C~pm~ Avenue a.%dist~ce oF 135 fee~; =hence Southerly p~lel wi:h =he ~s=erly line of Avenue =o the ~e Shore; thence Westerly along said Shore line '=o i:s tn~erse~ion wi~h ~he ~s:e~y line ~e Avenue ex:end~; ~hence No~herZ7 ~on~ the ~s~er!7 Zine o~ ~ke Avenue e~ended ~o the ~in~ of be~i~In~. I?.qO EXHIBIT. 0 0 For March 28, 1989 Council Meeting March 21, 1989 LICENSE RENEWAL -- Expire March 31, 1989. New License Period 4-1-89 to 3-31-90. Approval contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being turned in. Tree Removal Aaspen Tree Service Robert F. Dahlke Eklunds Tree Service Emery's Tree Service Lutz Tree Service, INC. Shorewood Tree Service Sutherland's Nursery & Tree Hawker/Food Vendor Blue Bell Ice Cream BILLS ....... MARCH 28, 1989 BATCH 9031 BATCH 9032 64,859.86 61,007.94 Total Bills 125,867.80 PAGE 1 PURCHASE dOURNAL DATE AP-C02-O1 CITY OF MOUND TIIIE INVOICE DUE HD_D NC. IN~,~J!~ f~ DAlE DAlE STATUS A~D3NT DESCRIPTION A%:OLINT hUI~4ER A0~1 PRE-PAID ~.60 AI RFAPE-~-AHRENS 01-402-4110 3/,'?/89 3/22/~ 235.60 dRNL-CD ~ 1010 P~E-PAID AN~_A AH~S VENIK)R TOTAL B~9 PRE-PAID 707.71 'LIQ 71-7100-9510 3/~I89 3/22/~,, 707.71 dRNL-CD 1010 707.71 PRE-PAID ~6.93 LIQ 71-71D0-~10 3/2/89 3/22/$c? 506.93 ~n~C-CD 1010 BELLBOY D1RPORATION TOTAL 1214.~ BC~O PRE-PAID 19.06 FLUID 0i-42x20-~50 3/2/89 3122189 19.06 dRNL-CD 1010 17.06 ~ PRE,,-PAID 778.63 GASD, It~E 0t-1250-0000 3122/89, 3IZ2/~ 778.63 ~E~_-CD 1010 BILL O_AF~: OIL COMPANY VDEIOR TOTAL 797.69 D0888 PRE-PAID 2,593.00 3/22/8~ 3/22/~ 2,593.00 CITY COL~,?Y ~EDIT ~ION V~D08 TOTAL 2593.00 C0920 PRE-PAID 18.80 15.42 3/22/~ 3/22/89 34.22 CIT~ OF MOU~O VENDO~ TOTAL 34.~ ~1001 PRE-PAID 2,575.22 PRE-PAiD 77.79 4,~! .33 3/.~./89 3/22/89 4,&~.12 ~ISSIONER OF F~UE VENDOR TOTAL 7204.34 C] 107 F?2-PAID 160.30 3/~/G'9 ~/22/89 160.30 CR UNION DEl) 3/4 PR 01-2040-(X){~ d~J~L-CD 1010 REPLEN P/C-POLICE 01-4140-2200 REBLB~ P/C-POLICE 01-4140-4110 ~RNL-CD 1010 SIT 3/4 PR 01-~44)-0000 d~I~.-CD 1010 FEB SALES TAX 73-~92-0000 FEB SA;FS TAX 71-35~-00(~ ~,-CD 1010 COI~-SHUKLE 01-4040-4110 ~R~_-CD 1010 ¢~:~,. 12 2.,'?277 CF:ASL~:"S CL~,~ERENCE CD~rTER'VDE~ TOTAL 160.30 C1 I08 PRE-PAID 0/-,../o, 24.00 CP~ LUNC~ON 01-4140:41~ ~4.C0 ~:~.~,- CD 1010 24. O0 2~64 24.00 i.'. :.., ? C / PAGE 2 AP-C02'-O1 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD ~. W:~DICE ~ DATE DATE STATUS PURCHASE CITY DF ~ A~ DE~IPT!~ JOURNAL ~DATE TI~ ~-PAIO PRE-PAID 3122189 312.2/89 1,]49.~ DENTAL F~ DE]) 3/4 PR 14.40 F,_Ni'AL-I{_rTIREE 37.~ ~AL-~IF~EE 37.5 DENTAL-IE-TIREE 51.65 DENTAL-RETIREE 1,290.30 'J:~NL-CD 01-2040-0000 01-4190-1510 O1-42q~-1510 01-4140-1510 71-7100-1510 1010 1290.~ 29262 ~TA DENTAL TOTAL 1~.~ E14~ F4BE-PAID 3/22/8~ 3122189 DISC dBlt.-CD 71-7100-9510 71-7100-9560 1010 519.55 PRE-PAID 312218? 312218? 149.12 1~.18 5.03- 20.00 ~9.27 LIQ WI~ DISC MIX JFU~I.-CD 71-7100.-9510 71-7100-95~ 71-7100-,~:~0 71-7100-W~0 1010 3~9.27 2?272 ED ~iLLIPS ~ Fl710 PRE~AID 3I.'~/~ 3I,'~/~ VENBDR TOTAL. FlUE-PAID 3/22/8~ 3/22/B~ 122.66 110.86 3.55- 229.97 1098.79 122.00 122.00 LIQ WI~ DISC JRNL-CD ~CE-~ ~-~ iRiS-CD" 71-7100-9510 71-7100-9520 71-7100-9560 1010 01-4040-4110 1010 FRA~ CLARK VENI~ TOTAL 122.00 G1780 PRE-PAID 190. ;8 3122189 3/22/89 190.48 CO~EMN SIGNS JRIt-CD 01-41~-22(X) I010 190.;8 29278 GC~ZEL SI~4S .VENDOR, TOTAL G1955 " PRE-PAID 3/22I~ 3122/~ C~£AT k~T LIFE A~LE~CE V~DOR TOTAL G!97] F~E'PAID ~ n /2Z/¢.9 A ,S~S,.~JF' HEALTH PLAN G1972 VEh~;OR TOTAL PRE-PAID 3/22/S9 3/22/89 1~0.48 1,213.00 1,213.00 1213.00 19.10 19.10 19.10 1,,c~3.59 7,~.o6 42.14- 13.05 ,970.36 JRNL-CD HOSP DEl, 3/4 F'R JRf&-CD LIQ WINE DISC FRT JR~L-CD 3/4 PR 01-2040-0000 1010 O1-20~-OCFO0 I010 71-7100:~I0 71-71(Q-9520 71-71~-9560 71-71C~)-96{Q 1010 t213,00 ~1 19.10 2~9 1970.36 2'923.~ PF:E-F'A, ID 136,92 2.74- 2.70 WINE DiE, C 71 7,-7!(~-0560 i!::,: :) PA~ 3 t~-CO2-01 PURCHASE JOURNAL i~OICE DUE. HOLD K3 ~N~I~ ~IBR DATE BATE STATUS PRE-PAID 3/2/89 3/22189 ~MOtNT ~E~CRIPTI~ 103.73 MIX 2,07- DISC 2.92 ~T 1~.~ JR~-CD 71-71(XJ-7540 71-7100-75~' 71-7100-9600 1010 . rd:~E-PA!D 104 .~ gECK. Z~'2 C~I~.~ COOP~ & CDMF2A~(T ~ TOTAJ. 2211.~ H31~.~ F,'E~:-PAID 37.45 DD~ TAX-:~-!lT-2~-~-0103 3/~/~ 3/22/89 37,45 ~J~.-CD O1-4~-5~310 1010 37.45 ~ CO DEPT OF PRI:)FiERTY T VENDOR TOT~ 3%45 ~145 PP~E-PAID 171.~ DEl} 3/4 PR 01-20~0-(X300 3/~/~ 3/22/~ 171.~ ~NI_-CD 1010 171.53 H~.,.,N CO B.F'F'~T & 'C[LL.~T, ~,EI'EOR TOT~ PF~E-PAID 3122189 3122189 IC"'1~ RE'FIDEHENT CORP VD, DOR TOT~ FI~E-PAID. 3/22/89 3/7~/8~ JO~ TAFFE VENDOR TOT~ 171.~ 555.43 DEF CO~ DiED ~.43 JFUtL-CD 555.43 52.~ 7 CONTRACT HOUF~ ~.50 ,JR~-CD 52.50 3/4 P~ 01-2040-0000 1010 01-4340-3100 1010 ~.43 52.50 ~2 J2579 PRE-PAID 3/~./89 3/22/8? PRE-PAID 3/22/89 3/22/89 PRE-PAID 3/22/~ 3/22/~ J:~!~S[~ BR~ t~OLESALE LI~ VENDDR TOTAL 1,~2,61 LID 75-/. ~ WI~ 28.68- DISC 1,781.51 ~4L-CD 1,774,82 LIQ 562.~ WINE 41,I1- DISC '2,296.26 JRNL-CD 431,18 LIQ 201.02 WINE 11.12- DI~ 621.08 JD~_-CD 46~.~ 71-7100-~5t0 71-7100-9520 71-71~-9560 I010 71-718~-9510 71-7100-9520 71-7100-~.,60 1010 71-71~3-~I0 71-7100-952~ 71-71¢,3-~560 1010 1781.51 229..6.26 621.08 2,'~237 d25'->3 PRE-PAID 1FS. 25 BAGS 3/~/89 3/22/E~ 1-~,25 dF,:NL-CD 71-71C~)-22CK) 1010 27Z8~oI PAPER COHF'ANY VEJ~OR TOTAL 185,25 I :<,' 7 F'F:E-F'AID 3'?.00 D,~!Ot,~ DED "" ..... :.~ ~ F'R O1-20zO-{KtO0 -,, ....... o ,:..,,-,<..,o~ :,'9. ¢)0 J~k~-CD 1010 · =,j.'-'j¢~., ,,t ~;-a.i ,.,, -., ·. :-:.;'. O0 2726! LS: E": LEg]EL CC:':: PA(~E 4 ~-[X)2-01 PURC'NASE CITY JOURNAL ' ~DATE ~ TI~ ~ VENDOR INVOICE DUE HDI. D NO. tN'¢DI~ t~m'F,,iq DAllE ~ STAIIJS ~ [E~RtPTIDN PRE-PAID ACC~X~'T ~ AMOUNT 3122/8~ 3122189 220. O0 ~-CD 1010 220.00 ~79 ~ LEAGUE DF Mt( CITIES :22'0.00 PFE-PAID 3/2:2/~ 3/22Im, 50.00 IST QTR -- W/C 5o.oo iST QTR -- W/C 4,000.00 1ST OTR -- W/C 185.oo !ST ~.'m -- w/c 25.00 ',ST QTR -- W/C "2,315,00 IST I~ -- W/C 23o.oo 1ST (~T'R -- W/C ~I2.75 1ST Q~ -- W/C 2,675.(X) 1ST Q'll~ -- W/C 350.00 1ST QTR -- W/C ~4,0,0 IST I~ -- W~ ~.00 1ST QTR -- W/C 12,~6.~ JPJ'il.. -CD 0!-4040-3~>00 OI-40';tO-~O0 01-414-0-26~)0 01-4I~-,%00 01-41 01-4280-3600 01-4290-~00 01-434,0-2.6(X) ,"?-4170-3600 71-7100-2600 73 -7300-~00 78-78(X)-3bO0 1010 120%.75 21r_230 LEY, SJE 'DF ~ CITIES INS T* VIB~rJR TOTAL 12096.75 PRE'PAID ' 3/22189 3122/89 87.'36 HDSP D.~ 3/4 PR, 87.36 JRI~,.-CD 0!-2040-~ 1010 87.~ 23r258 ,' (3ENTER)'EAL~ P1.AJt ~qENEE)R TOTAL 87.~ I'f3170 ~E-PAID 1,113.75 ~ SAC 3/22/89 3/22/89 1,113.75 JRNL-CD 78-23~14-(KKX) 1010 1113.75 29231 1113.75 288.00 DEF' COt~ BED 2~.00 JRNL-CD 3/4 PR 01-2040-0000 1010 MN RE'FIFdEHEI~T SYSTE]~ VE)tI'IDi~ TOTAL PRE-PAiD 3/22/89 3/22/8':) 570.65 ~I~ DED 3/4 PR 570.65 JRNL-CD 01-2040-0{K)0 1010 ~ TE, A~SI'E]~,S LOCAL 3'.20VENEOR TOTAL 570.65 M,:~20 PRE-PAID 68.7'/ 68,7'7 3/22/87 3122/89 137.54 POSTG-~rFR CARDS F13STG-~qFR CARDS JR, NL-CD 73-7300-3210 78-7800-3210 10!0 137.~4 ~76 HgU),S~ P~Ti'~TER ~K[KjR TOTAL 137.54 PRE-PAID 107.41 3/22/89 3/~/~ 107.41 tL':,TL CALEN:i~ CO~,r.~'iY VENDOR TOTAL 107.41 CAI FI~DAF,'S-F I ~ PRE~;TN JRNL-CD 22-4170-2280 1010 107.41 2.'72:, I;?.,~;20 PRE-PAID 35.00 3/22/8'.'.-'. 3/22/',:'? 35.00 ioo5 , _. ............. ........ - ...... vii,JJ~. TOTAL ; .......... NO SLAP: ICE~3 riTG jF',I;L- Ct_. 01-4170-4!20 1010 35.0{) 2?26? PAGE ,5 AP-C02-01 PURCHASE dOURNAL CITY OF MOUND TI~E ~. I~v'OICE N~ DATE D~TE STATUS ~MOi.~rF DE~RIPTION PRE-PAID F.,..'3%0 'PRE-PAID 31~.I89 P E R A VID, IDOR TOTAL 6,~7.88 PEBA 3/4 PR 6,307.88 dRhL-CD 01-2040-0(K)0 1010 6307.88 ~,X~ P4030 PRE-PAID 43:8.~0 HOSP [ED 3/4 F"R 3/~/89 3/~/89 43:8.90 dElt.-CD TOTAL 43.90 01-2040-00~ 1010 438.~ ~ PRE-PAID 3/~/~ ~-PAID 3/22/~ 3/~/8'9 3/22/89 1,521.~ LID 307.2'0 WINE 3:3.50- DISC 1,794.~ 1,679,~ LIQ 242.3 WINE 36.02- DISC 1,885.~9 dFC-CD 71-710C-~10 71-7100-~ 71-7100-7560 1010 7!-7100-~10 71-71¢~ 71-7100-7580 1010 1794.98 1885.99 29273 PRE-PAID .. 1,EYaS.~O LIQ 33.38- DI~ 3/22/89 3122/89 1,635.52 dRNL-CD ~gc!TY WINE.& ~IRITS ~hE~)R TOTAL ~16.49 ~500 FI~E-PAID 12,028.~ FIT 3/4 PR 3/~/G'9 3/~/89 12,0~.~ 71-71(k%~1~ .. 71-7100-9560 1010 1&:~.52 ' OI-iKA4-O-~ 1010 1202'8.~ 2?248 VEbO)OR TOTAL 120~. 55 ~511 PRE-PAID 418.~ ~ UNION DE1) 3/4 PR 01-204-0-0(K)0 3/~/89 3/~/8~ 418.60 dRNL-CD 1010 418.60 292S6 STALE CAPITOL L'I~EDIT L~4ION ~tlIDR TOTAL ~570 PRE-PAID 3/22/89 3/22/89 418.60 148.29, U BE)6F ELL~ 148.~ JRi~.-CD 01-4~-99.. O0 I010 S~:LI~J ELEC~IC CO VB~OR TOTAL W.,..,,O FfC.-PA!D 3/~/89 3/~/b-'9 148.29 7.00 CHAMBER LUNC~ON 7.00 CHAMBER L~CHEON 7.¢~ CHAMBER 21.00 ~u-CD 01-4040-412~ 01-4340-4120 01-41~-41~ 1010 21.00 ,,°9274 WEST~C'CA CHA,%~ OF CO~ER VBZ~OR TOTAL 21.00 PRE-PAID 3/22/~ 20.00 REFb'XD ~,q'R/S~'ER-OV~:PD' ,~' ,~II 5.01 R.FL!,~[ WTR/SEWER-OVEF2D z..,.O1,..r-:iL-CD 73-3740-00(D 78-37~3-00CX) 1010 17'?. 5 ;. PAGE AP-C02-O1 INVOICE DUE NO. IN"~I~ k,~R DATE DA~ STATUS PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY ~ MOUND AMOLIN~ DES'CR!PTION PRE-PAID C TO~tM ESS VENDOR TOTAL 170.50 Z6058 PRE-PAID 65%00 REFUND ESCROW-~DON VIEW 3122189 3I~2189 ~W,O0 dFU~-CD I"PLS BANk & TRUST CO VENDOR TOTAL 657.00 70.14 R~'?L~E~'~4R BILL-O'¢~PD 70.14 JR~_-Cf~ 70.14 101.50 CLOSE E~.J:kOW ACCT-PAISUEY RD 101.50 d~-CD 101 .~ 135.00 i~.~ ~IFDEPOSIT ~I~ 1~ JR~.-CD 100.00 100.® 100.00 100.00 ~IF DEPOSIT REIMB dR~.-CD :64,859.86 01-2040-0000 1010 ~W,O0 ~41 ~ 78-3740-00~ 1010 70.14 2~246 ' ~ 01-2~0-0000 I010 101.50 2~242 ' 81-3260-0000 1010 135,00 29243 01 1010 100.00 ~ ' 01-2300-0220 1010 100.00 %x7287 · /0.o7 PASE ~-C02-01 PURCHASE CITY~ AtIOUNT DESCRIPTI~ 1~.56 1988 AUDIT 1,070.82 lf,'88 AUDIT 903.06 1788 ~JDIT 903.06 1~ AUDIT 3,042.50 JRN%-CD JOURNAL 01-4090-3130 71-7100-3130 78-78CK~-3! 30 1010 PFE-PAID A~LR,rT £ATE TIlE CHECK ABDO AE:~ & EIO( VENDOR TOTAL 3O42.50 ~100 AIR COMM INC A028~ 3122/~ 3/22/~ t, EhlZ'~R TDTAL 9/22/~ 3/22/~' VE),EIDR TOTAL 3122/89 3/22/~ 10.66 DFFICE SLPP~.IES 42.64 O~I~ SO~L!ES ~. 10 DFF!CE SU~P~.IES 33.18 OFFICE SUPPLIES 9.11 O~I~ SUF'PLIES 5.94 OFFICE SUPPLIES 4.56 DFFICE SUPPLIES ~.07 OFFICE SVPPLIES 9.0? ~-'FICE SI~PLIES 16.29 OFFICE SUPPLIES ~7.~2 MINUTE & RESDLUTN BOOKS 500.54 d~L-CD 500.54 1,~0.00 MOBILE ~DIOS 180.00 MOBILE PAl}lOS-LABOR 1,S30.O0 J~L-CD 1530.00 71.88 PARTS & LABOR 71.88 ,.P-,NL -CD 01-404C-2100 01-4070-2: 03 01-4140-2100. 01-4170-2100 01-4340-2100 01-42'~'~,,-21 O0 71-7104.-2100 73-73~-21Ck'1 78-7800-21 O0 01-~;070-2100 01-402'0-2t 00 1010 Ol 01-4140-~303 1010 01-428~)-2310 I010 AMERICAN FI~ESSURE, INC. VrOqDDR TOTAL 71.88 A0340 3/22/1~' 3/22/~ 213.25 XEROX PAPER 213.25 JPJiL-CD 01-43Z*,.'l-2100 1010 TOTAL 213.25 3/~/~ 3/22/8'9 88,13 121.42 209.55 OIL t?EROSB~, OIL JRI~.-CD 0I-4~0-~5~ 01-42~0-~K 1010 E:ILL CLARK OiL ~ANY VEICIOR TOTAL BC~S60 3/~/8~ ~ ~' ~ ol,.'189 209.~ 25~,. 26 2~.26 PARTS ~B:NL-CD 01-4~?0-~i0 I0!0 ~;XAq D!STRiE~]TION ~EfC~JR TOTAL 3]3.28 3i3.27 6, ..... ? 626.57 L':RUSH~ r,.,~.. CRUS~ED ROCK 73-73C~3-2340 !0!0 PAGE 2 A~-C02-O1 PURCHASE CITY ~ ~ JOURNAL TIME ~. ,~,,r,r~ N?LqR D~TE DATE STA~ A~Dt)~F DEEF~,I PTIDN PRE-PAID C A~q~L~_NT NqJMS~R AMOLNT C'-~ C0%0 25.5? FEB SUPPLIES 2.78 FEB SL~IES 30.00 VIDEO C~ETTES 6.66 F!rJ) SLPPLI~ .8~ F~ SU~IES 47.44 FE~ SLP~IES 36.3~ FEB SUBPLIES 3.17 PEB SUPPLIES ~.35 FE$ SUPPLIES 9.66 FEB SUPP~.IES 1~.~3 JR~_-CD 22-4170-2200 01-4320-2200 01-4140-2100 O1-42~O-ZZ'~',~O Ol 42'80-~o0 O1 -.,,~EK~-~J00 72-7200-2200 73-7300-2300 78-7E<)0-~00 78-7800-~ 1010 CCAST TO COAST VEhDDR TOTAL 1~.93 C0990 C1079 TOTAL 31~189 31~71G~ ~07.00 FEB C~dT~ 505.00 FEB CDMPdT1ER 1.45 FEB CO~ 1,413.45 JEW,-CD 1413.45 67.70 liAR TELE-CD$iPt.q'ER 60.18 MARCH TELEPH~E 62.88 MARCH TELEPH~E 118.69' MARCH TELEPHONE 31.44 MARCH TELEPHONE ~7.~ MARCH llELEPHONE 3.32 ~ TE1.EPHO~E 7.63 MARCH TEI.~ 67. 6 MA CH TELEPHOhS .8~ MARCH TELEPHONE 140.53 MAESH ~ ~ 1,088.~2 JRNL-CD 01-40~5-5000 O1 01-~-2100 1010 22-4170-3220 22-4170-3~ 01-4280-~ 73-7300-3220 78-7800-3220 01-41~-2220 01-4220-2220 01-4020-3220 01-404~-3220 01-4340-2220 0 I-41~0-3'~-')0 71-7100-2~'~0 1010 CCNT II~NTAL.TELEPHDNE VB~DO~ TOTAL CUF:T IS .000 3t;_'2/~ 3/~/8~ VEND~R TOTAL 3.37 BOND PAF'ER 3.37 BOND PA"ER 3.37 BDFD PAFER 3.38 BOND PAF~ER 3.35 BDE) F'A?~ 1.69 BDN'D PAFF_R 1.69 BOND P~ER 1.69 BON~ PAJ~R 1.69 E~D PAPER 23.63 JRN'L-CD c~.63 01-4(~0-210(! 01-4~0-2100 01-4140-21(~J 01-4190-2100 01-43~3-21rX) 01-4~0-2100 71-7100-2100 73-7300-2!00 78-7800-.2100 1010 ::i ,: ..... TSTAL 4:)8.65 R LEASE TO 4/i5 204.35 Ru:~_-,,'~: TO 4/15 613.0C) ,-.~,, .rr, PA~. 3 PURCHASE JOURNAL D~TE, ~-~.Oz-O1 CITY OF. MDL~ l,.,' U ~'&,T. OR IIOOI~E DUE ~OLD PRE-PAID ~_q, INVOICE f,~%BR DATE ~TE STA~ ~ DE~RIPTION ~ ~ A~.~% ~', ~ Oll~ ' ~.~ ~ ~, ~ 7~-7~-~ DAVIES WAR EQUI~% VEt.fDOR TOTN~ 250.04 2/~/89 3/~/89 27.00 JE1C_-CD 1010 ,","w PST~J-C'HEM I~ VENDOR TOT~ 27.00 189.~ PARTS 3/22/89 189.~ ~Rt~. -CD 1010 RiTE CON"~':OLS ~E~EFJR TOTAL 189.~ FleXO r~u,u ~CL~RITY F1720 3/22/89 3/22189 VE}'.EIOR TOTAL 3122189 27,~ DJA, R~Y SECURITY 27,75 QU~TE.~Y ~CURITY 27,75 QUARTERLY SECURITY 27.75 QUARRY ~D]RITY I!1.~ ~-CD 111,00 494.00 FIEB SeCRV-MADDEN 494.~ FRAtS( MADDEN & ASSDC ~ TOTAL 494,00 GI~O GFOA Ol%qO 3122189 3122189 VENDOR TOTAL 80.00 GF'OA MEMBERSHIP 8~.00 JRNL-CD 3/22/~ 3/22/89 G[~.,.~ TRAINI¢~ ~VICES VE1EIDR TOTAL 555.00 GlO9 3/22/89 3/22/89 G;~AND EA~N BRA~ F~J~mRY '~ND~ TOTAL ~5.12 H2C!71 3/22/89 ;~,gOR TOTAL ~'~ ~"'~ 3122/87 o/~2~c,X %!.~30E TOTAL ~.~ SURVIV TACTIC SEMINAR ~.~ ~.12 METER COb%Iff~S 225,12 dR~f.-CD 30,(~ ~RVICE MAN"JAL-~O~;~dLLE . 30.00 JR~-CD 30.00 .,;0,00 M~,r, JANITOR S~VlCE .,..-0, O0 ~:f&-CD 570.00 O1-42'80-3100 0t-4~0-3100 73-7300-3100 78-7800-3100 1010 1010 01-4090--4130 I010 01-4140-4110 1010 73-7300-~(~ I010 01-4290-4110 1010 01-4~20-4210 10!0 ;,: -.: '=':': - 1110 /'-':.'/0 P~.' 4 Ao-C02-O1 PURCHASE CITY ~ MD~4B JOURNAL DATE ~.~ ~.~.~.~r~ ~R ~TE DA~ STATUS A~fT [E~%'R, IPTI ON PRE-PAID ACCL~JFF hL.~ZJ, ER A~IOL~JT 2~,24 JRNL-CD 1010 ~3~ F~'JOLCTS V~'q TOTAL .4>3.24 3/22/89 3/:~/~ 5.5~.50 ~I(L-CD 01-40~-4130 1010 L~ MTh'A CI:~:FU~ATI(:R~ Die VENZ)OR TOTAl. ~95.50 3O8.43 263.21 13.T/ 1,70 58,7.11 FE]~ P~TS EB PARTS F1EB PARTS FEE', PARTS O1 0i-4~0-~I0 78-7800-2300 22-4170-2200 1010 LO~'S ALFTOMOTIVE/ZITCO* ~ TOTAL 587.11 LY',F SIGNS, INC 3/22/8~ 3/22/8~ " ~EN_TSR' TOTAL 312218~ 312218~ 647.17 647.17 647:17 6S'3.75 8<73.75 SIGNS JRNL-CD INSTALL CLUTCH JRNL-CD 01-4280-2360 1010 01-4~0-~I0 1010 ~ EQUIPMENT INC H3010 M~INA ALFTO StIFfLY VENDOR TOTAL 3/22/8~ VENDOR TOTAL 90.82 1~.14 155,14 PARts FEI) PARTS ~--(NL-C1) ~-4170-~)0 01-4270-2310 1010 M3040 MASYS DORPO~AT]ON K~D61 3122I~ 312218~ VENZSR TOTN. 1~.00 1~.00 135.00 :~"5.00 £~25.,.00 APR ~,AtNrf-B~FO~S JRNL-CD EVALUATION-NICC~ ~K~.-CD 01-40~5-3800 I010 01-41~-31~ 1010 M~:TIN-MCALL!STE'R VEN[OR TOTAL 27.5. O0 /¢/I 56.00 99.00 14,00 14,00 ~6.00 112.00 978.00 312,00 .q22 .C,O 8A,O0 5~... O0 : Z:), 0 :' FEI) F1EB B;GR-~RB~ LN ESCROW FEI) EN,SR-WTR, SWR FEB B~:- Sll~,EET FEB Eh'iR-CITY HALL ADDTN FEB ~.?,.e.~ TAX FORFEIT LOTS FEB .......' . FEB ~,r,',-~.'--I on,~ ESCROW FEE' DJ:iF:-8'F' EEALCOAT FEE: :r'::,-c,', ir ,,'¥,"pc.: ':7" 26-5700-3100 0I-~00-0970 73-7300-3100 78-7E<,0-'3100 01-4%~:0-31~5 01-4170-31~9 01-4~20-31(~ 0!-4:.:20-3!00 O1 - 2:_:',,?,'.>- 07(~ 27-5:?.80-.31 JOURNAL PRE-PAID CHECK M~00 450.00 NOHEX ~9DDS 450.OO J~-CD ~-4170-~C20 1010 MID-~_NI~hAL INC TOT/iL 450.00 K~..,O 3/22/~) 3/22/~ 463.80 FEBm G~ 301.47 F~ GAS ~4.22 ~ GAS 213.46 FEB GAS $0,.,9 F~ GAS 2,686.31 ~hL-CD 7~-7E~-372~ 0i-42~-3720 71-7100-3720 01-~-3720 1010 M I E~EC~,SCO ~ TOTAL 2686.3I 3/22/89 3/22/8'~ I'iR REC~,_ATIDN & PARK FO~ VE~ TOTAL 113470 3122/89 3f22/~ I"D',I V~LEY TESTING LABORATD VENDOR TOTAL 15.00 ~ DUES-MFU~F 15.00 dRhL-CD 15,00 48.00 WATER TESTS 48.00 48.00 01-4340-4130 1010 73-7C~q0-31OO 1010 M3491 3/22/~ 20.00 EASTER ADV 20.00 dR.-CD 71-7100-3500 1010 MOUND BUSINESS & PR, Or' CDU* VENDOR TOTAL 3/22/~ 3/22/89 VENDOR TOTAL 85.00 ~ DUES-I'~'ELF,:A 85.00 .JRhL-CD 01-4040-4130 1010 HLK{ICI-PALS 3/22. I89 3/,"'7, IG'~ VENDDR TOTAL 5.00 ~9 DUES-MUNICIPALS 5.00 dR,-CD 5.00 01-4090-41~ I010 4~.60 STOP SIDES 453.6.0 JRI~_-CD 1010 453.60 31221:->? 59.25 FEB ELEC 781.09 FE~ E~C ~ ...... A FEB ELEC 908,90 JR~L-CD 01-4280-3710 73-73~-3710 1010 ?08.?0 /¢}4 PAGE 6 A~-C02-01 N~THERN STATES PURCHASE CITY OF MOUND I¢¢0ICE DUE HOLD DATE, 3/-,'~/89, 3/.'~/89 4,838.86 VE]~_q~OR TOTAL 4~.86 312189 R L YOUNG[~IL & AS~CIATES VE~OR TOTAL R4230 RC~DEh~IFID~TI0~ M240 S4.x,s 3I~/89 3/22/89 ~ TOTAL 3122~8~ TOTAL 3/22/89 VE~EOR TOTAL SANITARY PRODUCTS COMPANY S4390 SHO~ELI N~ PLAZA S4419 3/22/8~ 3/~/,~ VENDOR TOTAL 3/22/8~ TOTAL SNAF'-B4 .TOOLS 3122/89 3/~/8'9 SCS PRINTING VEN[CJR TOTAL ~43! 3/22/~ 3/~/89 ..... ,~,~JM C~&'~ S~VICE VEkE~ TOTAL -5. ~/,;'.. ..'~-~ '-'/ :T ~7,:; C~L VEK%.~ TOTAL [ES'CRIPTI~ dl~_-CD 400.00 EEN:-W~- i 'NS 372.00 RE~-I~S 5,148.00 LIQ LIABILITY 218,00 RDC~'WAL- INS 218.00 RENEWAL-INS 6,757.00 JEll-CD JOURNAL 5,00 PROCESS ID CARD 5.00 ~r~NL-CD 5.00 214.00 KENNEL FEES 214.'00 J~_-CD 214.00 310.85 CLEANER, MAT 20.36- CREDIT-SEE~S 290.49 JR~-CD 290.49 2,300.66 APR RENT 2,300.66 ,.RNL-CD ,'~'.50WF',£NCH ORGANIZERS 22.50 ~NL-CD 22.50 201.70 NOT HOME CAR~ 201.70 ,.r~,l~,_ -CD ~3! .70 22.50 VACUUM BAG 22.50 JRNL-CD 22.50 160.00 OIL 160.00 160.00 1010 01-4~d0-3610 22-4170-3610 71-7100-3610 78-78'>3-,%10 1010 01-4140-2200 1010 01-4140-4270 1010 22-4170-~YqJO 22-4170-2200 1010 71-7100-2~20 1010 01-4~,->90-2200 I010 73-7300-2120 1010 71-7100:22(~ 1010 22- 4170-22,:.'k.~ 10t0 PRE-PAID hATE TI~E P~ 7 PURCHASE JOURNAL ~-C02-01 CITY ~ MOUND SLPD~AWERI CA VENDOR TOTAL 768.31 T4~1 ~2.00 ~'bTER FAI~3 3/8~-2/90 ~-4170-:~ 442.00 ~-CD 1010 TRW - DJST~ SERV!~ DIV ~E)~ TOTAL ~42.00 3/22/8V 3122I~ 50.26 F~ T~S 01-42~-~ 111.10 FE]) ~ 78-7800-2200 · 117.67 FEB L~4IF~ 01-A~0-~40 23.~ FIE~ ~IFDDIS 60.15 F1EB ~IFE~tS 73-7300-22~ 60,15 FEB ~IF~ 78-7800-2240 422.86 dRNL-CD 1010 UNITOG EE~FAL SYSTEM VENDDR TOTAL 422.86 3/22/8~ 3'/...~/~ 1~.60 STRE~ TEST-NICCUM 01-4140-3100 1~.60 JFUI!.-CD '1010 ",~-qC~)~!A Rt~IEW HOSPITAL tqE~DDR TOTAL 19~.bO 3122189 3122189 W~TEI~..,~ F~:O[~TS ~' '" ~A~4Y ~qE]~E1DR TOTAL 1,(EA.~ VALES, CDLrFt I N~iS, E-TC 73-7300-23;J0 1 ,C~54.~ JRt4L-CD 1010 · 1064,~ 3/2~/87 3/22/89 V~h[~ TOTAL ,.~55.(X} SL~-SYCA,LiCF:E B~AX 73-73(~>-S?JJO 648.00 I~_~D-R!DC. EWD V~ 73-73~-3800 1,C07.50 I DLEWD-RI[G~rO BPJEAI( 1,070,87 E~DW PLOWING 01-4280-4200 3,2t2.~ SNO~ PLYING 40-6000-42~ 6,~4,00 dF:NL-CD 1010 6894,6~ 1, IcQ..4 I T ~u,~n. ~ ~ SAI;D 01-4280-2~40 3,678,10 421.8 T BUCKSHOT ~-.,ovv-.c,~v"= =~'^'~ ~"'~ 553,D9 242.4 T F!~ ~3.8'~ 242,4 T FILL Si!JO 78-7800-2~40 5,766.1! ~RL-CD I0!0 PAGE 8 ~'-C02-01 INVOICE. DATE. ~WEJRST -PEAE~ON-LARSON 312218~ PURC'~ASE CITY O~ MOU~D DUE. HOLD DATE STATUS 3/~./~ 1,731,00 VE~I)OR TOTAL 1731.00 3I,'q. 189 3I,'~,189 ;E)~'JR TOTAL TOTAL ALL VE~JORS DES'CRIPTION dRNL-CD FEB.. ~1.00 '~Y I~8: 667.82 &1,007,94 JOURNAL A~'~T 1010 TIME PRE-PAID [ AMOL~ff C~zqK, ) GENERAL' FUND I r,t e r-_q ove r.r:me n t ~ 1 Bus i r~ess Li,_-er,¢e$ Nc, n-Bus iness Licenses ~nd Per. mi ts sr. ges Ser. vices Cc, upt Fines Chmr. ges to Other. Dep~rtments Other- Revenue TOTAL REVENUE BUDGET CITY CiF MOUND 1989 BI_IZHDET REVENLIE REF'ORT FEBRUARY I 'P:--:'? FEBRUARY YTD REVENUE ! 6.67% PER CENT REVENUE 'VARIANCE RECEIVED 'F*:-]:4315 '.~, 6580]} -' 9410 · 0 ..:,.:,~7 9807:_=:8_ 0.34% 16._ (.)J) 16500 '~* 4~/,300 i 7 l'~A 531 762 S64:B 8. I0% E:/--,700 :]:334 7033 796/_-,7 8.11% :--:8800 /_-,07 1161 376:2:9 2. 100000 4778 4778 95222 4.78% 1/_-,500 2003 28E:O 13620 ! 7.45% 51850 62 87 51763 0.17% 2253375 27815 :2:/:,52::: 2216:E:47 1. 62% LIQLIOR FUND WATER FUND. :--:EWER F UF.F't C:EKETARY F I_lh,~ D :-]::E:O000 540:2:3 109117 770:BE:3 12.40% 3:2:0000 24:304 4:_::234 2:$: 1766 14./:,2% 5:B0000 49772 'F.,/_-.616 4',:-',:E',:3:-':4 16.66% 65300 ::: 724 :':', 4- 730 ,:.') i :B C', 00 72.4:3 % :--:0 5 0 0 0 :_::C)50 0. C)0% C:iTY iZ;F MOUND i'F~E:9 BUDGET REPART E X F'END i TURES FEBRUARY i 16,. 67% B,_IDL, ET GENERAL FUND C ,:, u n ,.-. i l Cmble TV City M'mr, mger./Cler-k El ect i,:,ns Assessing Fir, tahOe Legal. P o 1 i c e Civil Defense F'l ~r,r,i r,g/I nmpe,- t Recyc 1 ir, g Str. eets Shop & Stores City Proper. ty Pmrks Summer- Recr. emtion Co r~t i r~ger~c Tr. mnsfer, s FEBRUARY '-,.'T£ E X F'ENSE E X F'E N:E;E GENERAL FUNr) TL-yTAL 460:2:(:) 9980 8106 8106 143210 96:--:5 20970 650 32 72 43930 " 50 2'P5 1 ._,-.' 760 118::::3 22:64:3 20000 :2:55:2: '- "'=/ .£,,-,._ 97100 :-_-:542 6642 /_-,77770 70/_-, 15 11765:3 1880 0 0 1284¢)0 7'.--.~27 67400 '~ '-' I ...4.-. .36:371 :=_-:91140 3124:E', 65080 57760 85.48 1314(:) 81860 :3537 954/_-, 14 yozO 51 ._ 6 11763 11090 0 0 2:0 00 0 0 13 126150 '-?..,=' .~,'?._ · !-971 ,,z: VAR I ANCE :2;6722 i 874 122240 578 43635 129117 16144 '~0458 560117 1 :--::BO 113504 :2:102? 2:26C)/:,0 44620 72:2,14 1 :::7557 1 10'.-.-' 0 299',-.:7 106432 PER CENT EXF'ENDED 20.22% 1.22% 4.64% 1.08% O. 67% 5.4.8% 9.2:--:% 6.84% 7.36% 0.00% 1.60% 53.96% 6.64% 22.75% 1.66% 7.:38% O. 00% 15.63% 2212:641-.10 17:31 45 3/:, 1072 i 137 51-_'1511_; i 6. 15% Ar. ea Fife :r;er. vi,ze Fur, d 7.7::-;% 15. :36% 17.00% 14. '.-?13% 6,2. :--:9% . / ,-,/, c=- 0 Star Tribune/Monday/March 20/1989 This ad promoting recycling points outthat Hennepin CountY's garbage could fill the Metrodome each year. According to Carl Michaud, the county's recycling coordinator, cities Mth 'established recycling programs have been eager for county promo- tional support, but the county want- ed t'0 wait until most cities had estab- lished programs. He said 29 of'the county's 46 municipalities by this spring, will have begun curbside recy- .t:ling programs. In more thinly poPu- lated areas, residents are encouraged to dr. op recyclab]es off' at designated collection points. Hennepin County's advertising, fol- lowing research by the Padilla Speer Beardsley public relations firm, will emphasize that each resident aver- ages one ton of garbage annually and to combat the idea that recycling is too inconvenient. "A lot of people told us they already feel guilty. The>' don't need that as a motivator," said Padilla's Tom Barti- koski. Instead. the Hennepin County teton aims at making sure residents know that. their City Hall can tell them what and when to recycle. The county will use TV, radio, bus and newspaper ads for the next three weeks, then return probably in early summer and early fall. Perhaps the most arresting image is a 10-second TV spot that opens the Metrodome roof Like a garbage can lid, noting that county residents pro- duce enough trash annually to fill the stadium. The M'inneapolis campaign devel- oped by the ClarSty Coverdale Rueff firm starts April 17 and runs through early June. Although $70.000 is ear- marked for direct-mail postage alone, the effort includes three'.radio spots. One features the vocal group Moore By Four in a reworked song from the musical, "Ain't Misbehavin'." A bus-side ad ,;,'ill show a Coke can being recycled into a Pepsi can. A set of four bus shelter ads try to reinforce recycling habits. One showing a beer bottle is labeled "This Bud's for us." Undernea:h is the messa~ce: "Throw- ing away glass is a 5r,.'akab!e habit." I Michael Barlow · (612) 472-5965 · ~25-Gc, ur, ty-Road-~O-Ner.~,~,, Mound, Min'nesota 55364 I o.....% Zo"/~ cc.~v,,¢,*, -C..0_.¢.¢S ~,,_,,.,'lb, Michael Barlow · (612) 472-5965 · ,v~,~~ad~.~Ck. No ~ Mound, Minnesota ,55364 MARK E. BREWER, D.C. 5581 Shoreline BNd. Mound, Mbl 55364 Telephone: (612) 472-4888 February 22, 1989 Ed Shukle City Manager 534! Ma~vood Rd. Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Shukle: Thank you for your invitation to apply for a poSition on the Economic Development. Commission. It has been a pleasure to serve on the t~s.k force and I feel there are many gains to. be . made by the commission. Please accept this letter and attached resume as application for a ~osition on the. EDC. I have much at stake in this Community as~a businessmah, resident, and parent and I would like to make sure Mound continues to grow and prosper. Thank you again and I 'look forward to hearing from you. Very %ruly yoursK~-,-,~ Mar~'E. Brewer, D.C. Mark E. Brewer, D.C. Chiropractic Physician 5581 Shoreline Boulevard Mound, Minnesota 55364 [612J 472-4888 Curriculum Vitae 1979 1981 1983 EDUCATION Bachelor of Arts, Grove City College, Grove City, PA. Bachelor of Science, Human Biology, Logan College of Chiropractic, St. Louis, MO. Doctor of Chiropracgi¢, Logan College of Chiropractic, St. Louis ADVANCED CERTIFICATIONS AND LICENSES 1982 1982' 1983 1983 1983 1983 1984 1987 Certificate. National Board of Chiropractic Examiners. Certificate. Thompson Technique. Certificate. Activator Technique. Certificate of"Clinical Practice License. Missouri. License. PA. License. Minnesota State Board of Chiropractic Examiners. Certificate of Industrial Consulting. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS AND MEMBEP~SHIPS American Chiropractic Association Minnesota Chiropractic Association Hennepin County Chiropractic Association Minnesota Safety Council Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research Parker Chiropractic Research Foundation International Association of Chiropractic Industrial Consultants OFFICES HELD 1983 Vice 'President, Delta 'Sigma Chi Honorary Fraternity 1986.'President, Mound JaYcees, Mound, Minnesota 1987 Vice President, Minnesota Industrial Consultants COMMUNITY SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS Mound Jaycees, Mound, Minnesota Rotary Club of Mound, Mound, Minnesota Westonka Chamber of Commerce Mound Governmental Affairs Council PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE !981-83 1980-83 1982-83 Laboratory Assistant, Montgomery Clinic, Chesterfield, MO. Intern Kinesiology Center of St. Louis, St. Louis, biO. Acute LOW Back Team, Montgomery Clinic, Chesterfield, MO. Mark E. Brewer. Mound, Minnesota - Page 2 (Professional Experience - cont.) ~1982-83 ,Internship, Montgomery Clinic, Chesterfield, MO. 1983-84 General Practice, Brentwood Accident and Industrial Injury Clinic, Brentwood, MO. 1984-Present: Private Practice, Mound, Minnesota !986-Present: Consultant/V.P., Minnesota Industrial Consultants AWARDS AI~D HONORS 1982-83 1983 1985 1988 1983 Who's Who Among Students in American Universities Certificate of Appreciation. Logan College of Chiropractic Jaycee of the Quarter. Minnesota Jaycees Certificate of Appreciation. Minnesota Industrial Consultants Awarded Life Member Status. Delta Sigma Chi Honorary Fraternity POST GRADUATE EDUCATION 1983 Motion Palpation Institute, "Motion Palpation of the Spine" Nimmo Receptor Tonus Technique "Applied Kinesiology" Internation College of Applied Kinesiology 1984 Motion Palpation Institute, "Manipulation of the Spine" "Low Back Pain and Lumbar Disc Disorders", Drl J. Cox, DACBR "The Seven Wonders of the Spine", Dr. T. Yochum, DACBR "Spinal Radiology and Pathology", Dr. T. Yochum, DACBR "Applied Kinesiology", International College of Applied Kinesiology 1985 ;'Sk~leta'l Radiology", NWCC post Graduate Division Grilliot Radiology Seminar, Dr. James Grilliot, DACBO Sports Injuries, NWCC Post Graduate Division Foot/Ankle Injury, Dr. Harold Kieffer Biomechanics of Injury, Dr. Leroy Perry Knee, Hip, Elbow, Shoulder and. Hand Injuries, Dr. J. Ransom 1986 Chiropractic Industrial Consultant Certificate Program, NWC¢ Post-Graduate Division, 120 Hours No-F~ult Personal Injury Seminar, Mr. Arnold Laub, Esq. Radio!ogical Interpretation of Trauma, Dr. Lindsay Rowe, DACBO 1987 'Workers' Compensation Seminar, MN. Chiropractic Association O~thop~dic Impairment Rating, Dr. Ron Evans, DACBO · Industrial Consultant Program, NWCC Post-Graduate Division 1988 Radiology of Spinal Trauma, Dr. Vinton Albers, DACBO Applied Spinal Biomechanical Engineering, Ronald Aragona, D.C., Ph.D., F.A.S.B.E. The Nutrition Masters Course, Nutrition Dynamics Corp. Pathomechanics, Diagnosis and Treatment of' the Cervical Spine and Related Syndromes, Self-Study Program Edward Shulke '*y of Cm ~ Mound 5541 Ma~ood Road Mo~d, ~ 55564 i~ar )Ir. Shulke, i was pleased to learn fram our local newspaper that the City of Mound is estab!ishin~ an Ecnnam~c Development Commission. Although I feel that Mound is presently an excellent community to live in, I also feel that Mound has a tremendous potential for gro~th. I would like to .serve on:this commission, b.~ back-round includes education and experience in the areas of accounting, finance, inves~2nent and r~nagement. In addition to these qualifications, I feel that I would bring enthusiasm as well as a strong commitment to achieving the goals of the co..~mission. I can be reached at the following address or phone numbers: 5910 Beachwood Road Mound, ~ 55364 home phone 472-4430 office phone 626-4356 Please contact me if you have any questions regarding my qualifications or availabili~'. C.R. MFG, CO. 5338 Shoreline Blvd. P.O. Box 498 · Mound, MN 55364 (612) 472-3600 Out State Toll Free 1 (800) 328-3984 City of Mound Mr. Edward J. Shukle, 5341 M~ywoo~ Road Mour~ MN 55364 Jr. March 6, 1989 I would-be interested in being on the Econcmic Develolm~_nt Task Force. I regret that .I did not receive your invitation for the meeting. I am interested in developing new and helping the existing business in our area. Sincerely., · Fred E. Guttormson Exclusive Manufacturers of the V/HISKEY GATE /03o CONTPx.OL DATA _' (~CONT~OL DATA CONTKOL DATA Kathyrn Kluth 4432 Denbigh Mound, Minnesota February 21, 1989 55364 Edward J. Shukie, Jr., City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Mr. Shukle: Enclosed please find my resume and accept this application to serve as a member of the Economic Development Commission which is to be created. I am most interested in being a member of this commissi'on and will await word from you regarding the scheduling of interviews for the positions. My thanks for being offered the opportunity to apply for this. Cordially, Kat.~yr f Kluth u E. KATHYRN KLU.TH ~4'32 Pen big!', biound, Minnesota 55364 (612) 472-5089 OBJECTIVE: Entry level position in Development/Planning utilizing my knowledge and degree in Urban Studies. E~DU CATION: ~.S. ~"-bo~ 4.. Studies, minor in Sociologv~ of Organizations, Universi~v~ of ~,linnescta, ?larch 1988. GPA 3.11/4.0'. Specialty courses: statistics, environmental science, cartography, urban and economic geographies. HONORS: ~ ean s List OSLO Scholarship, 1987, used for internship in a county commissioner's office. INTERNSHIPS: City of Mound, Summer 1984. Researched and participated in the development of the current curb-side recycling program. On task force for program. Worked with the city manager and other city employees and community volunteers. Minnesota Center for Community Economic Development, Spring 1987. Researched and compiled information on community economic development in Minnesota and Massachusetts, with the agency ~director, Melva R~dtke. Hennepin County Commissioner, John E. Derus, Winter 1987. Using word processor answered letters, participated in scheduling the Commissioner, attended annual county budget hearings, studied and wrote papers on the metro waste incinerator and light rail transit system proposals. WORK EXPERIENCE: Research Assistant and Teaching Assistant, University of Minnesota, 1982-1986. Advised 20-30 s:udents per quarter, graded assignments, taught speech/communication classes and ke~t class records. Collected and established a record keeping system for research data, did legal and patent research, aided in fund-raising, interviewed persons and participated in monthly meetings. Led sessions on problem solving and innovation. Personnel Pool, May 1987-June i988. 18 week assignment as secretary in private non-profit agency, Minnesota Project Innovation, Inc. Handled correspondence, state, federal taxes, payroll, travel arrangements for 3 executives, did publicity and record keeping 'for seven seminars. Majority of other assignments receptionist, file clerk and secretarial w~rk. Woodhill,Financial, May-June 1988. See letter of recommendation. Updated agents mailing ]_ist on iBM computer. Provided support services for five agents and primary secretary, ie. =yped.correspondence, prepared financial reports for clients, filed, and took and relayed calls. Temporaries-To-Go, June 1988 to current. City of Delano: modified a manual inventory system of the city liquor store, completed fiscal invento'ry pricing using 10-key. RECENT CIVIC ACTIVITY: Economic Development Task Force, Mound, Minnesota. With consultant Business Develop- ment Services, Inc. Election Judge: Chairperson, Mound, ~,;innesota. REFERENCES: Available on request. ~- ~C~'-':~.~a~-ned GPA of ~.~ ~ while working 15-20 hours ~er. week and putting self through January 5, 1988 Mr. Ed Shukle City I-.~anager Mound City Offices 5341 ~,~aywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Shukle: In response to our telephone, conversation Wednesday january 4th, the following'is my wr~tteh .expression of interest for a position on Mound Advisory Planning Commission. After moving t~ Mound I have been interested in being an involved citizen and feel that as a member of the Planning CommisSion ] would provide a productive input for the development of our community. As a younger, recent resident living in a newer development I symbolize a growing segment of the population which needs to be represented. The attached resume details my attributes which I belive qualifies me for the position. Most importantly I possess enthusiasm and sincere desire to be'a productiVe, active member of the community. I look forward to meeting you and interviewing .with the Planning ~ommi. ssion and the City Council next ~qonday evening. Ben I:~a rks /o3 January Mr. Ed Sheckle, City Manager Mound City Offices 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Sheckle: EncloSed is a brie£ resume as you requested in our phone .conversation earlier this week. I am interested in the vacancies on the Mound Advisory Planning Commission which were posted in the newspaper this-past week. My current position at Carlson Companies a~ Research and Planning. Manager £or the Frequency Division puts me in touch with the marketing 'and planning departments 0£ 'Fortune 500 companies daily basis. In a previous position, as a. consultant in a company of which I was co-owner, I worked aa chie£ consultant and pro3ect manager on numerous pro]ecta £or'cities (Plymouth, Brooklyn Park) and private developer~ ~o£ various, housing pro3ecta in local cities (St. Louis Park, Rich£ield~ Stillwater, Roseville and many others) in which we conducted feasibility studies ~or new pro3ects. Since the requirements of this position are not quite clear to me, I will be curious to discover your planning needs at the interview on Janua'r¥ 9th. I have been a resident of Mound now fo~ 8 years and would like'some opportunity to contribute to a community which has given so much to me. ~hanks ~or your consideration. Sincerely, T: 472-2659 JUDITH ANNE MARSHIK 20g~ Commerce Boulevard Mound, MN S5364 (612) 972-2659 RELATED EXPERIENCE: Research Project Manager for hundreds of pro3ects dealing with market research and planning. Clients have ranged from public entities such as cities and federal agencies to private £or-profit entities such as Fortune 500 companies, area entrepreneurs and chains or branches of ~id-size companies. Designer o£ hundreds o£ questionnaires, surveys, open-ended interview guides related to study issues in various pro3ects. National Vice President o£ Research and Development professional organization. £or a Managed a project designated a~ the most innovative proDect by the Rand Corporation when they reviewed pro]ects.nationwide. .. research similar Awarded researcher of the year award by a Minnesota Professional Association. Business Experience Have done several in-depth studies £or business-related organizations such as the Small Business Administration and the National Association o£ Women'Business Owners. Member of several business organizations including NAWBO, MACI and the American Marketing Association. Co-owned several businesses during the pa~t ten years and as such .ha~e done business planning, developed business service~ and been at ri~k personally for the aucces~ o£ a business. Analysis and ReDortinq Written hundreds of summary reports and other documents which analyzed data or sum,ed up decision-group activities. Analysis of data has permitted clients to introduce new services in extremely competitive marketplaces by discovering .unmet need~ and new market niches. Several examples of this. Have provided critical review of other research e££orts to current employers, other clients and national professional organizations. These reviews have yielded substantive findings enabling ne~ insights and business advantages. Page Two Judith Marshik, Remume Manaqement Experience Managed departments in four dif{erent settings in which~I ,set up the department including establishing criteria £or hirin_c, identi£ying all position~ in the new department, screening 3ob candidate~ and orientation o£ new personnel. Managed and related to varioum employees including professional and non-professional persona as well as various subcontractors selling research services in various types of businesses. EMPLOYMENT HISTORY Carlson Marketing Group 1988-Present Manager, Research and Planning Qu~iity Decisions, Inc. 1981-1988 Sen~or Consultant Foundation for HeaI%h' Care Evaluation - 1976J1981 : : ~ Division of Research, Education and Development, Manager Division of Long Ter. Care Evaluation, Director Normanda.le C~mmunity College - 1973-1976 Program Director North Hennepin Community College, University o£ Minnesota, St. Mary's Junior.College - 1969-1973 EDUCATION: College o£ St. Catherine, St. Paul, MN Degree: B.S. in Nursing, MinOr in Philosophy University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN Degree: M.A. in Educational Psychology, Testing and Measurement Degree: All cour$ework completed for Ma~tera in Leadership - health related University of Minnesota~ Minneapolis, MN Doctoral Candidate in Business and Economics OTHER INFORMATION Have authored 15-20 publications in respect to variou$ pro3ects. A list can be ~urnizhed upon request. Various awards related to work. Will be £ur'nished upon request. THETA INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS, INC. (612) 471-8569 DISTRIBUTORS & WHOLESALERS · WOODWORKING SUPPLIES · CRAFT SUPPLIES* BOARD GAME COMPONENTS FAX (612) 471-8579 March 1, 1989 Edward J. Shulke, Jr. City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Ed: The purpose of this letter is to apply for one of the six positions which make up the Mound Economic Development Commission. Besides being a resident of Mound, I own a successful business which was located in Mound from 1983-1987. Additionally, I currently own commercial rental property in Mound. I have been active in Mound community affairs in the past, the most notable being my work on producing Mound's 75th anniversary booklet and co-chairing this year's City Days event with my wife, ~Pat, and another couple. It is my belief that my input would be of benefit to the comm~sjoD and the rest. dents of ~ou~d. _.Sincerely, /J Paul Meis~l ~ President MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 70, MOUND, MN 55364 SHIPPING ADDRESS: 4310 SHORELINE DRIVE SPRING PARK, MN 55384 lou o Westonka Area Chamber of Co mmerce 5600 Lynwood Boulevard, Mound, MN55364 · ~,72-6780 February 21, 1989 11989 OFFICERS ~-'_'.. Tr~.a ~.: DIRECTORS C-aig..~,nders:- 2. S< '- "? ac) Gene Shavlk C.~_rr,, Smit~-. Mr. Ed Shukte City of Mound 534i Mayw~bd Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Shukle: This is to inform you that t would like to apply to serve on the Economic Development Commission currently being established by the City of Mound. Bo~h, as t'he Wes'tonka Area ¢'hamber of Commerce Executive:Director, and as a concerned area resident, I feel that it is important for me to be involved in this type of developmental process. Sincerely, Chic Remien Executive Director CR/lmg ORDINANCE NO. 21-1989 AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 260 TO THE CITY CODE CREATING AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COKMISSION AND ESTABLISHING ITS DUTIES THE CITY OF MOUND DOES ORDAIN: Section 260 is hereby added to the City Code and shall read as follows: Section 260 - Economic Development Commission Section 260:00. Establishment of Commission. An Economic Development Commission for the City of Mound is hereby estab- lished. The Commission shall be the City's Development Commis- sion and shall hereafter be referred to as "EDC". Section 260:05. Purpose. The purpose of the EDC will be to fur- ther the economic development of Mound; to aid, assist and promote th~ growth, expansion and development of business thereby to contribute to the economic well being of the area as measured by increased employment, payroll, business volume, tax base and corresponding factors. Section 260:10. Composition'. The EDC shall consist of seven members. Six members shall be appointed by the City Council and any member may be removed by a four-fifths vote of the Council; the Council shall select one me.mber of the Council to serve on the Commission from among the Councilmembers, the said Council- member to be appointed for one year, commencing 'in January of each year; the City Manager shall be a member of the Commission. ex-officio and without vote. On the terms of the members first appointed, two shall expire December 31, 1989; two shall expire December 31, 1990; and two shall expire December 31, 1991. Their successors shall be ap- pointed for terms of three years. Both the original and succes- sive appointees shall hold their office until their successors are appointed and qualified unless removed by a four-fifths vote of the. City Council. The term of ex-officio member shall cor- respond with their respective office tenures. Vacancies .during the term shall be filled by the Council for the unexpired portion of t'he term. Every appointed member before entering upon the discharge of his or her duties shall take an oath that he or she will faithfully discharge the duties of his or her office. All members shall serve without compensation, but may be reimbursed for actual expenses if funds therefor are provided in the adopted City budget. No appointed member shall serve more that two con- secutive three year terms. If a member is appointed to complete someone else's term, they may serve two additional three year terms. The qualifications of the members of the Commission shall be those who, in the judgment of the Council, are representative of the ce~unity and are qualified by training and experience and 1 interest useful for the fulfillment of the Commission's respon- sibility in economic development. Section 260:15. Organization, Meetinqs, Etc. At the first meet- ing'o~ the year, the Commission shall elect its own Chairperson for a term of one year and each year thereafter. The Commission shall elect at its first meeting a Vice-Chairperson for a term of one year and each year thereafter. The Commission may create.and fill such other offices as it may determine and create subcom- mittees as it deems necessary to accomplish its purpose. The Commission shall hold at least one regular meeting each month at a time and place as agreed upon by its me~ers. Section 260:20. Commis'sion Staff. The Commission Shall receive the staff services of the City Manager or his designee or other personnel as recommended by the City Manager. Section 260:25. ~es~onsibilities. The EDC shall have as its number one priority goal the economic development of the~City of Mound. In order to accomplish this goal, the EDC shall advise the Ci%y Council on actions it deems appropriate. The Commission shall: a) Promote the ~eyelopment and use of planned commercial, in'dustrial and busfness sites in the City. b) ProVide information to realtors and lending institu- tions' serving, industrial, commercial or business ctients.~ . c) Cooperate with site relocation committees and in- dustrial, commercial or business leaders seeking a locati.on for new or expanded Plant 'facilities. d) Cooperate with civic betterment agencies interested in promoting the potential of the City's labor force and industrial, commercial and business areas. e) Cooperate and coordinate the laYout, preparation and distribution of unsolicited industrial, commercial or business information from the City of Mound to prospec- -tire commercial, industrial or business clients. f) Review state legislation and local ordinances in order 'to. determine how these regulations impact on local economic development. g) Explore conventional and alternative ~ethods of financ- ing for commercial and industrial development. h) Meet with and explore with local developers and busi- ness persons to learn their concerns and receive their input as to'how the economic climate can be improved. ±) Meet with elected and appointed state and local offi- cials along with other appropriate resources it deems necessary in order to accomplish its goals. J) Advise the City Council of new legislation and or- dinances it would like to see adopted and/or amendments to the same which it feels will promote economic development. From time to time the EDC shall hold a joint meeting with the City Council so as to inform both groups of the others' efforts and to keep open the lines ~f communication.· k) Undertake whatever other tasks the City Council finds it can be helpful with and which will enhance the area's economic development. Section 260:30. Powers. a) The EDC shall have no power to make contracts, levy taxes, borrow money, or condemn property, but shall have the full power and responsibility to investigate the necessity and recommend the taking of these and any other actions related to the industrial~and commercial development by the Council and all other officers of the City responsible to formulate the terms of and the procedure for taking such action. b) To confer with and advise the Council and Planning Com- mission on all matters.concerning the industrial, busi- ness and commercial development of the City. c) To publicize, with the consent of the Council, the in-- dustrial and commercial advantages and opportunities of the City within the City'provfded by any appropriation made therefor by the Council. a) To Collect data and information as to the type of in- dustries and commerce best suited to the City. e) To periodically survey the overall condition of the 'City from the standpoint of determining whether the City has a community climate for economic development ~nd to determine the general receptiveness of the City to particular types of industry, commerce or business. f) To provide the Council with information as to the general advantages and disadvantages of industrial and commercial development in the community. g) To cooperate with all industries and businesses in the City in the solution of any community problem which they may have and to encourage the expansion, develop- ment and management of such industries and businesses so as to promote the general welfare of the City. n) To. cooperate with all con, unity groups and civic or- ganizations within the City and to furnish them with such aid and advice as deemed appropriate. To develop~ ~ompile, coordinate and publiciz6 with available funds, information, such as, but not limited to the following: Existing industrial and comnercial concerns within the City, their addresses, types of businesses, number of employees and whether each serves local, regional or national markets. Available industrial and commercial sites includ- ing number of acres, approximate price, existing zoning and proximity to major and minor arterial roads. Available buildings for industrial and commercial operations, including type of building, nunher of square feet, existing zoning and proximity to major and minor arterial roads. Transportation facilities, including motor car- rier.s, air transportation and highway facilities. 5. Electric power available. 6. Funds available for industrial and commercial use. 7. Sewage ~isposal facilities. Water supply facilities. 6ommunity facilities such as fire, police and education. 10. Recreational facilities. 11. Wage rates of unskilled, skilled, semiskilled and white collar workers. Availability of labor. 13. General commUnity attitude toward industrial and commercial expansion, development and attraction. 14. Experience and programs of suTrounding suburban · communities in regard to industrial and commercial · expansion, development and attraction. 15. To recommend to the Council and Planning Co~is- sion policies and particular actions in regard to industrial and commercial expansion, development, and attraction. Attest: To Cooperate with and use the facilities of the Minne~,ota Department of Trade and Economic Development. Mayor City Clerk Adopted by the City Council Published in the official newspaper date 5 ! 05'0 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 13, 1989 Present were: Chair William Meyer, Commissioners Vern Andersen, Brad Sohns, William Thal, Jerry Cta~saddle, Kenneth Smith, and Geoff Michael, Council Representative Liz Jensen, City Planner Mark Koegler, Building O~ficial Jan Bertrand; and Secretary Peggy James. Absent and excused was Commissioner Frank Weiland. Chair-Bill Meyer called the meeting to order at ?:30 p.m. Minutes MOTION ~de by Michael, seconded by Clapsactclle to approve the 'Planning Commission Minutes oF February 27, 1989 as sub- mitred. Motion carried unanimously. BOARD OF APPEALS: Case No. 88-732: Vic Cossette, ARCO/Century Cos., 5533 Shoreline Blvd., Lot 5 and Westerly 50' of Lot 6~ Auditor's Subdivision 170, PID #13-.1]7-24-33-0007 & 0008. CONDITIONAl USE PERMIT AMENDMENT (PUBLIC HEARING) Building Official, Jan Bertrand, explained to the Commission that the City received a complaint regarding the loud speaker paging system. On February 28, 1989 the City Council referred Mr. Cossette's request, to amend his 'Conditional Use Permit, to the Planning Commission for their review. The Building Official fur- ther offered some optional solutions which she also conveyed to the City Council: restricting the number of speakers, reduclng the noise level at the property 1 ire to 65. decibels, and limiting the hours .the pager could be used (from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.). After discussion with the City Planner, he feels the Conditional Use Permit. discouraged work outside of the building and they should not have a need to page workers. Chair Meyer opened the public hearing. Vic Cossette spoke on his behalf and handed out a letter to the Commissioners from his neighbor, The Hair Connection. The letter states they have oc- cupied the building next to ARCO/Century Cos.' for m~ny years, they do not find the phone paging offensive and they cannot hear the paging with'in their building. Cossette added that the paging system is essential to running his business, especially during the busy summer season. He has had the system for five years and has not heard of any other complaints. The Commission questioned Mr. Cossette if the ring From the telephone is heard over the speaker; he stated he did not know. Plann~'ng Commission Minutes March 13, ]989 Page Two Andersen informed the Commission that the ringing is heard over the speaker, and added he can hear it when he is at his store which is approximately two blocks away. Cossette offered a solu- tion stating he could add a volume contro] device to the system to reduce the noise. I-t was also suggested that the ringing be removed from the speaker system. Concern was expressed in regards to work being done outside the building, Cossette stated they clean, buff, and do mechanical work on vehicles/boats outside. Sohns suggested Cossette explore more alternatives to reduce the noise level, and that the Commis- sioners visit the site and listen to the paging system. Chair Meyer closed the public hearing. Jensen reviewed the City Council discussion stating that the City Council was more con- cerned with ~he speakers.being used to advertise'sales, etc. The City Cou6cil also discussed the future of Lost Lake and how this paging system would affect a nearby park. MOTION m~de' by Sohns, seconded by Thal, to t~ble the request For a 'Conditional Use Amenc~ent For two weeks so Mr. Cos- sette m~y look at other alternatives For the operation of his loud speaker paging system.. Motion carried unanimously. This case will be heard by the Plan~ing Commission as' a con- tinued public hearing at their meeting on March 27, 1989. Case No. 89-803: Gregory and Sandra Bastien, 2551 & 2541 Lakewood Lane, Part of Lot 2 and all of Lot 3, Block 3, Shirley Hills Unit D, PID #24-])7-24-21-0043. MINOR SUBDIVI- SION. Building Official, Jan Bertrand, reviewed the applicants request to subdivi'de the lots to remove the driveway access off from Lot 2 to allow them to sell the remainder of Lot 2. In previous years six feet of the southwesterly portion of Lot 2 was sold to remove the neighbors garage from the platted Lot 2. Both lots meet the required lot size of lO,O00 square feet with Parcel A having 25,850 square feet and Parcel B having 4~,?00 square Feet. Parcel A has a. 60.4' lot width at the 30' front yard setback. Parcel A does not have water. Staff recommended approval of the minor subdivision. MOTION made by Mfchael, seconded by densen to approve the staff recon~endation. Motion carried unanimously. Case will be heard by the City Council March 28, 1989. Planning Commission Minutes March ]3, ]989 Page Three Case No. 89-804: Mark and Stacey Goldberg, 4853 Island View Drive~ Lot 4. Block 14~ Devon, PIP #25-1 ]7-24-I]-0037. VARIANCE: NonconForminq lot, side yard setback, and front yard setback. City Planner, Mark Koegler, explained the the applicants reouest. Mr. Go]dberg is seeking variances to expand an existing noncon- forming residential structure. At the present time, the house sits 1.11 Feet from Island View Drive, has a side yard setback along the west side of .4 Feet and has a total lot area of 4,000 square feet. The Mound Zoning Code requires 6 foot side yard setbacks, a 20 Foot front yard setback for the attached garage and 6,000 square feet of lot area. The proposed modifications include expansion of the existing garage and living spaee on three different levels. Exhibits ! and 2 were assembled by ~taff to out]]ne the applicants proposal. .The variances being applied for are: 1) ~) 3) 4) 5) 6) 5.6' west side yard variance: including a 3.4' x 8.5' ex- pansion of the garage to "square up" the garage space, a 7' extension on the first level to the west to accommodate a kitchen expansion, a second ]eve] cantilever, and a second level deck. ].6' second level Front yard setback variance. Recognize existing ].Il' Front yard setback for the garage. 2,000 square Foot lot size variance. Construct a conforming lakeside deck on second level. Expand the basement ~level northward approximately ]2 feet.' Staff recommends approval of these variances conditioned upon the Following: 1) 2) 3) .The abplicant shall secure all required building permits. 'The garage doors will continue to Face in an easterly Cirec- tion. The existing boathouse is to be removed From the commons. Discussion The Commission 'examined each variance individually. They deter- mined the proposed plan for the garage was the most feasibly pos- sible arrangement considering the space available. The garage was reviewed positively since it allows storage and will eliminate vehicles being stored outside. Planni'ng Commission Minutes March 13, 1989 Page Four The applicant, Mark Goldberg, spoke on his behalf. Mr. Goldberg submitted a letter signed by three abutting neighbors which states they have reviewed, aha approve o¢ his plans for construc- tion which include the second story aOdition, and garage and kit- chen extension. The Commission clarified that the neighbor's garage, on the west side, is 4' from the property line and the home sits towards the west side of the lot. Sohns expressed a concern considering the existing nonconform- ities and expanding outside the existing Footprint of the build- ing. Expanding outside the footprint would intensify the noncon- Formity. Possible options were discusseO and it was determined that th~ applicant has already researched his alternatives. MOTION made by Andersen, seconded by Jensen to approve the staff recommenclat'lon. Motion carried with seven in. Favor (Anaersen, Sohns, Meyer, Jansen, Ciapsaddle, Smith, and Michael), one opposed (Thal). Thal opposed because he. did not Feel the deck on the west side was necessary, and did not ~eel a variance should be granted to allow its construction. This case will be heard by the C!ty Council on March 28, 1989. Case No. 89-805: Joseph Lemmerman~ 5950 Bartlett Bivd.~ Lot 55~ Auditors Subdivision 168~ PID #23-117-24-13-0032. MINOR SUBDIVISION & VARIANCE~ lot width and front yard setback. City Planner, Mark Koegler, explained the applicants request as seekir~ approval to subdi.vide an existing lot into two parcels. Parcel 2 contains an existing home, fronts on Bartlett Blvd., and has a' total lot area of 13,280 square Feet. Parcel ! lies north of the existing home and contains I9,925 square Feet. It also presently contains a structure which has been rented as a residence in 'the past. Parcel ! connects to Bartlett Blvd. via a 25 foot wide "neck". The survey indicates that an easement will be created over the neck to provide access to the garage on the existing residence. Another applicant proposed to divide this property in May'of I987 in essentially the same configuration. When the case went to the City Council, the application was denied. This case also involves two variances: l) the existing residence currently has a 20 Foot setback From Bartlett Blvd., the required Plannlng Commission Minutes March 13, 19B9 Page Five setback is 30 feet, and 2) Parcel 1 has a proposed 25 foot lot width at the front setback from Bartlett Blvd., the required width at the setback is 60 feet. Both proposed parcels exceed the minimum lO,O00 square foot lot area requirement. Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision including waiver of public hearing requirements for the creation of Parcels 1 and 2 as shown on the Certificate of Survey for Lemmerman Con- struction. Additionally, approval of a 35 foot lot width variance for Parcel I and recognition of the existing I0 Foot Front yard variance for the existing house on Parcel 2 including the conditions stated on the recommendation. The possibility of subdividing Parcel I has been eliminated since the proposed lot size is less than 20,000 square feet. The Commission reviewed some points of discussion from the pre- vious request and noted some concerns which were-raised, sufh as: the possibility of subdividing Parcel ! for future use, and the "bottle neck" effect. Dorothy~Hallin, .of 5912 Bartlett Blvd. submitted a letter to the Commission stating'reasons why she is opposed to the subdivision. Her main reason for being opposed is decreased privacy to the abutting neighbors. The Commission noted a letter also received From James t'ewis of 5921 Beachwood Road. He is also-opposed to the subdivision due to possible loss of privacy and diminishing openness and spa- ciousness of adjoining lots. Beatrice Tangen of 5949 Bartlett Blvd. al.so spoke in opposition to the proposed'subdiviSion. Setting a precedent for creating "bottle neck" lots in Mound was discussed.' What would the impact be in Mound if a precedent was set?' How many of these lots exist? MOTION m~de by Sohns, seconded by Thai to deny the staff rec~enc~tion for approval. Hotion carried five in favor (Andersen, Sohns, Clapsaddle, Jensen, and Michael), three op~sed (Smith, Meyer, and Thal). Case will be heard by the City Council on March 28, i989. Clapsaddle commented that he would like to Follow-up on research- ing the impact on these type of "bottle neck" subdivisions. Meyer asked the City Planner to keep this in mind for future dis- cussion when the Comprehensive Plan is completed. Planmi'mg Commission Minutes March 13, 1989 Page Six DISCUSSION/INFORMATIONAL: Conditional Use Permit application: public hearina For Subway Sandwich & Salad Shop. The Commission decided this case should be heard at the April 10, 1989 Planning Commission meeting due to the public hearing regarding Truth in Housing being held on March 27~h. This case will be turned around to theCity Council on April ii, 1989. Discussion reoardinq meetinq of March 27, ]989. The codtent o¢ this meeting was discussed and how the meeting shoulO be arranged. It was suggested a Five minute presentation, showing some slides of dilapidated homes From another city be shown and th~n have.an"outline prepared of discussion items. It was determined a questionnaire should be distributed with available space For comments. Questions to be asked on this questionnaire weffe briefly di. scussed. A subcommittee was Formed to create a questionnaire and help create a structure For the meeting, The subcommittee includes Sohns, Michael, Clapsaddle, and Meyer. Council Representative Report. densen reviewed the City 'Council meeting of February 28, 1989. MOTION m~de by Andersen, seconded by Smith to adjourn the meeting at Il:lO p.m. Motion carried unanimously. Chair, Bill Meyer Attest: MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK COMMISSION March 9, 1989 ~resent were: Chair Marilyn Byrnes, Commissioners Shirley Ander- sen, Cathy Baily, Tom Casey, Neil Weber, and Brian Asleson; Coun- cil Remresentative Phyllis Jessen; Park Director Jim Fackler; and Secretary Peggy James. "Absent and excuseO were: Commissioners Nancy Clough and Steve Burke. Chair Byrnes, called the meeting to order at 7:S2 p.m. Minutes The minutes of the Park Commission meeting of February 9, 1989 were presented for changes and/or additions. Casey presented some changes on page three, they should read as follows: second paffagraph within the motion ". . . no objection subject to proper concern . . ."; fourth paragraph" . . . sur- Face use or any other ~ri~ent ~ctivity that could . . .; S) Fourth paragraph" . . . be detrimental to land and/or water areas. Weber . . ." MOTION made by Bailey, secondecl by Asleson to approve the Park Commission minutes of JanUary 12, 1989 as amended. Mo- tion carried unanimously. Recreation Section - Co~rehensfve Plan Ul>date Mark Koegler, City Planner, submitted a listing of the existiog parks stating the clas,Sification, size/acres, and types of facilities available at each, a City map showing park locations, and population ratio standards. Koegler explained that the 1980 comprehensive plan listed Four park classifications, however this year he has narrowed it down to three classifications: l) Neigh- borh~od Park/Playground, 2) Community Playfield, S) Community ParK. The Commission reviewed the listing and made comments on in- dividual parks. The Commission agreed that the.parks and commons shoul~ have signage. The Park Director explained that $1,800 has been allotted For signs in 1989, these signs will probably be placed in the larger parks. Byrnes suggested implementing more volleyball courts and/or bas- ketball courts into our park system to accommodate the teen-age ~rou~. Park ~ommission Hinutes March g, 1989 Page Two Parkland motorized vehicle accesses were discussed, are there any official accesses designated? Weber stated that these accesses should be defined and included in the comprehensive plan. The Park Director informed the Commission that in a~mroximately 1987 a list of recognized winter lake access sites for cars/trucks was established. This list includes: 1. Twin Park, Pries% Bay 2. Mound Bay Park, Cooks Bay 3. Wychwood Beach, Cooks Bay 4. Sunrise Landing, West Arm 5.., Sunset Landing, Harrisons Bay 6. Canary Beach, Harrisons Bay 7. Pembroke Beach, Phelps/Spring Park Bay 8, Waterbury Road West, Cooks Bay 9, .Centerview BeaCh, Harrisons Bay This list also included areas where they specified no car/truck winter lake acce. ss sites (however these accesses still exist): 1. Ridgewood park, Priest Bay 2. Chester Park, Cooks Bay 3. Avalon Park, Spring Park Bay This list was never forwarded to the City Council, or enforced. The Park Director suggested, when the Dock Inspector returns in April,, they can inspect all lake access and document them. Koegler reviewed the Population Ratio Standards with the Commis- sion and explained the. three classifications of parks and how well equipped Mound -is in each. The Commission discussed the need For more picnic areas (community parks), parks with benches and open space. The Park Director commented that Cresent, Pembfoke and Belmont Parks are picnicking parks. Casey expressed that he would like to see more open space, and possibly restore some park areas to a natural state with native vegetation. Weber added that walkways in the wetlands is something the com- munity needs. Byrnes commented on the need to have Tyrone Park rearranged. equipment is presently poorly placed. The The City Planner will present a complete draft of the Recreation Section to the Park Commission at the April 13th meeting. Park Commission Minutes March 9, 1989 Page Three 1989 Lifeguard and Su~z~er Playground/Beach Program Jim Glasoe, Assistant Director & Recreation Coordinator of Com- munity Services submitted the 1989 Park and Lifeguard Agreements For approval. Glasoe briefly reviewed the lifeguard and park programs. He also stated that this year they will collect a more accurate count of children using the parks and beaches to better report the usage to the Commission. Due to poor beach conditions, low participation, and tow water level at Chester Park, the lifeguard previously assigned to Chester will be assigned to Centerview Beach in 1989. Bethel Methodist Church owns Camp Kingswood on Little Long Lake, and they have been seeking people to use the camp, Glasoe ex- plained that.'Communf'ty Services is currently negotiating with the church on using this camp For Field trips and/or possible over- night camping.' CaSey questioned-if the day.camps have a naturalist program and suggested that people may volunteer their services, such as, a science teacher who does not work the summer season or the Hen- neptn Parks who have a naturalist volunteer program. Glasoe will take this suggestion under consideration.. HOTION moved by Casey, seconded by Asleson to approve the 1989 Park and Lifeguard Agreements between Community Serv- ices and the City of Mound. Motion carried unanimously. P1acement.'of park Equipment Chair Byroes opened this subject to the public For discussion. Carolyn Schmidt of 3001 island View Drive announced she was rep- resenting Avalon Park. She submitted two letters opposing place- ment of playground equipment at Avalon Park. Some o¢ the reasons For not wanting the equipment were: the park is too small, enjoy open space, and keeping small children away From the lake. 6ary and Dixie Cable of 2950 Island View Drive explained they also represent Avalon Park and are also opposed to having the playground equipment installed at this park. Their p~operty abuts the park and they do not want to attract more children to the area, they enjoy the open space. Park Commission Minutes March g, !gSg Page Four Lee Henderson oF 4435 Dorchester Road is in Favor oF installing playground equipment at Avalon Park. Henderson stated tha: their are l? children under the age of 7 in their block which would like the equipment installed. She would like to see the children use the park rather than her back yard. The Commission asked the Park Director to monitor Avalon Park For Future consideration oF park equipment. Vicki Pederson o¢ 6087 Aspen Road, explained she represents the beach adjacent to Brockton Park which is privately owned by a home o~ners association. Pederson requested the City supply a garbage can for their beach due to the use it gets from the Com- munity Service Park Program children during the summer. MOTI.ON m~de by d~ssen, seconded by Bailey, that the Ci-ty provide a..garbage can at Brockton Beach. Motion carried un- animously. Decisions on pla'ygnound equipment placemenl~: MOTION made by Bailey, seconded by Andersen, to place park equipment at Seton Park. Motion carried unanimously. MOTION made 'by Andersen, seconded by Jessen, to place park equipment at Langdon Heights Park. Motion carried unanim- ously. MOTION made by Jessen, seconded by Asleson, to place park equipment at Tyrone Park subject t° no live trees being removed when installing the equipment. Motion carried un- ani'mously. Discussion: Aqencla for April 13t ]989 Park Ccx~ission Meetinq A public meeting will be held at A1 & Almas at 7:00 pm in order to discuss Chester Park with the neighbors. It was determined the entire meeting would be held at A1 & Alma's. The Commission will not reconv'ene at City Hall. A notice will be published in The Laker and surrounding neighbors will be notified o¢ the meet- ing. Park Commission Minutes March 9, 1989 Page Five The memorial at Chester Park was discussed and it was determined that Mary DeVinney should also be notified of the meeting. The Commission directed the Park Director to obtain a sketch/survey of the property to hand out to the neighbors at the meeting. Some of the topics to ~e discussed at the meeting are: memorial and flagpole, motorized vehicle access, closing the beach, beach safety, and beautifying the park. Request to sell City owned property: Baron. Lots 13 & 14, Block 11, The Co~{ssion questioned if the land was sold, could the funds be.deposited into the park dedication account? If'so, this would allow improvements for other parks which we do not have funds for. It was determined, this lot would not be a good tot lot, however, it could perhaps be kept as open space with a nature trail, it is a. very wooded lot and it would be a shame to see the lot developed. Casey suggested selling the lanO with a conservation restriction to ensure the land is not developed. It was noted that this would, however, lower the value. 'Were the abutting neighbors notified? Maybe the abutting neighborq would like to see this land left in its natural state. The subject of vacaht lots regarding vandalism, dumping, and'storage was discussed. Casey suggested sending notices to the neighbors in the area of these lots and get thei~ feelings on the sale of the lots. 'if the City were to keep the tots, what kind of halp could we get from the neighbors to clean-up the lot. MOTION m~de by Casey, seconded by Weber, making a recon- dition to the City. Council that the sale be delayed until "the neighl~Drs are notified, by the Park Co~ission, of the proposed, sale and we may receive their views on the future of this 'prc~erty. Motion carried unanimously. General Discussion Byrnes received a letter from Commissioner Clough in regards to snowmobiling in the wetlands/parks. Some points of consideration which she listed are: Motor vehicle rules should be posted in each and every Mound park. Park Commission Minutes March 9, 1989 Page Six A letter From the Park Commission should be sent to the Police Department inquiring as to the enforcement the City, County and State Laws on snowmobi ling within the City limits. The Park Commission shoulO send a letter to local snowmobile clubs requesting support From them For showing courtesy to public and private use of land within the City limits and give snowmobile clubs information they can hand out to their members. Ask residents how they Feel about snowmobiling inside the City. N~¥t. Fall the City should post designated areas with the or- dinance pertaining to motorized vehicles in our parks. if our ordinances are not strong enough, maybe they should be re-phrased. Cont.inue printingS'snowmobile regulations in ~he local paper. MOTION made by Weber, seconded by Casey, to recommend to the City Counci..1 that the recreational use of the wetlands fall under the direction of the Park Commission. Motion carried unanimously. ~ ~ MOTION made by Weber, seconded by Casey, to recommend that the City Council request the Police Department to enforce City C~e Section 615:I0 and Section 700:70 which states: "No person shall drive or operate a motor vehicle in any public park except on roads or designated parking areas." The intent is that a subcommittee from the Park Commission and the Police Department create a plan to enforce this Code. Motion carried unanimously. Council Representative Report Phyllis Jessen reported the City Council did not discuss anything pertaining to the Park Commission. However, she did receive a letter From Howard Hagedorn of 1748 Avocet Lane. Jessen reviewed the history of/Mr. Hagedorn's case regarding trimming trees on the commons For the new Park Commissioners. Jessen read Mr. Hagedorn's concerns to the Commission, they are: ~) 2) 3) Who will cut the water milFoil along the commons? Who will perform general maintenance on the commons? Are there any other "natural" areas which exist and have tree trimming restrictions? Park Commission Minutes March 9, I989 Page Seven Park Director's Report Jim Fackler reported that the new computer is being use~ and it has proven it saves time when researching inquiries. The Dock Inspector, Dell Rudolp~ will be returning April lOth. Riprap materials have been ordered For work to begin this summer. Fackler presented the Chapman Place Commercial Dock License ap- plication and added that the LMCD has approved their new plan. The Commission had no comments. MOTION made by Weber, seconded by Casey to adjourn the meet- ing at 11:06 p.m. Motion carried unanimously., NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ACQUISITION OF LAND THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN FOR LAKE MINNETONKA REGIONAL PARK BY SUBURBAN HENNEPIN REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT The Metropolitan Council has set a public hearing for May 9, 1989, to consider whether acquisition of parcels of land in the city of Minnetrista for a proposed Lake Minnetonka Regional Park should proceed through eminent domain. Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District requested that the Council set the hearing pursuant to Minnesota Laws of 1988, Chap. 686, Sec. 26. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION When: Tuesday, May 9, 1989, 7:30 p.m. Where: Minnetonka City Council Chambers 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka, MN (On Minnetonka Boulevard, at the Williston Road intersection; about a mile west of Interstate Hwy. 494.) Who will be notified: Officials of local gcvernment in Hennepin County, regional park implementing agenciez and interested parties. How to participate: Ne Attend the hearing. To register to speak, call the Council's community outreach secretary at 291-6500 or sign up at the meeting. e Mail comments to: Jack Mauritz, parks planner Metropolitan Council Mears Park Centre 230 E. Fifth St. St. Paul, MN 55101 (The hearing record will remain open through May 23, 1989.) Any questions: Call the Council's parks and metro governance division and talk to Jack Mauritz at 291-6602. To request copies of the document, call 291-8140. (over) I I ,CQUISITION OF LAND THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN FOR LAKE MINNETONKA REGIONAL PARK BY SUBURBAN HENNEPIN REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT INTRODUCTION Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District (SHRPD) has requested the Metropolitan Council to set a public hearing to consider findings necessary for acquiring land for a Lake Minnetonka Regional Park through eminent domain. BACKGROUND At the recommendation of the Council, SHRPD prepared an acquisition master plan - for a Lake Minnetonka regional park which the Council approved Apr. 9, 1987. The proposed park contains land in three parcels,-all located in the city of Minnetrista. The city has not consented to 'the park,' maintaining that it is too large, among other reasons· The request for the Council to set a public hearing is pursuant to Minnesota Laws, Chap. 686, Se6. 26. The law enables SHRPD to acquire land for the regional park even if the local municipality withholds consent· In this case, Minnetrista sued SHRPD, claiming the law permitting acquisition of the park to be unconstitutional. On Dec. 15, 1988, Hennepin County Judge Roberta Levy denied the city's motion for Judgment and granted SHRPD's contrary motion, saying, in effect, that the law may proceed. Since then, SHRPD has begun negotiations by contacting the owners of the three parcels within the approved master plan boundary. At the hearing, SHRPD will reporton the status of negotiations. If negotiations have not resulted in acquisition by the day of the hearing, SHRPD ~may request authorization to acquire the land by eminent domain. To consent, the Council must find, in accord with Subd. 3 of Chap· 686, Sec. 26, that: -- Acquisition of the property is in the public interest; -- Negotiations for acquisition of the property have not resulted in acquisition of land by purchase; -- The proposed acquisition is consistent with the approved master plan maintained by the Metropolitan Council; and strict is able to carry out the plan and operate the regional park. METROPOLITAN COUNCIL · Mears Park Centre · 230 East Ftf,,t~ Street · St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 · 612 291-6500 .